Global Research

In 1965, scientists identified the first human coronavirus; it was associated with the common cold. The Coronavirus family, named for their crown-like appearance, currently includes 36 viruses. Within that group, there are 4 common viruses that have been causing infection in humans for more than sixty years. In addition, three pandemic coronaviruses that can infect humans: SARS, MERS, and now, SARS-CoV-2.

As the news of deaths in China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran began to saturate every form of media 24/7, we became familiar with a new term: COVID-19. To be clear, the name of the newly identified coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2, short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2. This virus is associated with fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath, the complex of symptoms that form the diagnosis of COVID-19.

The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, then on February 2 placed a ban on the entry of most travelers who had recently been in China. On February 4, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a declaration of public health emergency and activated the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, otherwise known as the PREP Act. This nefarious legislation provides complete protection of manufacturers from liability for all products, technologies, biologics, or any vaccine developed as a medical countermeasure against COVID-19. For those nervously waiting for the vaccine to become available, be sure to understand the PREP Act before rushing to the get in line.

Calls for testing – to see if a person is or isn’t infected – began soon after the emergency was declared, but performing those tests was initially slow due to an inadequate number of test kits. As the kits became available, those developed by the CDC had a defect: The reagents reacted to the negative control sample, making the test inaccurate and the kits unusable.

In various countries, thousands of test kits purchased from China were found to be contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. No one really knows how that happened, but theories spread like wildfire. Could the test kit infect the person being tested? Or, did it mean the test would return a false-positive result, driving up the numbers of those said to be infected so those in power could implement stronger lockdowns and accelerate the hockey-stick unemployment rates? Neither of those questions has been adequately answered.

Mandatory Testing…of what? 

Authorities claim that testing is important for public health officials to assess if their mitigation efforts – “shelter in place” and “social distancing” and “wearing a mask” – are making a difference to “flatten the curve.” Officials also claim that testing is necessary to know how many persons are infected within a community and to understand the nature of how coronaviruses spread.

Are these reasons sufficient to give up our health freedom and our personal rights, being tested and shamed in public?

Despite the challenges with test kits, testing began. By the end of March 2020, more than 1 million people had been tested across the US. By May 9, the number tested had grown to over 8.7M. Testing methods include a swab of the nasal passages or by inserting a long, uncomfortable swab through the nose to scrape the back of the throat. Specimens have also been obtained bronchoalveolar lavage, from sputum, and from stool specimens.

The call for mandatory testing has been gathering steam and becoming ever more onerous. In Washington state, Governor Inslee has declared:

Individuals that refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing, those individuals will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as groceries and/or prescriptions. Those persons will need to make arrangements through friends, family, or state provided ‘family support’ personnel.

But what do the results really mean?

Who Should Be Tested

On May 8, 2020, the CDC has listed specific priorities for when testing should be done. As of May 16, more than 11-million samples have been collected and more than 3700 specimens have not yet been evaluated.

High Priority

• Hospitalized patients with symptoms
• Healthcare facility workers, workers in living settings, and first responders with symptoms
• Residents in long-term care facilities or other congregate living settings, including prisons and shelters, with symptoms

Priority

• Persons with symptoms of potential COVID-19 infection, including fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, vomiting or diarrhea, and/or sore throat
• Persons without symptoms who are prioritized by health departments or clinicians, for any reason, including but not limited to public health monitoring, sentinel surveillance, or screening of asymptomatic individuals according to state and local plans.

Read that last priority again: That means virtually everyone can be required to get a test.

Is that a violation of your personal rights? And, if you submit to testing, what does a “positive test” actually mean?

Types of Testing: RT-PCR

PCR, short for polymerase chain reaction, is a highly specific laboratory technique. The key to understanding PCR testing is that PCR can identify an individual specific virus within a viral family.

However, a PCR test can only be used to identify DNA viruses; the SARS-CoV2 virus is an RNA virus. Therefore, multiple steps must be taken to “magnify” the amount of genetic material in the specimen. Researchers used a method called RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, to specifically identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It’s a complicated process. To read more about it, go here and here.

If a nasal or a blood sample contains a tiny snip of RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, RT-PCR can identify it, leading to a high probability that the person has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

However – and this is important – a positive RT-PCR test result does not necessarily indicate a full virus is present. The virus must be fully intact to be transmitted and cause illness.

RT-PCR Testing: The Importance of Timing

Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has been closely exposed to persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the probability of a RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.

According to a study done by Paul Wikramaratna and others:

• For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day 0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.
• For a throat swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.

In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a person is tested, the more likely the test will be negative.

Repeat testing of persons who have a negative test may (eventually) confirm the presence of viral RNA, but this is impractical. Additionally, repeated testing of the same person can lead to even more confusing results: The test may go from negative, to positive, then back to negative again as the immune system clears out the coronavirus infection and moves to recovery.

And what makes this testing even more confusing is that the FDA admits that “The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an infectious virus.”

Let’s break that down:

You’ve had all the symptoms of COVID19, but your RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is negative.

• Does that mean you’re “good to go” – you can go to work, go to school or you can travel?  OR…
• Does that mean your influenza-like illness was caused by some other pathogen, possibly one of the four coronaviruses that have been in circulation for 60 years? OR…
• Does that mean the result is a false-negative and you still have the infection, but it isn’t detectable by current tests? OR…
• Does that mean it was a sample was inadequately taken due to the faulty technique by the technician? OR…
• Does that mean you have not been exposed, and you are susceptible to contracting the infection, and you need to stay in quarantine?

So, what does a “positive” test actually mean? And that’s the problem:

No one knows for sure.

Another Type of Testing: Antibodies

According to the nonprofit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), more than 200 serologic blood tests, to test for antibodies, are either now available or in development.

There are two primary types of antibodies that are assessed for nearly any type of infection: IgM and IgG. While several new testing devices are being touted as a home test, they are not the same as a home pregnancy test or a glucometer to you’re your blood sugar. The blood spot or saliva specimen can be collected at home, must it must then be sent to a laboratory for analysis. It can take a few days – or longer – to get the results. With so many tests in the pipeline, the ability to test at home will be changing over time.

The first antibody to rise is IgM. It rises quickly after the onset of the infection and is usually a sign of an acute, or current, infection. The IgM levels diminish quickly as the infection resolves. The FDA admits they do not know how long the IgM remains present for SARS-CoV-2 as the infection is being cleared.

The interpretation of an IgG antibody is more difficult. This antibody is an indicator of a past infection. The test is often not specific enough to determine if the past infection was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus or one of the four common coronaviruses that cause influenza-like illness.

The FDA says: 

Because serology testing can yield a negative test result even if the patient is actively infected (e.g., the body has not yet developed in response to the virus) or maybe falsely positive (e.g., if the antibody indicates a past infection by a different coronavirus), this type of testing should not be used to diagnose an acute or active COVID-19 infection.

Similarly, the CDC says the following regarding antibody testing:

• If you test positive:
  • A positive test result shows you have antibodies as a result of an infection with SARS-CoV-2, or possibly a related coronavirus.
  • It’s unclear if those antibodies can provide protection (immunity) against getting infected again. This means that we do not know at this time if antibodies make you immune to the virus.
  • If you have no symptoms, you likely do not have an active infection and no additional follow-up is needed.
  • It’s possible you might test positive for antibodies and you might not have or have ever had symptoms of COVID-19. This is known as having an asymptomatic infection [ie you have a healthy immune system!]
  • An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
• If you test negative
  • If you test negative for antibodies, you probably did not have a previous infection.However, you could have a current infection because antibodies don’t show up for 1 to 3 weeks after infection.
  • Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people may not develop antibodies.
  • An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.

What? Wait!

• Doesn’t the vaccine industry call the IgG a “protective antibody”?
• Isn’t this the marker of immunity they assess after you’ve had an infection with measles or chickenpox or mumps to determine if you are immune to future infections?
• Isn’t this the marker of induced immunity they are trying to achieve by administering a vaccine?

If the FDA does not know if an IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 after recovering from the infection is protective against a future infection, then they certainly don’t know if an antibody caused by a vaccine will prevent infection either.

Doesn’t this completely eliminate the theory that antibodies afford protection and antibodies from vaccines are necessary to keep you from getting sick? 

Mandatory Testing – New Job Creation

Illinois U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush introduced the H.R. 6666 TRACE Act on May 1. On his website, Rush said,

Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.

H.R.6666 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the CDC to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing and then to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals. The contact tracers would be authorized to test people in their homes and as necessary, quarantine people in place. 

Where do they intend to do this testing? Besides mobile units to test people in their homes, the bill identifies eight specific locations where the testing and contract tracing could occur: schools, health clinics, universities, churches, and “any other type of entity” the secretary of HHS wants to use.

The bill would allocate $100 billion in 2020 “and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.”

But what are they looking for?

• Is your test supposed to be positive – saying you’ve been exposed and you’ve possibly recovered?
• Or is your test supposed to be negative, meaning, you are healthy?
• Or does a completely negative test – negative RT-PCR test and no IgG antibody mean you’re susceptible to infection and you need to stay in quarantine?

The virus is rapidly mutating, which is rather typical of RNA viruses. In a study published in April 2020, researchers have discovered that the novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations. If your RT-PCR test is positive, does this identify exposure to the pandemic virus or exposure to one of the genetic variations? The same can be said about the vaccines under development: With each mutation, is the vaccine more likely to be all risk and no benefit when it reaches the market?

What You Can Do

Across the nation, police are being told to not apprehend criminals but instead, to arrest parents at playgrounds, to arrest lone surfers on public beaches, to fine ministers and congregation members sitting in their cars listening to a service on the radio, and to restrict movement by creating one-way sidewalks.

People have had enough. They are beginning to see the huge scam that has been perpetrated on the entire world over a viral infection with a global death rate of 1.4% (meaning, 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover). This is far fewer deaths than a severe flu season.

We’re already starting to see the thrust to take our power back:

• In Virginia, people went to the beaches en mass, ignoring social distancing and the orders of the Governor to stay home.
• The central California city of Atwater has declared itself a “sanctuary city,” allowing business owners and churches to open, openly defying Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus-related stay-at-home order.
• The truth about wearing masks is starting to come out and people are voting with their feet. Retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect healthy people from contracting an illness, but they create serious health risks to the wearer.

While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our lives, our world.

• I am not willing to accept this is the “new normal.”
• I won’t submit to testing.
• I will refuse mandatory vaccination.
• I will stop wearing a mask.
• I will not be afraid of standing next to a friend or family member and will not obey the concept of “social distancing.”
• I will understand that an asymptomatic carrier is a normal, healthy person and I will not buy into the fear that I might “catch something” from a normal, healthy person.

It’s time for Americans to resist with non-violent civil disobedience. Be brave. Be bold. Put on the full armor of God, as found in Ephesians 6:10-20 in the Bible, to stand against the world rulers of this present darkness. With God on our side, all things are possible.

*

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. Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopathic medical doctor, board-certified in three specialties. She is the founder of Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center, a medical clinic located near Cleveland, Ohio. Her company, Courses4Mastery.com provides online education and training regarding all aspects of vaccines and vaccination. 

Featured image is from Vaxxter

When it comes to the issue of women’s rights in the Gulf , Saudi Arabia is most frequently cited as the most repressive country in the region, and Qatar is widely regarded as the most modern in terms of human development. Qatar has become somewhat of a darling among Western liberal intelligentsia, likely in part because of the peninsular country’s pumping tens of millions of dollars into Washington D.C.’s most influential Think Tanks, such as Brookings Institution. The United Nations has even lauded Qatar for their efforts to achieve gender equality.

It is certainly true that Qatar, as well as even Saudi Arabia, has instituted a number of legal provisions that promote the empowerment of women. They can own businesses, own property, vote, even hold political positions and judgeships (all of which, when cited as progressive steps, expose just how far away the Gulf is from modern concepts of equality); so Qatar is applauded for taking such bold action on behalf of women. What no one explains, however, is that all of these provisions only grant rights for women in Qatar that their male guardians allow them to exercise.

Everyone knows that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, but how many people know that Qatar is actually the only Gulf country that still does not allow women to travel without the permission of a male relative? The ban on women driving was repealed some time ago in KSA, and every Gulf nation has lifted the restrictions on women’s travel, except Qatar.

Business ownership, voting, owning property, working, going to school, and yes, even driving, are all available to women in Qatar only if their husband, father or brother allows.

Understandably, many Qatari women do not share the West’s admiring view of their country’s treatment of women. Aisha Al Qahtani famously fled to the UK to avoid being forced to return to Doha; just as so many others have fled Qatar’s neighbours.

“It is really quite appalling,” says Radha Stirling, CEO of Detained in Dubai and founder of Due Process International, “Qatar can seemingly legislate rights for women, all the while winking to the country’s male population because nothing has actually changed. Every woman is ruled by her husband, father or brother regardless of what the law ostensibly provides. They talk about empowering women, but continue to treat them like children.”

Stirling has been involved assisting women escaping oppression in the Gulf as part of her 12 years human rights work in the gulf, including high profile cases such as Princess Latifa, Hind Al Balooki, Dua and Dalal Al-Shweiki and others.

“Every adult person, male or female, must have the right to self-determination, and no one should be allowed to overrule an individual’s choices about their own lives; obviously this cannot apply only to men, and I fail to see how Qatar exceeds any other country in the region when all of the rights that the government has granted them, their male relatives have the right to deny them.

Qatar will be hosting the World Cup, the Qatari royal family owns significant holdings in the United Kingdom, and there is considerable mutual investment and trade. All of this sends a signal of acceptance to Qatar, and is undoubtedly interpreted by Doha as Western approval.

“Our countries have been in lockdown due to the Coronavirus, and the emergency restrictions we have had to accept have reportedly caused drastic increases in mental and emotional health problems, depression, and even suicide; and that is while we know that the situation is temporary. But a person in the West under lockdown has more autonomy and freedom than a woman in Qatar, and her situation is permanent. Of course more women will flee, and many more may try and fail. We cannot continue to look the other way when an ally, a trading partner, a country that is being given the honour of hosting perhaps the biggest sporting event in the world, treats half of its adult population like minors with freedom completely conditional on male approval.” 

*

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 mynewsdesk

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been voted the UK’s ‘most impressive’ politician according to a recent poll. The survey, carried out by Press Gazette, asked 2700 people who they thought was doing best at handling the current crisis. Sturgeon came out top, with 29% of the vote, ahead of Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Labour opposition leader Keir Starmer. The poll follows on from a recent Scottish Government survey which gave Nicola Sturgeon a rating of 84% for her slow and measured approach to lockdown. For in defiance of Westminster’s lifting of lockdown restrictions earlier this month, Scotland has until now kept them in place, only hinting recently that some may be lifted on 28th May.

The statistics regarding Sturgeon’s performance will not come as a surprise to many, given the contrast with her Westminster counterpart. Boris Johnson has faced a barrage of criticism in recent weeks over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in Britain. And with the highest death rate in Europe, and second highest death toll in the world, it’s no surprise that questions are being raised. Yet the PM has of late, not provided the consistent, strong leadership required at this time. In contrast to his Scottish counterpart, who gives a daily briefing on the Covid-19 situation in Scotland, without fail; Boris Johnson has not given a press conference for days, and has not been seen in public for days, prompting #WhereisBoris to trend on Twitter.  The difference between the two leaders could not be greater; every time Boris puts a foot wrong, it boosts Sturgeon, and the case for Scottish independence.

Unlike the Scottish government, which has yet to make any change to the current social distancing guidelines, other than being able to leave home now twice a day for exercise – instead of once as previously stated – Boris Johnson announced last week that people from different households could now meet; that if required, workers could return to work, and that from 1st June some shops would reopen and some pupils would return to school. The messaging also changed – rather confusingly, from ‘Stay Home’ to ‘Stay Alert’ – with no-one quite clear as to what the latter actually means. The motivation for beginning to lift lockdown measures is no doubt, mainly, economic, with experts warning that the UK is headed for a recession like no other. But there are concerns that Johnson has acted too soon, as with the death toll rising to the virus every day, we could be faced with another ‘peak’ if we return to normality too soon.

For the reality is the virus is still with us, and is likely to remain with us for years to come. Boris Johnson himself gave the example of SARS, for which, he highlighted, a vaccine has not been found in the last 18 years. Although scientists across the globe are working tirelessly in a bid to discover a vaccine as soon as possible, there are no guarantees that they will succeed in the short term. The key in the meantime, will be testing – both for those infected with coronavirus and for immunity, with antibody testing. But the UK government has only recently started to take testing seriously. Early on in the pandemic it downplayed the importance of it, favouring ‘herd immunity ’instead.  This was in contrast to countries like China and South Korea that saw testing as a vital way of managing the crisis. Back then, Britain’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, said

‘We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year, becomes like a seasonal virus. Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term. About 60% is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity’.

Britain has paid dearly for this ‘laissez-faire approach.

The case against the UK government is building by the day. Aside from the overall death toll of 35, 341, it has been established that an additional 23,000 deaths took place this year in care homes. Far from putting a ‘protective ring’ around care homes as Health Minister Matt Hancock has said, the government has been accused of putting a ‘noose’ around them, with elderly patients effectively like sitting ducks in the wake of the pandemic. It has been observed that no real attempts were made to prevent the spread of coronavirus throughout Britain’s nursing homes, with patients regularly admitted into homes from hospital, without being tested for the virus. Recently it was even reported that Personal Protective Equipment originally intended for care homes was diverted to NHS hospitals. Justice Secretary Robert Buckland admitted on Wednesday that:

“We needed to make a choice about testing, we did decide to focus upon the NHS.’

Choices indeed have been made. And increasingly, questions are being raised as to whether the right decisions have been taken – both before and during the pandemic. For at a time when the country is ‘clapping for carers’ every week, in a display of public support for NHS staff, the government is passing its immigration bill, targeting the very migrants who play such an important role in Britain’s health service. As MP Valerie Vaz put it: ‘With this immigration bill the government is effectively clapping them out of the country’. Indeed the harsh reality of Tory policy cannot be escaped during this pandemic. The under-funding of public services over the years, particularly the NHS, primarily by the Conservative government is manifesting itself during this crisis like at no other time.  We have entered an era where capitalism is under more strain than ever, where the only solution to this crisis comes from state interference – with the transport industry to care homes to universities all set to require substantial financial aid to survive. A different Britain will emerge from the pandemic.

As for Scotland, it must decide whether it wants to continue being at the receiving end of Tory policies which favour business over people, or whether it will finally carve out for itself a fairer society with welfare at the fore. With a resurgence of coronavirus potentially looming on the horizon, I know which society I’d prefer to live in…

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The leaders of the two of Israel’s largest political parties — Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz — have formed a coalition government.

In an initial six-month period, the coalition will address only two issues: fighting COVID-19 and annexing significant parts of the West Bank.

The annexation agreement was met with swift condemnation by an array of countries and institutions, as well as Israeli human rights activists. In contrast, Canada has developed a debilitating case of diplomatic laryngitis on this issue.

Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, stated on April 23 that:

“… any annexation would constitute a serious violation of international law. The European Union will continue to monitor the situation and its broader implications, and will act accordingly.”

At the UN Security Council, the French ambassador offered a strong denunciation on the same day:

“It would constitute a blatant violation of international law, which strictly prohibits the acquisition by force of occupied territories. Such steps if implemented would not pass unchallenged and shall not be overlooked in our relationship with Israel.”

The other four European members of the Security Council — the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany and Estonia — also criticized the looming threat of annexation.

Ireland, Norway speak up

Ireland and Norway, the two countries Canada is competing against for two open United Nations Security Council seats in 2021-22, have both publicly opposed Israel’s annexation plans.

Leading Israeli human rights organizations, including B’Tselem and Yesh Din — have spoken out against the proposed annexation. A joint letter by prominent liberal Israelis — including former ambassadors, the former speaker of the Israeli Knesset and prominent writers — said:

“For too long the world has sufficed with issuing condemnations in response to the government of Israel’s ongoing breach of international law and its human rights violations against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

But where’s Canada? As a Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council on the situation in the Palestinian territory, I argue that Canada is missing in action.

No public statements against Israel’s annexation proposal have been issued. No planned accountability measures have been floated. No criticism, however mild, has been offered.

In mid-March, Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne did, however, issue a statement related to illegal annexation. He marked the sixth anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea by saying that:

“Canada unequivocally condemns this violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and of international law.”

Violation of international law

The unilateral annexation of territory is strictly prohibited in international law. This is a centrepiece of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, and has been consolidated by treaties and resolutions, judicial rulings and scholarly writings ever since.

Indeed, this prohibition has acquired the status of a jus cogens norm in international law, meaning that it is accepted as a fundamental principle of law by the international community and no exceptions are permitted.

Territorial conquest and annexation are now regarded as intolerable scourges from darker times because they invariably incite devastating wars, political instability, economic ruin, systematic discrimination and widespread human suffering.

Speaking specifically to the five-decade-long Israeli occupation, the UN Security Council has affirmed, on eight occasions since 1967, the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or force. This principle was cited by the council to condemn as unlawful Israel’s two prior annexations of East Jerusalem, in 1980, and the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981.

When Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, Canada, along with most of its western allies, swiftly followed their unreserved condemnations with substantive economic and political counter-measures.

Russia was expelled from the G8, import and export bans were imposed for goods manufactured in Crimea, an array of economic sanctions and restrictions were enforced and targeted individuals faced travel bans and asset freezes.

Part of Trump’s ‘peace’ plan

The Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank is a central feature of U.S. President Donald Trump’s so-called Peace to Prosperity Plan on the Middle East, announced in late January 2020.

In response, the European Union stated that the plan broke with “internationally agreed parameters,” while Pope Francis warned about the “danger of inequitable solutions.”

According to an open letter from 50 former European prime ministers and foreign ministers:

“The plan envisages a formalization of the current reality in the occupied Palestinian territory, in which two peoples are living side by side without equal rights. Such an outcome has characteristics similar to apartheid — a term we don’t use lightly.”

Canada’s official response was a vanilla statement by Champagne that would have left no one in the White House unhappy. He said:

“Canada recognizes the urgent need to renew efforts toward a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will carefully examine the details of the U.S. initiative for the Middle East peace process.”

In 2010, Canada lost its prior bid for a Security Council seat partly because of the Stephen Harper government’s supine embrace of Israel.

In 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that “Canada is back” on the world stage and promised to support a rules-based international order.

Same as it ever was under Trudeau

Yet under Trudeau, Canada has maintained Harper’s consistent pro-Israel voting record at the UN General Assembly, and avoided even polite criticism of Israeli behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territory that most other middle powers routinely censure.

In 2018, Canada’s Parliament renewed its free-trade agreement with Israel, which continues to allow goods from the illegal Israeli settlements to enter the Canadian market tariff-free, notwithstanding domestic legislation that designates civilian settlements in occupied territory to be war crimes.

In its current Security Council bid, Canada faces two serious challengers in Norway and Ireland that have solid international reputations, the built-in support of their European neighbours and a principled position on the protracted Israeli occupation of Palestine.

If Canada’s campaign for a council seat is once again unsuccessful, its taciturn approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will surely have been a contributing factor.

*

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

Michael Lynk is Associate Professor of Law at Western University. He was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2016 as the Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords.

The “Clean Break” policy document outlined these goals: 1) Ending Yasser Arafat’s and the Palestinian Authority’s political influence, by blaming them for acts of Palestinian terrorism 2) Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. 3) Launching war against Syria after Saddam’s regime is disposed of 4) Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

“Clean Break” was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September 28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt.

During the Oslo Accord peace process, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition…and Jewish values.” Rallies organised by the Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun. In July 1995, Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin, featuring a coffin and hangman’s noose.

The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and at fulfilling the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” If such a peace treaty were to occur, with the United States backing, it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since. However, the central person to ensuring this process, Yitzak Rabin, was assassinated just a month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord, on November 4th, 1995. Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel seven months later. “Clean Break” was produced the following year.

On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that it were impossible to make peace with the Palestinians:

“Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid  – a new Massada.”

On Oct. 5, 2003, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against Syria, targeting a purported “Palestinian terrorist camp” inside Syrian territory. Washington stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation.

“Clean Break” was officially launched in March 2003 with the war against Iraq, under the pretence of “The War on Terror”. The real agenda was a western backed list of regime changes in the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Israel. However, the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own “idea” of what the “plan” is. Before we can fully appreciate such a scope, we must first understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today’s world mayhem.

Arabian Nights

WWI was to officially start July 28th 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars (1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire. Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of being in war-time, which in the language of geopolitics translates to “the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on”.

The brilliance of Britain’s plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause. These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial interests.

In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to rebel at the behest of Britain. Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain’s Minister of War. Kitchener’s choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty, Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman Sultan. Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead, however, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.

Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908, Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to Britain’s invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom.

Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein’s sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain’s support: “If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey, England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression.”

Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to lead the rebellion for the “independence” of the Arab states.

However, in a private letter to India’s Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th, 1915, McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe:

“[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State … too seriously … the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to such a thing.”

Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain’s heavy handed “advising” in all its affairs, whether it sought it or not.

In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.

The French were understandably suspicious of Britain’s plans for these Arab territories. The French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on French conquests during the Crusades and their “protection” of the Catholic populations in the region. Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the concessions they demanded as their “intrinsic” colonial rights.

Enter Sykes and Picot.

Sykes-Picot: the Gentlemen’s Etiquette on Backstabbing

Francois Georges Picot was sent to negotiate with the British on November 23rd, 1915. He was chosen for this role due to his policy outlook of the “Syrian party” in France, which asserted that Syria and Palestine (which they considered a single country) were French property, for historical, economic, and cultural reasons. Approximately six months later, the top secret terms of the agreement were signed on May 16th, 1916. The map showcases the agreed upon ‘carving up’ of these Arab territories, to be the new jewels of Britain and France.

Notice Palestine is marked as an international zone in yellow. Palestine was recognised as something neither country was willing to forfeit to the other. And thus, according to the gentlemen’s etiquette, meant that one would simply have to take it while the other wasn’t looking, which is exactly what happened.

In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes created the Arab Bureau whose headquarters would be in Cairo, Egypt (which was under British rule), as a branch of British Intelligence and under the direction of Lord Kitchener. Among the notable members of the Arab Bureau was T.E. Lawrence, better known as “Lawrence of Arabia”. The raison d’être of the Arab Bureau was to exact British control over Arabia via British Egypt.

The Arab revolt, led under the façade of King Hussein, was launched in Hejaz in early June 1916, however, the hundreds of thousands of Arabs the British were expecting to defect from the Ottoman army and join the revolt…did not show up. Instead, British aircraft and ships were deployed, along with Muslim troops from British Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire. As the revolt continued to show its weaknesses and lack of support by the Arabs themselves, to such a point that Britain was starting to despair of its success, T.E. Lawrence (who was known as “the man with the gold”), organised a confederation of Bedouin tribal chiefs to fight alongside the British forces in the Palestine and Syria campaigns.

In 1917, War Minister Lloyd George ordered troops from British Egypt to invade Palestine, expressing his wish to General Allenby that Jerusalem be taken by Christmas. Obligingly, on December 11th 1917, Allenby walked into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city (see picture). Allenby explained to Picot, that Jerusalem would remain under British military administration, for some time.

The British India Office invaded Mesopotamia and took Baghdad on March 11th, 1917. The southern province of Basra, largely Shi’ite, was to be British, while the ancient capital of Baghdad was to be under some form of British protectorate.

After the British conquests of Palestine and Mesopotamia, Syria would be taken by September 1918 by British led forces and Damascus would ultimately, after a bit of squabbling, be left under French control or “advisory”.

The final settlement for allocation of territories was established in 1920 with the Treaty of Sevres which stipulated that Syria and Lebanon were to go to France, and that Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine would be under British control with Arabia (Hejaz) being officially “independent” but ruled by British puppet monarchs. Britain was also granted continued influence over Egypt, Cyprus and the Persian Gulf coast.

Faisal, the son of Hussein ibn Ali and who had been under the “tutelage” of T.E. Lawrence this whole time, was proclaimed King of Iraq, after his failed attempt as King over Greater Syria before the French chased him out with their military, recognising that he represented British interests.

As for Persia (Iran), the British established their control through the infamous Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919, with Ahmed Shah.

In 1926 the Mosul Treaty was signed where Iraq got nominal control over the oil region and the interests were divvied up among British (52.5%), French (21.25%) and American (21.25%) oil companies.

As far as central Arabia was concerned, Hussein laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Fate of Palestine

While the British were promising Arab rule and independence to the Hashemite Hussein and his sons, the British were simultaneously promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. In the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 the following was declared:

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”

Britain received the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

A New Strategy for Securing Whose Realm?

Despite what its title would have you believe, “Clean Break” is neither a “new strategy” nor meant for “securing” anything. It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives: Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather has the very distinct and lingering odour of the British Empire.

“Clean Break” is a continuation of Britain’s geopolitical game, and just as it used France during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel. The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which set a course for destruction and endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed.

It was also Britain who officially launched operation “Clean Break” by directly and fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry, released 7 years later, attests to. This was done by the dubious reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.’ ultimate invasion into Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the “War on Terror”, aka “Clean Break” outline for regime change in the Middle East.

In addition, the Libyan invasion in 2011 was also found to be unlawfully instigated by Britain. In a report published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016, it was concluded that it was “the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi”. The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government.

If this were not enough, British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations of Russia-Gate and the Skripal affair.

Therefore, though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show, and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show, the reality is that this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be playing for said interests, whether they are aware of it 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.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Trump’s Interior Department is demanding payment from the past two years from solar and wind projects on federal lands, Reuters is reporting. The move, described as a “multi-million-dollar hit” to the wind and solar industries, is a stark contrast to the gifts and bailouts the administration has been showering the oil and gas industry with since the coronavirus pandemic started.

“Making renewable industries pay millions of dollars while pandering to extractive industries exposes this President’s priorities,” said Chris Saeger, a spokesman for Western Values Project. “The Trump administration’s hypocrisy is astounding: they are using a public health crisis as an excuse to bail out the President’s corporate cronies while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.” 

According to the Reuters story, the Interior Department expects to collect $50 million in retroactive fees from renewable projects in 2020. Interior had stopped charging renewable industries rent in 2018 to review company complaints but had consistently refused to comment on the results of that review. In contrast, Interior– run by former oil and gas lobbyist David Bernhardt– has helped oil and gas drillers on federal lands get relief from paying royalties amid an oil market slump. 

The Trump administration has been blatantly bailing out the oil and gas industry during the coronavirus pandemic. In just the first two weeks of the Small Business Administration’s Payroll Protection Program (PPP), oil, gas and mining companies got a whopping $3.9 billion in PPP funding, even though the program was designed to help small businesses, not publicly traded corporations. In its bailing out of extractive resource corporations, the administration has given PPP funding to a foreign-owned uranium mining corporation with ties to the Trump administration, a Indiana-based coal corporation with a former Trump official as its lobbyist, and oil corporations that spent millions on stock buybacks. 

And last month, the administration granted the oil lobby another one of its wishes and made it easier for the oil and gas industry to access funding. Following requests from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Main Street Lending Program eased restrictions on borrowing for heavily indebted oil companies and allowed them to use the loans to refinance existing debts. 

The Trump administration has also been letting corporate polluters off the hook. Since the coronavirus began, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) all recently announced enforcement holidays for government fines, penalties and settlement payments, including for companies that had committed major environmental violations. 

*

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

Featured image is by Gage Skidmore

Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) are being promoted as sustainable alternatives to climate-wrecking hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are widely used in refrigeration and air-conditioning and are currently being phased down under the Montreal Protocol.

HFOs are the next generation of synthetic chemicals being promoted by industry for future use in cooling equipment.

But while HFOs may be less harmful to the climate, they break down in the atmosphere to create high levels of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) – which could be very damaging to human health and the environment.

Scientists studying at Arctic ice cores have found growing accumulations of TFA and two other short-chain perfluoroalykcarboxylic acids (scPFCAs, which are fatty acids with fewer than six carbon atoms).

Levels of these chemicals have grown tenfold since 1990 (shortly after the Montreal Protocol was signed). In a follow-up article, the scientists point to refrigerants HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf as the main sources of this growing abundance of TFA.

The study concludes that levels of TFA will continue to grow as more HFOs are used globally. It warns that not enough is known about the toxicity of TFA but its persistence and increasing abundance is worrying.

A 2017 study by the Norwegian Environment Agency also highlighted the lack of understanding around TFA and its future effects on human health and the environment.

Furthermore, experts from the Montreal Protocol have warned that the high rate of TFA from a number of HFOs, especially HFO-1234yf, is a critical issue and “may be of considerable environmental relevance in view of the expected future HFO production expansion.”

EIA Climate Campaigner Sophie Geoghegan said: “More modelling and research is needed to evaluate the effect of rising TFA levels on human and planetary health.

“TFA ends up in lakes and rivers and contaminates these bodies of water, damaging aquatic flora and fauna. Previous studies have also linked TFA to acid rain and there is growing concern that TFA could also contaminate drinking water, thus impacting human health.”

A study found TFA in the blood of people in China, indicating widespread exposure to the toxin. TFA is toxic and is not filtered out by current technology.

Concerns over TFA will likely only increase as HFOs are more widely adopted around the world. HFO-1234yf creates far more TFA than the HFC refrigerant it replaces, HFC-134a.

Since 2017, almost all new cars in the USA and the EU have replaced HFC-134a with HFO-1234yf in air conditioning. HFO-1234yf is also mixed with HFCs and other HFOs to create a range of refrigerant blends with lower global warming potential which are being promoted for use in commercial, industrial and transport refrigeration.

Geoghegan  added:

“To avoid this potentially dangerous build-up of TFA, the roll out of HFOs needs to be slowed down or the Montreal Protocol might once more have to step up to phase out the latest synthetic refrigerant.”

Fortunately, HFOs are not the only alternative to HFCs – natural refrigerants, including ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons, are feasible and climate-neutral solutions being increasingly adopted in cooling equipment worldwide.

*

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

Israel’s latest “national unity” government has, for the time being, ended 500 days of internal political crisis, the longest in Israel’s 72-year history.  At the same time, Israel embarked on an external political crisis over the potential annexation of occupied West Bank Palestinian territory. The coalition agreement says that from July 1, the government can apply for Knesset approval for annexations proposed in Donald Trump‘s “Deal of the Century.”  His deal, concocted with Israeli past and present Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has been rejected by Palestine, the Arab League, Arab governments separately, the European Union (EU) and many members of the international community. Their rejection makes no difference to Netanyahu or Trump.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s determination to annex illegal Israeli colonies and the Jordan Valley, comprising 30 per cent of the West Bank, was the sole issue debated during the formation of this government. The Trump administration, which endorses annexation, has given Israel the freedom to decide when and how to proceed. The EU, Israel’s main trading partner, opposes such action and is set to launch a belated diplomatic campaign against annexation. The EU could retaliate by recognising the Palestinian state which Palestinians define as being East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Although some EU members are not willing to challenge Israel, others could impose sanctions on Israel if the land grab goes ahead. Jordan has warned of dire consequences and the Arab League, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have condemned annexation. The US Democratic party and its likely presidential nominee Joe Biden oppose annexation as does the majority of the US Jewish community which supports the two-state solution.

If Netanyahu goes ahead, this peace time land grab will mirror the 1948-1949 war time Israeli underground army’s seizure of Palestinian land allocated to the “Arab State” in the UN plan to partition Palestine. The “Jewish State” had been granted 55 per cent of Palestine but during its war of establishment Israel conquered 78 per cent of the country. Its leaders have yearned for the completion of the “Jewish state,” delineated by the Zionist movement at the end of the nineteenth century.

As the first prime minister to formally pledge to annex the West Bank, Netanyahu is dedicated to the Zionist vision of an Israel in the whole of Palestine and seems determined to achieve this goal during the 18 months he will be in office under the current coalition agreement.

By agreeing to form a government with Netanyahu, Benny Gantz has lost the support of key parties in his own Blue and White bloc and sacrificed whatever political credibility he had. While he insists that annexation can only proceed with the agreement of external powers, he is in no position to enforce this stance. Indeed, few Israelis believe that once Netanyahu completes his 18 months as prime minister in the power-sharing deal he will not hand over to Gantz, who is deputy premier and defence minister and is meant to succeed him in a second 18 month term.

Some commentators argue that Netanyahu might postpone annexation under pressure from anti-annexation US quarters, Europe, the Arab world and elsewhere. But as long as he enjoys the full backing of the Trump administration, he will seriously consider making this move, knowing full well that Israel will not be compelled to reverse annexation once it is a reality on the ground.

Demanded by Israel’s radical right-wing and the settler movement, annexation has become Netanyahu’s crutch. He has been politically wounded by indictments for corruption, fraud and violating public trust and his trial is set for May 24. He will be Israel’s first prime minister to stand trial while in office and he hopes that his position will enable him to avoid jail, at least for as long as he serves. He hopes for the next 36 months when he will be premier and deputy premier.

Netanyahu is in a strong position to do what he wants about annexation. After weeks of dickering, a 36-member cabinet with seven deputy minsters was formed. Netanyahu’s Likud secured 14 ministries while Gantz’s Blue and White holds a dozen ministries. Religious, right-wing parties and Labour also received a scattering of seats. The Likud and its allies have the majority, giving Netanyahu the advantage over the more cautious Gantz when it comes to annexation.

This wall-to-wall cabinet, which commanded the backing of 73 members of the 120 seat Knesset, has been constructed by Netanyahu to exploit Israel’s dysfunctional political system with the aim of ensuring his survival by giving him time and space to stand trial and escape prison by means of appeals.

The sprawl, however, does not represent “unity” among Israeli citizens. It includes no Palestinian or Druze citizens of Israel, although the Palestinian electoral list came in third in the March election. All cabinet members belong to Zionist” parties. Critics of the size of the government point out that David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding premier, had a cabinet of 12. But then Israel’s political scene was far less complicated in his day.

Now that Netanyahu has his “unity” cabinet, it will have to tackle the ravages of the coronavirus, mass unemployment and other issues as well as annexation which he will want to carry out before the US presidential election in November which Trump might, just might, lose.

Incoming Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, of Blue and White, expressed enthusiasm for the Trump administration’s plan but did not endorse unilateral annexation. It is unlikely that his bloc, diminished by defections, could serve as a brake on Netanhyahu. His primary interest is staying in power to stay out of jail. If he thinks he can use annexation to accomplish this feat, he will go ahead. If not, he might 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.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The Ukrainian port Odessa on the Black Sea will receive its first-ever crude oil cargo of WTI Crude from the United States, after the U.S. shipped its first oil to Ukraine just last year as it looks to wean off Russian oil and gas supplies after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

A first cargo of WTI Crude to Odessa is set for arrival at the port on Wednesday, industry sources told Reuters. According to the sources, the tanker UMLMA carries 80,000 tons of WTI Crude to Odessa. Marine Traffic data shows that the UMLMA crude oil tanker traveled from Port Neches in the U.S. and was very close to Odessa, Ukraine, early on Wednesday.

This is not the first oil cargo of American crude oil to Ukraine, but it is the first WTI Crude cargo to Odessa, a month after the front-month WTI Crude futures dipped into negative territory a day before the contract expired.

Ukraine’s first-ever U.S. crude oil cargo was received in July last year, when a tanker carried 80,000 tons of Bakken crude to the port of Odessa.

Before today, the last U.S. oil shipment to Odessa was again another Bakken crude cargo in March this year.

Ukraine and some other countries in eastern Europe such as Poland have turned to buying American oil as they want to diminish the energy influence of their large neighbor Russia.

The entrance of U.S. oil into Odessa follows another first for US oil. The United States has also just sent the first cargo of U.S. crude oil to Belarus as part of a pledge made earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last Friday, while Belarus seeks to diversify its oil imports after a bitter spat with Russia over oil supply and prices this winter.

Despite the settling of the dispute, Belarus is still looking to diversify its oil import sources to cut dependence entirely on Russian oil supply. Earlier this month, Belarus welcomed the first cargo of crude oil from Saudi Arabia.

Belarus will continue to work with countries from which it had already bought oil, Azerbaijan and Norway, as well as its new partners Saudi Arabia and the U.S., First Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Krutoi, told the state news agency of Belarus, BelTA.

*

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.

Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

The outbreak of Covid-19 which first occurred in China in the autumn of 2019 did not, at that time, seem to herald a crisis of such magnitude in the West. In Quebec, the new coronavirus (Sars-Cov-2) was referred to as a virus that was certainly contagious, but which did not threaten the health of Quebecers more than necessary. Various experts reported in the newspapers indicated that seasonal influenza caused more deaths than this new virus, that Sars Cov-2 was less to fear than the influenza with which we have to deal cyclically and which leads annually to approximately 3500 deaths in Canada, 295 000 to 600 000 worldwide.

In early March, the narrative changed in a frightening way. Following the World Health Organization’s (WHO) announcement of a pandemic status, most Western countries responded by restricting air traffic and closing borders. This was followed by declarations of health emergencies that led to the seizure of power by the Public Health Directorates (PHDs). This last aspect is of prime importance, as the seizure of power brought most economic sectors and social life to a standstill.

During this period, it is important to realize that the reins of the state were given to the DSPs (Dr. Horacio Arruda in Quebec). In other words, the emergency health law, like martial law, deprived citizens of their rights and freedoms in order to protect them from a major crisis situation. It goes without saying that the implementation of these laws, which are opposed to democracy and civil law, should only be done in extreme emergency situations.

We were therefore told, on the basis of figures given by the WHO (3.4% mortality rate), that the situation was one of extreme urgency. The statistical curves based on these data predicted, for example, the deaths of approximately 60,000 Quebeckers and 2 million Americans if we did not proceed with containment measures. These figures are chilling and would have justified the health emergency measures taken by governments. The problem is that these predictions proved to be exaggerated. Indeed, several experts have questioned the credibility of WHO data on mortality rates based on two major issues:

– how many cases of coronavirus are there actually?
– and how many people die directly from it?

First, the number of cases with the virus is underestimated. Data from China (1), Germany (2) and the United States (3) suggest that the number of cases infected with Covid-19 was, from the beginning of the pandemic, much higher than that reported by public health authorities. Based on these data, therefore, it is likely that the number of people infected with Sars-Cov-2 was already high in the “healthy population” when the first mortality rates and alarmist predictions were revealed to the population.

Since the various national CSPs, with WHO as a chaperone, calculated mortality rates based on the number of confirmed cases or on a lower number of cases than the actual number of cases (i.e. excluding many asymptomatic cases or people who develop mild forms of Covid-19 without ever being tested), it is clear that the mortality rate was inflated as a result. This is what Dr. Antony Fauci and colleagues said in an editorial note in the New England Journal of Medicine published on February 28, 2020:

Assuming that the number of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case-fatality rate can be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be closer to those of severe seasonal influenza (which has a case-fatality rate of about 0.1%) or pandemic influenza (similar to 1957 and 1968).

According to Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and researcher at Stanford University in California, the mortality rate of Covid-19 was from the outset greatly overestimated by the lack of effective screening. In an editorial video by journalist Fareed Zakaria posted on CNN’s website, he reports that Dr. Ioannidis believes that based on an effective screening method such as the one used on the Diamond Princess in the Italian town of Vo’ Euganeo, Iceland or Denmark, the estimated mortality rate of Covid-19 would be about the same as that of seasonal influenza.

For Dr. Ioannidis, any statistical model based on exponential case growth is highly vulnerable to estimation errors. If the denominator on which to count mortality rates is incorrectly established, the statistical model may come up with a rate that is erroneous by a multiplier of 10, 30, or even 50. In other words, the number of deaths would be 10 to 50 times lower than the statistical models predict. According to Dr. Ioannidis’ estimates, the case-fatality rate of Covid-19 would be 0.05% to 1%, much lower than the 3.4% initially proposed by WHO (4). According to the same estimates, the actual number of deaths related to Covid-19 in the United States could be in the range of 10,000 to 40,000. These figures are exactly within the range of influenza-related deaths in the United States in 2019 (5).

(5) In Quebec, for example, we were told that there could have been as many as 60,000 deaths if there had been no containment. If we take a median multiplier compared to Dr. Ioannidis’ proposals, that is, a negative multiplier of 30, we would have a mortality rate of 2,000 people. That’s about the same number of deaths that occur during seasonal influenza episodes. For example, the number of deaths associated with influenza and pneumonia in Quebec in 2016, when there was no high peak mortality, was 1733 (6).

(6) As of May 5, 2020, the date of publication of this article, the official number of deaths was close to 2,400 in Quebec, around 70,000 in the United States and around 250,000 worldwide. However, the method of calculating the number of deaths raises major questions. In an open letter written to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi mentions (7):

The mistake is made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death – irrespective of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: a diagnosis can only be made when it is certain that an agent played a significant role in the illness or death.

As Dr. Bhakdi points out, it is thus impossible to distinguish between deaths genuinely related to Covid-19 and deaths that occurred for other medical reasons in the accidental presence of the virus. In other words, no distinction is made between those who died because of the virus and those who died with the virus. We will see that this practice, probably under the orders of the WHO, has been widespread throughout the world.

In Quebec, we have heard Dr. Arruda mention the issue of epidemiological links several times. That is exactly the mistake Dr. Bhakdi is talking about. According to this way of calculating, even in cases of “Covid-19 deaths”, people are included who have symptoms similar to those of the disease, without testing to make sure. On April 16, 2020, Dr. Arruda stated in the daily press briefing of the Quebec government:

“There has been a change in the method of data entry and epidemiological analysis by public health of patients who have died within the last week. The choice we made was to report all patients, even patients who were not tested, but who have all the definitions to be patients who died from Covid-19. »

Another aberration in the way deaths are counted is that public health chooses to consider as “Covid-19 deaths” people who simply rubbed shoulders with other Covid-19 sufferers or deaths. In other words, if a woman in a long-term care facility died and occupied a room adjacent to a confirmed case of Covid-19, she was declared to have died of Covid-19. This is what Dr. Arruda said at the press briefing on April 14, 2020, following a question about non-routine screening:

“We’re not waiting for the coroner’s inquest, we’re counting these cases. We haven’t tested every case. It’s a case definition called epidemiologically linked cases. If there are cases in a long-term care facility, on the same floor, 1 or 2 cases confirmed in the laboratory, if in the next room you have a case, no other reasons for death as such, we are almost certain, to a large extent, that it is Covid-19”.

In the press briefing of 22 April 2020, Dr Arruda returned to this epidemiological analysis, describing it as “scrupulous” and “transparent”. Here is the hallucinating statement that followed a few seconds later:

    “I’d like to remind you that every year, under normal circumstances, about 1000 people a month die in long-term care facilities. And basically, it must be understood that the current deaths that we are counting associated with Covid-19, (they) would have occurred despite the situation”.

We are literally telling ourselves that the deaths that have been associated with Covid-19 for more than a month and which are sowing panic in the population would have occurred anyway. One journalist even made this schizophrenic comment:  “Don’t you think that underestimates the number of deaths?” It is clear, using common sense (something that some journalists employed by the major media outlets no longer seem to have), that this method of calculation considerably overestimates the number of deaths linked to Covid-19.

Here is another example of this mystifying calculation. On his daily show, posted on the Journal de Montréal website on April 23, 2020, Mario Dumont received Dr. Vinh-Kim Nguyen, an emergency physician at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal. Mr. Dumont was asking questions about how to account for deaths related to Covid-19, as it was questioned whether some of the deaths observed in long-term care facilities were related more to a lack of care than to Covid-19. The following is part of the exchange between Mr. Dumont and Dr. Nguyen (8):

Dr. Nguyen: “What we can do and what the French and other countries are already doing is that in a pandemic state, all deaths are above average. In other words, if today in Quebec we have an average of 58 deaths, and this year we have 82, we’re going to add 24, 24 more, we’re going to attribute (them) to the Covid. We’re not going to look any further, we’re not going to look in the (death) certificates.”

Mr. Dumont: “We are going to assume that the surplus of deaths is related to the pandemic that is in place”.

Dr. Nguyen: “Linked directly or indirectly to the pandemic”.

It is difficult to understand why journalists blissfully accepted this inflationary calculation method without questioning it. The method whereby people are reported to have died from Covid-19 because of epidemiological links or simply because the annual average of deaths would have increased this year defies logic. I believe that the words of Dr. Bhakdi, previously quoted, deserve to be rewritten:

“This violates a basic principle of infectiology”.

There seems to have been an ad hoc way of counting deaths for the purpose of cause, because the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is calculated in a much more conservative way.

In the “Bilan démographique du Québec 2019” prepared by the Institut de la statistique (see note 6), a distinction is made between influenza-related mortality and mortality due to co-morbid conditions. It states

“It is difficult to measure the exact proportion of deaths directly or indirectly attributable to the influenza virus, due in particular to the frequent presence of comorbidity (other concomitant causes of death). Influenza and pneumopathies are frequently cited as a secondary cause of death, and may therefore be involved in more deaths than if they are listed as the primary (main) cause of death”.

This is diametrically opposed to the method of calculation used to establish the mortality of the new coronavirus. Indeed, unlike influenza, the coronavirus is systematically considered as the main cause of death without even carrying out a test and by simple epidemiological links. I reiterate that, as Dr. Arruda stated in a press conference previously cited, all deceased persons with Covid-19-like symptoms were considered to have died of Covid-19.

It should be noted that, according to Dr. Bhakdi’s comments in his open letter to Chancellor Merkel, this method of calculation, which he calls “suspicion of Covid“, is widespread and has probably been used in France, Spain and Italy. These countries have revealed a very high mortality rate from the very beginning of the crisis and have contributed to the atmosphere of fear experienced in the West.

Can it be concluded that the official excess mortality associated with Covid-19 compared to influenza is not real, but depends primarily on the method of calculation?

If we take into account the number of deaths recorded in 2018 associated with problems of the respiratory and circulatory systems, diabetes and malignant tumours, diseases often present in individuals who die with a viral infection, we have a figure of 46,010 deaths in Quebec alone. It is very easy to inflate a statistic if we calculate it in bad faith.

Let us take the analysis a little further. In the same document from the Institut de la statistique du Québec, for example, it says that mortality in Quebec is increasing year after year in a general trend, largely due to the aging of the population. It states that “the provisional estimate of the number of deaths in Quebec in 2018 is 68,600, compared to 66,300 in 2017, an increase of 2,300 or 3.5%.

According to the Covid-19 mortality calculation method described by Dr. Nguyen, this percentage increase would be de facto related to Covid-19 in the pandemic year? Just below, in the same document, it is mentioned that “the increase recorded in 2018 is also related to the severe influenza season of winter 2017-2018“. It is interesting to note that this increase had not, at that time, led to such a generalized upheaval.

As another example that influenza epidemics can have a high case-fatality rate without leading to a generalized shutdown of the system, an article in the Journal de Montréal (9) suggests that about 22 people a day would die from influenza in January 2015. The article states that

“For the month of January 2015 alone, 6900 people died, which represents the highest number of deaths recorded in a single month in recent Quebec history. We can’t say that influenza is entirely to blame, but we can say that it is largely responsible for this excess of deaths”.

In the document from the Institut de la statistique (see nbp 6), emphasis is also placed on the seasonality of deaths, particularly with regard to deaths of the elderly in the winter period:

“There is a fairly strong seasonality in the monthly distribution of the number of deaths. This seasonality varies according to age groups and the various causes of death. Mortality among the young is higher in the summer months due, inter alia, to road accidents and drowning. Among the elderly, the number of deaths increases during the winter months, and as their weight in the number of deaths is overwhelmingly higher, the overall distribution corresponds more to their seasonality”.

The excess mortality of seniors during the winter period is therefore common. Higher mortality peaks in some years than the average are also common.

The multifactorial aspect of deaths attributed to Covid-19 is illustrated by Dr. Bhakdi in his open letter to the German Chancellor (see nbp 7). He mentions, among other things, that the very high air pollution in northern Italy, the part of the country most affected by the epidemic, makes the population vulnerable to lung diseases. The situation would already lead to a significant number of deaths in these areas and it would be difficult to know what the real role of coronavirus in the high mortality observed in Italy is.

The true role of the virus in Italy is totally uncertain for many reasons … because there are exceptional external factors that make these regions particularly vulnerable. One such factor is the increase in air pollution in northern Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to more than 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in Italy’s 13 largest cities alone. The situation has not changed much since then. Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution significantly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in the very young and elderly.

Instead of establishing a large-scale screening strategy (as South Korea did, for example, when it stopped transmission of the virus without massive containment measures) to target infected people and assess the coronavirus lethality rate as accurately as possible, the West took drastic health emergency measures based on alarmist models and inflationary calculation methods. Contrary to WHO statements, the Covid-19 situation resembles more a common epidemiological situation than a global health crisis. The statements of Dr Didier Raoult, infectiologist and professor at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) in infectious diseases in Marseille, also support this view. According to the evolution of annual mortality curves, he does not see a significantly higher than normal peak in deaths in the winter of 2019-2020 in France. In a video posted online on 14 April 2020, he mentions (10) :

“For us, the epidemic is gradually disappearing… If we try to see if the current health crisis is having an impact on mortality in France, the answer is no… We are very far away at the moment, if you add up the months from December to March, from the health crisis of 2017 when there were a lot of H3N2 flu. It so happens that this year there are far fewer flues and far fewer RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus), which means that the increase in mortality linked to this new virus is not significantly visible in the population as a whole”.

What could be described as statistical fraud has been observed worldwide. In the United States, a few doctors had the courage to speak out and said they felt pressured to indicate on death certificates that Covid-19 was the leading cause of patient mortality. In a video posted on youtube, a video quickly removed by the same channel (11), Dr. Daniel Erickson, an emergency physician in Bakersfield, California, said:

“We’re talking about co-morbidities… Covid was part of the clinical picture, that’s not why they died, folks! That was one of the reasons, so to be so simplistic and say it’s a Covid death because they had Covid, do you know how many people die with pneumonia, or how many people die with the flu, or should I say with the flu? … Their lungs are weakened by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, they had a heart attack two years ago, they’re in poor health. There’s no incentive to test for the flu… But I was talking to a friend who said, you know it’s interesting, when I write my death report, I get pressure to write “Covid”. Why is it like that? Why are we being pressured to write “Covid”? To maybe inflate the numbers and make them look worse than they are? I think so.

Note that in this video, Dr. Erickson exposes with independent statistics (with no media filter) that the new coronavirus is no more lethal than seasonal flu.

Dr. Annie Bukacek, a physician in Kalispell, Montana, says essentially the same thing. She says that on the website of the Center of disease control and prevention (CDC; the lead federal public health agency in the United States), mortality data include both confirmed and suspected cases of Covid-19. According to the CDC’s instructions, physicians would be encouraged to make diagnoses of Covid-19 on the basis of simple assumptions. She states (12) :

“The CDC counts real Covid-19 cases and hypothetical Covid-19 cases, as if they were the same thing, they call them Covid-19 deaths… They automatically overestimate the true number of deaths by their own admission… You can be sure that the actual number (of deaths) is substantially lower than what you are told”.

Minnesota physician and Senator Dr. Scott Jensen describes a similar situation in an interview with journalist Chris Berg (13):

“Last Friday I received a 7-page document that somehow told me that if I had an 86-year-old patient who had pneumonia but had never been tested for Covid-19, but who later died of pneumonia and was found to have been in contact with her son who had no symptoms but later tested positive for Covid-19, it would be appropriate to put on the Covid-19 death certificate…. If someone has pneumonia in the middle of a flu outbreak, and I don’t have a test for influenza, I will not put a diagnosis of influenza on the death certificate. I will write that person died of pneumonia”.

Dr. Jensen went on to mention that medical practice normally requires diagnoses to be made on the basis of facts and not supposition, contrary to what they are currently required to do with Covid-19. The reporter Berg asked him why then, in his opinion, he was receiving this kind of instruction and what would be the purpose of distorting the statistics in this way.

“Well, fear is an excellent way to control the world. I worry that sometimes you’re just interested in making fear go up”.

If all flu epidemics in the past had been treated the same way by health authorities and the media, we would be in a constant state of panic. Need I remind you, it is the false mortality statistics, this false idea of dangerousness to our lives, hammered home night and morning by the mass media, that have contributed to the climate of collective fear and justified all the containment measures and infringements of rights and freedoms that we have suffered in the spring of 2020.

I would like to mention here that this is not to minimize the deaths of those who were truly affected by Covid-19. The pain of the families of the victims is real and cannot be denied, just like the pain of the families of victims of other causes of death. It is a question of analyzing the ins and outs of the crisis we have been plunged into, because although people have died from Covid-19, especially among the elderly, it does not appear that the situation is statistically very different from mortality from other seasonal viral infections.

Are we collectively Molière’s imaginary patient? Sick for fear of being sick; who begs for his therapy to be saved to the great joy of a greedy and overcautious medicine. If this is the case, the decisions taken by public health must be denounced, especially given the social and economic impacts they have had. Among these impacts are deaths and lives that should also have been saved.

Medical and media authorities say that containment has saved lives. They also claim that limiting the transmission of the virus in order to flatten the curve has avoided overflowing the emergency room and thus facilitated the allocation of care to sick patients. This last point is relevant because this unknown virus may have required erring on the side of caution rather than the other way around. The complications – often non-lethal – associated with Covid-19 can cause major stress to health care teams and this aspect deserves to be highlighted. But again, does the strategy of designating certain receiving hospitals to receive Covid-19 patients not increase the problem of overcrowding? By distributing patients across the emergency departments of all hospitals, as is usually done, we might also have distributed the workload. In Quebec, on the other hand, there does not seem to have been a congestion problem. When the media talk about an outbreak problem in a hospital, it does not mean that there is an overflow in that hospital. It means that the virus has spread across the floors, not that there is a shortage of beds.

Based on the information we have just reviewed, there is every indication that there is something fishy going on. This massive containment, based on predictions and inflated numbers, looks like a bazooka crushing everything in its path as it tries to kill a fly. Several specialists question the containment strategy, claiming that it does not correspond to good epidemiological practice. Good practice would rather require diagnosing, treating and isolating the sick, but allowing the healthy population to circulate and collectively immunize themselves. Jean-Dominique Michel, a Swiss anthropologist and public health expert, is one of those who think this way (14).

(14) “We then adopted measures that were absolutely contrary to good practice: we gave up screening people who might be ill and confined the population as a whole to stop the spread of the virus. These measures were in fact medieval and problematic since they only slowed down the epidemic at the risk of potentially even worse rebound phenomena. And that they lock up everyone while only a small minority is concerned”.

Dr Didier Raoult, in a video posted online on 17 March 2020, comes to the same conclusion. He proposes that confinement is not necessary, even deleterious (15).

   “There are real logistical, pragmatic, rational measures to put in place and treat it like a normal disease. But if at the same time we set the fire and say you’re all going to die… It’s not possible to panic the population with something that won’t change the mortality statistics, I mean there won’t be more deaths than there were in previous years, that’s not true… Listen for what I saw quickly, the three countries whose situation is not currently controlled are Italy, France and Spain, so they’re probably not models. So the confinement in Italy doesn’t prevent it from continuing to evolve exponentially. It continues to evolve exponentially in France and Spain, and these three countries have decided to put containment at the forefront. We can ask ourselves whether we should not think about it, now accept to change our opinion, which is a form of intelligence under the pressure of events, and start again on what Korea has done, that is to say multiply the tests, treat people and isolate only the positive people… And when they are no longer contagious, we must leave them in peace. It’s not worth keeping them for 14 days if they’re negative after 5 days, it’s no longer science, it’s science fiction or I don’t know what, witchcraft”.

There is no consensus in the scientific community on the strategy of containment and closure of businesses and industries. Sweden, which has not opted for this massive containment strategy, has been strongly criticized and portrayed as the bad pupil in the majority of the media. However, a Swedish epidemiologist, Professor Johan Giesecke, believes that containment has no scientific basis and that Sweden will have more or less the same record as the other Scandinavian countries at the end of the crisis (16). Dr. Daniel Erickson is also of the opinion that the containment strategy is questionable. As he mentions (see nbp 11):

“If you’re playing with people’s constitutional rights, you better have a good reason, not just a theory. The data show us that it is time to lift the containment orders. So if we don’t lift them, what’s the reason?”.

According to Dr. Erickson, confinement is even deleterious to the immune system of healthy people. Our immune system is strengthened by contact with viruses and bacteria and weakened in a sanitized environment.

Banning gatherings of more than two people and restricting travel, closing schools, shutting down several economic sectors and putting a halt to several health care services (physical and mental) have caused so many problems at various levels that the remedy imposed by health authorities has made society sicker than the coronavirus. There is no justification for the social and economic crisis into which we have been plunged.

It is safe to say that the tragedy that has occurred in seniors’ homes in Quebec and elsewhere is a direct result of the climate of panic caused by the WHO and the PSD through their distorted data. Already limited human resources in CHLSD and hospital centres have been undermined by the desertion of several employees who were frightened by a virus that was presented to them as a killer, but which, on balance, looks like a scarecrow. The seniors who died in CHSLDs during the health emergency surely died more from negligence and the consequent deterioration of their state of health than from the Covid.19 The virus was presented to them as a killer, but in the end it looks like a scarecrow. We even heard grieving families, who were forbidden to visit their sick relatives, say that their sick relatives had let themselves go because of a lack of human contact and care. In addition, there have been and will continue to be collateral deaths resulting from the suspension of several medical services (e.g., cardiology, oncology) that have led to the postponement of surgeries and diagnostic evaluations that are so important to people’s health. In addition, there were psychological problems and suicides related to the disastrous consequences of the system shutdown, particularly among people with fragile mental health or those who had put all their savings into their small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). And what can we say about the frightening deconfinement that is being proposed to us and will direct our children to a school or daycare centre that they no longer recognize, framed by austere rules and masked educators.

At a time when the data on mortality rates are being drastically revised downwards, it is my opinion that the governments and the DSPs that constantly support the need for containment and social distancing to protect themselves against a pseudo-health danger are directly responsible for the crisis and its impacts (the Trudeau administration and the Canadian DSP are particularly buoyant in this discourse).

The mainstream media, particularly the television news, which slavishly and almost without nuance relay the authorities’ fallacious discourse, are also responsible. They have abandoned their role as public watchdogs. Their mandate to inform the public by giving them access to facts and a diversity of opinions in order to encourage informed reflection has been vilely relegated to oblivion. Rather, it is the citizens themselves and the alternative media that give voice to dissent and the scientific facts necessary for the development of critical thinking. The situation is certainly not new, but it has been unequivocally exposed in recent months.

The crisis we are experiencing is not a global health crisis, but a political crisis, a clear illustration of the failure of our governmental and media institutions. The members of these institutions have blood on their hands, for their incompetence and even bad faith have caused the collapse of existing human systems and the resulting social and health distress. Again, let us applaud the tremendous work done by the people at the grassroots level: the health workers, the transport workers, the emergency services, the county MPs, the teachers who have offered online courses and so on. The solidarity of the common people has been extraordinary and I hope it will maintain the social fabric that the political and media elites are trying to tear apart. We will have to be strong, because we will only be able to gauge the full impact of this crisis in several months, if not years.

It is towards this horizon that our gaze must now turn, because the convinced reader is well aware that this crisis is surely not caused for nothing.

–  What can lead governments to take such a course of action?
–  What interest can medical authorities and their media outlets have in panicking people?
–  Have the authorities been caught up in the intensity and suddenness of the crisis?
– As some have imagined, were they caught repairing a plane that broke in midair?

The current state of the world leads me to believe that the reality is not so light. A few whistleblowers have already lent their voices to denounce this emergency situation, which has insidiously led us to a society where civil liberties are being eroded (17). (17) The ban on gathering under penalty of a fine, incitement to denunciation, police control of movements, espionage by geolocation and the use of tracking drones, and soon mandatory vaccination and the health passport are all measures that are incompatible with a free and democratic society. In the space of a few weeks, they have become acceptable in the eyes of public opinion.

We can believe these temporary measures, but history suggests otherwise. The Patriot Act that followed the World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the emergency measures introduced in France following the attacks of 13 November 2015 have “become a permanent part of the law and common customs of these two countries” (18). If we must judge the tree by its fruits, we must judge the source of the crisis by its effects. And if the effects of the crisis are the collapse (19) of the economy and the advent of an increasingly controlled society, it is perhaps because the road to crisis was already paved. Social, fiscal and monetary reforms await us in the wake of recent events. I do not believe that this pandemic is a plane that we are trying to repair in mid-flight.

It is a planned, structured and strategic crisis. Developing this hypothesis would require far too much analysis to be done with sufficient clarity in such a short article. I reserve this task for another book in the hopefully near future. The analysis of the Covid-19 data seems to me too pressing a necessity to defer its publication and this article has been written in this awareness of time. Resistance to the lies of political-media elites requires dialogue and rapid information sharing, especially in the age of the Internet where this information is freely available and can serve as a shield against mass media propaganda.

Nevertheless, let us take the time to conclude with a reflection on the current state of the political world. We are “at war,” says French President Emmanuel Macron. A worrying term, carefully chosen rhetoric, it puts the people on the alert and makes them docile. We are at war with a virus that has a mortality rate roughly similar to influenza? We are at war with a virus that kills mostly the elderly and sick, who are vulnerable year after year to seasonal viral infections? I personally believe that the war we are fighting is an information war. In the times to come, we will be bombarded with alarming speeches, including the one on the rebound of the epidemic and the second wave.

We have heard the WHO’s speeches about the uncertainty of herd immunity and the probable resurgence of contamination. According to several experts, this possibility is, on the contrary, unlikely because the new coronavirus seems to follow a typical spread curve marked by a sharp increase and a continuous decrease in infected cases (20). Dr Didier Raoult even describes the idea of a second wave as “fanciful” because it is based on the memory of the Spanish flu which would have been, in history, an exception to the rule (21). As far as immunity is concerned, to catch a respiratory virus and not die from it means having developed antibodies against it. It is true that in some individuals, several infections are necessary before they are immune. Nevertheless, herd immunity is a reality that is demonstrated by a simple historical study of epidemics (22).

That won’t stop the terror merchants from selling us the danger. He who controls people’s fear becomes the master of their souls, Machiavelli said (23). To succeed in shaking our economic and social systems, the crisis must be long, very long. The WHO has already proposed abusive means to stem the pandemic. Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergency Programme, proposed on 30 March this measure, which is beyond comprehension (24):

“In most parts of the world, because of containment, most of the transmission currently occurring in many countries is occurring in the home, at the family level. In a sense, transmission has been taken out of the streets and pushed back into the family unit. Now we have to go into families to find those people who might be sick and remove them, and isolate them, in a safe and dignified way.

A highly influential global organization tells us that, pro bono, people should be sought out in their homes to be removed and isolated away from their families. This does not seem to have been put into action, but illustrates the state of panic in which people are being put. In order to get people to accept such vexatious measures, fear must be rampant. A large number of people are already caught up in this fabricated fear. And any means can be good to maintain it, or even amplify it. That is why political resistance to the liberticidal tendencies of governments is actively needed. It is essential that the people welcome the suggestions and decisions of the authorities with a great deal of scepticism. Asking questions, doubting, checking, talking and disobeying are citizen weapons within our reach. Free thought is still not in confinement. It is up to the people still in love with their freedom to use it.

And that’s what freedom is all about. From the book of Exodus to La Boétie’s Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, from the Orwellian Big Brother to the roots of totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, the question of freedom has not taken a wrinkle. Perhaps this is where contemporary men and women are going astray: believing that the fight for freedom is a thing of the past, no longer distrusting their government and relying on its good offices. As the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec stated in a previously quoted article (see no. 17):

“The dictator is not born of himself. He is born from the fact that the citizen wishes to be protected”.

Today, the masks are coming off. Dictatorship is being revealed more than ever in its international form. We have witnessed how a crisis in Asia can, in the space of a few weeks, very similarly affect the lives and rights and freedoms of different populations overseas. The fate of national peoples is more closely linked than ever before: the global coordination of public health operations under the auspices of the WHO, the talk of a world government, the proposal for a world currency. These are not just dystopian anguish fantasies, but more or less imminent realities that some people have been thinking about for a long time.

For Arendt, totalitarianism is a dynamic of destruction of reality and social structures, more than a political regime. She describes it as international in its organisation, universal in its ideological aim, planetary in its political aspirations (25). (25) The current situation cannot be better described. The nations of the world are faced with a globalist cabal that relies on fear to govern them. This governance is today unofficial and rests on its tentacles such as the WHO, the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Tomorrow, at the turn of a major crisis, it could become official.

It is to this end that chaos and anguish will set in among the population. The war on communism, the war on Islamic terrorism, the war on climate change and now the war on viruses; the object is variable, the fear constant (26). (26) The political authorities pose as protectors of the vulnerable and frightened citizen. The solution proposed, or even imposed, is to barter freedom for security. Give up your freedom in exchange for more security and you will end up losing both, as the saying goes. This is a delicate balance that sometimes leans towards a point of no return.

“It is the people who enslave themselves, who cut their throats, who, having the choice of being serf or free, renounce their independence and take the yoke … all men, as long as they have something human, allow themselves to be subjugated for only two reasons, by constraint or by deception” (27).

Once deception has been unmasked, there is no longer any reason to give up one’s freedom. Unless we have nothing human left.

        Vincent Mathieu, Ph.D.

This article was originally published by the Vigile Québec (Libre opinion) website and mondialisation.ca

Translated to English by Maya Chossudovsky-Ladouceur

Featured Photo: Quebec Vigil

Note to readers: please click on the share buttons below. Forward this article to your mailing lists. Publish this article on your blog site, web forums, etc.

Notes

(1) https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375

(2) Charisius, H. Covid-19: Wie gut testet Deutschland? Süddeutsche Zeitung. (abgerufen am 27.3.2020), cited in https://swprs.org/covid-19-lettre-ouverte-du-professeur-sucharit-bhakdi-a-la-chanceliere-allemande-dre-angela-merkel/.

(3) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

(4) https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?fbclid=IwAR2skgvbV188g9VQXf4ztq9imwXxkyjUVpuLTEruxPLlBDmHrwZmyN9qsDE

(5) https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/sciences/202003/05/01-5263504-le-danger-relatif-de-la-grippe-et-du-covid-19.php

(6) https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2019.pdf

(7) https://swprs.org/covid-19-lettre-ouverte-du-professeur-sucharit-bhakdi-a-la-chanceliere-allemande-dre-angela-merkel/

(8) https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/04/23/aines-affames-et-deshydrates

(9) https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/12/08/22-deces-par-jour-causes-par-la-grippe-en-janvier-dernier

(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gMj6r9t-F4

(11) The video is now available at: https://www.bitchute.com/video/oV9KpUH3tRYW/.

(12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBw1ynpDANQ

(13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMC6erskDQs

(14) http://jdmichel.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2020/03/18/covid-19-fin-de-partie-305096.html

(15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7g4WKoS_6U&feature=youtu.be
(16) https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2020/04/24/nordic-covid-19-lockdowns-will-have-same-end-results-as-sweden-says-former-state-epidemiologist/

(17) https://www.lapresse.ca/covid-19/202004/21/01-5270281-un-avocat-veut-forcer-quebec-a-deconfiner.php; https://www.lapresse.ca/covid-19/202004/22/01-5270373-la-covid-19-dangereuse-pour-la-democratie-dit-le-lieutenant-gouverneur.php; http://histoireengagee.ca/une-epidemie-du-controle/

(18) https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/idees/578143/surveilles-et-dociles

(19) With the amount of liquidity injected into the system (5 trillion invested by the G20 countries – central banks buying back hundreds of billions of dollars in stock and bond securities) added to the astronomical amount of new money already created by quantitative easing policies since the 2008 crisis, the money supply has become immeasurable. With interest rates ridiculously low, even negative in some countries, classical economics and history make a simple prognosis. A currency that is so cheap becomes unstable and weakens, inflation gallops and gnaws away at purchasing power, the value of money and certain assets inevitably erodes (pensions, life insurance policies etc.). False wealth based on credit, money-debt, comes to the end of its cycle. The abrupt shutdown of the economy will cause bankruptcies, credit managers will take over the management of production. As in any economic crisis, wealth is not lost, it is transferred. The political and economic elites, these pyromaniac firefighters, are proposing solutions that a people on its knees cannot refuse.

(20) https://www.lepoint.fr/sante/coronavirus-et-s-il-n-y-avait-pas-de-deuxieme-vague-28-04-2020-2373206_40.php

(21) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh5exajcXlk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj4bGVszZP8&feature=emb_err_watch_on_yt

(22) Ray M. Merrill, Introduction to Epidemiology, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2013.

(23) Nicolas Machiavelli, Le Prince, Editions Ivrea, 2001.

(24) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-30mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=6b68bc4a_2

(25) Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Gallimard, 2002.

(26) In what they call the “fabrication of consent,” Herman and Chomsky describe the media filter through which government agencies and big business promote their interests. Opinion control mechanisms require a target to focus on in order to distract the population from the real aims of these state and private bodies. Chomsky suggests that at the turn of the 21st century, the war on terrorism has replaced anti-communism as the main control mechanism. Sources: Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988; Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Open Media Pamphlet, April 1997.

Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the media are always involved, voluntarily or indirectly, in creating a climate of fear to “manufacture opinion”. Arguably, the current alarmist rhetoric about health disasters is part of these control mechanisms to influence public and economic policies to the detriment of the people (LoA).

(27) Étienne de la Boétie, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Librio, 2018.

Vincent Mathieu: Ph.D., doctor of psychology and group therapist. He specializes in issues of empathy and narcissistic and antisocial pathologies.

 

 

The US Senate, on 14 May passed bill on the mistreatment of Uyghur minority in China. The bill demands President Donald Trump to sanction Chinese officials who partake in the violating rights and freedoms of Uyghur community in the northwestern region of China.  Some American experts accused the US of conducting ethnic and nationalist separatism in other countries.

“The Congress’s bill is part of the overall US strategy to isolate China and portray it as a pariah state, American expert, Dennis Etler said.

Dennis Etler condemned imperialistic policy of the United States in his interview to EDNews.net portal.

***

Eurasia Diary: What can you say about the US Congress’s bill connecting the treatment of the Uyghur people?

Dennis Etler: The bill passed by the US Senate is yet another attempt to demonize China and inflame public opinion against the PRC. It is based on unsubstantiated allegations that the Uyghurs of China are being subjected to wholesale repression and subjugation as an ethnic minority. The evidence for these allegations has been provided by separatists in Xinjiang aided, abetted and funded by the US government. Thus, the US government funds numerous groups which are then used to provide evidence used by that same government to sanction China. This is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy and should lack any degree of credibility by an objective observer. As Secretary of State Pompeo himself revealed, the US is proud to lie, cheat and steal and has “entire training courses” in how to do it. You can rest assured that the anti-China separatists in Xinjiang who happen to be of Uyghur ethnicity are following the precepts of their US sponsors and are taught how to do so. The allegations directed against China in the US Senate bill are concocted in that manner from half-truths and distortions of the actual situation in order to provide the US ammunition in its propaganda war against China.

ED: What is the main reason behind this bill?

DE: The bill is meant to further poison the relationship between the US and China. This is part of the overall US strategy to isolate China and portray it as a pariah state that violates human rights. This is one component of the hybrid war waged by the US against the PRC. Other components are the US-initiated trade war against China based on false allegations that China engages in unfair trade practices, US military support for the breakaway Chinese province of Taiwan, US support for pro-American anti-China rioters in Hong Kong and US military provocations in the South China Sea. All are part of a multi-pronged assault against China which the US sees as the major threat to its continued global economic and military hegemony.

ED: In your opinion, does the United States have a strategic plan to instigate ethnic nations in China to make insurrection against the central government along with the adoption of such bills by its Congress?

DE: The US has long sought to dismember China by supporting separatist movements in her outlying regions. Since the 1950s it has supported Tibetan separatists who seek to form an independent Tibetan state aligned with Anglo-American imperialism. More recently it has done the same in Xinjiang which is home to a number of Chinese ethnic minorities. The US promotes both ethnic and religious rivalry between minority populations and the majority of Han people, counter to the Chinese policy of ethnic unity and solidarity. Chinese national minority policy supports Chinese diverse ethnic minorities in many ways. They are exempt from many regulations that apply to the Han majority, they get favorable treatment in college admissions, the preservation of their languages and customs are supported with government subsidies, and the Chinese government has invested billions of yuan in improving infrastructure and services to minority communities throughout the nation. Ethnic minorities in China are represented in all levels of government and in the media. The US, however, uses its agents among certain ethnic minorities to foment trouble in order to divide the Chinese nation in furtherance of its objective to destabilize China and derail its rise.

ED: According to media, over a million Turkic Muslims have been kept in incarceration camps in China, they are allegedly being tortured, harassed, and subjected to cultural and ethnic discrimination. We would like to learn your opinion about truths and realities regarding the treatment of Uyghurs in China. As an expert on Chinese studies, how can you depict the current situation in connection with Uyghurs’ rights?

DE: Allegations of torture, harassment and cultural and ethnic discrimination against Uyghurs in China are unfounded slanders. The truth of the matter is that a small percentage of Uyghurs have been influenced by a foreign ideology that identifies itself as the only true practice of Islam. All other Muslims are condemned as apostates. Any Muslim who participates in the secular world is treated as an enemy of the faith. The vast majority of Uyghurs in China either practice forms of Islam that are antithetical to the teachings of the insurrectionists or are primarily secular in belief. The small percentage of Uyghurs who have succumbed to foreign ideological influences are given vocational training, civic education, and language training so they can better participate in the normal life of the nation. Traditional Uyghur culture and language are protected and promoted. What is prescribed are the teachings and precepts of Islam introduced by foreign proselytizers who actually attack and condemn the traditional Islamic teachings and cultural life-ways of the Uyghur people in China.

*

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

Dennis Etler is an expert on Chinese Studies. Mr Etler holds a doctorate in anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley. He conducted archaeological and anthropological research in China throughout the 1980s and 1990s and taught at the college and university level for over 35 years.

Rethinking Retirement After COVID-19

The unemployment crisis brought on by the coronavirus outbreak has suddenly destroyed the earnings of hundreds of thousands of working people in Canada. For many jobless workers, the immediate scramble to make ends meet will be followed by a struggle to avoid downward mobility and poverty in the months ahead. But the crisis is also clouding the already uncertain retirement prospects for working people. Having experienced the second market meltdown in a dozen years, accompanied by a further collapse in interest rates, many workers confront growing financial insecurity and thwarted hopes of retiring.

Thus far, unions have responded to this crisis with appeals to government regulators for relief for pension plans. They are right to do so. An immediate objective must be to stabilize these plans and prevent benefit cuts for workers and pensioners.

But on its own, this purely defensive posture is doomed to failure. The outcome of the previous crisis, which also devastated retirement savings, explains why. Following the 2007-08 collapse, pension plans remained under unrelenting pressure from employers and governments determined to offload pension risk and to cut benefits. Uneven investment returns, weak economic growth, and low interest rates, occasioned by the same massive monetary stimulus we are seeing now, fueled these attacks. Unions spent a decade desperately trying to resist concessions and hold on to what they had.

Retirement Income for All

This struggle was mostly unsuccessful. Over the ensuing ten years, the number of private-sector workers with access to a defined benefit (DB) plan fell consistently, to the point where fewer than one in ten today belong to such plans. Furthermore, just over one in five private sector workers has access to any kind of pension plan. Even in the heavily unionized public sector, where 85 per cent of workers have a pension, employers have ceaselessly demanded that workers pay more for diminished pensions, and assume more and more risk.

To make matters worse, as pensions vanish from the private sector, the political right is able to mobilize widespread insecurity and resentment to attack remaining public-sector pensions. Without a definitive break from their purely defensive approach, the future awaiting unions and workers with pensions is clear: another round of demands for benefit cuts, contribution hikes, and more risk and cost heaped on plan members.

While unions must continue to resist these attacks, labour cannot escape the struggle for retirement income for everyone if it wants to preserve any hope of a secure and adequate retirement income for union members. Without a broader program demanding retirement security for all, calls for emergency measures to shore up pensions remain at best irrelevant to a majority of workers, and at worst, a sectionalist appeal that urges lifeboats for a few, while the many sink to their fate.

Building a Class-Wide Fight

The financial crisis already triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has hit asset-dependent pension funds and individual retirement savings schemes very hard. The largest North American stock market indexes fell by more than 20 per cent in the first quarter of 2020, and the multiple shocks of a major recession, mass unemployment, and losses of income can be expected to have even more serious and potentially long-term impacts well beyond the immediate turmoil. The financialized model of pension provision means that far from solely affecting the wealthy, the health of the financial sector is a crucial concern for many workers as well. Those of us dependent on retirement incomes deriving from the riskiest and least collective types of retirement programs (RRSPs, TFSAs, and “defined contribution” type pension plans) will be immediately and severely affected.

Fortunately, the foundations for an ambitious structural shift toward a secure and universal pension system that is no longer dependent on financial markets already exists. Class struggles at the workplace level and within parliamentary politics in the first half of the twentieth century produced the partial breakthroughs that established Canada’s mandatory public pension system. That system was built primarily through the combination of Old Age Security (OAS) in 1952, and the pay-as-you-go Canada and Québec Pension Plans (CPP/QPP) in 1966.

One of the under-appreciated merits of these two original plans is the fact that their security derives not from capitalist financial markets but from the vast collective of society as a whole. Pensions from OAS are paid out of general federal tax revenues, and are, therefore, financed through a still somewhat-progressive tax system. A portion of current tax revenues flow directly and immediately to residency-eligible retirees aged 65 and over, with a basically flat and near-universal benefit level. This means that there is no shaky pension fund and no financial assets to worry about.

The CPP was originally established as a primarily “pay as you go” contributory system, with most current contributions from workers and employers flowing directly to current retirees. A relatively small portion of that flow was deferred, and flowed into a reserve fund able to finance two years of benefits. This reserve was very securely invested in non-marketable bonds structured as loan capital to provincial governments – which they used to build public infrastructure more cheaply than would have been possible otherwise. The benefits from both OAS and CPP were secure and defined by formulas, and neither could be negatively affected by financial market turmoil.

However, Canada’s “system” of two public pension plans is far from perfect. In fact, it was designed to produce only a modest retirement income of not more than 40% of the pre-retirement earnings of average wage earners. Achieving the widely declared goal of a 70% “wage replacement” rate (not nearly enough for low-wage workers) would require that this minimal public system be supplemented with either workplace pensions or individual savings. However, while achieving widespread pension coverage at the workplace level may have once appeared possible (in the higher-growth period of the 1950s and 1960s), that dream now appears wildly optimistic. The decline of union density is a factor, but so is the more recent rise of precarious ‘gig’ style employment, part-time work, and often-bogus “self-employment” status.

In retrospect, the labour movement’s acceptance of a compromise multi-tiered and uneven public pension system that remains heavily dependent upon employer-centred and financial asset-based pensions was a strategic mistake. While the recent modest expansion of CPP and QPP benefits should be celebrated, the simultaneous transformation of CPP into a more fully ‘financialized’ plan – far more dependent on an expanded base in ever-riskier financial markets – was a major step backward.

With a new financial crisis now in full flight, the time is right for a return to the original class-wide goals of Canada’s socialist left: a progressive, redistributive public pension system that leaves no one behind, secured by formal social commitments rather than financial market returns. One recently published set of proposals would accomplish exactly this through a doubling of the benefit structure of both OAS and the CPP. Winning such a transformation will require a great deal of work and the construction of a serious “pro-public pension” movement, with elements both inside and outside the labour movement.

Fortunately, there are hopeful signs that this kind of organizing has been taken up in recent years. With the new crisis now upon us, we have every reason to seize the opportunities it offers to intensify such efforts.

An Inexorable Crisis

Although they face immediate challenges from the economic effects of COVID-19, the crisis of our pension and benefits systems has been developing for some time. It is a long, slow, and inexorable crisis, punctuated and exacerbated by periodic crises in capital or labour markets. The result is that, in time, employers will no longer be the delivery mechanism for pensions or other non-wage benefits. The labour movement’s campaign for a universal public Pharmacare program recognizes the failure of employer-provided prescription drug coverage in Canada. It must be accompanied by a call for a robust universal public retirement program that rectifies the similar deficiencies in Canada’s private pension system.

This slow crisis has three dimensions: under-funding, lack of coverage for the workforce, and inadequacy of pensions in retirement.

The main short-term response to funding challenges has been to ease funding requirements – that is, to not require continuous full funding of pension promises. In light of current trends, this makes adequate pensions less likely to be delivered.

Over the medium term, the response to the continuing lack of coverage has been to slowly permit mergers in large public sector plans, and allow them to offer pension products to a wider range of employers. In some ways, such consolidation has been positive, and has stabilized the existing public sector pension schemes to some extent. Yet this has also meant trimming benefits or shifting liability from employers to workers. Coverage has not extended appreciably, and the trend toward increased precaritization of pension incomes has not been reversed – indeed, it leaves 70 per cent of the labour force without a workplace pension arrangement.

There have been two responses to inadequate pensions: asking people to work longer and delay retirement, on the one hand, and on the other, a very modest expansion of the CPP – alongside its deepening financialization.

None of these policy responses will address the fundamental underlying problem of providing a secure pension income in retirement. At most, they will “buy time” as the Canadian retirement income system continues along its long-term trajectory of slowly shrinking coverage and erosion of benefits and security.

The fundamental questions about the kind of pension system we need must be directly confronted. Is retirement income something that should be tied to an employer-employee relationship? Should it be expanded to encompass wider types of work? Is pre-funding pensions through massive investment programs necessary? Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, should “retirement” for all at age 65 be the objective of the system?

Even employing the smartest people in the room at great expense, tying pension income to the health of the financial sector is proving inadequate to the task. The result has been a reinforcement of the power of the financial sector over the lives of workers – pushing forward neoliberal restructuring and privatization in addition to making pension security directly dependent on the performance of financial markets.

In fact, this problem raises even deeper questions about the anti-social ways that the largest pension funds are actually investing. To take just one example with immediate relevance to the COVID-19 crisis – several of Canada’s largest pension funds have been placing more of their new investment capital into key areas of public health care infrastructure, including the deregulated long-term care sector. The PSPIB, a crown corporation investing the funds of federal public service workers and certain military and police employees is the sole owner-operator of Revera Inc. – the second largest operator of for-profit long-term care homes and retirement residences in North America. Notorious for their aggressive approach to labour relations, news reports also indicate that Revera has faced at least 85 lawsuits alleging deaths from negligence over the years. They now face significant litigation over what is alleged to be an inadequate response to the pandemic, following deaths in Revera operated homes.

This is just one example of what the ‘financialization’ of our pensions actually means. Rather than a useful source of credit or other investment capital to meet social needs, pension funds are operating in much the same manner as the most predatory investment banks or hedge funds. Desperate to generate the rates of return needed to deliver promised pension benefits, they are taking full advantage of the expanded opportunities opened up by neoliberal restructuring – privatization, capital mobility, and weakened labour rights. As private capital, PSPIB and other large pension funds are taking advantage of these urgent social needs in a harmful, profit-maximizing way – rather than helping to meet those needs in the most effective and socially equitable way possible. We want to argue that this problem can not and will not be addressed by simply bringing “responsible investment” principles into their strategies. Rather, a deeper re-organization of pension structures will be needed such that privately generated financial profits are no longer playing a central role.

Apart from basic adequacy and security, a thorough rethinking of conventional (and still quite gendered) notions of work-time might also be considered. Rather than pensions as mechanisms to finance retirement benefits only, we might reconceptualize lifetime working hours and productivity gains as social contributions to be redistributed across an entire working life. That is, we could increase annual leaves, career breaks, and even weekly hours worked, all as ways to distribute productivity gains (if they are realized) and permit longer working lives. Such a system could be publicly funded and administered, and not directly dependent on an employment relationship or financial markets.

For many, the prospect of a secure retirement seems more remote than ever. Addressing this requires reconceptualizing retirement income as a basic social good – a universal program akin to publicly funded and delivered health care.

These ideas are not new and not untested. The same debate was held in North America immediately after WWII, when Walter Reuther battled General Motors over who should deliver pensions, the state or the employer. We know how that story ended.

Of course, moving from an entrenched private system that has failed in its purpose to provide an adequate, secure, and universal public system is not without significant challenges. As with the private healthcare industry in the US, the current system is an important source of profits for insurance companies, banks, and consulting firms determined to defend the status quo they fought hard to establish and protect.

Furthermore, many workers themselves – who have experienced decades of steadily growing precarity and fear losing what they have left – will have to be convinced that universal public pensions are necessary. This means having difficult conversations. Yet this does not make them any less necessary. Fully extending the right to a secure and dignified retirement is, after all, in the interests of all workers. The sooner the labour movement and grassroots retirement-security activists start building a movement capable of taking on finance and transforming how we provide for retirement the better.

*

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

All images in this article are from The Bullet

Speaking at the National War Heroes Commemoration Ceremony on 19 May 2020, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared that he will not hesitate to withdraw Sri Lanka from any international body or organisation that continuously targets the country and war heroes.

The President was probably referring to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, given that they are the only international entities that Sri Lanka belongs to, which have systematically targeted the country and its armed forces.

The statement has received wide publicity in the international media and can boomerang back on Sri Lanka at a time it desperately needs international support, precisely to protect its war heroes.

The United Nations is an obstacle to US hegemony, but Sri Lanka cannot survive without it.

The intention of this author is not to echo the detractors of Sri Lanka, whose object it is to undermine the country’s sovereignty. On the contrary, it seeks to highlight the dangers of a policy of withdrawal from an international organisation that, under the existing international order, is the ultimate guarantor of that sovereignty.

Withdrawal from what?

What does the President mean by withdrawal? Sri Lanka is not a Member of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) it is only an Observer State, so the question of withdrawal as Council Member doesn’t arise. The only way to completely withdraw from the Council would be to withdraw from the United Nations, altogether, the Council being a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly. The same is true for withdrawal from OHCHR, which is a body of the United Nations..

If that is the intention, it is preposterous that Sri Lanka should even be contemplating it. The United Nations is the only multilateral organisation that exists today capable of defending the interests of less powerful states such as ours. Whatever its weaknesses – and there are many, the world order established under the UN Charter is based on respect for the principle of sovereign quality in relations between states – big or small, and stands firmly opposed to foreign domination and hegemony,  external intervention and interference in the internal affairs of states, foreign aggression, and wars.

A shift from non alignment to ‘neutrality’, from international cooperation to isolation?

Does this statement foreshadow a shift from Sri Lanka’s traditional position of non alignment in international relations?

The President of Sri Lanka and his close associates, among them Rohan Gunaratna, whom the Indian online paper AsianAge refers to as his key advisor, have referred on several occasions to a shift in foreign policy, from Non Alignment to Neutrality. On 26 June 2019 AsianAge reported Gunaratna, who had been tasked to open a back channel with India’s President Modi, as having said that the newly elected President was committed to “pursuing the concept of neutrality”. More ominously, he is quoted as saying Sri Lanka “will declare itself a neutral state by enshrining the principle of neutrality in the constitution.”

‘Neutrality’ is a negative stance adopted only in time of war. In peacetime, like ‘withdrawal’, it is synonymous with isolation. It does not require the definition of principles that are necessary to guide international relations between states, resulting in opportunism and chaos, with the strong always winning.

The Non-Alignment Movement does not define itself negatively in terms of an alliance against Great Powers, but in favour of international cooperation and solidarity to protect and defend the hard won freedom and independence of developing nations by measures to consolidate their political independence through economic independence, and to prevent a return to foreign domination. It is not isolationist,  non alignment applying only to Great Powers actually engaged in war.

Unlike neutrality, non alignment has clearly defined principles on which international cooperation must be based, as reflected in the 1955 Bandung Principles, which include, inter alia,  sovereignty, justice and equality, independence, territorial integrity, non interference, non intervention, non aggression, and multilateralism. These principles were subsequently incorporated into the UN General Assembly’s 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration, which is the only authoritative document further developing the principles embodied in the UN Charter so that it reflected the concerns of newly independent states.

Withdrawal from international organisations is a policy that is consistent with the concept of neutrality, rather than non alignment.

The power US wields over lesser States, is the power it is allowed to wield

If the systematic attacks against Sri Lanka and its war heroes are to be countered, then the first step is to recognise that at their source is the United States and certain Western allies, and not the United Nations. Such an admission, however, will require the kind of political courage and political will that successive governments in Sri Lanka have tragically lacked.

The United Nations does not belong to the US, but to all 193 Member States, as sovereign equals. The power that the US wields over lesser States, is the power it is allowed to wield by those same lesser States. That is how the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights came to be hijacked to serve America’s hegemonic ambitions and its vision of a world order based on unilateralism. And, all the time, countries like Sri Lanka looked the other way or even collaborated in digging their own graves.

Sri Lanka, a tale of resistance and a tale of betrayal

Washington’s success in pushing through anti-Sri Lanka resolutions have less to do with the brute force of the United States than the failure of Sri Lankan governments to mobilise sufficient support from developing countries, from within the Non Aligned Movement, its natural allies. Past experience, positive and negative, bears this out.

In September 2011, the United States and Canada were forced to withdraw a draft resolution that would have placed Sri Lanka on the Council’s agenda when a majority of developing countries publicly declared they would vote against it. On that occasion, Sri Lanka had taken the initiative, together with a group of like-minded countries, to move a draft resolution on the independence of OHCHR.

In October 2015, the tale was different – and Sri Lanka lost. This time it was the Yahapalana Government that came to the aid of the US by co-sponsoring the infamous resolution 30/1, forcing a consensus on all those developing countries that would otherwise have voted against a precedent-setting resolution that they knew could be utilised against them. Sri Lanka’s political leadership thus contributed in no small measure to not only undermining its own sovereignty, but the sovereignty of other developing countries, andweakening the multilateral system, ultimate guarantor of its existence.

War against LTTE terror and separatism, a war for multilateralism

It is, indeed, incongruous and ironical that the President’s statement on withdrawal was made at an event organised to pay tribute to war heroes who sacrificed their lives in the war against LTTE terror and separatism, a war fought precisely to defend the principles that unilateralism opposes.

It should be evident by now to decision-makers that it is in the country’s best interest  to strengthen, not weaken the multilateral system based on the UN Charter, especially with the increasing resort by the US and its Western allies to utilise unilateral coercive measures as a means of exerting pressure on sovereign states to compel policy changes through sanctions or threats of sanctions, embargoes, blockades, conditionalities, trade wars, and intimidation. COVID-19 has revealed the vilest of methods used by the US to obtain masks, protective equipment, and the right to own vaccines developed by other states, including against its own European allies, Germany and France.

Withdrawal and isolation will strengthen US unilateralism and global hegemony

Withdrawal from the United Nations will only strengthen the US unilateralist vision and advance its hegemonic ambitions, undermining multilateralism, which the Non Aligned Movement has  largely contributed to developing.

The ultimate result of withdrawal will be further isolation of Sri Lanka, weakening its ability to negotiate from a position of strength, depriving it of the means to resolve problems with global dimensions, such as COVID 19, climate change, trade, and finance, and eroding its  independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, ideals for which Sri Lanka’s war heroes sacrificed their lives.

Sri Lanka’s message to the world – The Trump way or Sri Lanka’s way

And how will such a statement be interpreted by our potential allies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose very existence as independent nations depends on respect for the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and at a time that US President Donald Trump has made a similar threat to quit the World Health Organisation in the midst of a global health pandemic?

How can withdrawal from international organisations be reconciled with the urgent task at hand to win back allies and bridge the gulf that resolution 30/1 has created between Sri Lanka and other developing countries with which it has a shared history, common concerns, and mutual interests?

*

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.

Tamara Kunanayakam is former Ambassador/ Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, and Ex Chairperson of the UN Working Group on the Right to Development.

Featured image is from Zscout370 / Wikimedia Commons

The Global War on Terror or GWOT was declared in the wake of 9/11 by President George W. Bush. It basically committed the United States to work to eliminate all “terrorist” groups worldwide, whether or not the countries being targeted agreed that they were beset by terrorists and whether or not they welcomed U.S. “help.” The GWOT was promoted with brain-dead expressions like “there’s a new sheriff in town” which, after the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful belief that something called “American Exceptionalism” existed.

With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes, exceptional. That is generally how Donald Trump and hardline Republicans see the world, that sovereignty exercised by foreign governments is and should be limited by the reach of the U.S. military. Surrounding a competitor with military bases and warships is a concept that many in Washington are currently trying to sell regarding a suitable response to the Chinese economic and political challenge.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a “force for good,” but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best, stating that “…if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S. imposed sanctions was “…a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.” That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists. Either way, the U.S. gets to make the decisions over life and death, which, since the GWOT began, have destroyed or otherwise compromised the lives of millions of people, mostly concentrated in Asia.

One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of living and more security than has been the case ever since. Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world’s most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government’s inability to do anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago.

Add Afghanistan to the “most corrupt” list after 19 years of American tutelage and one comes up with a perfect trifecta of countries that have been ruined. In a more rational world, one might have hoped that at least one American politician might have stood up and admitted that we have screwed up royally and it is beyond time to close the overseas bases and bring our troops home. Well, actually one did so in explicit terms, but that was Tulsi Gabbard and she was marginalized as soon as she started her run. Alluding to how Washington’s gift to the world has been corruption would be to implicitly deny American Exceptionalism, which is a no-no.

The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush.

Ironically, neocons mostly were critics of Donald Trump the candidate because he talked “nonsense” about ending “useless wars” but they have been trickling back into his administration since he has made it clear that he is not about to end anything and might in fact be planning to attack Iran and maybe even Venezuela. The thought of new wars, particularly against Israel’s enemy Iran, makes neocons salivate.

The disastrous American occupation of Iraq from 2003-2004 was mismanaged by something called the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which might have been the most corrupt quasi-government body to be seen in recent history. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people was wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.

Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war’s most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute websites, where they had posted their résumés. They were paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.

The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 “cashpaks,” each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.

Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money “off the books,” including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return.

Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position. She is Simone Ledeen, daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad.

Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region. Post 9/11, Ledeen’s leading neocon father Michael was the source of the expressions “creative destruction” and “total war” as relating to the Muslim Middle East, where “civilian lives cannot be the total war’s first priority … The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people.” He is also a noted Iranophobe, blaming numerous terrorist acts on that country even when such claims were ridiculous. He might also have been involved in the generation in Italy of the fabricated Iraq Niger uranium documents that contributed greatly to the march to war with Saddam.

Apparently Simone’s gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed “Simone Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should want for such a position.” Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants someone who will green light destroying the Persians.

Ledeen, a Brandeis graduate with an MBA from an Italian university, worked in and out of government in various advisory capacities before joining Standard Chartered Bank. One of her more interesting roles was as an advisor to General Michael Flynn in Afghanistan at a time when Flynn was collaborating with her father on a book that eventually came out in 2016 entitled The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The book asserts that there is a global war going on in which “We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua.” The book predictably claims that Iran is at the center of what is an anti-American alliance.

The extent to which Simone has absorbed her father’s views and agrees with them can, of course, be questioned, but her appointment is yet another indication, together with the jobs previously given to John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliot Abrams, that the Trump Administration is intent on pursuing a hardline aggressive policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.

*

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

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

Trump is blaming China for the Covid-19 pandemic to hide his criminal negligence during the crisis. A detailed Timeline of the disaster reveals that China informed the WHO and the World of the Wuhan outbreak  on 31 December  2019 but Trump spent the following 4.5 months minimizing the seriousness of the pandemic and slagging both China and the WHO. With the pandemic raging in America,  American-killing Trump  wants to stop lockdown and re-purpose the US Covid-19 Taskforce.

Notwithstanding the reality that  China is Australia’s biggest trading partner, US lackey Australia has joined Trump’s disingenuous demand for an “international inquiry” (i.e. very likely in practice a US-beholden political witch hunt) into the origin in China of the Covid-19 pandemic. However France, the UK and Germany, while being allies of the US, have politely declined to join this China-baiting  exercise, especially in the middle of a deadly pandemic [1]. Trump has further attacked the World Health Organization (WHO) for alleged failings in the unfolding crisis, and indeed has withdrawn financial support for this vital, life-saving organization. US lackey Australia has, of course, added its voice to US criticism of the WHO but without specifying what the criticisms are.

This disingenuous demand for an “independent inquiry” by scientifically illiterate, anti-science and anti-China spin-merchants Trump and US lackey Australian PM Scott “Scomo” Morrison  ignores the massive reality that China is among world leaders  in scientifically investigating the nature and origins of coronavirus as well as in successfully dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. Fortunately  the World Health Assembly has seen sense and has just now unanimously agreed to examine the origins of the coronavirus and how the WHO and the world responded.

The Timeline of the Covid-19 pandemic (presented and documented in great detail below)  includes the following key steps:

(1) 1 December 2019,  the first reported case in China of what was retrospectively confirmed as Covid-19;

(2) 31  December 2019, notification of WHO and the world by China of the outbreak of a novel pneumonia-like disease in Wuhan;

(3)  early January 2020 , the first RNA sequence was obtained for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2)  (genome Wuhan-Hu-1);

(4) 11 – 12 January 2020, China shared with the world the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus (crucial for PCR-based coronavirus detection);

(5) 20 January 2020 (Day Zero),  China notified the Chinese public and the world via the WHO of human-to-human  transmission of the virus;

(6) 21 January,  Chinese provision of polynucleotide primers and probes crucial for global coronavirus detection; and

(7) 23 January, China commenced stringent lockdown of Wuhan, Hubei Province and thence of China.

In stark contrast, since Day Zero (20 January 2020), Trump has consistently downplayed and obfuscated the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic and continues to baldly and dangerously contradict expert,  crucial and life-saving medical advice from even within his own Administration.  Australia under anti-science, neoliberal and Christian Zionist PM Scott “Scomo” Morrison (aka Scum-o, Scheme-o, Skim-o, Scam-o)  only started lockdown 2 months later (on 20-23 March 2020).

The Chinese ambassador to Australia has no doubt accurately pointed out that ordinary Chinese  might feel aggrieved at Australia joining the mendacious US bullying  of China and decide not to buy Australian food and wine, send their children to Australian universities or visit Australia as tourists. However  this has been condemned by Australia as Chinese bullying of Australia. Influential Chinese newspapers have stated the obvious that Australia is slavishly beholden to the US, with the People’s Daily stating : “The deeply troubled Morrison government is anxious to find an outlet for the domestic public’s anger [re huge bushfires, huge unemployment, Covid-19 crisis]. They are using an old trick to try and blame China. Australia is trying to please the United States and be a bully in the region” [2].

Peaceful trade of Indonesian Makassans  with Indigenous Australians to supply  the  Chinese trepang market  pre-dates the genocidal British invasion of Australia (1788) by a century [3, 4]. However, White Australia has a long history of  Sinophobia from the gold-rush years of the mid-19th century (anti-Chinese riots, exclusion of Chinese, and deportation of Chinese),  through the 3 quarters of a century of the White Australia Policy from 1901-1974 (the first Australian  PM Edmund Barton stating in 1901: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of an Englishman and the Chinaman” [5, 6]), to present anti-China xenophobia linked to Australia’s subservience to the US (banning of Huawei, restrictions on Chinese investment, Australian support for the US  in the South China Sea, and hysterical attacks on Australian China links for asserted reasons of “national security” i.e. subservience to the nuclear terrorist, Australia-threatening, Australia-subverting and serial war criminal US) [8-23]. Indeed while China has invaded 3 adjacent countries or regions in the last 1,000 years, as a UK  or US lackey Australia has invaded 85 countries in 2 centuries (including  China in the Boxer Rebellion, 1900-1901 [13, 23),  and Australia has participated in all post-1950 US Asian wars (atrocities  associated with 40 million Asian deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation, and those in East Asia and South East Asia  linked to US-inspired Sinophobia)   [6].

Australia’s supporting US  attacks on the WHO, and its backing of the US demands for an “international inquiry” into the origins of Covid-19 pandemic can be simply seen as the posturing of a craven, cowardly and mendacious  US lackey. However the  basis of the American campaign  must be considered much more seriously. The US, and the racist, religious right Republicans (R4s)  in particular, have had a long-standing hatred of the UN, UN agencies, international humanitarian conventions, International law, and  international agencies like the WHO  and the International Criminal Court (the authority of which over US citizens they categorically reject). The US with 4.3% of the world’s population consumes about 25% of its utilized resources annually. War is the penultimate in racism and genocidal war the ultimate in racism. A deeply racist US has invaded 72 countries in its bloody 244 year history, 52 of them since the end of WW2 [13]. A self-absorbed, deluded, paradoxically moralistic and dangerously exceptionalist America does not want its national narcissism tied down by global institutions, as  crudely enunciated by idiot Trump in his s commandeering the “America first!” sloganeering of his early 20th century predecessors [24, 25],  and his “Make America great again!” (at the expense of Humanity as a whole).

Notwithstanding Trump’s  fierce “America  first” anti-globalism, deadly sanctions applied to Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea and China,  and his limited military  attacks on Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Venezuela and Pakistan (e.g. see [26]),   Trump has not engaged US forces in large-scale bloody wars like his predecessors Obama (continued Iraq War and Afghan War, destruction of Libya and Syria, coups in Honduras and Ukraine), George W. Bush (destruction of Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan),  Bill Clinton (continued deadly sanctions on Iraq, and bombing of a Sudan pharmaceutical factory that Professor Noam Chomsky estimated would have killed 10,000 Sudanese long-term), and George Bush senior (Gulf War  on Iraq and initiation of massive bombing and deadly sanctions on Iraq that killed 1.7 million Iraqis) [6, 26]. However, as outlined below, idiot  Trump may be flirting with the possibility of a big hot or cold  Coronavirus War against China.

The endlessly moralising fundamentalist  Christian core of America  has meant that the US  always needed an “excuse” for bloody wars [6, 27] e.g. the War of Independence (“no taxation without representation”, this hiding the real reason of enabling unlimited Indian Genocide), war against  Mexico resulting in annexation of  New Mexico and California (“remember the Alamo”),  the Spanish-American War in which the US seized Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and hegemony over Latin America (the mysterious blowing up of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor), entry into WW1 (the German torpedoing of  the arms-laden Lusitania),  entry into WW2 (the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor about which  the US and UK had prior intelligence [7]), Korean War (Korea invading itself), Vietnam War (fictional Gulf of Tonkin naval incident), invasion of Granada (alleged threat to US students), invasion of Panama (drug smuggling that was actually linked to the CIA), invasion of Dominican Republic, Haiti , Cuba etc  (the standard “defending freedom and  democracy”), Iraq War  (fictional Weapons of Mass Destruction), Afghan War (the Taliban actually wanted to hand alleged 9-11 perpetrator Osama bin Laden to a third party rather than to the US), destruction of Libya (“Responsibility to Protect” US-backed Libyan rebels from “genocide”), destruction of Syria  (“defending freedom and  democracy” that in actuality meant the US Alliance supporting jihadi non-state terrorists including ISIS and thus permitting continued US Alliance presence in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi Parliament [28]).

And, of course,  lest we forget the endless War on Terror from West Africa to the Philippines   in which 32 million Muslims have died from violence, 5 million, or from imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed about 3,000 people. Numerous science, engineering, architecture, aviation, military and intelligence experts conclude that the US Government was responsible for 9-11 with some asserting Israeli and Saudi involvement [29, 30].

In this context of US lies leading to mass murder of millions of people, the world is entitled be extremely worried over Trump’s recent assertion blaming China for the coronavirus crisis: “This is worse than Pearl Harbor. This is worse than the World Trade Center. It should have never happened. It could have been stopped at the source. It could have been stopped in China. It should have been stopped right at the source, and it wasn’t” [31]. Trump’s thuggish attack dog Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, echoed Trump’s false blaming of China: “They knew. China could have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. China could have spared the world descent into global economic malaise,. China is still refusing to share the information we need to keep people safe.” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying responded thus: “I think this matter should be handed to scientists and medical professionals, and not politicians who lie for their own domestic political ends. Mr Pompeo repeatedly spoke up but he cannot present any evidence. How can he? Because he doesn’t have any”[31].

Lying, racism and neoliberal greed are at the heart of the Trump threats. Famed anti-racist Jewish American writer I.F. Stone (Isidor Feinstein Stone, an outstanding US journalist, publisher of the newsletter “I. F. Stone’s Weekly” and author of numerous books, including “The Hidden History of the Korean War, 1950-1951”) summarized this pathology thus: “Among all the things I’m going to tell you today about being a journalist, all you have to remember is two words: governments lie” [32,  33]. More specifically, Gore Vidal (a great progressive American writer) excoriated American mendacity thus (2008): “Unlike most Americans who lie all the time, I hate lying. And here I am surrounded with these hills [in Hollywood] full of liars — some very talented… Yeah, [lying] about themselves, about their beliefs, about their histories. Degrees, from universities — this is piled up lies. Americans are not interested in the truth about anything. They assume everybody is lying because they go out and lie everyday about the automobile they are trying to sell you…This is a country of hoax. P.T. Barnum is the god of this republic, which is no longer a republic alas. It is an oligarchy and a rather vicious one” [34]. Thus, for example, the US Center for Public Integrity determined  that George Bush and his  aides made 935 false statements about Iraq between 9-11 and the genocidal invasion of Iraq [35]. Of course all governments lie but  lying  is entrenched in the ostensibly “open” societies of the US and the US-beholden  West [35-38].  Lying occurs through lying by commission and lying by omission. However lying by omission is far, far worse than lying by commission because the latter at least permits public refutation and public debate [38].

I.F. Stone famously analysed the physical facts of the Korean War using major Mainstream media as his source but applied an alternative interpretation of the facts to that of the US Government [39]. In short, rather than being a war about “freedom and democracy” (the US installed a lengthy dictatorship in South Korea) the war could be seen as a ploy to drag China and the USSR (i.e. Russia) into the conflict and thus provide an “excuse” for the then nuclear-dominant US to cripple these countries in a nuclear attack. However in the event, the USSR kept out of the Korean Peninsula, China was very careful about the geographical extent of its involvement, and the US Government ultimately  decided not to follow  the nuclear war path of  warmongering General Douglas Macarthur,  who was eventually relieved of his command.

In the interests of clarity about dangerous and deadly Trump’s dishonest allegations, I have adopted I.F. Stone’s approach and have set out below a carefully Mainstream media-documented Timeline of Chinese, global and American responses to the coronavirus crisis, an “independent inquiry “ indeed that clearly demonstrates China’s timely warning to the world and remarkable success in suppressing the outbreak,  as opposed to the criminal, deadly, American-killing tardiness and obfuscation by the Trump Administration. A notable event early in this Timeline, and pertinent  to timely and ethical reporting,  was medical hero, ophthalmologist Dr Li Wenliang,  sending a private message to a group of fellow doctors on 30 December 2019 warning them about a possible SARS-like respiratory disease outbreak in Wuhan.  He was subsequently detained,  falsely  accused of  “spreading rumours” and made to sign a statement by the Public Security Bureau authorities in Wuhan.  He returned to work but  tragically died in Wuhan on 7 February 2020, aged 33 years,  after becoming infected from a patient with SARS-CoV-2 (for an account in the top medical journal The Lancet see [40]). A notable reference for key events in this Timeline  is WHO’s  “Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)” [41].

The documented Timeline

December 2019

• 1 December 2019. First confirmed case in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, of what was later identified and called  Covid-19  disease caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2)   [41-44]
• 26 December 2019. Sample collected from an infected  man at the Wuhan seafood and wet market that provided the material for the first RNA sequence for the SARS-Cov-2 virus obtained in early January 2020 [41 42].
• Late December 2019. Genetic testing identified the agent for Covid-19  disease as a SARS-like coronavirus that would later spread in a global pandemic [42, 43  43, 44].
• 30 December 2019.  Ophthalmologist Dr Li Wenliang sent a private message to a group of fellow doctors warning them about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Wuhan [40].
• 31 December 2019. Chinese public and the WHO notified of  pneumonia of unknown cause  outbreak cluster in Wuhan. WHO: “According to the authorities, some patients were operating dealers or vendors in the Huanan Seafood market” [41].

January 2020

• Early January. The first RNA sequence was obtained for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2)  (genome Wuhan-Hu-1) [42].
• 4 January. WHO: “WHO announced it would work across its 3 levels – country office, regional office and HQ – to track the situation and share details as they emerged” [41].
• 5 January. WHO: “WHO published its risk assessment and advice and reported on the status of patients and the public health response by national authorities to the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan” [41].
• 10 January. WHO: “Developed with reference to other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS, WHO issued a tool for countries to check their ability to detect and respond to a novel coronavirus” [41].
• 11 – 12 January. WHO: “China shares the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus, which will be very important for other countries as they develop specific diagnostic kits” [41].
• 13 January. WHO: “Officials confirmed a case of the novel coronavirus in Thailand. It was not unexpected that cases of the novel coronavirus would emerge outside of China and reinforces why WHO calls for active monitoring and preparedness in other countries” [41].
• 15 January. A traveller from Wuhan to Seattle became the first confirmed case in the US of what was later identified as of Covid-19  [42].
• 19 January. First confirmed Covid-19 cases outside Wuhan were reported in China (Guangdong and Beijing) [45].
• 20 January 2020 (Day Zero). China notified the Chinese public and the world via the WHO of human-to-human  transmission of the virus [45]. Chinese provision of primers and probes the next day was crucial for global virus detection.
• 21 January (Day Zero +1 day). WHO makes a field visit to  visits Wuhan, and discusses control measures. WHO: “At the end of the visit, the Chinese Government released the primers and probes used in the test kit for the novel coronavirus to help other countries detect it. Chinese experts also shared a range of protocols that will be used in developing international guidelines, including case definitions, clinical management protocols and infection control” [41]. The primers and probes were crucial for  detection of the virus genetic material involving  the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).
• 22-23 January (+2-3). WHO: “On 22-23 January the WHO Director General convened the Emergency Committee to consider the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in China, with cases also reported in the Republic of Korea, Japan, Thailand and Singapore” [41].
• 23 January (+3).  China announced total, economy-impacting and travel lockdown of Wuhan (no travel out of Wuhan) and thence extended this to 15 cities involving 57 million people in total in Hubei province. Quarantine measures were thence rapidly applied to about 20 provinces in China [46]. According to  the WHO the China lockdown  had a big impact on limiting the spread to other countries [46].
• 25 January (+5). WHO: “[WHO] launch of free online introductory course on the novel coronavirus.   Covering topics such as why the novel coronavirus is a global threat to human health and how to effectively engage communities in the response, this free online course gives an introduction to the novel coronavirus. It is available for free and online in English, French, Spanish and Chinese” [41].
• 25 January (+5).  A traveller  from Wuhan to Melbourne became the  first Australian case of being positive for Covid-19 [47].
• 26 January (+6). China announced a wildlife trade ban and further strong nation-wide transport, health and quarantine measures for China,  including closure of universities and schools and extension of the Spring Festival holiday (at this point there were zero positive cases in the UK)  [48, 49].
• 28 January 2020 (+8). WHO: “WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with China’s President Xi Jinping in Beijing about the coronavirus outbreak… The two sides agreed that WHO would send international experts to visit China as soon as possible to work with Chinese counterparts on increasing understanding of the outbreak to guide global response efforts” [41].
• 30 January (+10). WHO declared the coronavirus  outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. WHO: “WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the 2019-nCoV outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, following a second meeting of the Emergency Committee convened under the International Health Regulations” [41].
• 31 January (+11). US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar Azar declared a public health emergency for the new coronavirus [50].
• 31 January (+11).  Foreign nationals returning from China required to spend 14 days  in a third country before being allowed into Australia [51].

February 2020

• 1 February (+12).  Australia banned entry of foreign nationals from China, with Australian travellers from China having to self-quarantine for 14 days [51]
• 2 February (+13). US entry  ban on non-US citizens (other than immediate  of US citizens and permanent residents) who had travelled to China within the previous 2 weeks from entering the US [50].
• 29 February (+40). Trump extended US entry ban to non-citizens from Iran [50].
• 29 February (+40). Non-citizen travellers to Australia from Iran required to have 14 days quarantine in a third country [51].

March 2020

• 1 March (+41). Australian entry ban on non-Australian citizens travelling from Iran [51].
• 5 March (+45). Australian entry  ban on non-Australian citizens travelling  from South Korea)[51].
• 10 March (+50). Stay-at-home lockdown in Italy [52].
• 11 March (+51). The WHO declared a Covid-19 pandemic in recognition of the coronavirus spread to a wider range of countries [1].
• 11 March (+51).  Australian entry ban on non-Australian citizens travelling  from Italy [51].
• 11 March (+51). First evidence that the UK Government was considering, among other options,  a “herd-immunity” scenario i.e. to let the epidemic run its course (at a huge cost in lives) so that most people were infected and might mostly be protected s a consequence [53].
• 11 March (+51). Stay-at-home lockdown in Denmark [52].
• 11 March (+51). El Salvador banned public meetings of 500 or more, and  banned foreigners from entering. National quarantine on the country’s 6.4 million citizens. Residents returning must isolate for 30 days [52].
• 12 March (+51). Norway imposed stay-at-home lockdown.
• 12 March 12 (+52). Quebec Province, Canada,  banned indoor gatherings of more than 250 people. Government  workers, health care professionals and teachers returning from international travel would be required to self-isolate for 14 days. Residents  experiencing flu-like symptoms, or who had recently returned from international travel, required to self-isolate [54].
• 13 March (+53). Kuwait imposed lockdown [52].
• 13 March (53). Poland imposed stay-at-home lockdown , banned foreigners from entering and shut restaurants, bars and casinos.  Returning residents required to quarantine for 14 days [52].
• 14 March (+54). US entry ban applied to non-Americans  from 26 European countries (Ireland and UK exempted) [55].
• 15 March (+55). Kenya imposed dusk-to-dawn curfew and  social distancing, closed schools, bars and restaurants, and excluded non-residents from entering the country [52].
• 15 March (+55). US entry ban extended to non-American travellers from the UK and Ireland [56].  
• 15 March (+55). Quebec, Canada, banned  various recreational and entertainment venues, including bars, cinemas, gyms, pools, and ski hills. Restaurants were also ordered to reduce their capacity by half and enforce physical distancing [54].
• 15 March (+55). US President Trump recommended a voluntary curb on out-of-home activity: “We’d much rather be ahead of the curve than behind it. Therefore, my administration is recommending that all Americans, including the young and healthy, work to engage in schooling from home when possible, avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people, avoid discretionary travel and avoid eating and drinking at bars, restaurants and public food courts” [57].
• 16 March (+56). Gatherings of 500 or more banned in Australia, quarantine rules broadened, but the Federal  Government recommended that schools remain open [51, 58].
• 16 March (+56). Morocco banned all international flights and closed schools, mosques and restaurants [52].
• 16 March (+56). France closed non-essential businesses, and imposed stay-at-home lockdown, banning any public gatherings or walks outside (except for food) [52].
• 16 March (+56). Czech Republic banned foreign travel and closed restaurants and most shops. Grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, post offices, petrol stations  and takeaway restaurants remained open, but people were to stay at home after work [52].
• 16 March (+56). Malaysia banned all travel in and out of the country. All non-essential businesses were closed down. Markets, banking, utilities, broadcasting and health services remained open,
• 16 March (+56). Germany shut shops, churches, sporting facilities, clubs and bars in 16 states [52].
• 16 March (+56). EU banned non-essential travel into the region [52].
• 16 March (+56). Eminent epidemiologist  Professor Neil Ferguson and his colleagues at Imperial College, London,  released an important  research paper entitled “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and health care demand” [3] recommending  vigorous suppression of  the COVID-19 epidemic via a “Suppression” scenario involving hygiene and social distancing, case detection and isolation, household quarantine, and the closing of schools and universities.  This “Suppression” strategy was modelled to result in much fewer  Covid-19-related UK deaths over 2 years  (circa 40,000) as compared to a less stringent “Mitigation” strategy not involving  school and university closure  (210,000 deaths) or Inaction (510,000 deaths): “We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease. We find that school and university closure is a more effective strategy to support epidemic suppression than mitigation; when combined with population-wide social distancing, the effect of school closure is to further amplify the breaking of social contacts between households, and thus supress transmission. However, school closure is predicted to be insufficient to mitigate (never mind supress) an epidemic in isolation; this contrasts with the situation in seasonal influenza epidemics, where children are the key drivers of transmission due to adults having higher immunity levels… Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US health care systems being exceeded many times over… even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US” ([59] ; see also [60-62]).
• 17 March (+57).  All international arrivals to Australia (via planes and ships) required to self-isolate for 14 days (exemptions for crew or those transitioning through Australia to the Pacific Islands) [58].
• 17 March (+57). Ontario declared a state of emergency with closure of indoor recreational programs, public libraries, theatres, cinemas, private schools (Ontario public schools closed since 14 March), and day care centres,  with the prohibition of all public gatherings of more than 50 people (later reduced to 5 people on March 28). Bars and restaurants however were allowed to remain open, but only for takeout [63].
• 17 March (+57). UK universities suspended face-to-face teaching but the UK Government ordered schools to remain open while recommending curbing of social contact [65].
• 17 March (+57). Most Australian universities had shifted to on-line delivery [66].
• 17 March (+57).  Canadian universities close and shift  on-line   [67].
• 17 March (+57). Belgium imposed stay-at-home lockdown [52].
• 18 March (+58). UK schools to be closed indefinitely and exams cancelled [68-70].
• 18 March (+58). Australian overseas travel advice – do not travel. Domestic travel was still allowed. Indoor gatherings of more than 100 people were now banned. Schools could remain open, but assemblies were cancelled. Limits on visitors to aged care homes [51].
• 18 March (+58). Australia declared a human biosecurity emergency and banned  international cruise ships from entering Australian ports before 15 April 2020 [51].
• 19 March (+59). Stay-at-home directive in California, the first US state  to do so [64].
• 19 March (+59). In  Australia, New South Wales  health officials gave the all-clear for Australian Border Force to allow the 2,700 passengers aboard the cruise ship “Ruby Princess” to disembark in Sydney (within five weeks at least 662 passengers will have tested positive to Covid-19 and 21 will have died out of Australia’s total of about 80) [51].
• 19 March (+59). Apartheid Israel imposed partial lock-down measures with citizens required to stay at home except for essentials (noting that a massive, military-enforced lock-down had applied to the Gaza Concentration Camp since 2007 via  the Egyptian and Apartheid Israeli blockade. Unemployment before the Covid-19 pandemic  was 45% in the Gaza Concentration Camp and 15% in the West Bank [71-76]).
• 20 March (+60). Bavaria was the first German state to impose full lockdown [52].
• 20 March (+60). New Zealand banned entry of most non-residents and non-citizens [51].
• 20 March (+60).  Australia closed its borders to all non-residents and non-Australian citizens. A social distancing rule of 4 square metres (43 square feet) per person in any enclosed space was agreed to be implemented through State and Territory laws [51].
• 20 March (+60). Australian ban on entry of all non-residents,  with Australian citizens and residents having to undergo a 14 day quarantine [51].
• 21 March (+61).  Australia-wide introduction of strong and compulsory social distancing rules (no less than 1.5 metres outside and no less than 4 square metres per person inside, closure of most non-essential businesses) that severely impacted the economy. The Australian Government refused to support closure of schools (indeed it later  threatened  dire financial penalties for Federally-subsidized private schools if they did not  re- open) [51].
• 21 March (+61). Argentina went into compulsory, police-monitored and preventative lockdown with people only able to leave their homes for essential services [52].
• 21 March (+61). Jordan imposed lockdown and nightly curfew [52].
• 22 March (+62). Stay-at-home lockdown order for New York [64].
• 22 March (+62). Australia closed non-essential businesses in the first of increasingly severe measures.  The State governments of New South Wales and Victoria imposed a mandatory closure of non-essential services, and the Governments of Western Australia and South Australia imposed border closures [51, 52].
• 23 March (+63). In Australia closure of  registered and licensed clubs, licensed premises in hotels and bars, entertainment venues, including cinemas, casinos and nightclubs and places of worship. Cafes and restaurants were to remain open, but only for takeaway. Funerals held inside  had  to follow the 4 square metre rule. The Australian Government declared  schools could  remain open but parents could keep children at home if they wished [51].  
• 23 March (+63). UK announced strict stay-at-home lockdown measures at a time when there were  6,650 cases and 335 deaths. UK lockdown was to be enforced by police and involve stay-at-home restrictions prohibiting leaving home except for buying necessities, exercise, medical reasons or work (if it cannot be performed at home) [52, 70].
• 23 March (+63). In Australia all pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants, excluding takeaway, to be closed. Gyms, indoor sporting venues, cinemas, casinos, nightclubs and entertainment venues also closed. Schools remained open, but were encouraged to provide access to online education [51].
• 23 March (+63). New York state-wide stay-at-home order [64] .
• 24 March (+64). In Australia, Victoria and the ACT closed schools. A ban on house inspections, real estate auctions, eating in shopping centre food courts, amusement parks, play centres, beauty parlours, and tattoo parlours. Gatherings  restricted to groups of 10 when outdoors, including funerals. Weddings were limited to five people . Australians had to stay home unless going out for an essential purpose (food, exercise, medical. Restrictions on entering Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory with residents  permitted to enter having to self-isolate for 14-days. Ban on international travel ban. All non-urgent elective surgery was suspended to free up public and private hospitals  for the emergency.
• 24 March (+64). India emplaced stay-at-home lockdown [52].
• 24 March (+64). Colombia emplaced stay-at-home lockdown. People over 70 told t stay at home until May [52].
• 24 March (+64). In New Zealand, a four week lockdown was announced [51].
• 24 March (+64), All non-essential businesses were closed in Ontario, Canada [63].
• 25 March (+65). Entry to Queensland restricted with a 14 day self-isolation.
• 25 March (+65). Australia banned  Australian citizens and permanent residents from leaving Australian territory by air or sea as a passenger [51].
• 25 March (+65). Saudi Arabia locked down Riyadh, Mecca and Medina. International flights banned and restaurants, mosques and schools closed [52].
• 26 March (+66). Stay-at-home lockdown in New Zealand [51].
• 26 March (+66). Policed stay-at-home lockdown in South Africa [52].
• 26 March (+66). UAE imposed an overnight curfew with food and medical exceptions [52].
• 27 March (+67). Ireland imposed stay-at-home lockdown [52].
• 28 March (+68). Hungary imposed lockdown [52] and on  30 March Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was give the power to rule by decree and elections were suspended [52].
• 29 March (+69). All returning Australian international travellers had to complete their mandatory 14-day quarantine in a hotel. A ban on non-essential travel into remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory came into effect. Gatherings were now limited to two people, excluding people who live together. Some states banned people from interacting unless they are exercising together or acting as a carer. People over the age of 70 were advised to effectively self-isolate, as were people with chronic disease or comorbidities over the age of 60, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over the age of 50. The National Cabinet (PM plus 6 Premiers and2  Chief Ministers) announced a moratorium on evictions from commercial or residential tenancies for six months [51].
• 30 March (+70). The Australian Government announced a A$130 billion wage subsidy package called JobKeeper. Eligible businesses would receive A$1,500 per employee per fortnight, to be paid in full directly to the employee, if they can show a significant loss in revenue. The economic  stimulus packages totalled  A$320 billion, or 16.4% of GDP [51].
• 30 March (+70).  Ontario-wide closure of all outdoor recreational amenities [63].
• 30 March (+70), Moscow residents were ordered to stay at home except for essentials such as food and pharmacy products. 27other regions in Russia followed Moscow’s lead [52].

April 2020

• 3 April (+74). Thailand introduced a 10pm to 4am curfew with heavy penalties and the only exceptions being for transport of goods or for medical care [52].
• 4 April (+75). Dubai lockdown [52].
• 5 April 2020 (+75). Police in New South Wales announced a criminal investigation into the “Ruby Princess” cruise ship debacle, which is now the single largest source of coronavirus infections in Australia. Some 662 of the 5,687 coronavirus cases reported in Australia as of 5 April 2020 were from that particular cruise ship, as were 11 of the total of 34 deaths [51].
• 7 April (+78). Singapore closed all schools and non-essential services as it suffered a big rise in cases, notably in crowded migrant worker hostels [52, 77].
• 14 April (+85). Trump: “Today I am instructing my administration to halt funding of the World Health Organization while a review is conducted to assess [its] role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” [78].
• 25 April (+96). Australia legislated a CovidSafe contact tracing app [51].
• 27 April (+98). In Australia the ban on many types of non-urgent elective surgery was lifted [51].
• 28 April (+99). In Australia,  New South Wales  Premier Gladys Berejiklian, Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan and Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced  a first relaxation of social distancing laws but the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews kept strict lockdown [51].

May 2020

• 1 May (+102). The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) started the day with no active cases of Covid-19, with 103 people recovered and three dead. Lockdown restrictions were loosened in New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory. PM Morrison: “We need to restart our economy, we need to restart our society. We can’t keep Australia under the doona, we need to move ahead”  [58].
• First week of May (+102-108). UK Guardian reports (7 May 2020): “Three of Brazil’s 27 states this week announced the country’s first official lockdown measures to try to slow the spread of the disease” – deadly tardiness under Trumpist President Bolsonaro who has dismissed the seriousness of Covid-19 and opposes lockdown with catastrophic consequences in Brazil [79].
• In late April and in May many countries started easing lockdown measures, carefully and responsibly so in brilliantly performing Australia, New Zealand, and East Asian countries, but irresponsibly so in the US, UK and Western Europe (including countries with huge and massively increasing death tolls from Covid-19).  Despite continuing mass mortality in the US and UK, the UK Government announced a weakening of lockdown (shifting from “stay at home “ to “stay alert”), and in the US Trump  gave support to  crazies discarding social distancing to demonstrate for an end to state-imposed lockdown in the US. Other countries started loosening lockdown but with a cautious eye on a possible deadly “second wave”.
• 14 May (+115).  As Trump continued to demand an end to lockdown in the middle of a worsening Covid-19 carnage in America, Dr Rick Bright (the former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the agency in charge of pandemic response, who was sacked in April by idiot Trump), testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s health subcommittee, exposing gross deficiencies in the Trump Administration’s non-handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in 4 areas: (1) gross lack of plans, (2), ignoring of massive PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) and other shortages, (3), attempts to bypass regulatory procedures over a Trump-popularized but not proven hydrochloroquine cure, and  (4) irresponsibly hasty pronouncements about  potential vaccines [80].
• Anti-science Trump’s variously false, bombastic, nasty  and dangerous assertions about the Covid-19 pandemic are too numerous to reproduce here – for some compilations see [78, 81-83]. Some of the more shocking are: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away” (10 February) [78]; “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA (24 February) [78]; “Anybody that wants a test can get a test” (6 March) [78]; “Easter is a very special day for me. And I see it sort of in that timeline that I’m thinking about. And I say, wouldn’t it be great to have all of the churches full?” (24 March) [78];  “Nobody would ever believe a thing like that’s possible” (25 March) [78]; “Liberate Michigan [from lockdown] ” (17 April) [78]; “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it’d be interesting to check that [Pointing to his head] I’m not a doctor. But I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what” (24 April) [83].

Some conclusions from the Timeline and the Covid-19 pandemic responses

(1) Stay-at-home lockdown was imposed in China 3 days after human-to-human transmission was globally notified, but about 60 days later in most other countries.

From the first confirmed case  (1 December 2019) to notification of the WHO of a pneumonia-like disease deriving the Wuhan fish and live market on 31 December 2019, was a mere 4 weeks. This was followed rapidly in early January 2020 by final determination of the first RNA sequence for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2)  (genome Wuhan-Hu-1). On 20 January 2020 (Day Zero) China notified the Chinese public and the World via the WHO of human-to-human  transmission of the virus. Chinese provision of primers and probes the next day was crucial for global virus detection. On 23 January China commenced stringent lockdown in Wuhan, Hubei Province and thence all of China.

Inspection of the Timeline reveals that in contrast it took most countries about 2 months after Day Zero (i.e. by about mid-March 2020) before they introduced stay-at-home lockdown measures, an extraordinary  tardiness that reflected money (and especially One Percenter Big Money) winning in the “livelihood” versus “lives” competition during the Covid-19 pandemic.  That deadly tardiness and exponential increase in infections outside China, and most disastrously in the US, has meant that global and US deaths now (20 May 2020) total 324,966 and 93,533, respectively, as compared to 4,634 in China,  and the global number of revealed cases  and the number of deaths are still remorselessly increasing in a quasi-linear fashion as a function of  time [84].

(2) Deadly anti-Covid-19 ineffectiveness  of North America and Western Europe versus  extremely effective action  by East Asia, Australia and New Zealand

Image on the right: File photo from the Times of India

The disingenuous and dishonest calls by the anti-science Trump Administration and the anti-science Australian Coalition Government for an “international inquiry “ into the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic implies that there is a present absence of crucial information. However this is belied by the reality that the US heads the Anglosphere  5-eyes Intelligence-sharing Club (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that shares vital intelligence for the safety and security of these nations and the “Free World”. Nevertheless  there is surely nothing less “vital” than intelligence on how to have prevented  nearly 135,000 Anglosphere lives to date from Covid-19,  and perhaps as many as 270,000 Anglosphere lives by the time the Covid-19 pandemic is over. The Covid-19 mortality statistics for the 5-Eyes Club are utterly damning of the fervently neoliberal, One Percenter-dominated US, UK and Canadian administrations that presided over Covid-19 disasters, whereas Australia and New Zealand are among the best countries in the Anglosphere world for containing  the pandemic [84].

Thus Australia (population 25.5 million or 25.5M) , like New Zealand (Aotearoa; population 4.8 M), has been remarkably successful in suppressing the Covid-19 outbreak. As of 20 May 2020,  there were 7,079 detected cases and 100 deaths (Australia), 1,503 detected cases and 21 deaths (New Zealand), 79,112 detected cases and 5,912 deaths (Canada, population 37.7 million i.e. 37.7 M), 248,818 detected cases and 35,341 deaths (the UK, population 67.8M),    and 1,570,583 detected cases and 93,533 deaths (the US, population 330.8 M), and 4,989,095 detected cases and 324,966 deaths (the World, population 7,600 M) [84].

For comparative purposes these disparities are usefully expressed on a “per capita Covid-19 deaths”  basis. Thus  Covid-19 deaths  per million (M) of population are as follows for the 5 Eyes nations: 4/M (New Zealand), 4/M (Australia), 157/M (Canada), 283/M (US), 521/M (UK) and 42.8/M (the World).

The shockingly high “Covid-19 deaths/M” values for the rich and technological sophisticated countries of Canada, UK and the  US (157-521) can be compared to high values in the range 29-786 (as of 20 May) in similarly  rich and technological sophisticated European  countries, to whit 29 (Iceland), 43 (Norway),  70 (Austria), 95 (Denmark), 98 (Germany), 122 (Portugal), 174 (Luxembourg), 219 (Switzerland), 317 (Ireland), 334 (Netherlands), 371 (Sweden), 429 (France), 532 (Italy), 594 (Spain), and 786 (Belgium).

These high levels of “Covid-19 deaths/M” in rich and technologically sophisticated Western European countries are in stark contrast to very low levels (0.3 – 6 ) in similarly prosperous and technologically  advanced countries in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) and in East Asia, to whit 0.3 (Taiwan),  0.5 (Hong Kong),  3 (China),   4 (New Zealand), 4 (Australia), 4 (Singapore),  5 (South Korea) and 6 (Japan).

A very surprising thing is that all the 5 Eyes nations and Western European countries took action with strong travel bans (to stop incoming virus) and strong lockdown (to stop community infection) at roughly the same time over a few weeks in March, about 60 days after such action by China. However it is clear that something was seriously wrong in Canada, the UK, the US and Western Europe that was not present in East Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Evidently through testing,  contact tracing and lockdown measures East Asian and Australasian   Governments were able to contain most incoming infection cases (and thence their contacts) whereas  neoliberal greed-driven business-as-usual  by governments  in North America and Western Europe allowed dangerously large  populations of  infection cases to build up through uncontrolled car, bus, train, ship and air travel, with this compounded by exponential growth of detected and hidden infection cases.

(3) Covid-19 deaths/population ratio correlates with neoliberal greed in the Anglosphere 5- Eyes nations

The differential Covid-19 deaths/population outcomes have no doubt been affected by geographic and cultural factors. Thus Australia and New Zealand (good outcomes) are islands but so is the UK (bad outcome). The East Asians countries (good outcomes) have a Confucian culture whereas Australia and New Zealand  (good outcomes) do not. The Anglosphere  5-Eyes countries have a common language, a common British heritage, similar economic, political and judicial institutions and very similar cultures. Accordingly  it is useful to compare the 5 Eyes countries in order to assess the impact of neoliberal greed on outcomes. The “Covid-19 deaths per million of population” ratio (deaths/M) provides a good relative measure of lack of  intra-national altruism that correlates well with the degree of neoliberal greed in the 5 Eyes nations (for detailed discussion see [85]).

Thus New Zealand (4/M)  has a marvellously pro-Humanity Labor PM, Jacinda Ardern, who heads a Center-Left coalition government; Australia (4/M)  is governed by a Right-wing Coalition but is only a few parliamentary seats away from having a decent Labor Government (with many of the pandemic decisions being made collectively by an unprecedented  ad hoc National Cabinet  composed of the PM plus 8 State and Territory Premiers or Chief Ministers, 4/8 being Labor); Canada (157/M) is ruled by an ostensibly progressive  but actually pro-fossil fuels, pro-US, pro-Apartheid Israel, pro-Apartheid and Centre-Right Trudeau Liberal minority government (the Extreme Right Conservatives are out of power and the genuinely decent and humane National Democratic Party and Greens have only 24 and 3 seats, respectively in the 333-seat parliament); the US (283/M) is alternately ruled by a tag team of the Right-wing Democrats and the Extreme Right-wing Republicans who are presently in power under populist neo-fascist Trump (however the Bernie Sanders phenomenon suggested burgeoning national social decency); and the UK (521/M) is ruled by the pro-war, pro-US, pro-Apartheid Israel, pro-Apartheid  and Right to  Extreme Right Conservatives (298 out of 650 seats) with Right- Center-Left Labor having only 243 seats after a virulent campaign of vilification by the traitorous and genocidally racist  Zionists  and  a similarly foul Right-wing gutter press.

So much for  the Anglosphere  5-Eyes Intelligence-sharing Club (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that shares vital intelligence on major threats e.g. from climate change and terrorism (with the pro-Apartheid US thence sharing this intelligence with Apartheid Israel). There is surely nothing less “vital” than intelligence on how to have saved about 135,000 Anglosphere lives to date,  and perhaps as many as 270,000 Anglosphere lives by the time the Covid-19 pandemic is over.

Indeed if one conservatively assumes that 4 Covid-19 deaths per million of population (the figure for New Zealand and Australia)  is the best that Canada, the US and the UK as sophisticated Anglosphere countries could have achieved, and that brilliant 5-Eyes intelligence would have informed them about exactly what to do, then one can estimate how many lives Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson could have saved if they had adopted that course of action.   On this basis,  Justin Trudeau would have saved 37.7 million  x [(157 – 4) per million] = 5,768 lives;  Donald Trump would have saved  330.8 million x [(283-4) per million] = 92,293 lives;  and Boris Johnson would have saved 67.8 million x [521-4) per million] = 35, 053 lives.

Canadian, British and American lives matter, and Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for depraved indifference and the passive mass murder of their citizens.

(4) Responsibility for Covid-19 deaths that could and should have been avoided if “lives” were more important than  “livelihoods”

The Coivd-19 deaths/M value for the rich and neoliberal North American and Western European countries  ranges from 29 (Iceland) to 786 (Belgium). However if we assume that the best that could have achieved was the extraordinarily 0.3 low Covid-19 deaths/M  (the brilliant figure for democracy Taiwan) then the Covid-19 deaths that could and should have been avoided would have been 99.0% of the observed deaths (for Iceland) and 99.96% (for Belgium).

Accordingly, for this cohort of rich, neoliberal countries the actual Covid-19-deaths that could and should have been avoided approximate to the actual Covid-19-deaths, to whit (as of 20 May 2020):  10 (Iceland), 109 (Luxembourg), 233 (Norway), 551 (Denmark), 632 (Austria), 1,247 (Portugal)1,561 (Ireland), 1,891 (Switzerland), 3,743 (Sweden), 5,715 (Netherlands), 5,909 (Canada), 8,193 (Germany), 9,108 (Belgium), 27,778  (Spain), 28,022 (France), 32,169 (Italy), and 35,341 (UK), and 93,338 (US)[84].

Iceland can perhaps be forgiven for its 10 avoidable Covid-19 deaths, but the same latitude cannot be extended to the rest, and their leaders should be held responsible not just at the ballot box but also before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for putting financial interests (and especially overwhelmingly politically dominant One Percenter interests) before the lives of their citizens. The extreme cases are the depraved indifference to its own people of the Trump Administration and the  UK Tory Government that lost valuable time toying with the idea of letting things slide in the hope of developing “herd immunity” [86].

(5) Covid-19 deaths, intra-national altruism,  inter-national altruism,  the Developing World and remarkable Kerala

The global Covid-19 death toll as at 20 May 2020 totals 324,966 for a Covid-19/M of population value of 324,966/7,600 = 42.8/M that is  143 times greater than that for Taiwan (0.3), 86 times greater than for Hong Kong, 14 times higher than that for China (3) and 10 times higher than that  for New Zealand, Australia and Singapore (4) [84]. However the global  Covid-19/M value of 42.8 is 3.7 times lower than that for Canada (157), 6.6 times lower than that for the US (283) and 12.2 times lower than that for the UK (521).

This data points to a huge range of intra-national altruism and in particular practical intra-national altruism, but the Gold Star should go to the progressive Indian province  of Kerala. Thus the so far reported 4 Covid-19 deaths in Kerala, India [87], yields a Covid-19/M value of 4/36 million = 0.1/M, an astonishing outcome for a populous state with modest means but with a practically altruistic, science-informed, socialist government and high literacy (the latter enabling mass communication of vital preventative information). In stark contrast,  the maltreatment by the Modi Indian Federal Government of  migrant workers and other impoverished workers rendered unemployed in the Covid-19 crisis is utterly appalling.

Best-case Covid-19 Suppression scenarios for the rich UK and rich Australia  predict “annual Covid-19-related deaths as a percentage of population” of  about 0.03% pa. In contrast, “annual avoidable deaths from deprivation as a percentage of population” is already a shocking 0.30% pa for the Developing World (minus China), 0.60% pa for Indigenous Australians, and variously about 0.1% pa – 0.4% pa for various Developing Countries  that have been popular holiday destinations for relatively rich British and Australian tourists who could have a wonderful time while ignoring these huge disparities  [88].  In similar vein, the International Monetary Fund says the coronavirus pandemic will cost the world’s economies $9 trillion over the next two years. This translates  to  a $4,500 billion per year cost (mainly in rich countries)  to deal with a Covid-19 crisis involving, perhaps,  about 500,000 deaths in the first year. In contrast, the World spends a mere $3 billion each year to deal with malaria that kills 400,000 people annually [89, 90]. This differential expenditure  is indicative of an extraordinary lack of altruism of the global North towards the Western-perceived “unpeople” of the global South.

While the global North has a moral obligation to the people of the global South (international altruism), global North countries violently occupying countries of the global South have a legal obligation to preserve the well-being and lives of their conquered Subjects under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Thus Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War state unequivocally that an Occupier must provide its conquered Subjects with life-sustaining food and medical requisites “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”. However in relation to huge Subject avoidable deaths from deprivation, and ventilator non-provision in  the context of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic,  the US and Australia grossly violate the  Geneva Convention in Occupied Afghanistan, and Apartheid Israel grossly violates this in Occupied Palestine. Thus “annual avoidable deaths from deprivation” total zero (0) for the rich US and rich Australia, but total  84,256 pa (in Occupied Afghanistan), 4,200 pa (in Occupied Palestine) and 4,200 pa (for sorely neglected Indigenous Australians). In the most serious progression of the Covid-19 disease,  the damage to lung tissue is so great that patients need to be intubated and mechanically  ventilated by expensive ventilator machines. Ventilators  per million (/M) people  are 504/M (Occupier US), 173/M (Occupier Australia) and 407/M (Occupier Apartheid Israel) versus 8/M (Occupied Afghanistan), 38/M (Occupied Palestine) and 13/M (the Gaza Concentration Camp) [91].

(6) Listening to the suffering masses and science-based humanitarian advice for a post-Covid-19 Green New Deal and a decent, sustainable World

Climate change denier and populist Donald Trump’s deadly libertarian  refusal to take expert scientific advice on the worsening Climate Emergency and  to act responsibly  in the Covid-19 crisis has already cost the lives of over 92,000 Americans, carnage equivalent to that of thirty (30) 9-11s. In contrast, while Australia’s pro-coal and pro-gas PM Scott “Scomo” Morrison likewise ignores expert scientists over the worsening Climate Crisis, he has adopted the no-brainer of accepting expert medical advice over the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result the Covid-19 deaths /M value is an excellent 4 for Australia but an awful 283 for Trump America [84].

Indeed  rich Australia could have done even better and achieved the  Covid-19 deaths /M values of 0.1 (Kerala) [87], 0.3 (Taiwan), 0.5 (Hong Kong) or even 3 (China) [86]. Thus Australia could have taken strong action 60 days earlier (when China did) and stopped any infection getting into Australia. Expert opinions differ over school closure as an anti-Covid-19  measure, and PM Morrison and his medical advisers strongly supported schools remaining  open [93].   However  expert German virologists concluded a big study thus: “Based on these results, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools and kindergartens in the present situation. Children may be as infectious as adults” [94, 95]. Likewise,  leading epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson and 30 colleagues concluded in a very  important paper that  “Combining all four interventions (social distancing of the entire population, case isolation, household quarantine and school and university closure)is predicted to have the largest impact, short of a complete lockdown which additionally prevents people going to work… We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease. We find that school and university closure is a more effective strategy to support epidemic suppression than mitigation; when combined with population-wide social distancing, the effect of school closure is to further amplify the breaking of social contacts between households, and thus supress transmission” [59]. As Australia relaxes lockdown and children return to school, time will tell.

Comprehensive social distancing and economic lockdown measures required to suppress Covid-19 have been associated with rapid socialism-style adoption of a needs-based economy (essential services), a decrease in carbon fuel burning and  deadly air pollution, a widened social safety net, and on-line learning from closed schools and universities. Post-Covid-19 one envisages a socialist needs-based economy, zero emissions, a  universal basic income (UBI), a Green New Deal (GND) and  free university education [92].

Notwithstanding offensively smearing  and non-specific criticism of China by the US and US lackey Australia, to its credit China has exhibited international altruism by providing the WHO and the World with timely information and critical coronavirus genome sequence information (see the Timeline above), sending  1,000 ventilators to help Covid-19-ravaged New York, and announcing $2 billion to help the World fight the pandemic, this including sending  doctors and medical supplies to countries in the Developing World [97] (in contrast neoliberal Trump has stopped funding the WHO and has threatened withdraw the US from the WHO). President Xi Jinping of China: “In China, after making painstaking efforts and sacrifice, we have turned the tide on the virus and protected lives. We have done everything in our power to support and assist countries in need” [97].

The World Health Assembly has just unanimously approved an expertly WHO-advised investigation into the origins of the coronavirus and how the WHO and the World responded to the Covid-19 pandemic. The WHO members  unanimously promised a “comprehensive evaluation [of WHO]” and to”[review] experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to Covid-19” [98].  The pathetic and dishonest claim by the US lackey  Australian  Government that this was a victory for its offensive, Trump-inspired campaign to investigate  China and the WHO (world leaders in the fight against the coronavirus) was dismissed by the Chinese Ambassador to Australia as “a joke” [99].

Because the coronavirus can  infect anyone , from princes to paupers, the  Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a global blooming of intra-national altruism,  the notion “we are all in this together” ,  and concerted action to save lives – a course of emergency action that in a word is “socialism” but which has not been opposed by the One Percenters,  who in normal circumstances ruthlessly dominate the Mainstream media and the global economy with their remorselessly greedy,  inequitable  and deadly agenda. The big question is whether  this altruism will continue unabated in the post-Covid-19 era or whether the neoliberal One Percenters will restore control with business-as-usual, unsustainable  economic growth,  merciless  austerity and burgeoning inequality. One hopes that the political Establishments of Australia, the US and like rich countries that are committed to greedy and unsustainable  neoliberalism will be too scared by the huge  masses of unemployed to oppose this golden opportunity for a post-Covid-19 Green New Deal (GND) involving a sustainable, more altruistic and more equitable World.

Acclaimed Indian writer and humanitarian activist, Arundhati Roy (from Kerala),  has eloquently  urged a post-Covid-19 transformation (4 April 2020): “Whatever it is, coronavirus has made the mighty kneel and brought the world to a halt like nothing else could… Nothing could be worse than a return to normality. Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it” [100].

*

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 Countercurrents.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003).

Notes

[1]. Kirsty Needham and  Stephanie Nebehay, “Australia seeks probe into coronavirus spread, France and UK say now not the time”, Reuters, 22 April 2020: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia/australia-seeks-probe-into-coronavirus-spread-france-and-uk-say-now-not-the-time-idUSKCN22401K

[2]. Michael Smith, “Beijing attacks PM’s handling of virus, bushfires” ”, Australian Financial Review, 28 April 2020: https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-attacks-pm-s-handling-of-virus-bushfires-20200428-p54nx2 .

[3]. Marcia Langton and Robyn Sloggett, “Trepang – China and the story of the Makassan-Aboriginal trade – Examining  historical accounts as research  tools for cultural materials conservation”, Research Gate, December 2014: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276155713_Trepang_China_and_the_story_of_Macassan-_Aboriginal_Trade_-_Examining_historical_accounts_as_research_tools_for_cultural_materials_conservation

[4]. Regina Ganter, “China and the beginning of Australian history” , The Great Circle, volume 24, (1), pages 3-19: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59a6/6f542a826b005532756c574a5638acfb7f1c.pdf

[5]. Humphrey McQueen, “A New Britannia”, Penguin, 1971.

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes  an avoidable mortality-related history of every country from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal  on the web  : http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/  .

[7]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998, 2008 that  is now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/  .

[8]. [16]. Gideon Polya, “Advance Australia Fair” Hides Australian Racism, Theft, Genocide, Ecocide, Speciescide & Terracide”, Countercurrents, 1 July 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/advance-australia-fair-hides-australian-racism-theft-genocide-ecocide-speciescide-terracide .

[9].  Gideon Polya, “China’s Tibet Health Success Versus Passive Mass Murder Of Afghan Women & Children By US Alliance”, Global Research, 7 January 2018: https://www.globalresearch.ca/chinas-tibet-health-success-versus-passive-mass-murder-of-afghan-women-and-children-by-us-alliance/5625151 .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “Australian Sinophobia & China-bashing from colonial persecution & White Australia to Trump America’s Asian deputy sheriff”, Countercurents, 26 January 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/01/australian-sinophobia-china-bashing-colonial-persecution-white-australia-trump-americas-asia-deputy-sheriff .

[11]. Gideon Polya, “ Review: “The Cambridge History Of Australia” Ignores  Australian Involvement In 30 Genocides “, Countercurrents, 14 October, 2013: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya141013.htm .

[12]. Brian Toohey, “Secret. The making of Australia’s security state”, Melbourne University Press, 2019.

[13]. “Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

[14]. Malcom Fraser, “Slavish devotion to the US a foreign policy folly for Australia”, Sydney Morning Herald,  14 December 2010: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/slavish-devotion-to-the-us-a-foreign-policy-folly-for-australia-20101213-18vec.html .

[15]. “Exposing Australia”: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingaustralia/home .

[16]. David Wroe and Dana McCauley, “Sack “nutter” spy chiefs to fix relations with Beijing, Paul Keating urges”, Sydney Morning Herald,  5 May 2019: https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/sack-nutter-spy-chiefs-to-fix-relations-with-beijing-paul-keating-urges-20190505-p51k9p.html .

[17]. Gideon Polya, “US lackey Australia attacks free speech of Senator Dastyari, Muslims, Chinese , journalists & truth-tellers”,  Countercurrents, 10 December 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/12/us-lackey-australia-attacks-free-speech-of-senator-dastyari-muslims-chinese-journalists-truth-tellers .

[18]. Christopher Knaus, “Paul Keating lambasts Australian security agencies and “pious” media for anti-China rhetoric”, Guardian, 18 November 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/18/paul-keating-lambasts-australias-security-agencies-and-pious-media-for-anti-china-rhetoric .

[19]. Philipp Ivanov , “Living with the big guy in the crowd, China”, Sydney Morning Herald,  22 November 2019: https://www.smh.com.au/national/living-with-the-big-guy-in-the-crowd-china-20191121-p53cp5.html .

[20]. Clive Hamilton, “Silent invasion. China’s Influence in Australia”, Hardie Grant, 2018.

[21]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “Silent invasion. China’s Influence in Australia” – feeding Australian Sinophobia”, Countercurrents, 6 October 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/10/review-silent-invasion-chinas-influence-in-australia-by-clive-hamilton-feeding-australian-sinophobia .

[22]. Gideon Polya, “Subversion: Sinophobic Australia slams China, ignores US, UK & Zionists”, Countercurrents, 17 December 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/12/subversion-sinophobic-australia-slams-china-ignores-us-uk-zionists .

[23]. Gideon Polya, “As UK Lackeys Or US Lackeys Australians Have Invaded 85 Countries (British 193, French 80, US 70)”, Countercurrents, 9 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya090215.htm ;

[24]. “America first (policy)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)#History_under_President_Trump .

[25]. Caitlin Oprysko and Anita Kumar, “Trump pushes aggressive ”America first” message to world leaders”,  Politico, 24 September 2019: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/trump-america-first-unga-1509356 .

[26]. William Blum, “Rogue state”, Common Courage Press, Maine, 2000.

[27]. Nom Chomsky, “September 11”, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001.

[28]. Gideon Polya, “US, UK,  Australia, Canada & Germany Reject Iraqi Parliament’s Quit Iraq Demand”, Countercurrents, 16 January 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/01/us-uk-australia-canada-germany-reject-iraqi-parliaments-quit-iraq-demand .

[29]. Gideon Polya, “Paris atrocity context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: https://countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm .

[30]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[31]. “Trump claims coronavirus “attack” worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11”, Al Jazeera,  7 May 2020: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/trump-claims-coronavirus-attack-worse-pearl-harbor-911-200507032907276.html .

[32]. I.F. Stone, quoted in “Two words – governments lie. Iraqi oil, climate change and Tony Blair”, Media Lens, 22 January 2003: http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=239:two-words-governments-lie-iraq-oil-climate-change-and-tony-blair&catid=17:alerts-2003&Itemid=42 .

[33]. I.F. Stone, quoted in Gideon Polya, “Iraqi Holocaust”, ConScience, Australasian Science, 2 June 2004: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33427-iraqi-holocaust/ .

[34]. Gore Vidal interviewed by Melvyn Bragg on the South Bank Show”, 2008: http://warincontext.org/2012/08/01/remembering-gore-vidal-change-is-the-nature-of-life-and-its-hope/ .

[35]. “Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war”, CNN, 2004: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/ .

[36].” Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/home .

[37]. Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home  .

[38]. Gideon Polya, “Mainstream media fake news through lying by omission”, MWC News, 1 April 2017: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/2017-04-01 .

[39]. I. F. Stone ,  “The Hidden History of the Korean War, 1950-1951”, Monthly review Press, New York, 1952.

[40]. Andrew Green, “Li Wenliang”, The Lancet, volume 395), issue 10225, page 682, 29 February 2020: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30382-2/fulltext .

[41]. WHO, “Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)”, May: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen .

[42].  Jonathan Corum and Carl Zimmer, “How coronavirus mutates and spreads”, New York Times, 30 April 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/science/coronavirus-mutations.html?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=743f0c9604-briefing-dy-20200430&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-743f0c9604-44714333 .

[43]. Heng Li et al., “Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): current status  and future perspectives”,  ”, Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents, 29 March 2020 : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139247/ .

[44].  “COVID-19 pandemic”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic .

[45]. “Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020 .

[46]. Juliana Kaplan, Lauren Frias, and Morgan McFall-Johnsen, “A third of the global population is on a coronavirus lockdown – here’s our constantly updating list of countries locking down and opening up” Business Insider Australia, 14 March 2020: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italy-2020-3?r=US&IR=T .

[47]. ABC News, “Three cases of coronavirus confirmed in NSW, one in Victoria as death toll rises in China”, 25 January 2020: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-25/first-confirmed-coronavirus-case-australian-as-china-toll-rises/11900428 .

[48]. Haroon Siddique, “China promises tougher crackdown to stop spread of disease – as it happened”, Guardian,  27 January 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-outbreak-death-toll-rises-to-54-as-canada-confirms-first-case?page=with:block-5e2dbd958f08e97ed212ab9b#block-5e2dbd958f08e97ed212ab9b .

[49]. “Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_education .

[50]. Robert Farley, “The facts on Trump’s travel restrictions”, FactCheck.org, 6 March 2020: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/ .

[51]. “COVID-19 pandemic in Australia”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia .

[52]. Juliana Kaplan, Lauren Frias, and Morgan McFall-Johnsen, “A third of the global population is on a coronavirus lockdown – here’s our constantly updating list of countries locking down and opening up” Business Insider Australia, 14 March 2020: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italy-2020-3?r=US&IR=T .

[53]. David Conn and Paul Lewis, “List of possible interventions included simulating impact of allowing majority to be infected’”, Guardian, 13 April 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/documents-contradict-uk-government-stance-on-covid-19-herd-immunity .

[54]. “COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec”, Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Quebec

[55]. (“Coronavirus: US travel ban on  26 European comes into force”, BBC News, 14 March 20202: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51883728 .

[56]. “Coronavirus: US to extend travel ban to UK and Ireland”, BBC News, 14 March 2020: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51891662 .

[57].  Knvul Sheik, “No more than10 people in one place, Trump said. But why?”, New York Times, 16 March 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-social-distancing-crowd-size.html .

[58]. Calla Wahlquist, “Australia’s coronavirus lockdown – the first 50 days”, Guardian, 2 May 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/02/australias-coronavirus-lockdown-the-first-50-days .

[59]. Neil M. Ferguson and 30 colleagues. “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and health care demand”, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, 16 March 2020: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf.

[60]. Chelsea Bruce-Lockhart, John Burn-Murdoch and Alex Barker, “The shocking coronavirus study that rocked the UK and US”, Financial Times, 19 March 2020:  https://www.ft.com/content/16764a22-69ca-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75 .

[61]. Gideon Polya, “COVID-19 Pandemic & Coronavirus Suppression – Should Australian Schools Close? ”, Countercurrents, 22 March 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/03/covid-19-pandemic-coronavirus-suppression-should-australian-schools-close .

[62]. Gideon Polya, “UK-Australia COVID-19 deaths, deprivation deaths in Developing countries, Indigenous avoidable deaths”, Global Research, 8 April 2020: https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-australian-covid-19-deaths-versus-developing-country-indigenous-avoidable-deaths-deprivation/5708948 .

[63]. “COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Ontario .

[64]. Sarah Mervosh, Denise LU, and Vanessa Swales, “See which states and cities have told residents to stay at home”, New York Times, 20 April 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html .

[65]. Bethan Staton and Andrew Jack, “UK universities suspend face-to-face teaching” Financial Times, 18 March 2020: https://www.ft.com/content/f325ed7e-6862-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 .

[66]. John Ross, “Coronavirus: almost all Australian  universities head on-line’, ” Times Higher Education, 18 March 2020: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/coronavirus-almost-all-australian-universities-head-online .

[67]. Hadia Ibrahim, “How Canadian universities and colleges are responding   to coronavirus ”, Refinery 29, 31 March 20202: https://www.refinery29.com/en-ca/2020/03/9548653/canadian-university-college-closures-coronavirus .

[68]. Richard Adams and Heather Stewart, “UK schools to be closed indefinitely and exams cancelled”, Guardian, 19 March 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/coronavirus-uk-schools-to-be-closed-indefinitely-and-exams-cancelled .

[69]. David Conn, Felicity Lawrence, Paul Lewis, Severin Carrell, David Pegg, Harry Davies and Rob Evans, “Revealed: the inside story of the UK’s Covid-19 crisis. How herd immunity and delayed lockdown hampered efforts to contain the spread of coronavirus”, Guardian,30 April 2020:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis .   

[70]. Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason and Vikram Dodd, “Boris Johnson orders UK lockdown to be enforced by police”, Guardian, 24 March 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/boris-johnson-orders-uk-lockdown-to-be-enforced-by-police .  

[71]. Oliver Holmes and Hazem Balousha, “Gaza’s generation blockade: young lives in the “world’s largest prison””, Guardian, 12 March 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/generation-blockade-gaza-young-palestinians-who-cannot-leave .

[72]. Oxfam, “Timeline: the humanitarian impact of the Gaza blockade:”, 2018: https://www.oxfam.org/en/timeline-humanitarian-impact-gaza-blockade .

[73]. “Gaza concentration camp – the most horribly abused and largest concentration camp in the world today”, Palestinian Genocide:  https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/gaza-concentration .

[74]. “Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/home .

[75]. Gideon Polya, “70th anniversary of Apartheid Israel & commencement of large-scale Palestinian genocide”, Countercurrents, 11 May 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/70th-anniversary-of-apartheid-israel-commencement-of-large-scale-palestinian-genocide .

[76]. “Official survey says unemployment in West Bank, Gaza rises 25%”, Asharq Al-Awsat, 14 February 2020: https://english.aawsat.com//home/article/2131386/official-survey-says-unemployment-west-bank-gaza-rises-25 .

[77]. Peter Boyle, “”Migrant workers bear brunt of Singapore’s COVID-19 “second wave””, Green Left Weekly, 6 May 2020: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/migrant-workers-bear-brunt-singapores-covid-19-second-wave .

[78]. Tamara Keith, “Timeline: what Trump has said and done about the coronavirus”, NPR, 21 April 2020: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/837348551/timeline-what-trump-has-said-and-done-about-the-coronavirus .

[79]. Dom Phillips, “Brazil: largest rise in Covid-19 deaths follows Bolsonaro “worst is over” claim”, Guardian, 7 May 2020:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/brazil-coronavirus-deaths-covid-19-bolsonaro .

[80]. Melissa Macaya, Adrienne Vogt, Alex Roger and Maggie Fox, “5 takeaways from Rick Bright’s House hearing”, CNN, 14 May 2020: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/14/politics/key-moments-bright-hearing/index.html .

[81]. “Tracking US President Donald Trump’s response to Covid-19 through his top ten quotes”, Indian Express, 9 May 2020: https://indianexpress.com/article/world/us-donald-trump-coronavirus-quotes-6402160/ .

[82]. Harry Stevens and Shelly Tan, “From “It’s going t disappear ”to “We will win this war”. How the president’s response to the coronavirus has changed since January”,  Washington Post, 31 March 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/trump-coronavirus-statements/ .

[83]. “Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment”, BBC News, 24 April 2020: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 .

[84]. Worldometers, “Covid-19 Coronavirus pandemic”, : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ .

[85]. Gideon Polya, “Per Capita Covid-19 Deaths In Anglosphere 5-Eyes Intelligence-Sharing  Nations Correlate With Neoliberal Greed”, Countercurrents, 17 May 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/05/per-capita-covid-19-deaths-in-anglosphere-5-eyes-intelligence-sharing-nations-correlate-with-neoliberal-greed/ .

[86]. Janes Lloyd, “Coronavirus: can herd immunity protect us from COVID-19?”,  Science Focus, 13 April 2020: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-can-herd-immunity-protect-us-from-covid-19/ .

[87]. “Covid-19 pandemic in Kerala”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Kerala .

[88]. Gideon Polya, “UK-Australia COVID-19 deaths, deprivation deaths in Developing countries, Indigenous avoidable deaths”, Global Research, 8 April 2020: https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-australian-covid-19-deaths-versus-developing-country-indigenous-avoidable-deaths-deprivation/5708948 .

[89]. Gideon Polya, “Action Cost/Deaths Ratios For Covid-19, Malaria, Infant Health,  Starvation, Poverty & Pollution”, Countercurrents, 17 April 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/04/action-cost-deaths-ratios-for-covid-19-malaria-infant-health-starvation-poverty-pollution .

[90]. Richard Hil and Gideon Polya and Richard Hil, “Covid-19-inspired Western altruism ignores the world’s unpeople”, Arena, 5 May 2020: https://arena.org.au/covid-19-inspired-western-altruism-ignores-the-worlds-unpeople/ .

[91]. Gideon Polya, “COVID-19: Occupiers US, Australia & Apartheid Israel grossly violate Geneva Convention re conquered Subjects”, Countercurrents, 7 May 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/05/covid-19-occupiers-us-australia-apartheid-israel-grossly-violate-geneva-convention-re-conquered-subjects .

[92]. Gideon Polya, “Post-Covid-19 Needs-based Economy, Zero Emissions, UBI, Green New Deal & Free University Education”, Countercurrents, 3 May 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/05/post-covid-19-needs-based-economy-zero-emissions-ubi-green-new-deal-free-university-education . 

[93]. Gideon Polya, “Covid-19 pandemic & coronavirus suppression – should Australian schools close?”, Countercurrents, 22 March 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/03/covid-19-pandemic-coronavirus-suppression-should-australian-schools-close/

[94]. Kate Connolly and Kim Willsher, “European schools get ready to reopen despite concern about pupils spreading Covid-19”, Guardian, 2 May 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/children-as-likely-to-spread-coronavirus-as-adults-says-scientist?CMP=share_btn_tw&fbclid=IwAR0DovJ_yuO7TwzKBao4eOttkrISbnMC6GSk4p3QtdCT9ycoDb7dlA8zhjQ.

[95]. Christian Drosten et al., “An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age”,  2020: https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf  ).

[96]. Emma Newberger, “China is donating 1,000 ventilators to help New York in coronavirus fight”, CNBC, 4 April 2020: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/04/china-is-donating-1000-ventilators-to-help-new-york-in-coronavirus-fight.html .

[97].  Andrew Jacobs, Michael D. Shear and Edward Wong,  “US-China feud over coronavirus erupts at World Health Assembly”, New York Tines, 18 May 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/health/coronavirus-who-china-trump.html .

[98]., Michael D. Shear and Andrew Jacobs, “W.H.O. members reject Trump’s demands but agree to study its virus response”,  New York Times, 19 May 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/us/politics/trump-who-coronavirus.html .

[99]. “China’s embassy says Australia’s claim of World Health Assembly  vindication is “a joke””, Straits Times, 19 May 2020: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-embassy-says-australias-claim-of-world-health-assembly-vindication-is-a-joke .

[100]. Arundhati Roy, “The epidemic is a portal”, Financial Times, 4 April 2020: https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca .

An attack on a prominent British-Palestinian doctor and academic, Ghada Karmi, by a self-styled “antisemitism watchdog” looks suspiciously like a new trend in anti-Palestinian bigotry and bullying dressed up as victimhood.

Late last month, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which claims to represent the interests of the UK’s Jewish community, said it was writing to the General Medical Council and Exeter University to accuse Karmi of making “a series of antisemitic statements”.

The supposedly racist comments were contained in an opinion piece in Middle East Eye that praised Jeremy Corbyn’s record – and his decades of support for the Palestinian cause – as he stepped down as Labour leader.

It is hard not to conclude that the CAA wishes to make an example of Karmi, in the hope that she can be stripped of her medical licence and disowned by Exeter University, where she was previously an honorary research fellow.

More widely, this kind of public pillorying – familiar from pro-Israel lobby groups in the United States – is designed to chill free speech and delegitimise Palestinians trying to give voice to their people’s oppression.

Targeting Palestinians

The smears suggest that groups such as the CAA have been buoyed by their success in using antisemitism to damage Corbyn. He faced four years of relentless claims that the party had become “institutionally antisemitic” on his watch.

Now, the CAA appears to be moving on from simply maligning those who have offered solidarity to Palestinians – protesting their decades of oppression at Israel’s hands – to target Palestinians directly.

It is a sign of the pro-Israel lobby’s growing confidence that it has chosen to smear Karmi. She is one of a shrinking number of Palestinians alive today who experienced firsthand the Nakba, or “catastrophe” – Israel’s ethnic cleansing in 1948 of many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to create a self-declared Jewish state on the ruins of their homeland.

Forced from her home in Jerusalem by the Israeli army, Karmi and her family eventually settled in the UK.

‘Undue panic and alarm’

The CAA has enjoyed a rapid rise to prominence and influence since it was established six years ago to challenge what it claimed at the time was an upsurge of antisemitism in the wake of Israel’s 2014 military assault on Gaza. More than 500 children were among some 2,200 Palestinians killed in the operation.

Back then, and despite being registered as a charity, the CAA’s founders did not hide the fact that it was an openly partisan organisation trying to prevent criticism of Israel by manipulating the meaning of antisemitism for political ends.

It actively sought to blur the distinction between genuine antisemitism – such as verbal and physical attacks on Jews – and the inevitable climate of intensified criticism of Israel provoked by the Gaza assault.

In early 2015, an all-party parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism accused the CAA of stoking “undue panic and alarm”, and warned it not to “conflate concerns about activity legitimately protesting Israel’s actions with antisemitism”.

Another more venerable Jewish think tank, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, called the CAA’s surveys on antisemitism “irresponsible” and “littered with flaws”.

Fortunes change

The CAA’s fortunes started to change a few months later, however, when Corbyn was elected Labour leader in the summer of 2015.

The media and Corbyn’s opponents within his own party – including senior party staff still deeply committed to the centrist worldview of former Labour leader Tony Blair – were desperate to find ways to undermine Corbyn, as a recently leaked internal investigation revealed.

Pro-Israel lobby groups such as the CAA, which feared Corbyn’s pro-Palestinian activism, were soon propelled to centre stage. The once well-established distinction between antisemitism and determined criticism of Israel was swept aside.

The CAA blazed a path that other, more establishment Jewish organisations, such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, were happy to follow, given their support for Israel and opposition to Corbyn.

Accusations once deemed “irresponsible” soon became routine, with Corbyn’s party roundly attacked for being “institutionally antisemitic” – despite the lack of any actual data to uphold such a claim.

Antisemitism ‘denial’

Through 2018, there were a series of rallies in London against Corbyn under the banner “Enough is Enough” and “For the Many Not the Jew” – a corruption of Labour’s “For the Many Not the Few” slogan.

Shortly afterwards, the CAA worked with the Jewish Labour Movement, a fervently pro-Israel lobby group within Labour, to get the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate the party. A decision on their claim, which falsely alleges Labour has a graver antisemitism problem than other major parties, is still awaited.

Crucial to this strategy was to find a way to formally redefine antisemitism in a way that would include critics of Israel. That moment arrived with the drafting of a controversial new “working definition” of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It shifted the emphasis from hatred of Jews to focus on criticism of Israel and opposition to Zionism, Israel’s political ideology.

Soon, even the main author of the IHRA’s definition, Kenneth Stern, came to express regrets that his work was being “subverted” and weaponised to silence criticism of Israel. Nonetheless, under pressure from groups such as the CAA, Labour adopted the new definition of antisemitism in September 2018.

Since then, Labour members have found themselves at risk of being suspended or expelled if they criticise Israel, object to the definition, or suggest it is being misused to silence Palestinians and their supporters. The latter have found themselves labelled as antisemitism “denialists” – an offence now equated to Holocaust denial.

No debate about Israel

There are many problems with the IHRA’s recent reformulation of antisemitism. Perhaps most obviously, a majority of its 11 examples of potentially antisemitic attitudes or behaviours relate to Israel, not Jews. In the words of the IHRA definition, for example, it may be antisemitic to present Israel as “a racist endeavour”.

According to the enforcers of this definition, decades of Israel’s blatantly racist policies towards Palestinians can be attributed solely to foolishness or shortsightedness. Make the case that there may be something more inherent in Israel’s approach – something reminiscent of the segregationist and ethnic exclusivist ideas that underpinned apartheid South Africa – and you will be cast out of respectable society as an antisemite.

The denial of a basic right to debate Israel’s character as a Jewish state and the future for Palestinians has happened at the worst possible moment. The new Israeli government has vowed to begin annexing many of the last fragments of the occupied territories, destroying any hopes of a Palestinian state.

With Corbyn gone, Labour appears to have given up the fight on the Palestinian cause. Its new leader, Keir Starmer, has declared himself a supporter of Zionism “without qualification” and signed up to a so-called list of “10 Pledges” from pro-Israel lobbyists that highly circumscribe the right to speak freely about Israel.

Reign of terror

Labour activists may have the luxury to “move on”, but for a Palestinian such as Ghada Karmi, the battle to end Israel’s oppression of her people cannot be so easily jettisoned. This is the danger the pro-Israel lobby in the UK has now identified and is turning its attention to.

The CAA has accused Karmi of antisemitism by further twisting the already sweeping and misleading provisions of the new IHRA definition.

In the US, the pro-Israel lobby has a wealth of experience in limiting the scope for criticising Israel, with a particular emphasis in recent years on academia, where support for an international boycott movement against Israel and in solidarity with Palestinians briefly flourished.

Since 2014, Palestinian and Arab professors and students in the US, as well as their supporters, have been living under a reign of terror from a shadowy website called Canary Mission.

The website’s goal is explicit: to subdue all campus activism promoting the rights of Palestinians by threatening to harm the career prospects of the thousands of people it lists. It regularly writes to universities or employers to “alert” them to supposed antisemitism from these academics and students.

So effective has the campaign been that some have been forced to write “apologies”, published on the website, to get themselves removed from the list.

Malicious complaint

Karmi’s treatment appears to be a disturbing hint that pro-Israel lobbyists hope to replicate the Canary Mission’s success in the UK. At the end of its statement on Karmi, the CAA calls on students “concerned about antisemitism on campus” to contact it for help.

However, in this case, its threatened complaint to Exeter University may prove ineffective. A spokesman said the university’s formal affiliation with Karmi ended some time ago.

The CAA’s claims against Karmi are as hollow and malicious as those typically directed by pro-Israel lobbyists against academics in the US. Perhaps not surprisingly, they focus on the most controversial of the examples included in the IHRA definition: that it is antisemitic to refer to Israel as a “racist endeavour”.

It is terrible enough that, based on the IHRA definition, a supposedly progressive political party such as Labour has proscribed all discussion of Israel’s political character and Zionist ideology. But the idea that it ought to be off-limits for academics too is not only preposterous, but downright Orwellian. It is as intellectually fraudulent as it would have been to deny academia back in the 1980s the right to debate whether apartheid South Africa was a “racist endeavour”.

It should be pointed out that even the IHRA definition – faulty as it is – never suggests that all references to Israel as a “racist endeavour” are proof of antisemitism. It notes that such comments may be antisemitic “taking into account the overall context”.

But pro-Israel lobbyists are no more interested in the nuances of debate about Israel than they are in free speech. The goal here is to protect Israel from scrutiny at all costs.

‘Terminating Zionism’

In fact, Karmi simply points out the glaring incompatibility between Israel’s declared, exclusive status as the state of the Jewish people – confirmed in its recent notorious nation-state law – and the rights of Palestinians to self-determination in their former homeland.

As she writes:

“In apartheid South Africa, it was not possible to support apartheid and also black rights, and the conflict only ended with apartheid’s abolition. The same holds true for Zionism in Palestine. Terminating Zionism is the only way to a permanent peace.”

The CAA not only twists the IHRA definition’s intent, but then further weaponises it by stating that Karmi’s suggestion Israel is a “racist endeavour” – and that the ideology underpinning it should be “terminated” – is the equivalent of arguing that Israel “should be destroyed”.

The meaning of words is always imprecise, but not that imprecise. Karmi is calling for the termination of a political ideology, not the destruction of a country or its people. What would be replaced is an ideology, Zionism, that has justified the dispossession and oppression of her people, Palestinians, for many decades.

One can argue whether such an argument is right or wrong, good or bad – but it is clearly not antisemitic.

Israeli embassy’s role

There are similar flaws with the CAA’s other criticisms of Karmi. The organisation falsely makes two further claims: that, according to Karmi, the pro-Israel lobby in the UK was doing “Israel’s bidding” in undermining Corbyn; and that she attributes an “ulterior motive” to the lobby’s actions in describing its concerns about antisemitism as “smears”.

The CAA argues that she has thereby violated two other examples from the IHRA definition of antisemitism: “Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective” and “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

Karmi does not refer to lobbyists such as the CAA as doing “Israel’s bidding”. Far more reasonably, she argues that the pro-Israel lobby’s campaign against Corbyn was “likely coordinated by the Israeli embassy”. In fact, far from being antisemitic, this statement is not even open to dispute.

Israel established a Ministry of Strategic Affairs more than a decade ago whose remit – widely discussed in the Israeli media – was to crush all support for the call made by Palestinian civil society in 2005 to launch a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign targeting Israel.

The ministry’s work assisting pro-Israel lobby groups abroad, including in the UK, was exposed in detail in an undercover, four-part documentary aired by Al Jazeera in early 2017.

Shai Masot, a member of the strategic affairs ministry working at the embassy in London, is shown repeatedly meeting with pro-Israel lobby groups to devise ways to undermine Corbyn. The only reason this coordination between the lobby and an Israeli government official is not widely known is because the UK establishment media, which also wanted Corbyn gone, barely bothered to report its stunning revelations of direct Israeli interference in UK politics.

To argue, as the CAA does, that Karmi’s claim of coordination between the lobby and the Israeli embassy is evidence of antisemitism makes sense only if telling the truth is antisemitic.

The lobby’s Israel prism

Finally, the CAA again twists the IHRA’s already problematic definition of antisemitism in claiming that Karmi suggests “the Jewish community has had an ulterior motive in pointing out anti-Jewish racism in Labour”.

Karmi did not ascribe any motives – ulterior or otherwise – to the “Jewish community”. She suggested that pro-Israel lobby groups sought to damage Corbyn because they perceived him to be a threat to Israel, a cause they explicitly champion. Only pro-Israel lobbyists, it seems, subscribe to the antisemitic notion that Jews are an indistinguishable, homogeneous bloc with a single view about Israel.

All lobbies weaponise political issues in ways that accord with their worldview. It is inherent in the idea of a lobby. That does not necessarily mean they always do so cynically; lobbies form because a group of people see the world chiefly through a prism they believe to be vitally – even existentially – important to themselves as individuals, or a group, or a nation, or a species. That applies equally to lobbies supportive of Israel, guns, the banking sector, the arms industry and the environment.

Karmi did not invent the idea that Israel is crucially important to pro-Israel lobbyists and has become an organising principle for the way they prioritise and express their political concerns. The lobbyists themselves did.

Defying evidence

The CAA has not changed its spots since it was established six years ago to defend Israel from critics appalled by the massacre of civilians in Gaza. Then, it was clear to everyone, even a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism, that the group was weaponising the charge of antisemitism to prevent scrutiny of Israel.

The difference now is that the “irresponsible” methods and definitions used by the CAA have become routine for the much wider Israel lobby.

As Israel’s policies and actions on the ground against Palestinians have become ever more explicitly indefensible, the pro-Israel lobby has responded not by abandoning Israel but by digging in deeper, entrenching its support for Israel in defiance of all the real-world evidence.

That cognitive discomfort can only intensify so long as Palestinians and their supporters are able to tell of the cost and suffering caused by Israel’s continuing existence as a Jewish state.

Which is why, now that Corbyn is out of the way, Karmi and other outspoken Palestinians will find themselves directly in the firing line – transformed into antisemites simply because they call for equality and peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

There, I said it. One Democratic state in Palestine from the river to the sea.

Yes, that means no Jewish state, but rather a dismantling of the structures and ideologies of the colonial apartheid Jewish state of Israel and its occupied Palestinian lands (including those parts of the West Bank about to be annexed by Netanyahu) and replacing them with structures of social, cultural, political and economic equality between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs — to be accompanied by a process of reconciliation sold to or imposed upon Jewish Israelis.

That’s the Palestinian political objective now. It could be argued it has always been the ultimate objective, in one crushed or amputated form or another.

If you are shocked by the above, I challenge you to take exactly three minutes to look at the following video clip and then explain to me why in hell a Jewish state should be allowed to usurp Palestine, blighting the lives of a nation and stealing its heritage and why it was allowed to exist in the first place. Judaism is a religion, not a nationality. Jews don’t need a country — and if they did as immigrants fleeing European persecution, Palestine was never theirs for the taking.

Following is the complete text from the video clip:

Picture this: You’ve lived in your hometown for decades. You’re surrounded by your family, your friends, and your community. But one day, gunfire rings out. Militias show up. You and your kids are forced to flee in terror. Searching for safety, hoping to soon return. But you never do. You’re banned. Another family has moved into your home. They’re literally using your pots and pans, sleeping in your bed. This is the 1948 Nakba, the catastrophe, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, when Zionist militias invaded Palestinian cities and towns, massacred or executed about 800 people, took over 4 million acres of Palestinian land, destroyed or depopulated over 400 villages, erased their Arabic names, drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, and built Israeli Jewish towns on top of their ruins.

The Nakba, this erasure, continues to this day. Over 7 million Palestinian refugees exist in the world today, displaced from their homeland, exiled, denied their internationally recognized right to return to their homes. The catastrophe grew worse in 1967 when Israel invaded and occupied what was left of historic Palestine: Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. For the Palestinians who were able to stay on their land, Israel’s military terrorizes them under a violent system of control. Israel throws Palestinian families out and moves Israeli settlers in. Israel destroys Palestinian homes. All of this: done to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

As Israel celebrates its independence under a far-right government, indigenous Palestinians mourn the Nakba and pay the price of repression. What started as a violent expulsion campaign has become a machine of displacement, exile, and apartheid. The Nakba never ended. But neither has Palestinian resistance. In the face of a regime that denies their right to exist, Palestinians continue to rise up. Refusing to be erased, Palestinians dream of a day when they, and all people, live in freedom.

If you are in solidarity with the Palestinian cause but do not agree with this particular objective, the objective of one democratic state in historic Palestine, let me remind you of the following (in the words of Tom Hickey, member of the British University and College Union [UCU] National Executive Committee, the largest further and higher education union in the world, which supports BDS):

“Those engaged in solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle [against imperialism] must offer unconditional support to Palestinian resistance irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with the objectives.”

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Voice of the Cape

Today, the Arctic has increasingly become identified as a domain of great prosperity and cooperation amongst world civilizations on the one side and a domain of confrontation and war on the other.

In 2007, the Russian government first voiced its support for the construction of the Bering Strait rail tunnel connecting the Americas with the Eurasian continent- a policy which has taken on new life in 2020 as Putin’s Great Arctic Development strategy has wedded itself to the northern extension of the Belt and Road Initiative (dubbed the Polar Silk Road). In 2011, the Russian government re-stated its pledge to build the $64 billion project.

On the Stone Age side of things, deep state neocons have also looked upon the arctic as a strategic zone of global importance, but with a very different mental filter from their Russian counterparts. NORAD chief Terrance O’Shaughnessy, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a vast array of NATO-philes have repeatedly called upon the Arctic as a domain of militarization and confrontation with their primary “strategic nemeses” Russia and China.

So let’s assume the Dark Age nut jobs infesting the USA don’t win the day, and a new system emerges from the rubble of the currently collapsing world order premised around certain principles of long term cooperation, infrastructure and science investments, rather than the worship of money and debt slavery. Even the most cynical among us must admit that this is at least possible. After all, Russia Gate has increasingly collapsed, General Flynn has been exonerated, and Putin has called repeatedly for an emergency meeting of the five nuclear powers of the UN Security Council to discuss the creation of a new system.

So if this new system occurs and if saner forces amongst the western nations go with the Putin Plan for Arctic Development rather than the neocon WWIII agenda, then this happier outcome would not exactly be an unprecedented event. It is after all the case that the same historic American-Russian brotherhood which saved America during the Civil War would finally realize that great intention of leading statesmen in Lincoln’s America and Czar Alexander II’s Russia from the very moment Russia sold Alaska to America.

The Civil War and the Alaska Purchase

The sale of Alaska stands out as an incomprehensible historical anomaly for many who choose to see history merely as a sequence of linear events determined by “practical decision making”. The failure to recognize higher organizing principles shaping humanity’s collective experience as a universal process has blinded many historians from recognizing the true dynamic from which such a decision sprung and which could only be recognized from a top down perspective.

Just as 19th century America suffered from an internal struggle between factions who interpreted the Constitution in diametrically opposing ways, so too did the Russian state feature a similar battle between forces who saw Russia’s destiny likened to a 3rd Roman Empire in opposition to forces who saw Russia’s destiny as a sovereign nation state meant to exemplify the highest moral and intellectual powers that human society had attained. These figures, of whom several will shortly be showcased, represented the best traditions set into motion by the Leibnizian reforms of Peter the Great (Czar from 1682 until 1725).

As Russian expansionism was promoted by opportunist forces dominating the government of Czar Nicholas I (Czar from 1825-1855) who chased after Ottoman possessions in their obsession to expand Russian influence in Central Asia, the seeds of Russia’s self-destruction were being sown. While Russian expansionists were expecting the easy capture of territories long held by a failing Ottoman empire, what they found was a spiders’ web of Anglo-French intrigue and traps which nearly destroyed the proud nation during the bloody Crimean War (October 1853 to February 1856). The war’s outcome saw Russia humiliated, indebted and crippled morally and physically.

In response to this failure, a new breed of statecraft arose as an enlightened Czar (Alexander II) took the reins from the deceased Nicholas in 1854. With his leadership, statesmen such as the Grand Duke Constantine (Alexander’s brother), General Nikolai Muraviev, Foreign Minister Gorchakov and the great Russian Ambassador to America Eduard de Stoeckl gained a new level of influence and a new foreign policy doctrine was created. This doctrine was exemplified by an enhanced appreciation of the destructive role of the British Empire’s global strategy and the importance of America as a collaborator and partner.

Alexander II quickly began tackling endemic corruption, and worked to transform Russia by freeing the serfs in 1861 earning him the namesake “the Great Liberator”.

Although America had fallen into a Civil War by 1861, the British Empire which had done so much to keep the world subdued during the Crimean War, Opium Wars, and suppression of vast Indian uprisings was petrified that a Russian-American friendship would set into motion a great power alliance capable of undoing its global hegemony.

One of the few means Britain had to keep these two historic allies from uniting remained its territories of Canada and especially the colony of British Columbia. This colony was then an isolated and bankrupt outpost on the west coast separated by 3000 km of undeveloped wilderness privately owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company. British Columbia’s primary economic connection was not Britain, but rather California and a large movement of colonists had been calling for separation from the Empire in order to annex to the then-prosperous USA.

In 1860, Ambassador Stoeckl wrote to the Czar: “If the United States should win mastery of our possessions then British Oregon (British Columbia) would be squeezed together by the Americans from the north and south and would hardly be able to escape”. (1)

Grand Duke Constantine echoed Stoeckl saying: “the United States of North America should in the course of events be eager to conquer all of North America and will therefore meet us sooner or later and there is not the slightest doubt that it will seize our colonies without great effort and we shall be in no possession to retain them” (2)

As early as 1853, General Muraviev had already promoted Russia’s sale to Alaska in a letter to the Czar stating: “Due to the present amazing development of railroads, the United States will soon spread over all North America. We must face the fact that we will have to cede our North American possessions to them.” (3)

The Civil War and Russia

By 1862 the Civil War had begun in full force and with British corporations and Foreign Office supporting of the Confederacy (and banks launching financial warfare launched against the Union), tides had quickly turned against Lincoln. The British possessions of Toronto and Montreal served as Confederate bases from which dozens of terrorist attacks were launched against Lincoln’s Union from the North (including the President’s eventual assassination from Montreal) while British-sponsored battles were being waged from the South.

As the world watched with bated breath Ambassador Stoeckl wrote to Gorchakov:

“The disintegration of the United States as a nation would from our point of view be something to be deplored. The American confederation has acted as a counterpoise to British power and in this sense, its continued existence constitutes an important element in the balance of power.” He continued that he desired “the preservation of the American Union as an indivisible nation.” (4)

Surely the outcome of the Civil War would have been much darker had it not been for Czar Alexander II’s deployment of the Russian navy to California and Atlantic coasts of America in 1863 which kept British and French forces from assisting the confederacy in open warfare against Lincoln.

Later describing his motive, Czar Alexander II said:

“In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia… I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.” (5)

By December 26, 1864 as the outcome of the war in favor of the union was blossoming, Secretary of State William Seward encouraged the Grand Duke Constantine to come to America with the following words “I think it would be beneficial to us, and by no means unprofitable to Russia. I forebear from specifying my reasons- They will readily occur to you, as they would to his imperial highness if his thoughts were turned in that direction.” (6)

The Sale of Alaska Consummated

In 1866, Stoeckl was called back to Russia and after a lengthy meeting with Czar Alexander II, the Grand Duke Constantine, the Foreign Ministers and Finance Minister, was given approval to initiate the sale of Alaska to America.

On the evening of March 29, 1867, Ambassador Stoeckl delivered the news to William Seward at his private residence in Washington D.C. When asked if Seward wished to convene a meeting the following day, the Secretary of State asked why wait until tomorrow what could be done that very evening?

At midnight, the office of the state department was opened with a select group of Senator Charles Sumner, Seward and a few trusted members from the Russian consulate alongside Stoeckl.

As the sun rose on March 30, the treaty was written finalizing the sale for $7.2 million and before the ink was dry, it was presented to a shocked Congress who passed it in the following weeks.

Seward himself described the treaty as the most important diplomatic maneuver of his life saying “this treaty stands alone in the history of diplomacy, as an important treaty conceived, initiated and prosecuted and completed without being preceded or attended by protocols or dispatches”. (7)

Events Move Fast in the Post-Civil War Years

In order to prevent pro-American forces in Canada from declaring independence from a weakened Empire, the 1867 British North America Act was signed establishing a northern Monarchy on Deep State principles for the next 160 years and which this author developed in a 2014 lecture “Prometheus and Canada 1774-1874”.

The British hand behind the Civil War was exposed for all the world to see in the Alabama Claims of 1872 (the world’s first international trial) finding the British government guilty of militarily supporting the confederacy. In recompense for this crime, Sumner and Seward wanted the British to cede all of their remaining possessions in North America. Such an act would certainly have given great fuel to the connection of the Trans Continental Railway begun during the height of the Civil War and completed in 1869- with Eurasia.

Desperate to keep its independently-minded colony from annexing to America, the British Foreign office offered a bribe its Pacific colony. A desperate Britain purchased the private Hudson Bay lands in 1870, cancelled the colony’s debts and promised to build a railroad from Ontario to the Pacific under a program which I outlined in my 2013 report ‘The Imperial Myth of Canada’s National Policy’.

Russia had by this time positioned itself to begin construction of its own trans-continental railroad with the help of American engineers which was finally completed 1905 under the leadership of “American System” follower count Sergei Witte. On its maiden voyage the Trans-Siberian rail saw Philadelphia-made train cars run across the Russian heartland, and it is no accident that all of the key players involved in the Alaska purchase were also involved in the Russian continental rail program on both sides of the ocean.

The China Connection

Both Charles Sumner and William Seward were also strong advocates of uniting America’s destiny with China. Seward and U.S. Consul to Beijing, General Anson Burlingham, worked in tandem with Seward’s son George Frederick Seward (U.S. Consul to Shanghai) to organize the Seward-Burlingham Treaty of 1868 with China, giving China free emigration and travel in America, reciprocal access to education for citizens living in the others’ country, and favored nation status with the United States on trade. While treacherous politicians later annulled this treaty, its existence brought a new generation of Chinese revolutionaries to America including a young student named Sun Yat-sen who would later lead a revolution in 1911, establishing a new Chinese republic upon the Three Principles elaborated first by Abraham Lincoln!

Senator Sumner expressed his understanding of America’s connection with China and the Trans-continental railroad during his 1867 speech in defense of the Alaska Purchase:

“To unite the East of Asia with the West of America is the aspiration of commerce now as when the English navigator (Meares) recorded his voyage. Of course, whatever helps this result is an advantage. The Pacific railroad is such an advantage; for, though running westward, it will be, when completed, a new highway to the East.”

When President Ulysses Grant came to power in 1869, he gave much support to this internationalization of the American system while also fighting valiantly to advance Lincoln’s plans for reconstruction and reconciliation with an emancipated America.

Gilpin’s World Land-Bridge

Lincoln’s former body guard and first Governor of Colorado William Gilpin was not least among this group. Gilpin had been known as one of the earliest champions of America’s Trans Continental Railroad from as early as 1846 and his hundreds of speeches, published maps and writings went further than any other statesman to concretize what those international public works would look like.

Describing his grand design for international public works, Gilpin wrote in his widely read 1890 magnum opus ‘The Cosmopolitan Railway’:

“Railways continue to extend themselves, soon to become a universal system over all the lands of the globe. We have seen the energies of the American people, bringing into line and into use these new powers, span their continent with the Pacific railways… they will continue to expand their work to Bering Straits, where all the continents are united. This will extend itself along similarly propitious thermal selvage of the oriental Russian coasts into China. To prolong this unbroken line of cosmopolitan railways along the latitudinal plateau of Asia, to Moscow and to London, will not have long delay. The less significant and isolated continents of the southern hemisphere- South America, Africa, and Australasia- will be reached by feeders through Panama, Suez and the chain of Oriental peninsulas and islands. The whole area and all the populations of the globe will be thus united and fused by land travel and railway.”

Gilpin re-iterated his view that it was only by embracing its promethean heritage and fully committing to develop Alaska that America could avoid falling back under British manipulation. As applicable then as it is to today’s emerging Four Power alliance and expanding Belt and Road Initiative, Gilpin knew that national institutions must stay in the driver’s seat when he said:

“Twenty four years have already elapsed since we first assumed the responsibility of ownership, and since then what have we done? What improvement have we made upon the condition of life, the stolid, animal existence of the half civilized Russians and Aleuts! None whatsoever…. Place Alaska on the line of a world-encircling railway, give her a special code of laws befitting her requirements, and men of enterprise and capital to develop her resources, and she would pay for the road five times over. There is every reason to believe that Russia would hail the opening of her great eastern interior with joy. She would have everything to gain by it and nothing to lose… Since the time of Peter the Great, the ambition of Russian rulers has been not only to extend their possessions, but to improve the conditions of those who inhabit them.”

Within his 1890 book, Gilpin again continuously emphasized his long held belief that the inevitable awakening of China would be the basis for renewal and salvation of the west:

“In Asia, a civilization resting on a basis of remote antiquity has had, indeed, a long pause but a certain civilization- although hitherto hermetically sealed up from European influence- has continued to exist. The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new life, and European Culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms”.

By 1906, Czar Nicholas II of Russia supported the plan for the American-Russian Bering Strait tunnel, officially approving a team of American engineers to conduct a feasibility study. A New York Times article reported on March 27, 1906:

“The Czar of Russia has issued an order authorizing the American syndicate, represented by Baron Loicq de Lobel, to begin work on the Trans-Siberian-Alaska railroad project. The plan is to build a railroad from Siberia to Alaska by bridging and tunneling the Bering Strait. It is said that the enterprise will be capitalized at from $250 to $300 million and that the money centers of Russia, France and the United States will be asked to take bonds.”

While the Anglo-American financed revolution deposed of the Czar and his family by 1917, the Russian government under the guidance of Vladimir Putin, working in tandem with Xi Jinping’s China have put the project back onto the agenda, and with the first American System President in decades at the helms of the USA government who has repeated stated his desire to unite America’s interests with those of Eurasia, the vision of Gilpin’s New Paradigm is being given a new chance at life.

*

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

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

Notes

(1) S.B. Okun, The Russian-American Company, 1951 p.251

(2) Okun, p. 242

(3) Pacific Historical Review vol. 3, 1934 p. 30

(4) Okun, p. 259-260

(5) Published in The Independent March 24, 1904

(6) American Relations 1815-1867, N.Y. DaCapo Press, 1970, p.148

(7) Congressional Globe, Volume 40, by USA Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1339

All images in this article are from SCF unless otherwise stated

Dehumanizing masks have sadly become a part of the new normal in many states and nations around the world. Many local and state governments are forcing people to wear them, and many businesses are dutifully toeing the official line and refusing entry to customers who don’t wear them. Apart from the obvious truth that widespread mask usage has a deliberately dehumanizing effect (in line with the transhumanist synthetic agenda), many scientific studies show that masks serve no useful medical purpose for healthy people. Masks weaken you by causing hypercapnia (increased carbon dioxide) and hypoxia (decreased oxygen). They are designed for surgeons (so they don’t accidentally transmit bodily fluids like saliva into a patient they are operating upon) or for sick people (so they don’t infect others via large respiratory droplets). Scientifically speaking, they don’t stop healthy people from getting infected! Below is the evidence showing this. This will leave you with the inescapable conclusion that these masks are not about protecting health – but rather about control, dehumanization and the destruction of health.

Masks Lead to Under-Oxygenation, a Forerunner to Fatigue, Weakness and Serious Diseases Like Cancer

It is a commonsense scientific fact that wearing a mask blocks your airways and therefore leads to both hypercapnia (an increase in and accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body from breathing in exhaled air) and hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the tissues). Symptoms of hypercapnia include dizziness, drowsiness, excessive fatigue, headaches, feeling disoriented, flushing of the skin and shortness of breath. Symptoms of hypoxia include anxiety, restlessness, confusion, changes in the color of skin, cough, rapid breathing, shortness of breath and sweating. Not surprisingly, both conditions are similar, since they are both characterized by a lack of oxygen. In addition, hypoxia has been shown to lead to impaired immunity in general, and to be a forerunner to serious diseases such as atherosclerosis, stroke and heart attack. It is also the necessary precondition for the development of cancer (as I covered in my series on natural cancer cures). Dr. Russell Blaylock highlights how wearing a mask is actually putting you at more risk of infection, because you are lowering your overall health, strength and immunity by under-oxygenation:

“It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries … A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.”

…

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

Blaylock also emphasizes how wearing masks is dangerous from a health perspective – it encourages the recycling (rather than the expulsion) of viruses and bacteria, some of which can enter the brain with potentially lethal consequences:

“It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

Public Health Agency of Canada Admits “Little Evidence” Masks Protect Healthy People

This document from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) openly admits there is little evidence that, if you are well or healthy, wearing a mask will somehow protect you. This flies in the face of the propaganda going around that “my mask protects you, your mask protects me” since the only point (if you are not someone like a surgeon) is for already sick people to wear them to block the escape of large respiratory droplets. It is standard medical practice that masks are worn by the infected not the uninfected (as in the case when someone has TB), just as it is standard medical practice that quarantine is for the sick or immuno-compromised not the whole infected community. The definition of quarantine is “a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed” so, ipso facto, the lockdown of an entire society is not quarantine but outright tyranny. Remember, Operation Coronavirus is not about medical common sense or logic; it’s about control. The PHAC document states:

“Little evidence exists as to how effectively the wearing of a mask by well individuals will prevent them from becoming infected … For masks to be effective, individuals must wear them consistently and correctly; these actions can be challenging. Masks must be worn only once, never shared and always changed when soiled or wet. If not used properly, masks may lead to a greater risk of pandemic influenza transmission because of contamination, or they may make the user overconfident and hence neglectful of other personal protective measures, such as hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and self-isolation when ill – measures that have been deemed important complementary actions to the use of masks for the reduction of disease transmission. Finally, given that masks cannot be used when eating and drinking and may make communication difficult, wearing them for prolonged periods may be impractical and ineffective.”

Harboring Bacteria and Viruses

The masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth, bandannas, etc. – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10^–9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. This article quotes some Indian doctors:

“He pointed out that masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. “The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive,” he said. “This could result in the growth of microbes on masks and aid the spread of airborne diseases like influenza.”

“The N95 or N99 mask varieties have been traditionally used in hospitals to prevent tuberculosis and other infections during flu season,” said Dr KK Aggarwal, president of the Indian Medical Association. “They can block particulate matter only if you completely prevent air-leaks, and that is not possible.” … Aggarwal said such comfort from wearing a mask “is only psychological” and warned against using masks without doctor’s recommendations.”

Only psychological indeed. That’s what Operation Coronavirus is: a psychological game of perception management.

Masks Make People “Feel” Safer

We are in the middle of a perception war. In perception, often it is emotion not reason which plays a driving role. At the level of the psychopath setting the agenda, the NWO (New World Order) manipulators cleverly exploit this by demanding governments enforce stupid and ineffectual rules like mandatory mask-wearing. At the level of the idiot carrying out the agenda, local and state governmental officials proclaim everyone must wear a mask, so these low-level officials CYA (cover their asses), pacify the population and make it look they are being decisive by taking action. But it’s all a sham, because the masks offer nonprotection as this study The surgical mask is a bad fit for risk reductionstates:

I propose that the surgical mask is a symbol that protects from the perception of risk by offering nonprotection to the public while causing behaviours that project risk into the future … In an annex to the Canadian pandemic influenza preparedness plan covering public health measures, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) does not recommend the use of masks by well individuals in pandemic situations, acknowledging that the mask has not been shown to be effective in such circumstances … The same annex on public health measures refers to the “false sense of security” that a mask can psychologically provide, but the converse is the real risk posed to a government unable to mollify its population.”

Final Thoughts

Mandatory mask-wearing orders are just another way in which NWO conspirators are testing how far they can push people and seeing how much they can get away with. Just like the unscientific social distancing rules (1 meter, 1.5 meters, 2 meters, 6 feet or something else depending upon where you live), masks are symbolic of this entire fake pandemic operation. It’s not about reason or logic; it’s about fear and conditioning. They are training you to obey, training you to question whether you are following all the rules for every minute of your existence, training people to snitch on each other, training people to accept isolation and training people to fear each other (just as with the manmade climate change hoax).

Now we can’t even see people’s face when we interact with them! People of the Earth – WAKE UP!

This is mass conditioning. The degree to which healthy people willingly endorse and obey mask-wearing orders is directly proportional to their level of ignorance and fear. No interventions such as masks or vaccines can come close to the importance of living healthfully and developing your inner terrain (and hence your immune system) so that you are less susceptible to disease. It’s time to ‘unmask’ the truth and use this crisis to educate ourselves and others about the true nature of viruses, the immune system, health and disease.

*

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 Freedom Articles.

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

Sources

The Synthetic Agenda: The Distorted Heart of the New World Order

Cancer: Busting the Myths – Part 1 (The Mysterious Cancer Microbe)

Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy

April 2020 Rockefeller Foundation Paper Urges Testing and Tracing Entire US Population

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/flu-influenza/canadian-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-planning-guidance-health-sector/public-health-measures.html#a352

https://scroll.in/bulletins/272/the-best-of-eco-india-and-a-brand-new-season

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868614/

Inner Terrain vs. Outer Terrain: Which Do You Emphasize for Good Health?

Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything

The Eerie Similarities Between the Coronavirus and Climate Change Hoaxes

We are bombarded by briefings and numbers. We are scared into submission by horrifying medical stories, by shocking images, and then, simultaneously, by predictions of economic and social downfall. Day and night, day and night.

But somehow, so often during this so-called coronavirus emergency, we tend to forget that people are people, not numbers, and that bare survival is far from everything.

*

For decades we were told: “You are living in a globalized world. Borders have become redundant”. Some reluctantly, others happily, accepted.

Rich Westerners invaded all corners of the world with their yachts, villas and third and fourth homes.

Poor Philippine and Indonesian maids and hotel employees have migrated to the Gulf, in search of decently paid jobs.

Interracial, intercontinental marriages and relationships became the norm.

By the end of 2019, hundreds of millions were living in several parts of the world, simultaneously. For different reasons, both rich and poor individuals. For some it became a lifestyle, for others bare necessity.

For better or worse, cultures were increasingly becoming intertwined. To many, the color of skin was increasingly irrelevant. At least to those few hundreds of millions, who have been living on this planet Earth, not just in Asia or Europe, Oceania, the Middle East, South or North America.

I have written a lot about this trend. Some of it was clearly positive, while I have been criticizing, decisively, many elements.

But it was the reality, and as many of us believed, an irreversible, permanent one.

Human beings were breaking up the chains of their past. Suddenly, they felt free to step out of their traditional cultures, religions, habits. They formed relations with human beings coming from other parts of the world. They were marrying people with thoroughly different cultures and backgrounds. They were moving to far away places. And not only young people. Often their parents, seduced by wanderlust, were deciding to retire thousands of miles away.

Men and women were doing research, in deep rainforests, some of them deciding to stay there, forever. Others were ruining these forests, becoming rich on shameless plunder.

So many stories, good and bad. So many reasons, wonderful and horrible, of globalized or internationalized life.

Then suddenly, the end. Full stop!

COVID-19, or call it novel coronavirus, has arrived.

It came from nowhere, its mortality rate low, that of the common flu, but remarkably contagious.

Abruptly, our world stopped.

Almost all proverbial liberties have been taken away from the people. So fast, and without plebiscites, referendums, debates. Police, drones, surveillance, have rapidly been employed against the citizens, virtually everywhere.

And then, almost from the start of the pandemic, the borders began closing down. Borders, which we used to be told, were there to stay open, forever.

And the international, or for some of us internationalist life, was suddenly arrested.

The changes were implemented so rapidly, that most of us had no time to react. We watched, helplessly, as frontiers were closed, airlines cancelled flights, and the movement of people came to an abrupt stop.

Across the border lines, disappearing beyond the horizon, were our families, or loved ones, our colleagues and comrades, as well as countries and cities for which we longed for.

*

There was nothing much we could do, because this brutal global lockdown was performed “for our own good”. We found ourselves sheltered in prison, ‘so we, and others, could survive’. Or that’s what we were told.

We have not been allowed to take risks, nor to dare. Our loved ones have not been allowed to dare, either.

We have all become soft, and so easy to manipulate.  All that talk about freedom and democracy has quickly been forgotten.

In just one or two months, our planet has become fragmented, as never before. Borders have been closed, even between the countries of Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East.

Europeans, for instance, who were forced into great sacrifices in exchange for a borderless continent, were suddenly stuck with those existing sacrifices, but also with the re-erected frontiers.

With shocking speed, all the gains made by humanity – gains towards an open world – were annulled, liquidated.

I have to repeat: people were not asked. Nobody consulted them.

While several airlines began receiving billions of dollars in government subsidies, there has been no compensation for those hundreds of millions of people whose lives have been virtually ruined, reduced to near nothing by the travel bans, which have amounted to imprisoning multitudes in their current locations.

*

Right now, almost the entire South America is “out of reach”, and so is Asia. Foreigners cannot enter the United States. Actually, most of the countries have turned themselves into fortresses.

Imagine that you have relatives living in a different part of the world. Imagine that your spouse is there, somewhere, or your house, or important work which you love, passionately. Imagine that some neoliberal government is using COVID-19 lockdown to cover up the speeding-up of the destruction of its rainforests, as is happening right now in places such as Brazil and Indonesia. Imagine that such governments are dispossessing indigenous people, and you cannot continue your work, which is to expose crimes against humanity and nature.

Millions of people depend on your investigative work, but you cannot go. The borders are closed, planes are not flying. “It is all for your own good”. “It is all for the sake others”.

You may want to ask: “What about the good of those millions who are being robbed, impoverished, even killed by events unrelated, or just partially-related to the COVID-19? Do they have the right to live? Do they have the right to be protected, defended?”

But, not many are asking those questions! And if they do, the mass media is not paying attention.

The novel coronavirus, it appears, is now all that matters, at least to some, or to the majority. Or to the regime.

It is like those proverbial hospitals, which are letting people die from cancer and strokes, because their emergency rooms and beds are being used exclusively to treat COVID-19 patients.

There is something essentially and morally wrong with this approach. Something deeply wrong, philosophically and logically, too.

*

Do governments in, say, Europe, have the right to tell a husband whose wife is dying in Japan or Korea, that he cannot jump on a plane and go, in order to be with her?

Can a scientist be prevented from flying to a lab, on the other side of the world, if he or she is working on some urgent project that could improve life on our planet?

Can I be prevented from flying to Venezuela, where U.S. and Colombian mercenaries have just attempted yet another coup against a legitimate government?

Apparently, the answer is “Yes!”

It is the “new normal” yes.

Four or five months ago, it would all have been considered insane, unacceptable, even criminal.

But now, a flu pandemic, has suddenly created a new ‘morality’, as well as thoroughly new rules and norms for humanity.

And we do not have to look for important missions, or life and death situations, only.

There are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people, who are simply living on this beautiful planet of ours, not in just one particular country, and who cannot exist in any other way. Their culture is multiculturalism. I do not say that it is good or bad. It is simply a fact. Their health, even medical supplies, depend on this ‘lifestyle’, as well as their emotional wellbeing, and their work.

Without being able to travel, their personal relationships are falling apart, their houses and apartments are literally collapsing, and their life is losing its meaning.

Is anyone compiling statistics on how many human lives are being affected, or even ruined in this manner? The number is definitely staggering.

*

Caution, of course! Caution is essential. The coronavirus should not be taken lightly. But not the extreme approaches, which could, for decades to come, set back those countless positive gains that have been made by our civilization.

To travel, to explore; getting to know “the Other”, trying to understand, to live with each other as one humanity: this is one of the great advances made by humankind. Imperfect, sometimes hypocritical or half-hearted, but a great advance, nevertheless. Not globalization, but internationalism, when things are at their best.

We thought that we could take these advances for granted. We strongly believed that they couldn’t be removed from us.

We fought for the others, for the people of all nationalities and races, to be able to enjoy them, soon, too. We thought that we could win.

And now, all of a sudden, we have realized that everything was just a mirage.

One strike of a pen by some government official, and all our liberties can disappear, get cancelled. We get pushed into the corner, as if we were cattle, or kindergarten children.

True rights are only those rights that can never, under any circumstances, be taken away from us.

*

The most frightening is the absolutism, extremism with which the regulations have been introduced.

A state of siege, perhaps, but not outright incarceration.

Travel could have been made difficult, but still possible.

I will say it as an anecdote, but there is some truth in it: I have a combat gas mask, which I use when covering riots, uprisings and revolutions. It has a huge filter. There is no way that if I was wearing it, I could get infected, or infect other people on an airplane. If that is not enough, I would be willing to wear some plastic disposable suit, all the way from, say, South America to Asia, with transit points in Europe. It would be an extremely uncomfortable, but safe (for me and everybody) way of travel. And when in Asia, say Japan, I’d be happy to undergo a 14-day self-quarantine. And even pay some reasonable fee, for ‘causing bother’.

But if I really need to go, if it is a matter of life and death for me, there should be some draconic option for me and for millions like me.

But there isn’t! The borders of the entire Asia and of South America are closed, hermetically. Even the borders of the United States are sealed, despite the fact that it has the highest rate of infected people. Only citizens and green card holders can board the inbound planes.

And so, human lives continue being ruined, on a just recently unimaginable scale.

Nothing, absolutely nothing can be done, it appears. All of us are at the mercy of our regimes.

We had no idea, but now we know.

Even when these restrictions are lifted, nothing will ever be “normal”. People will be well aware of the fact that their lives can be shattered again, on any pretext, at any time.

*

If a cure, or prevention, are ten times, or even hundred times deadlier than the disease, then it is immoral to be applying them.

Also, it is essential to remember, that there are many different ways in which human beings can die. Some people could easily perish even if their lungs are intact, and hearts are beating. They could die from sorrow, from the absence of loved ones, or from the meaninglessness of life in confinement.

Today’s struggle, and combat should not be exclusively against COVID-19. The battle should be simply for life, for each and every human life, no matter what viruses, conditions or circumstances are endangering it.

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,“China and Ecological Civilization”with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, the revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his ground-breaking documentary about Rwanda and DR Congo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitterand his Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The following text was presented by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky at the closing session of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilisations, parallel programme organized by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Beijing, May 15-16, 2019

***

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. A culture of war and military conquest is upheld. War is presented to public opinion as a US-NATO peace-making endeavor which will ultimately result in the spread of Western democracy.

Military intervention not to mention “economic warfare” (including sanctions) are routinely upheld as part of a humanitarian campaign.  War has been granted a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

Culture which is the theme of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilisations (Beijing, May 15-16, 2019) is of utmost importance in resolving conflicts within and between nations. Culture defines perceptions and understanding as well as dialogue and diplomacy.

In this regard, “Towards a Culture of World Peace” constitutes a commitment to Human Livelihood. It is  an initiative  which consists in confronting the discourse in support of  war and military intervention emanating from NATO and the Pentagon. It requires reviving a Worldwide anti-war movement, nationally and internationally as well as establishing a resolve by the governments of sovereign nation states to reject this Worldwide process of militarization.  

The contemporary US-NATO “culture of war” (which has its roots in European colonial history) constitutes an obvious obstacle and impediment to the Dialogue of Civilizations and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013. 

The culture of peace is universal. It is shared by people and nations Worldwide. Today’s “culture of war” is a US hegemonic project predicated on the creation of conflict and divisions within and between countries. It is this (unilateral) project of global warfare which is intent upon destroying civilization.

“The culture of peace” which was addressed by President Xi Jinping in his opening address of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, constitutes an important instrument which has a bearing on broad geopolitical, economic and strategic relations.

The procedure consists in ultimately confronting and dismantling “the culture of war”  which has a pervasive impact on the human mindset. 

This endeavour will not succeed through political rhetoric or a “war of words”.

It requires:

• Translating the “culture of peace” into concrete actions at the geopolitical and diplomatic levels
• Confronting media disinformation and war propaganda
•  A cohesive anti-war movement at the grassroots of society (nationally and internationally)
• An endorsement by the governments of sovereign countries, member states of the United Nations, namely a decisive inter-governmental rejection of the US-NATO “culture of war”, which is in blatant violation of the UN Charter.
• The disbandment of military alliances, including NATO, which are supportive of global warfare.
• The withdrawal of NATO member states and NATO partner member states from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• The adoption of a coherent and Worldwide disarmament programme coupled with major reductions in military spending.
• The closing down of all military bases, some 800 US military bases in about 80 countries
• The curtailment in the international trade of weapons
• The restructuring of national economies with a view to downgrading and eventually closing down the war economy,
• The reallocation of financial resources and tax revenues towards the civilian economy including social services.

So-called “Humanitarian Warfare”

The victims of U.S. led wars are routinely presented by the Western media as the perpetrators of war.

Realities are turned upside down. “War is Peace” said George Orwell. The Western media in chorus upholds war as a humanitarian endeavor. “Wars make us safer and richer” says the Washington Post.

When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. The consensus is to wage war.

The building of this diabolical consensus consists in the militarization of the “cultural industries”. The latter are supported by the US Department of Defense which allocates a large share of its budget to upholding the “culture of war”.

[T]he ideology of militarism pervades society, glorifying the US state’s use of violence not diplomacy to achieve security in a world divided between a righteous American “us” and an evil and threatening “them,” representing war as the first and most appropriate solution to every problem that vexes America, and reducing patriotism to unquestioning support for each and every incursion. (Tanner Mirrlees, The DoD’s Cultural Policy: Militarizing the Cultural Industries, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, October 2017)

In turn Hollywood in liaison with the Pentagon has endorsed the culture of war and violence:

“[The] Hollywood–Pentagon connection represents a key dimension of the military–entertainment–industrial complex, where a film is simultaneously being used as a tool for recruitment, military public relations, and commercial profit.

According to Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, “A similar influence is exerted over military-supported TV”.

Meanwhile, the balance sheet of death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is casually ignored. Civilians in war torn countries are “responsible for their own deaths”. This narrative pervades the Western media:  233,000 estimated deaths in Yemen since 2015, according to a recent United Nations report. 140,000 children killed. The media is silent: who are the war criminals?

Global Warfare

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. This document which has a direct bearing on US foreign policy refers to America’s “Long War”

• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

“The revolution in military affairs” consists in developing advanced weapons systems as well as a new generation of nuclear weapons.

War Culture and Nuclear Weapons

The culture of war is marked by a radical shift in US nuclear doctrine. Starting in 2001, tactical nuclear weapons are heralded as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”.  A new generation of  “more usable”, “low yield” tactical nuclear weapons (mini-nukes) was put forth. They are heralded as peace-making bombs.

The doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) which prevailed during the Cold War era has been scrapped. Under Bush’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) (endorsed by the US Senate in 2002), nuclear weapons are to be used on a “first strike” “pre-emptive basis”, as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear states.

This is an absurd and diabolical proposition which can only be sustained by misleading public opinion, i.e. by obfuscating the deadly impacts of  nuclear weapons. Moreover, while the US has waged countless wars in what is euphemistically described as “the post war era” (1945- present), the issue of “self defense” is erroneous: the national security of the United States of America has never been threatened.

While the US and its NATO allies have launched a military adventure which is sustained by the “culture of war”, the public is largely unaware that the use of these “more usable” nuclear weapons (with a variable explosive capacity between one third to twelve times a Hiroshima bomb) threatens the future of humanity.

There are powerful economic interests behind the culture of war: the oil industry, the military industrial complex, Wall Street. In turn, there are powerful lobby groups which influence US foreign policy. Dialogue and debate are required: It is important that these economic actors, including the weapons producers, be made aware of the inherent dangers of global warfare.

Financing the Culture of War

Trump’s 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program constitutes a financial bonanza for the defense contractors. US media reports suggest that the nuclear weapons program “makes the World safer”.

The “culture of war” sustains a unilateral build up of the weapons industry funded by US tax payers.  The culture of war has triggered mounting military expenditures to the detriment of the civilian economy. Total military spending worldwide was of the order of 1.8 trillion dollars in 2018. US defense expenditure was of the order of 649 billion, which represents 36% of Worldwide military expenditure (all countries) (SIPRI).

The Trump administration has supported a significant hike in defense, war and related “National Security” expenditures. The defense budget presented by the presidency to the US Congress for 2020 is of the order of  750 billion dollars, of which 718 billion will go to the Pentagon.

But this figure of 740 billion is in some regards misleading: Accounting for a massive US intelligence budget, Homeland Security, and related war expenses, the requested annual US National Security (War) Budget for 2020 is estimated to be in excess of 1.2 trillion dollars.

“There are at least 10 separate pots of money dedicated to fighting wars, preparing for yet more wars, and dealing with the consequences of wars already fought”  (See, William D. Hartung, Mandy Smithberger, Boondoggle, Inc.: Making Sense of the $1.25 Trillion National Security State Budget  May 10, 2019).

Compare the figures: The total individual tax revenues for 2020 are of the order of $1.82 billion. Total defense, national security, intelligence, “to make the World safer”, etc is of the order of $1.25 trillion (68.7% of the individual income taxes paid by Americans)

While the weapons industry is booming, the civilian economy is in crisis, civilian infrastructure and social services including medicare are collapsing. Eventually what is required are policy mechanisms for the phasing out of the war economy and the national security apparatus, while channeling resources into rebuilding the civilian economy. No easy task.

The cultural dimension is crucial. US policy-makers believe in their own propaganda. The “culture of war” often combined with twisted ideological and/or religious undertones, influences government officials involved in acts of war.

In 1945, President Truman intimated in the immediate wake of  the bombing of Hiroshima, that God stands on the side of “Us Americans” with regards to the use of nuclear weapons. “We pray that He [God] may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes” (August 9, 1945).

Hiroshima was designated as a “military base” in Truman’s historic speech on August 9, 1945. The stated objective of the Harry Truman was to “save the lives of innocent civilians”.

In the contemporary context, diplomatic relations and dialogue are at an all time low. At no time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis has the World been closer to the unthinkable: a global military conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons.

In this regard, what should be acknowledged is that US government officials in high office who decide upon the deployment and use of nuclear weapons do not have a full understanding of the consequences of their acts.

The Legacy of  History

The contemporary US-NATO “culture of war” has its roots in European colonial history. Starting in the late 15th Century, European colonization was invariably supported by military conquest, violence and political subordination. A colonial economy was established. “Western cultural values” and the language of the colonizers were imposed, civilizations were undermined or destroyed. The colonial system ultimately led to the establishment of hegemonic relations, leading up to the consolidation of the British empire in the 18th and 19th centuries, followed by US neo-colonial expansionism in the late 19th century and in the wake of World War I.

What is significant is that this culture of colonial violence inherited from the British empire has a bearing on the nature of  contemporary US foreign policy, which in large part is predicated on militarization at a global level. The US has currently more than 800 military bases in 80 foreign countries.

Many Asian countries which were the victims of US-led war, not only have military cooperation agreement with the US, they also host US military bases on their territory.

In South and Southeast Asia, European colonialism was marked by conquest coupled with the displacement of the pre-existing silk road trade relations.

Historically, China’s trading relations under the land and maritime silk roads were marked by dialogue and the extensive exchange of culture. China’s trade relations during the Antiquity and Middle Age extended into South and South East Asia, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Africa and Western Europe. Starting during the Han Dynasty (207 BC- 220 AD), the land and maritime silk road played a key role not only in economic exchange between civilizations but also in the spread of social and cultural values.

In contrast to European colonialism, these relations largely respected the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries with which China was trading with. The silk road  trade did not  seek to impose or develop a dependent colonial relationship. The language of diplomacy was marked by the benefits of bilateral exchange.

Asian Culture and China’s Belt and Road

The mindset in Asian societies, which historically have been the victims of colonialism and US led wars is in marked contrast to the dominant “culture of war”.

The legacy of history prevails. While the “culture of war” characterizes America’s hegemonic ambitions modelled on the legacy of the British empire, China’s contemporary Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which consists in developing trade relations with a large number of partner Nations states, is largely committed to a “Culture of Peace”.

Most Asian countries have been the victims of Western colonialism starting in the 15th Century, the impacts of which have led to the destruction of the pre-existing maritime and land trade routes as well as the demise of cultural exchange.

And numerous countries in Asia and the Middle East extending from the Mediterranean to the Korean Peninsula have been the victims of US led-wars in the course of what is euphemistically called “the post war era”. Today most of these countries are partners of the Belt and Road Initiative launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013.

As we speak, the US is threatening Iran. Unconfirmed media reports suggest that the US is considering the deployment of 120,000 US troops to be dispatched to Persian Gulf.  Secretary of State of Mike Pompeo (who has little understanding of history and geography) has justified US threats on security grounds, while casually  referring to the “clash of civilizations”.

US led wars are intent upon destroying civilizations as well dialogue between sovereign nation states.

As we conclude this closing session of  the Conference on the Dialogue of Asians Civilizations in Beijing (parallel sessions organized by CASS), let us endorse “the Culture of Peace” as a means to ultimately abolishing all wars.

*

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.  He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

It is curious that the coronavirus pandemic in which we unwittingly find ourselves is exposing both praiseworthy and unattractive features of the world we inhabit.  On the one hand, countries are sharing vital information with each other.  Medical personnel are doing everything they can to alleviate suffering and save lives.  The heroic actions of those proverbially on the front lines–medical professionals, construction workers, plumbers, and electricians, among others—surely have kept the virus from wiping out entire cities.  They perform work to earn their salaries and wages, but also to serve the common good. 

On the other hand, political leaders are exposing themselves as selfish and corrupt. Ideological agendas are blinding their purveyors to the fact that countries stand to lose far more than gain in international credibility by the misguided actions of those in power.  Examples of such short-sighted behavior appear below.  Various scenarios and predictions aside, regardless of how and when the world’s civilization will cross the finish line of this catastrophe, major fault lines will have appeared that will be difficult to repair.  A scar when healed differs permanently from unincised skin. The body and the mind will remember the circumstances of the wound.

Through the coordination of the World Health Organization (WHO), countries such as China and Russia have shared their growing knowledge about the virus with the world.  China shared the coronavirus genome with WHO in January, 2020.  That same month Xinhua reported:

“The genome sequences of five 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) strains on the National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) have been synchronized and shared with an American database, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).”[i]

Russia received genome information from China and was able to decipher the entire genome sequence of the coronavirus in March, 2020, and sent it to the WHO database.[ii]  In a recent interview with Consortium News journalist par excellence Diana Johnstone notes, “in early April, Vietnam donated hundreds of thousands of antimicrobial face masks to European countries and is producing them by the million.”[iii]

When the coronavirus was first identified as a threat to public health in China, one of the steps the country took to combat the disease was to turn to world-class Cuban biotech innovation:

“Amongst the 30 medicines chosen by the Chinese National Health Commission to fight the virus was a Cuban anti-viral drug called Interferon Alfa-2B . . .”[iv]

Despite its own limited resources as a result of the now 62-year-old economic embargo by the U.S., Cuba on many occasions has sent its doctors and virologists to help other countries.

“As the world fights to stop COVID-19 claiming more lives, Cuba has dispatched 593 medical workers to 14 countries in their battles against the pandemic . . .”[v]

Despite its own struggle to contain the virus, Russia has generously helped other countries—even sending a cargo plane-load of medical supplies to the U.S., the country imposing severe sanctions on it and interfering with the completion of the gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 at every turn.

After the EU did nothing to help Italy in response to its plea for assistance with battling the coronavirus, leaving its member country in effect alone, Cuba, Russia, China, and Venezuela efficiently came through with the needed help.  Cuba, Russia, and China sent supplies and virologists to northern Italy.  Russian medical personnel disinfected many nursing homes, military specialists set up field hospitals, and doctors treated 80 people and helped cure 40 suffering from the coronavirus.[vi]  Venezuela provided doctors and other medical specialists.

Serbia, not an EU country but located on that continent, also was denied assistance; Russia and China stepped in and gave invaluable aid.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia would help Serbia “as always.”[vii] With the four planes that contained the coronavirus medical equipment and personnel now having returned to Russia from Belgrade, the outcomes of Russian assistance can be summed up as follows:

On April 3-4, the Russian Aerospace Forces’ planes transported to Serbia Russian military medics, including virologists, radiation, chemical and biological protection specialists, special medical equipment as well as protection gear and military vehicles.

The Russian servicemen have disinfected 178 facilities in 37 Serbian cities, including 367 buildings on the area of more than 1.6 mln square meters, 69 sections of motorways on nearly 488,000 square meters. The military doctors have examined and treated more than 800 patients.[viii]

This bitter experience of rejection of aid from the EU led Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to re-evaluate, in his words, the “fabled international and European solidarity” as something that “only existed on paper . . .”[ix] RT senior writer Nebojsa Malic sums it up well:

“For the rest of Serbia, but also much of the world, the Covid-19 crisis is turning into a sobering experience. It has revealed not only which friends are fair-weather and which ones are true, but also that globalization is hardly inevitable . . .”[x]

Moreover, Serbia has not forgotten NATO’s brutal 78-day bombing campaign of Yugoslavia that began on March 24, 1999—not very long ago in historical time.  Political fault lines are emerging.

In both the cases of Italy and Serbia, the U.S. provocatively warned Europe about the dangers of receiving help especially from Cuba and Russia—countries with universal health care built into their respective national budgets and constitutions.  Forbes expressed concern about Russia’s “trying to win favor from Italian authorities.”[xi]  Perish the thought!  Reasonably speaking, it is a normal gesture for one country to offer help to another in a friendly way—that is what characterizes good international relations. And to practice medical diplomacy during a pandemic represents normalcy, humanitarian goodwill, and neighborly relations.  When a BBC interviewer implied that Russia’s coronavirus aid was sinister and ideologically motivated, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte replied with annoyance,

“’To think that the aid that we are getting from Russia, China or other countries could influence the geopolitical stance of Italy is a big offense – and not just for me, also for Vladimir Putin, with whom I had a long phone call and who would never dream of using this as leverage in this moment.’”[xii]

What is actually at play here for the U.S. is not a concern for the welfare of the people of Italy and Serbia, but rather that the medical internationalism manifested by countries not its client states—Cuba and Russia in these instances—may result in the U.S.’s losing control of Europe.  However, the U.S. is doing a first-rate job of bringing about that rupture between itself and the European Old World all by itself with its hostile, erratic, and self-centered foreign policy even concerning countries and regions hitherto considered its allies.  The same holds true of Western Europe itself: Voices in the EU have become so depraved that they twist these countries’ humanitarian acts of badly needed solidarity into political grandstanding.  The EU will not tolerate that Cuba, Russia, China, and Venezuela—all with twentieth-century socialist roots—brought help to those in need, with no preconditions attached. The cynicism of the EU is clear—politics and Russia-bashing (more recently, China-bashing) matter much more than genuineness and compassion for countries in their own backyard.

Concerning the U.S., the government at one point sought to have Germany develop a vaccine for the coronavirus that would be purchased and used for itself only—an instance of disturbing selfishness and shortsightedness.[xiii]

In addition, the disorganization that has reigned in Washington produced, among other problems, bickering between the national and state governments (such as with New York); the lack of a consistent and clear message from the president and his staff (such as differences between Dr. Anthony Fauci’s predictions and those of Pres. Trump); and the government’s outright requisitioning of medical supplies already purchased by various states for reasons not made clear (Los Angeles Times, Apr. 7, 2020).  One has the impression that in the midst of such chaos states are on their own to muddle through the crisis as novice explorers in a dark tunnel.

But the bloom is off the rose.  Here is where lasting fault lines will form: The countries that received help will long remember those that stood with them in their hour of need, and those that disdained their pleas for medical assistance.  I have argued the following point before, but will state it again: lasting, productive socio-political relations are forged by the diplomacy of moral equivalence and generosity, not by threats or sanctions, both of which are manifestations of an imagined moral superiority.[xiv]  Regardless of individual views on different approaches to governing—whether socialist, tribal, democratic, or plutocratic—in a far-reaching crisis a well-organized, centralized, and decisive government with even a moderate level of trust from its constituents has a much better chance of responding effectively to a given crisis than a government that emerges as chaotic and contradictory in important directives to its people.

The post-coronavirus future will evidence some new and strengthening alliances among countries and political entities, based on how compassionately and courteously their governments respond in the present moment to this global threat to health and economic stability.  It may be true that traditional deal-making among well-established alliances will not change significantly, but the coronavirus crisis has all the earmarks of shuffling around the geopolitical positions many analysts take for granted.  And some of this shuffling, with where the resulting cards finally land, may lead to a wiser and more ethical approach to international 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.

Valeria Z. Nollan is professor emerita of Russian studies at Rhodes College. She was born in Hamburg, West Germany; she and her parents were Russian refugees displaced by World War II. Her books and articles on Russian literature, cinema, religion, and nationalism have made her an internationally recognized authority on topics relating to modern Russia.  Between 1985-present she has made twenty-six extended research trips to Europe, the Soviet Union, and Russia.

Notes

[i] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763999.htm

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZcxocQ6jU (from pravdareport.com)

[iii] https://consortiumnews.com/2020/05/17/a-circle-in-the-darkness-post-war-europe/

[iv] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2020/03/18/cuba-and-coronavirus-how-cuban-biotech-came-to-combat-covid-19/

[v] https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/cuba-history-sending-medical-teams-nations-crisis-200331112744040.html

[vi] https://tass.com/world/1149591

[vii] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483335-coronavirus-pandemic-serbia-border/

[viii] https://tass.com/society/1157339

[ix] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483335-coronavirus-pandemic-serbia-border/

[x] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483335-coronavirus-pandemic-serbia-border/

[xi] https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2020/03/26/from-russia-with-love-putins-medical-supplies-gift-to-coronavirus-hit-italy-raises-questions/#1d1c71984a47

[xii] https://eastandwest.me/2020/04/11/italian-pm-conte-insinuations-about-russian-aid-offend-me-deeply/

[xiii] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tried-convince-german-scientists-make-coronavirus-vaccine-only-united-states-1492416

[xiv] https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/clash-worldviews-moral-equivalence-or-moral-superiority/ri20229

Dear Readers,

Your support has been a real lifeline to us over the past 12 months. We have found ourselves in rough seas, but have been able to ride the storm so far: the Global Research project lives on thanks to you!

With that being said, we are by no means out of troubled waters just yet. We will need all the support we can get if we are to continue to provide you with cutting edge updates on the state of the world, each and every day: Can you help us? Click below for more details on how you can contribute…we thank you for helping Global Research stay afloat!

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

We thank you for your support!

Our seas and rivers look cleaner; our air feels fresher, quieter; our streets and roadways are abandoned. Panic shopping for household supplies has passed, only to be replaced by lines of mothers and fathers at food banks while UberEats and Grubhub hand-deliver to others at any cost. In U.S. detention camps, miserable crowds are shamelessly left to an undetermined fate while our prisoners and nursing home residents haven’t even the solace of an occasional visitor, even at Easter-time and for Eid Al-Fitr.

Every human activity is not only in transition. We dwell in a state of abeyance. With our singular awareness of ‘self’, we turn to poets, musicians and philosophers to guide us. If they cannot move us forward, at least their voices might ease us through this night.

Ironically, while we wonder and fret, measure and blame, other sentients sharing this earth appear newly liberated. I can’t plan a family visit or my book release, but tulip blooms emerge on schedule, their color a deeper, more resolute hue than I remember; bright petals open despite how readily they attract white-tailed deer and burrowing rabbits.

Look there: a fortnight longer than normal, my fickle forsythia bush is clothed in yellow flowers! (So it’s prospering.) Clusters of wild fern slowly unfold exactly where they do every year in that corner of the field; even the bothersome Japanese knotweed looks certain to endure, driving upwards day-by-day through mud in the riverbank.

Migrating merganser ducks arrived in late winter, and by the time Covid-19 reached our neighborhood, their nests were readied. Now the males have left their mates to mind the brood while they dash upriver, so swift and low, over the water’s surface.

This pattern of normality is reassuring; I should be comforted. I am… to a degree.

Frankly speaking, I’m peeved. It’s off-putting that these neighbors of mine seem so unaware of how my routine, all my expectations, all my personal relations have collapsed in total disarray.

Winged creatures are especially annoying, flitting and diving so determinedly outside my window. Even as I refill the feeders to draw them near, I’m miffed by their urgent calls. I awaken to their sweet morning melodies to find my day is still under threat. How can they be so unaware of my fear, my unhinged life?

“Don’t you know what’s happening?” I whisper to them. “Aren’t you nervous about our monster virus crawling into your throats too?”

I don’t want all your lives suspended as ours have been. Not at all. But we’d been working hard on your behalf:– building bee hives, lobbying against plastics, chemical fertilizers, genetically engineered seeds and carbon-based fuels, over-fishing and excessive meat consumption.

That wasn’t for us only; it was for you too. We had begun to realize how, with your loss, our demise would inevitably follow. You were the focus of our noble struggle; you were the declining, threatened species down the food chain. Now, when our vulnerability is so exposed, you seem immune, so carefree, mocking us with your twitters and chirps. How can I continue to protect you if my power is undermined, so preoccupied with my own race?

*

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

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

Video: Caliphate in Miniature: Rift Between Turkey and Al-Qaeda in Idlib

By South Front, May 20, 2020

The escalated tensions even led to a military incident on the M4 highway, near the town of Nayrab, when the Turkish Army and militant groups directly controlled by Ankara clashed with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its supporters. At least 11 members and supporters of the al-Qaeda-linked group were killed by live fire from Turkish troops and strikes by Turkish unmanned combat aerial vehicles.

China Updates Its ‘Art of Hybrid War’

By Pepe Escobar, May 20, 2020

Unrestricted Warfare was essentially the PLA’s manual for asymmetric warfare: an updating of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. At the time of original publication, with China still a long way from its current geopolitical and geo-economic clout, the book was conceived as laying out a defensive approach, far from the sensationalist “destroy America” added to the title for US publication in 2004.

Washington’s Tell Tale of Iranian-Al Qaeda Alliance Based on Questionably Sourced Book ‘The Exile’

By Gareth Porter, May 20, 2020

The U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January touched off a new wave of disinformation about the top Iranian major general, with Trump administration allies branding him a global terrorist while painting Iran as the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. Much of the propaganda about Soleimani related to his alleged responsibility for the killing of American troops in Iraq, along with Iran’s role in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

The Case of General Michael Flynn: The Use of Law as a Political Weapon

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 20, 2020

US Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that the department was forced to turn over to General Michael Flynn’s attorney reveal that the FBI found no wrongdoing by Flynn in its investigation of him and recommended the investigation be closed.  Corrupt FBI official Peter Strzok, a leader of the anti-Trumb cabal in the FBI, intervened. Strzok convinced the official managing the investigation not to close the case as it was the wishes of the “7th floor” (top FBI officials) to keep the case open. In the absence of evidence against Flynn, released FBI documents prove that the FBI leadership decided to frame General Flynn. The documents reveal that the FBI’s plan is “to get him (Flynn) to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. . . . we should try to frame them in a way we want.”  General Flynn was forced to incriminate himself with a guilty plea. Otherwise, the corrupt DOJ prosecutors threatened to indict Flynn’s son. 

Is the Lockdown the Greatest Policy Disaster in U.S. History?

By Mike Whitney, May 19, 2020

Donald Trump calls the media “the enemy of the people”, but it’s much worse than that. The media is a national security threat. Just look at the way they’ve handled the coronavirus. The hysterical 24-7 coverage has people so terrified they’ve locked themselves in their homes inflicting catastrophic damage on the economy. That disaster never would’ve taken place if the media hadn’t focused all their energy on scaring people to death. Now the damage is done, millions of people have lost their jobs, tens of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses are facing bankruptcy, and the world’s biggest economy has been reduced to a smoldering wastelands. And what was gained? Nothing.

Another U.S Bank Bailout Under Cover of a Virus

By Ellen Brown, May 19, 2020

Many economists in the US and Europe argued that the next time the banks failed, they should be nationalized – taken over by the government as public utilities. But that opportunity was lost when, in September 2019 and again in March 2020, Wall Street banks were quietly bailed out from a liquidity crisis in the repo market that could otherwise have bankrupted them. There was no bail-in of private funds, no heated congressional debate, and no public vote. It was all done unilaterally by unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve.

The Warp Speed Push for Coronavirus Vaccines

By F. William Engdahl, May 19, 2020

The US White House has appointed a coronavirus “Vaccine Czar” from Big Pharma to oversee something dubbed Operation Warp Speed. The goal is to create and produce 300 million doses of a new vaccine to supposedly immunize the entire US population by year-end against COVID-19. To be sure that Big Pharma companies give their all to the medical Manhattan Project, they have been fully indemnified by the US government against liabilities should vaccine recipients die or develop serious disease as a result of the rushed vaccine. The FDA and NIH have waived standard pre-testing on animals in the situation. The US military, according to recent remarks by the US President, is being trained to administer the yet-to-be unveiled vaccine in record time. Surely nothing could go wrong here?

---

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.

Apache helicopters of the US occupation forces flew low Sunday morning, according to residents of the Adla village, in the Shaddadi countryside, south of Hasaka, as they dropped ‘thermal balloons’, an incendiary weapon, causing the wheat fields to explode into flames while the hot dry winds fanned the raging fire.

After delivering their fiery pay-load, the helicopters flew close to homes in an aggressive manner, which caused residents and especially small children to fear for their lives.  The military maneuver was delivering a clear message: don’t sell your wheat to the Syrian government. Head of Hasaka Agricultural Directorate Rajab Salameh said in a statement to SANA that several fires have broken out in agricultural fields in Tal Tamer countryside, as well.

The US illegal bases in Syria fly Apache helicopters.  US President Trump portrays himself as a champion of the American Christians, and he has millions of loyal supporters among the Christian churches across the US.  However, the Christian Bible states in Deuteronomy 20:19 that it is a sin against God to destroy food or food crops even during times of war.

Bread is the most important staple in Syria, and two weeks into the annual wheat harvest, Damascus is keen on securing its supply of grain, while beset by the global pandemic.  On May 4, President Assad said in a meeting with his COVID-19 team that “our most difficult internal challenge is securing basic goods, especially foodstuffs.”

Since the beginning of the US-NATO attack on Syria in 2011, wheat production has fallen from an average of 4.1 million tons per year to just 2.2 million tons in 2019. Syria had been a wheat importer but switched to being an exporter of grain in the 1990s.

According to the UN, Syria was hit by acute food insecurity in 2019, with approximately 6.5 million people considered food insecure.

The northern provinces of Hasakah, Raqqa, Aleppo, and Deir e-Zor, in addition to Hama in central Syria, accounting for 96% of total national wheat production. Using fire as a weapon of war, 85,000 hectares of grain were burnt in 2019, and the Syrian government was forced to import 2.7 million tons to cover the losses. Destroying the Syrian agriculture has been a war strategy used by various enemies of Syria, and has resulted in a mass migration of residents in the villages to Germany, by way of Greece, via the smuggler-boats in Turkey.

The Syrian ‘breadbasket’, the northeastern region, is now controlled by the Kurdish-dominated Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AA). In 2019, almost half of the country’s domestic wheat production was produced within the AA territory, and they managed to buy it from farmers at a price lower than offered by Damascus, which suggests that Damascus may be denied the current harvest.

On May 9, Raqqa began its wheat harvest and photos of fires spread rapidly across various social media.  Competition between the AA and Damascus means the Syrian government will be forced to import grains to meet the domestic demand of about 4.3 million tons.

Youssef Qassem, the General Director of the Syrian Grain Establishment, said 200,000 tons of wheat from Russia has been ordered, and a ship carrying 26,000 tons of wheat coming from Russia had arrived at the port of Tartus, with further shipments to arrive. He added that the wheat is immediately moved from the port to the mills, and said “Preparations are underway to receive the wheat when the harvest season begins next month where 49 centers have been equipped to facilitate the reception of wheat and pay the farmers,” while pointing out that the reopening of the Aleppo-Damascus road has contributed greatly to reducing the costs of transporting wheat.

The AA has talked repeatedly to the Syrian government in Damascus, concerning the future of the northeast, but has not resolved their differences. Ilham Ahmed, co-president of the Executive Council of AA, has been negotiating with Damascus and she is also working closely with the US government representatives in Syria.  Ilham Ahmed is rumored to be the one who gave the idea recently for the US military to target a specific farm in Hasaka, after she had met with Syrian Arab tribal leaders, and found some opposition to selling to the AA.

The armed wing of the AA is the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by the Kurdish YPG militia, who partnered with the US occupation forces in the fight against ISIS, which ended in 2017. Even though Trump allowed President Erdogan of Turkey to invade Syria, the US military is still working in support of the SDF and AA on many levels. The Kurds and their US ally hold the wheat as a trump card in ongoing negotiations.

“Assad needs access to cereal crops in northeast Syria to prevent a bread crisis in the areas of western Syria that he controls,” Syria analyst Nicholas Heras said. “Wheat is a weapon of great power in this next phase of the Syrian conflict,” said Heras, and he added that the Kurds and their US ally “have a significant stockpile of this wheat weapon. It can be used to apply pressure on the (Syrian government), and on Russia, to force concessions in the UN-led diplomatic process.”

In June 2019, the AA stopped wheat from going to territory controlled by the Syrian government. Three provinces which account for nearly 70 percent of the country’s wheat production lie mostly in the hands of the SDF.  “We will not allow any grain of wheat to get out” this year (2019), Barodo said in an interview in Qamishli city. However, the plan bowed to pressure from farmers, who demanded to be able to sell to the Syrian government at a better price than the AA was paying.  The Syrian government operates three wheat collection centers in Hasaka, which allows farmers the choice to sell to the ‘Kurdish authorities’, or the Syrian government.

The Kurds are a minority in Syria, and even in the northeastern region, they are a minority, despite being in ‘control’. The non-Kurdish population is a mix of Syrian Arabs, Syrian Christians, Syrian Armenians and many of them have suffered under the Kurdish administration, which saw non-Kurds being ethnically cleansed, as they lost homes, shops, and farms at the hands of the SDF.

Syria was before 2011, one of the world’s most important agricultural sources of hard durum wheat.  Italy, famous for its pasta, bought hard durum wheat from Syria for decades. During the occupation of Reqaa by ISIS, they shipped by truckloads the wheat stores, which amounted to the equivalent of 8 years of Syrian wheat.  ISIS turned to their trusted business partner, President Erdogan of Turkey, and Erdogan bought the wheat from them.  Erdogan sold the stolen Syrian wheat to Europe and Italy once again had its favorite Syrian wheat running through its industrial pasta machines. The Italians have eaten pasta made of the stolen Syrian wheat.  Perhaps it has left a bitter taste in their mouths.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

The Syrian Ambassador to Russia slammed the US’ sanctions against his country as a form of medical terrorism that prevents it from importing much-needed “medicines, and medical goods, and other means to combat [COVID-19]”, which strongly suggests that America wants more Syrians to die in World War C out of the mistaken belief that this dark scenario would facilitate Washington’s failed geostrategic agenda.

In the second half of April and early May, the Syrian province of Idlib became the epicenter of a military political drama developing between Turkish forces and their al-Qaeda-linked allies.

The escalated tensions even led to a military incident on the M4 highway, near the town of Nayrab, when the Turkish Army and militant groups directly controlled by Ankara clashed with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its supporters. At least 11 members and supporters of the al-Qaeda-linked group were killed by live fire from Turkish troops and strikes by Turkish unmanned combat aerial vehicles.

This incident happened during a failed attempt to remove the camp of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham supporters, which had been established to block the highway and prevent the movement of joint Russian-Turkish patrols in the area. The creation of a security zone along the M4 highway, the withdrawal of radical militant groups from the zone and joint patrols in the area were among the key provisions of the Idlib ceasefire deal reached by the Turkish and Russian presidents in Moscow on March 5. Since the start of the implementation of the deal, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party and other radical groups have been working to sabotage them. Seven joint Russian-Turkish patrols took place in a small area between Saraqib and Nayrab, as the situation in southeastern Idlib was moving closer to conditions in which the resumption of full-scale open military hostilities there would become inevitable. The number of ceasefire violations increased and both the Syrian Army and Idlib radicals were blaming each other for the apparent collapse of the de-escalation deal.

However, by May 5, the situation had changed. The protest camp near Nayrab disappeared. The Russian Military Police and the Turkish Army held their first extended joint patrol along the M4 highway passing the location of the former camp. On May 7, the sides held their second extended patrol, which became the longest one since the signing of the ceasefire deal in March. For the first time, the Russian Military Police reached the eastern entrance to the town of Ariha. These extended patrols became an important breakthrough in Turkish-Russian cooperation over the situation in southeastern Idlib despite the fact that the security zone agreement was still far from its full implementation.

The interesting fact is that this step forward was not due to Ankara’s anti-terrorist efforts in Greater Idlib, but came as a result of a deal reached by Turkey and the leadership of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. The terrorist group de-blocked the M4 near Nayrab. In turn, Turkey reportedly agreed not to oppose Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s decision to open a commercial crossing between the militant-held part of Idlib in western Aleppo near Maaret Elnaasan. Earlier, Ankara and militant groups directly controlled by it had sabotaged this initiative. Turkey seeks to control all economic and social life in northwestern Syria. Meanwhile, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham sees the commercial activity between Greater Idlib and the rest of Syria as an important source of income through various fees and trafficking of goods.

Neither Turkey nor Hayat Tahrir al-Sham are interested in military operations by Syria, Russia and Iran in Idlib. Therefore, in face of the threat of the new Syrian Army advance and the resumption of the Russian air bombing campaign, they reached a tactical agreement to prevent this scenario. However, this did not annihilate their mid- and long-term contradictions.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham enjoys the direct protection of the Turkish Armed Forces and indirectly receives financial support from Ankara. But the group is too large and too influential to be an ordinary Turkish puppet. In fact, the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leadership and its close allies are working to turn Greater Idlib into their own ISIS-style emirate. While publicly they make loud statements about the goals of the so-called Syrian revolution and the need to ‘liberate’ Damascus from the ‘bloody Assad regime’, in fact, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has long since abandoned any plans of major expansion through direct attacks on the Syrian Army. They have been tightening their military, security and political grip over the militant-held part of Greater Idlib. If the situation develops in this direction, Idlib will have every chance of becoming a foothold for international terrorist groups operating all around the world, primarily in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. A network of training camps, weapon trafficking and financial flows for terrorist organizations recruiting new members and planning terrorist operations will all contribute to the growing influence and wealth of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Some global and regional players would be happy to use this opportunity to pursue their own geopolitical goals.

Turkey, which controls the border and is a key regional player keeping ties with Idlib militant groups, may become one of the main beneficiaries of this scenario and the Erdogan government could have agreed on this if the world were the same as it was back in 2011. However it is not.

The weakening of US influence in the Middle East, the shrinking global economy, the fragmentation of global markets and the collapse of the remote chance of Turkey joining the European Union as well as Turkey’s own diplomatic and political pretensions towards regional leadership turned Moscow into its key economic, diplomatic and security partner. Therefore, Ankara is forced to consult the interests of Moscow in its policy because without the military technological, diplomatic and economic cooperation with Russia Turkey has no chances to turn its own geopolitical ambitions into reality.

The current agreement between Turkey and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is rather a result of the tactical convergence of interests rather than a solid alliance. Even if they are able to prevent the resumption of the Syrian Army advance on Idlib, the tensions between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Turkey will increase because they have different strategic interests. It is likely that within the next half year, Ankara will increase pressure on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) and their allies in order to undermine their influence and bring most of the political, administrative and military influence in the Greater Idlib region to ethnic Turks and representatives of groups directly controlled by Ankara.

All of this would be done under the pretext of restoring peace and stability as well as securing democratic elections to form the ‘legitimate’ local authorities. In the event of success, Turkey will consolidate control over northwestern Syria and form a controlled group of persons that will represent the militant-held area in negotiations with the Damascus government. This group must have no links to radicals. The goals of these possible negotiations are to reach a peace agreement and guarantee a wide autonomy for the militant-held part of northwestern Syria in the framework of the comprehensive agreement between Ankara and Damascus. The characteristics of this autonomy will depend on the military political situation in the country at that moment. However there is no doubt that control of the Syrian-Turkish border will be among the key points of contradictions.

On the other hand, Ankara and Damascus may reach no comprehensive agreement because of the complicated military political situation in Syria. This could happen if the security situation deteriorates in the government-controlled part of Syria and Damascus starts losing control over particular regions; for example, due to the increasing activity of ISIS. In these conditions, Ankara will return to the idea of a direct annexation of the northwestern part of Syria. It will justify this move by the need to protect civilians and claiming that Damascus is not able to effectively battle the international terrorism.

*

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

In 2005, Israel virtually installed Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president and PLO chairman.

A rigged election with no legitimacy assured it. His mandate is serving as Israel’s enforcer.

He’s kept in power as long as remaining submissive to Israeli interests at the expense of long-suffering Palestinians whose fundamental rights he long ago abandoned for special benefits afforded him by the Jewish state.

Like all politicians, ignore his rhetoric. Follow his actions alone.

His policies never deviated from collaborating with the enemy. A former aide called him the “sultan of Ramallah,” describing him as thin-skinned and vengeful, tolerating no opposition.

As long as he knows who’s boss, he’s allowed to continue as a figurehead president, a puppet of Israeli interests.

Throughout his tenure, Israel expanded illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land exponentially with no opposition from Abbas and his inner circle — other than meaningless rhetoric.

It’s hard recalling how many times he vowed no longer to go along with Israel/Palestinian agreements — actions never following rhetoric.

Time and again, he says one thing and does another, a duplicitous figure since involvement in the Oslo Accords.

Virtually all PLO agreements with Israel since Oslo in September 1993 benefitted the Jewish state exclusively at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights – over a generation of betrayal by PLO officials.

Chances for turning a new page ahead are virtually nil. Abbas and other key PLO officials have much to lose by going this way – including their lives.

In November, he’ll be age-85. According to Israel’s Hebrew-language Israel Today broadsheet, its most widely read, “he won’t be in office much longer,” his replacement unclear.

PA intelligence chief Majid Faraq may be his most likely successor, an Israeli collaborator like Abbas.

On Tuesday, once again he disingenuously vowed to renounce all agreements with Israel, an empty threat like countless times before.

According to the Palestinian Wafa news agency, he announced his empty intention at a Ramallah emergency session to discuss relations with Israel, reportedly saying:

“The Palestine Liberation Organization and the state of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones,” adding:

“The Israeli occupation authority, as of today, has to shoulder all responsibilities and obligations in front of the international community as an occupying power over the territory of the occupied state of Palestine.”

If he meant the above and followed through with policy changes, his remaining time as puppet president would likely be greatly shortened.

Perhaps his tenure would end in a way similar to Yasser Arafat’s elimination by Ariel Sharon in November 2004 — death at age-75 in a Paris hospital from polonium poisoning.

Analysis of his clothing, other personal belongings, even his toothbrush, showed traces of the deadly poison.

According to Medical News Today.com:

“Polonium-210 is a rare radioactive metal discovered by Marie Curie in the late 19th century.”

“If polonium-210 enters the body, through inhalation, swallowing, broken skin, the results can be fatal.”

“By mass, polonium-210 is one of the deadliest toxins, around 250 billion times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide.”

It’s not how Abbas wants his tenure to end, nor a similar fate — why he’ll continue serving as Israel’s enforcer as long as remaining in office.

Collaborating with Israel kept him as Palestinian puppet leader for over 15 years.

He won’t risk leaving office horizontally by disobeying its authorities.

In remarks broadcast by Palestinian television, he left himself wiggle room by saying he’s willing to negotiate an end of conflict based on a two-state solution.

Long ago it was possible, no longer, a one-state solution for all its people the only viable option because Israel virtually controls the Occupied Territories in their entirety.

If Israel annexes unlawful settlements, the Jordan Valley, and northern Dead Sea (around 30% of the West Bank) as Netanyahu vowed, it’ll drive a final stake into the heart of two-state discussion.

With or without annexation, the notion of two states is pure fantasy, a colossal hoax like decades no-peace/peace plans — Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” the most outrageously unacceptable of all, why it was dead before arrival.

Israeli control of historic Palestine won’t change through diplomacy. Only sustained longterm resistance is a viable option.

People power is the only chance for Palestinian liberation one day. It’s pure illusion to believe otherwise.

*

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.

These are not only rapidly changing times; they are revolutionary times. The people are awakening not only to a new situation of living under Coronavirus, but a situation in which the hot spotlight is shining on the ongoing injustices, incompetence, and uncaring attitude and actions of our government toward the plight of the people at large. This is what makes for revolutionary times.

There are people trying to form alternative parties of varying sorts and kinds. But unless they can unify under a common banner, the further splintering of populist groups and organized actions will never be galvanized sufficiently to exact the change they seek.

Here is a suggestion for that common banner for unity of the People: use the Declaration of Independence. Since our leaders in all branches and levels of government have shown their lack of concern for and even hostility to the People and our needs, especially seen now more obviously (but in fact already their well-established and ongoing modus operandi) in the Coronavirus “stimulus” packages that gave the people next to nothing, we are undoubtedly back to that revolutionary moment that prompted the founding document that declared that the People were no longer servants of the oppressive government holding them under its thumb.

So why not use that same document, update it, and in that way craft a new banner to unify all populist parties? At this moment in time, we cannot allow the disagreements between specific party ideas to dissuade us from uniting together under the name of the People and our rights. We must learn to work together for the same general principles that will result in the fall of the current form of government, and something more akin to the rule of law, of rights, and of justice to found our rule. To that end, I have proffered a re-writing of Jefferson’s famous document, with full honor and respect being given to the original, as a suggestion for a Populist banner that will be a platform of unity, rather than independent and isolated small parties of division. Here is a suggestion for a new Declaration of Independence of the People from the current government, which is now on the border of being the type of tyranny that so concerned the Founders. Just like in their time, so in ours: we need a declaration of the unity of the People against the current oppressive government, which has completely refused to be concerned with the needs or good of the People, and has sided completely with the wealthy at all levels of government. So now to Jefferson, with a twist:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are equal, that as human they have certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted to protect and serve the People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Parties and a Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Objects of money and power, evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of the People; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present form of government in the United States is a history of repeated ignorance, injuries, and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world, that show that each or all of the instituted branches of government have either singly or one and all, failed to protect and preserve the good of the People.

They have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, thereby forcing the People to relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have bypassed Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. The Representative Houses, for their part, acknowledge and cooperated in this surrender of their Constitutionally designated power, and permitted its usurpation by the Executive Branch.

They have refused for a long time to allow others to be elected by free, open, and verifiable vote, allowing the People in the meantime to be exposed to all the dangers of invasion of their individual and collective economic and social good from within and without the country.

They have endeavoured to prevent the population of these States by non-native others; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to permit their migrations hither, and refusing and obstructing the conditions for safe harbor for those immigrants.

They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing their Assent to Laws for limiting Judiciary powers.

They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies which influence and even involve themselves by plan in the affairs of the People, all with the Consent of our legislatures, but not the People.

They have affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution (Wall Street), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
• For abolishing the free System of Laws in neighboring Provinces, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments;

They have abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of their Protection and waging War against us by removing our fair and safe voting to all citizens, and by diminishing our rights.

They are at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the leaders of a civilized nation, by attacking and preparing to attack leaders of other countries as well as their people and geographical territory.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An Oligarch ruling class whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the People of the united States of America, in full and unbreakable unity, and appealing to the universal good of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this United States, solemnly publish and declare, That the People are and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent from such authoritative and unresponsive government; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to this government, and that all political connection between them and the government, is and ought to be totally dissolved until and unless our grievances are met with just response; and that as Free and Independent, the People have full Power to control the way we are governed. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Justice herself, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Some have said that history is cyclical. If that is true, the current times certainly mirror our founding times in many ways. Why not use the truths that the Founders held, and make them once again our own? Why not unite all Populists under some version of a banner such as this? Without it, there can be no unity and no overcoming of the current authoritarian oligarchy under which we now live.

*

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 Abele is a professor of philosophy at Diablo Valley College, located in Pleasant Hill, California in the San Francisco Bay area. He is the author of four 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); and eleven chapters for the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Global Justice. He and has written numerous articles and done interviews on politics and U.S. government foreign and domestic policies.

La Fondazione Rockefeller ha presentato il «Piano d’azione nazionale per il controllo del Covid-19», indicando i «passi pragmatici per riaprire i nostri luoghi di lavoro e le nostre comunità». Non si tratta però, come appare dal titolo, semplicemente di misure sanitarie.

Il Piano – cui hanno contribuito alcune delle più prestigiose università (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins e altre) – prefigura un vero e proprio modello sociale gerarchizzato e militarizzato.

Al vertice il «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia, analogo al Consiglio di produzione di guerra che gli Stati uniti crearono nella Seconda guerra mondiale». Esso sarebbe composto da «leader del mondo degli affari, del governo e del mondo accademico» (così elencati in ordine di importanza, con al primo posto non i rappresentanti governativi ma quelli della finanza e dell’economia).

Questo Consiglio supremo avrebbe il potere di decidere produzioni e servizi, con una autorità analoga a quella conferita al presidente degli Stati uniti in tempo di guerra dalla Legge per la produzione della Difesa.

Il Piano prevede che occorre sottoporre al test Covid-19, settimanalmente, 3 milioni di cittadini statunitensi, e che il numero deve essere portato a 30 milioni alla settimana entro sei mesi. L’obiettivo, da realizzare entro un anno, è quello di raggiungere la capacità di sottoporre a test Covid-19 30 milioni di persone al giorno.

Per ciascun test si prevede «un adeguato rimborso a prezzo di mercato di 100 dollari». Occorreranno quindi, con denaro pubblico, «miliardi di dollari al mese».

La Fondazione Rockefeller e i suoi partner finanziari contribuiranno a creare una rete per la fornitura di garanzie di credito e la stipula dei contratti con i fornitori, ossia con le grandi società produttrici di farmaci e attrezzature mediche.

Secondo il Piano, il «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia» viene anche autorizzato a creare un «Corpo di risposta alla pandemia»: una forza speciale (non a caso denominata «Corpo» come quello dei Marines) con un personale di 100-300 mila componenti.

Essi verrebbero reclutati tra i volontari dei Peace Corps e degli Americorps (creati dal governo Usa ufficialmente per «aiutare i paesi in via di sviluppo») e tra i militari della Guardia Nazionale. I componenti del «Corpo di risposta alla pandemia» riceverebbero un salario medio lordo di 40.000 dollari l’anno, per cui viene prevista una spesa statale di 4-12 miliardi di dollari annui.

Il «Corpo di risposta alla pandemia» avrebbe soprattutto il compito di controllare la popolazione con tecniche di tipo militare, attraverso sistemi digitali di tracciamento e identificazione, nei luoghi di lavoro e di studio, nei quartieri residenziali, nei locali pubblici e negli spostamenti. Sistemi di questo tipo – ricorda la Fondazione Rockefeller – vengono realizzati da Apple, Google e Facebook.

Secondo il Piano, le informazioni sulle singole persone, relative al loro stato di salute e alle loro attività, resterebbero riservate «per quanto possibile». Sarebbero però tutte centralizzate in una piattaforma digitale cogestita dallo Stato Federale e da società private. In base ai dati forniti dal «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia», verrebbe deciso di volta in volta quali zone sarebbero sottoposte al lockdown e per quanto tempo.

Questo, in sintesi, è il piano che la Fondazione Rockefeller vuole attuare negli Stati uniti e non solo. Se venisse realizzato anche in parte, si produrrebbe una ulteriore concentrazione del potere economico e politico nelle mani di élite ancora più ristrette, a scapito di una crescente maggioranza che verrebbe privata dei fondamentali diritti democratici.

Operazione condotta in nome del «controllo del Covid-19», il cui tasso di mortalità, secondo i dati ufficiali, è finora inferiore allo 0,03% della popolazione statunitense. Nel Piano della Fondazione Rockefeller il virus viene usato come una vera e propria arma, più pericolosa dello stesso Covid-19.

This week, massive Turkish military support has finally allowed the Government of National Accord to achieve some breakthrough in the battle against the Libyan National Army (LNA).

On May 18, GNA forces and members of Turkish-backed militant groups from Syria supported by Turkish special forces and unmanned combat aerial vehicles captured the Watiya Air Base in the northwestern part of the country. LNA troops urgently retreated from it after several days of clashes in the nearby area. They left behind a UAE-supplied Pantsir-S1, an Mi-35 military helicopter and a notable amount of ammunition. The LNA defense at the air base was undermined by a week-long bombardment campaign by artillery and combat drones of Turkish-backed forces.

Additionally, pro-Turkish sources claimed that drone strikes destroyed another Pantsir-S1 air defense system near Sirte and even a Russian-made Krasukha mobile electronic warfare system. According to Turkish reports, all this equipment is being supplied to the Libyan Army by the UAE. Turkish sources regularly report about successful drone strikes on Libyan convoys with dozens of battle tanks. Some of these ‘military convoys’ later appeared to be trucks filled with water-melons.

In any case, the months of Turkish military efforts, thousands of deployed Syrian militants and hundreds of armoured vehicles supplied to the GNA finally payed off. The Watiya Air Base was an operational base of the LNA used for the advance on the GNA-controlled city of Tripoli. If the LNA does not take back the airbase in the near future, its entire flank southwest of Tripoli may collapse. It will also loose all chances to encircle the city. According to pro-Turkish sources, the next target of the Turkish-led advance on LNA positions will be Tarhuna. Earlier this year, Turkish-backed forces already failed to capture the town. Therefore, they seek to take a revanche.

This will lead to a further escalation of the situation in northern Libya and force the UAE and Egypt, the main backers of the LNA, to increase their support to the army. The UAE-Egypt bloc could bank on at least limited diplomatic support from Russia. Until now, Moscow has preferred to avoid direct involvement in the conflict because it may damage the delicate balance of Russian and Turkish interests. Russian private military contractors that operate in Libya represent the economic interests of some Russian elite groups rather than the foreign policy interests of the Russian state.

Additionally, Turkey, which is supported by Qatar and some NATO member states, has already announced its plans to begin oil and gas exploration off Libya’s coast. Ankara has ceased to hide the true intentions and goals of its military operation in Libya. Thus, the internal political conflict turned into an open confrontation of external actors for the natural resources of Libya.

The interesting fact is that the increasing military activity of Turkey in Libya goes amid the decrease of such actions in Syria. Thousands of Turkish proxies have been sent from Syria to Libya. This limits Ankara’s freedom of operations in the main Syrian hot point – Greater Idlib. In these conditions, Turkish statements about some mysterious battle against terrorism in Idlib look especially questionable. Indeed, in the current conditions, Ankara will be forced to cooperate with Idlib terrorists, first of all al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham even closer to maintain its influence in this part of Syria. The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham plan to create a local quasi-state in the controlled territory and expand its own financial base by tightening the grip on the economic and social life in the region will gain additional momentum.

As to the Turkish government, it seems that in the current difficult economic conditions President Recep Tayyip Erdogan decided to exchange his “Neo-Ottoman” foreign policy project for expanding in some not so rich regions of Syria for quite tangible additional income from the energy business in Libya.

*

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

In 1999, Qiao Liang, then a senior air force colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, and Wang Xiangsui, another senior colonel, caused a tremendous uproar with the publication of Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America.

Unrestricted Warfare was essentially the PLA’s manual for asymmetric warfare: an updating of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. At the time of original publication, with China still a long way from its current geopolitical and geo-economic clout, the book was conceived as laying out a defensive approach, far from the sensationalist “destroy America” added to the title for US publication in 2004.

Now the book is available in a new edition and Qiao Liang, as a retired general and director of the Council for Research on National Security, has resurfaced in a quite revealing interview originally published in the current edition of the Hong Kong-based magazine Zijing (Bauhinia).

General Qiao is not a Politburo member entitled to dictate official policy. But some analysts I talked with agree that the key points he makes in a personal capacity are quite revealing of PLA thinking. Let’s review some of the highlights.

Dancing with wolves

The bulk of his argument concentrates on the shortcomings of US manufacturing: “How can the US today want to wage war against the biggest manufacturing power in the world while its own industry is hollowed out?”

An example, referring to Covid-19, is the capacity to produce ventilators:

“Out of over 1,400 pieces necessary for a ventilator, over 1,100 must be produced in China, including final assembly. That’s the US problem today. They have state of the art technology, but not the methods and production capacity. So they have to rely on Chinese production.”

General Qiao dismisses the possibility that Vietnam, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India and other Asian nations may replace China’s cheap workforce:

“Think about which of these countries has more skilled workers than China. What quantity of medium and high level human resources was produced in China in these past 30 years? Which country is educating over 100 million students at secondary and university levels? The energy of all these people is still far from being liberated for China’s economic development.”

He acknowledges US military power even in times of epidemic and economic difficulties is always capable of “interfering directly or indirectly in the Taiwan straits question” and finding an excuse to “block and sanction China and exclude it from the West.” He adds that, “as a producing country, we still cannot satisfy our manufacturing industry with our own resources and rely on our own markets to consume our products.”

In consequence, he argues,

it’s a “good thing” for China to engage in the cause of reunification, “but it’s always a bad thing if it’s done at the wrong time. We can only act at the right time. We cannot allow our generation to commit the sin of interrupting the process of the Chinese nation’s renaissance.”

General Qiao counsels,

“Don’t think that only territorial sovereignty is linked to the fundamental interests of a nation. Other kinds of sovereignty – economic, financial, defense, food, resources, biological and cultural sovereignty – are all linked to the interests and survival of nations and are components of national sovereignty.”

To arrest movement toward Taiwan’s independence,

“apart from war, other options must be taken into consideration. We can think about the means to act in the immense gray zone between war and peace, and we can even think about more particular means, like launching military operations that will not lead to war, but may involve a moderate use of force.”

In a graphic formulation, General Qiao thinks that,

“if we have to dance with the wolves, we should not dance to the rhythm of the US. We should have our own rhythm, and even try to break their rhythm, to minimize its influence. If American power is brandishing its stick, it’s because it has fallen into a trap.”

In a nutshell, for General Qiao,

“China first of all must show proof of strategic determination to solve the Taiwan question, and then strategic patience. Of course, the premise is that we should develop and maintain our strategic force to solve the Taiwan question by force at any moment.”

Gloves are off

Now compare General Qiao’s analysis with the by now obvious geopolitical and geo-economic fact that Beijing will respond tit for tat to any hybrid war tactics deployed by the United States government. The gloves are definitely off.

The gold standard expression has come in a no-holds barred Global Times editorial:

“We must be clear that coping with US suppression will be the key focus of China’s national strategy. We should enhance cooperation with most countries. The US is expected to contain China’s international front lines, and we must knock out this US plot and make China-US rivalry a process of US self-isolation.”

An inevitable corollary is that the all-out offensive to cripple Huawei will be counterpunched in kind, targeting Apple, Qualcom, Cisco and Boeing, even including  “investigations or suspensions of their right to do business in China.” 

So for all practical purposes, Beijing has now publicly unveiled its strategy to counteract US President Donald Trump’s “We could cut off the whole relationship” kind of assertions.

A toxic racism-meets-anti-communism matrix is responsible for the predominant anti-Chinese sentiment across the US, encompassing at least 66% of the whole population. Trump instinctively seized it – and repackaged it as his re-election campaign theme, fully approved by Steve Bannon.

The strategic objective is to go after China across the full spectrum. The tactical objective is to forge an anti-China front across the West: another instance of encirclement, hybrid war-style, focused on economic war.

This will imply a concerted offensive, trying to enforce embargoes and trying to block regional markets to Chinese companies. Lawfare will be the norm. Even freezing Chinese assets in the US is not a far-fetched proposition anymore.

Every possible Silk Road branch-out – on the energy front, ports, the Health Silk Road, digital interconnection – will be strategically targeted. Those who were dreaming that Covid-19 could be the ideal pretext for a new Yalta – uniting Trump, Xi and Putin – may rest in peace.

“Containment” will go into overdrive. A neat example is Admiral Philip Davidson – head of the Indo-Pacific Command – asking for $20 billion for a “robust military cordon” from California to Japan and down the Pacific Rim, complete with “highly survivable, precision-strike networks” along the Pacific Rim and “forward-based, rotational joint forces” to counteract the “renewed threat we face from great power competition.”

Davidson argues that,

“without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China and Russia will be emboldened to take action in the region to supplant US interests.”

Watch People’s Congress

From the point of view of large swathes of the Global South, the current, extremely dangerous incandescence, or New Cold War, is mostly interpreted as the progressive ending of the Western coalition’s hegemony over the whole planet.

Still, scores of nations are being asked, bluntly, by the hegemon to position themselves once again in a “you’re with us or against us” global war on terror imperative.

At the annual session of the National People’s Congress, starting this Friday, we will see how China will be dealing with its top priority: to reorganize domestically after the pandemic.

For the first time in 35 years, Beijing will be forced to relinquish its economic growth targets. This also means that the objective of doubling GDP and per capita income by 2020 compared with 2010 will also be postponed.

What we should expect is absolute emphasis on domestic spending – and social stability – over a struggle to become a global leader, even if that’s not totally overlooked.

After all, President Xi Jinping made it clear earlier this week that a “Covid-19 vaccine development and deployment in China, when available,” won’t be subjected to Big Pharma logic, but “will be made a global public good. This will be China’s contribution to ensuring vaccine accessibility and affordability in developing countries.” The Global South is paying attention.

Internally, Beijing will boost support for state-owned enterprises that are strong in innovation and risk-taking. China always defies predictions by Western “experts.” For instance, exports rose 3.5% in April, when the experts were forecasting a decline of 15.7%. The trade surplus was $45.3 billion, when experts were forecasting only $6.3 billion.

Beijing seems to identify clearly the extending gap between a West, especially the US, that’s plunging into de facto New Great Depression territory with a China that’s about to rekindle economic growth. The center of gravity of global economic power keeps moving, inexorably, toward Asia.

Hybrid war? Bring it on.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A Chinese anti-US propaganda poster from the Korean War era. Photo: Facebook

COVID-19 can be prevented, and it can be cured. Important preventative measures, argues Prof. Dolores Cahill, include vitamins C, D, and Zinc, which boost immunity. If preventative measures had been taken, claims Cahill, “no one would have died.”

The cure includes Hydroxoquine, which has been clinically tested and has proven successful in treating SARS patients in 2003.

Cahill claims there is no need for new drugs and there is no need for vaccines. People are dying unnecessarily. Furthermore, she says lockdowns are unnecessary, and indeed counterproductive.

If all of this is true, then the global lockdowns, well-orchestrated and pre-planned, did much harm, and continue to do so. In fact, they might well be crimes against humanity, since the intent to create widespread and systematic harm against civilian populations is evident.

Excess deaths would include not only those in Intensive Care Units, but also those who did not get treatments for other ailments such as heart disease, cancer etc. due to Fear campaigns and lockdowns. Excess deaths would also include those linked to state-demolished economies globally. Poverty kills.

If all of this is true, then judicial inquiries should be launched.

So, who is Prof. Cahill? Her career, says interviewer Dave Cahill, “has been steeped in data integrity, transparency, and trying to engage in good, high quality science.”

Unlike Bill Gates, the WHO, CDC, and corrupt Western politicians, she is also free from conflicts of interest.

Watch the video below before Youtube bans it:

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

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

 

this is an article by NYP. Selected excerpts

Big Tech companies are aggressively tamping down on COVID-19 “misinformation” — opinions and ideas contrary to official pronouncements.

Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski, former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, says YouTube removed a video of him talking about the virus that had racked up more than 1.3 million views.

Wittkowski, 65, is a ferocious critic of the nation’s current steps to fight the coronavirus. He has derided social distancing, saying it only prolongs the virus’ existence, and has attacked the current lockdown as mostly unnecessary.

Wittkowski, who holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry, believes the coronavirus should be allowed to create “herd immunity,” and that short of a vaccine, the pandemic will only end after it has sufficiently spread through the population.

“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected,” he says in the now-deleted video.

“I was just explaining what we had,” Wittkowski told The Post of the video, saying he had no idea why it was removed. The footage was produced by the British film company Journeyman Pictures.

“They don’t tell you. They just say it violates our community standards. There’s no explanation for what those standards are or what standards it violated.”

To read complete article click here

 

In articles and interviews across the web, he has likened COVID-19 to a “bad flu.” That likely made him a target for YouTube, which said in April it would be “removing information that is problematic” about the pandemic.

“Anything that goes against [World Health Organization] recommendations would be a violation of our policy and so removal is another really important part of our policy,” CEO Susan Wojcicki told CNN.

Wittkowski’s argument is a minority opinion among his colleagues, but still well within mainstream thought and currently is the basis for Sweden’s non-lockdown approach to the pandemic.

The embattled WHO, however, is not a fan, with the group’s executive director of health emergencies, Mike Ryan, this week calling it “a really dangerous, dangerous calculation.”

Rockefeller University — Wittkowski’s employer for 20 years — also released a statement sharply distancing itself from him last month.

While the doctor might have been too hot for YouTube, he has found a home at the American Institute for Economic Research, which is currently hosting the video online.

Across social media, censors have been racing to limit the flow of verboten information.

“We have broadened our definition of harm to address content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information,” Twitter said in April shortly after removing two tweets by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

That same month, Facebook conceded it had been working with state governments in California, New Jersey and Nebraska to remove pages for anti-quarantine events.

“It’s the kind of totalitarian thinking and conduct that has cost millions of lives in recent world history. The fact that it’s being done by private companies and not government doesn’t change that,” Ron Coleman, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told The Post.

Wittkowski, however, says history has already vindicated his earlier position that the old and immunocompromised alone should have been strictly isolated, which The Post reported in March.

Roughly one-third of all US COVID-19 deaths have been among nursing home patients and staff, a problem that Wittkowski says was deeply exacerbated in New York by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 executive order requiring nursing homes to accept individuals with the virus.

He dismissed a new order from the governor this week requiring regular COVID testing for staff as a farce.

“Cuomo can’t undo his mistake of forcing nursing homes to take in infected people when the horse is out of the barn,” he said.

If nothing else, Wittkowski has made a point of practicing what he preaches.

The German national flouts New York’s coronavirus restrictions, walking around his Upper East Side neighborhood maskless and eating in underground restaurants.

“We don’t have to fear anything but fear,” he said. “Wasn’t that an American who said that?”

Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson, told The Post in a statement:  “We quickly remove flagged content that violates our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of global or local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance. We are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”

*

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

Turkish media has been full of speculation of a potential coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, including from state-run Anadolu Agency, and other major outlets like Sabah and Haberturk. Erdoğan already survived a 2016 coup attempt against him that he blames on his ex-ally, Fethullah Gülen, who leads the FETÖ Islamic movement. It is likely that Erdoğan will conduct another purge of the Turkish military.

Although the 2016 coup was orchestrated mostly by the Air Force, it appears that one of the first victims could have been Rear Admiral Cihat Yaycı. On May 15, Yaycı was demoted from the Chief of Staff’s to the General Staff, prompting him to resign from the military completely on Monday. Although some speculated it could have been because of the coup rumors circulating, Yaycı proved to be one of the most loyal Chief of Staff’s to Erdoğan and played a significant role in purging so-called FETÖ elements from the Turkish military.

It is likely that Yaycı was actually demoted because of Turkey’s complete failure to project its power in the Eastern Mediterranean. Yaycı is known as the architect of Turkey’s “Blue Homeland” theory that aims to annex Greece’s Eastern Aegean islands and maritime space. To achieve the “Blue Homeland,” Ankara in November 2019, with recommendation from Yaycı, sealed the “Marine Jurisdictions” maritime boundary delimitation deal with Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accords (GNA) to split Greek maritime space between Turkey and Libya.

However, since the signing of the deal with the Tripoli-based GNA, Ankara’s power projections in the Eastern Mediterranean has only weakened Turkish influence. Turkey had not expected for Greece to expel the GNA ambassador from Athens, one of the first NATO and EU countries to do so. In reaction, Greece recognised the GNA’s rival, the Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives who appointed Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar to command the Libyan National Army against Turkish-backed jihadists who fight for the GNA.

Greece’s shift in recognition shows another flashpoint in rivalry with so-called NATO ally Turkey and rapidly changed dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean. Haftar currently controls about 90% of territory and 60% of the population, prompting Turkey to send 5,000 Syrian jihadists to support the GNA, who have regained some lost territory in recent weeks.

But this is going to change as it appears massive simultaneous operations against the GNA and Turkish-backed jihadists in Syria’s Idlib province are set to begin in the coming weeks. Turkey as the sole backers of jihadist forces in Libya and Idlib will find this extremely difficult to deal with as it faces an economic crisis.

A detailed report by New Economy found that “Turkey’s probability of bankruptcy is extremely high,” along with its three big banks of Garanti, Akbank and the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk-founded İşbank. “The country’s commercial banks, its last stronghold, have dried up from foreign exchange currency,” meaning that Turkey has nearly no money for its import and export companies.

Another report found that failed wars against Libya and Syria have been a major problem for its economy, making Turkey’s bankruptcy probability over 30% in the forthcoming period, putting them behind only Venezuela and Argentina, but “without having the US embargo that Venezuela has, nor the vast debt that Argentina brings.”

Most startling however for Turkey is that it has to find $80 billion by August, according to New Economy, or else it faces bankruptcy.

“There is also the additional 0.5-1 billion dollar cost per month for the wars in Syria and Libya, which seems to exacerbate the existing situation, leading to a huge state budget hole and escalating the probabilities of bankruptcy,” the report said.

With major economic problems in Turkey, Ankara paid Syrian jihadists in Libya only one month’s worth of wages and then ended all payments. This has prompted the jihadists to make videos urging other Syrians not to go to Libya and fight. Meanwhile, Turkey’s aggression has prompted Greece to renew diplomatic relations with Syria, become actively involved in Libya, and strengthen relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who oppose Turkish influence in the Arab world.

Yaycı’s ambitious “Blue Homeland” project forced Greece to become involved in Libya and Syria that it previously had no interest in, and it is now actively a part of an alliance that is opposing Turkish influence in the region. With Greece actively opposing Turkish influence in Libya, France has also taken a stronger interest and openly opposes the GNA now. What began as a plan to carve up Greece’s maritime space has now turned into a debacle that sees French involvement against the GNA and EU recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood government waning.

Egypt is now threatening to directly use its military to defeat the GNA rather than just supply Haftar’s forces. The UAE has promised to continue airstrikes against the GNA and funding mercenaries for Haftar. Saudi Arabia is also funding mercenaries. Greece and France are involved in the EU’s Operation Irini to stop maritime deliveries of arms to Libya. In March, Haftar’s political representatives signed with Syria a Memorandum of Understanding to start diplomatic relations. Syria and the Libyan National Army are also preparing likely simultaneous operations against jihadists in their respective countries.

This is all happening while Turkey faces a very serious threat of bankruptcy and rumors of a coup attempt. Therefore, it is likely that Yaycı was demoted by Erdoğan for masterminding and pushing for the “Blue Homeland” that has ended in catastrophic failure for Turkey.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

A disinformation campaign aimed to justify the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by painting him and Iran as willing enablers of al-Qaeda. The propaganda operation relied heavily on a shoddily sourced book, “The Exile.”

***

The U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January touched off a new wave of disinformation about the top Iranian major general, with Trump administration allies branding him a global terrorist while painting Iran as the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. Much of the propaganda about Soleimani related to his alleged responsibility for the killing of American troops in Iraq, along with Iran’s role in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

But a second theme in the disinformation campaign, which has been picked up by mainstream outlets like the Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio, was the claim that Soleimani deliberately unleashed al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s campaign to kill Shiites in Iraq. That element of the propaganda offensive was the result of the 2017 publication of “The Exile,” a book by British journalists Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, which spun a new version of the familiar U.S. propaganda line of a supposed Iranian terror alliance with al-Qaeda.

Levy and Scott-Clark introduced the theme of secret collusion between the two open adversaries with an article in the The Sunday Times in early 2018, dramatically entitled “Tehran in devil’s pact to rebuild al‑Qaeda.” Soleimani, they claimed, “first offered sanctuary to bin Laden’s family and al-Qaeda military leaders,” then proceeded to “build them a residential compound at the heart of a military training center in Tehran.”

But those two sentences represented a grotesque distortion of Iran’s policy toward the al-Qaeda personnel fleeing from Afghanistan into Iran. Virtually every piece of concrete evidence, including an internal al-Qaeda document written in 2007, showed that Iran agreed to take in a group of al-Qaeda refugees with legal passports that included members of bin Laden’s family and some fighters and middle- and lower-ranking military cadres – but not Zarqawi and other al-Qaeda military leaders — and only temporarily and under strict rules forbidding political activity.

The crucial fact that Levy and Scott-Clark conveniently failed to mention, moreover, was that Iranian officials were well aware that al-Qaeda’s leadership figures, including military commanders and with their troops, were also slipping into Iran from Afghanistan, but Iranian security forces had not yet located them.

Keeping the legal arrivals under closer surveillance and watching for any contacts with those illegally in the country, therefore, was a prudent policy for Iranian security under the circumstances.

In addition, having bin Laden’s family and other al-Qaeda cadres under their surveillance gave Iran potential bargaining chips it could use to counter hostile actions by both al-Qaeda and the United States.

Al-Qaeda documents undermine narrative of cooperation with Iran

Careful study of the enormous cache of internal al-Qaeda documents released by the U.S. government in 2017 further discredited the tall tale of Iranian facilitation of al-Qaeda terrorism.

Nelly Lahoud, a senior fellow at the New American Foundation and former senior research associate at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center, translated and analyzed 303 of the newly available documents and found nothing indicating Iranian cooperation with, or even knowledge about the whereabouts of Zarqawi or other al-Qaeda military leaders prior to their detentions of April 2003.

Lahoud explained in a September 2018 lecture that all actions by al-Qaeda operatives in Iran had been “conducted in a clandestine manner.” She even discovered from one of the documents that al-Qaeda had considered the clandestine presence of those officials and fighters so dangerous that they had been instructed on how to commit suicide if they were caught by the Iranians.

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark were well aware that those al-Qaeda operatives living in Tehran’s military training center were under severe constraints, akin to a prison.  Meanwhile, senior figures like Zarqawi and Saif al-Adel, the head of the al-Qaeda shura council, were far away from Tehran, planning new operations in the region amid friendly Sunni contacts. These plans included Zarqawi’s campaign Iraq, which he began organizing in early 2002.

Nevertheless the authors declared,

“From [the Iranian training center], al-Qaeda organized, trained and established funding networks with the help of Iran, co-ordinated multiple terrorist atrocities and supported the bloodbath against Shi’ites by al-Qaeda in Iraq….”

Anti-Iran think tanker Sadjadpour jumps on the conspiracy bandwagon

Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a reliable fount of anti-Iran spin, responded within days of the Soleimani assassination with an article in the Wall Street Journal’s right-wing editorial section that reinforced the budding disinformation campaign.

Entitled “The Sinister Genius of Qassem Soleimani,” Sadjadpour’s op-ed argued that in March 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “Soleimani’s Quds Force freed many Sunni jihadists that Iran had been holding captive, unleashing them against the U.S.” He cited “The Exile” as his source.

Levy and Scott-Clark did indeed spin a tale in the book of Zarqawi’s troops — and Zarqawi himself — being rounded up and locked to the same prison as those al-Qaeda members who entered with passports in March 2003. The authors claimed they were released within days. But the only sources they cite to support their claims were two people they interviewed in Amman, Jordan in 2016.

So who were these insider sources? The only identifying characteristics Levy and Scott-Clark offer is that they were “in Zarqawi’s group at the time.” Furthermore, neither of these sources is quoted to substantiate the claim that Zarqawi was arrested and then released from prison, and they are mentioned only in a footnote on the number of Zarqawi’s troops that had been sent to the prison.

Sadjadpour offered his own explanation — without the slightest suggestion of any evidence to support it — of why Soleimani would support an anti-Shiite jihadist to kill his own Iraqi Shiite allies. “By targeting Shiite shrines and civilians, killing thousands of Iran’s fellow Shiites,” he wrote, “Zarqawi helped to radicalize Iraq’s Shiite majority and pushed them closer to Iran—and to Soleimani, who could offer them protection.”

In late January, on National Public Radio’s weekly program “Throughline,” Sadjadpour pushed his dubiously sourced argument, opining that Soleimani had figured out how to “use the al Qaeda jihadists of Zarqawi … to simply unleash them into Iraq with the understanding that you guys do what you do.”

The BBC promotes “The Exile” as the book’s narrative crumbles

In a BBC radio documentary broadcasted in late April, titled “Iran’s Long Game” (an allusion to Iran’s alleged long-term plan for domination of the entire Middle East), Cathy Scott-Clark told a story intended to clinch the case that Iran had helped Zarqawi: Other prisoners “heard conversations in the corridors” in which Iranian authorities allegedly assured Zarqawi, “You can do whatever you want to do … in Iraq.”

That story does not appear in her book, however. Instead, Adrian Levy and Scott-Clark related a comment by Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, a spiritual adviser to bin Laden, on hearing about the arrest and subsequent release of Zarqawi from another prisoner who eavesdropped by tapping the pipes leading into his room.

That narrative had already been definitively contradicted long before, however, in an account provided by Saif al-Adl, the most senior member of the al-Qaeda top leadership in Iran. Al-Adl had fled with Zarqawi from Afghanistan across the border into Iran illegally in late 2001 or early 2002 and was apprehended in April 2003 — weeks after the alleged events portrayed in al-Mauritani’s story.

In a memoir smuggled out of Iran to Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, which Husayn published in 2005 in an Arabic-language book (but available online in an English-language translation), Saif al-Adl described an Iranian crackdown in March 2003 that captured 80 percent of Zarqawi’s fighters and “confused us and aborted 75 percent of our plan”.

Because of that round-up, al-Adl wrote, “[T]here was a need for the departure of Abu-Mus’ab and the brothers who remained free.” Al-Adl described his final meeting with Zarqawi before his departure, confirming that Zarqawi had not been caught prior to his own apprehension on April 23, 2003.

Levy and Scott-Clark cited Saif al-Adl’s memoir on other matters in “The Exile,” but when this writer queried Scott-Clark about al-Adl’s testimony – which contradicted the narrative that underpinned her book – Scott-Clark responded, “I know Fuad Hussein well. Most of his information is third hand and not well sourced.”

She did not address the substance of al-Adl’s recollections about Zarqawi, however. When asked in a follow-up email whether she challenged the authenticity of Saif al-Adl’s testimony, Scott-Clark did not respond.

*

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

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

The audacious corruption of the FBI and the US Department of Justice (sic) is demonstrated by their frame-up of the three-star general, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump. 

US Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that the department was forced to turn over to General Michael Flynn’s attorney reveal that the FBI found no wrongdoing by Flynn in its investigation of him and recommended the investigation be closed.  Corrupt FBI official Peter Strzok, a leader of the anti-Trumb cabal in the FBI, intervened. Strzok convinced the official managing the investigation not to close the case as it was the wishes of the “7th floor” (top FBI officials) to keep the case open. In the absence of evidence against Flynn, released FBI documents prove that the FBI leadership decided to frame General Flynn. The documents reveal that the FBI’s plan is “to get him (Flynn) to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. . . . we should try to frame them in a way we want.”  General Flynn was forced to incriminate himself with a guilty plea. Otherwise, the corrupt DOJ prosecutors threatened to indict Flynn’s son. 

When this proof of egregious government misconduct came to light, the DOJ had no choice but to drop the case against General Flynn.  Otherwise it would be clear that law in the US is a weapon in the hands of government. This would mean that control of government would be a life and death matter for the two political parties as it is in Ecuador and Bolivia where incoming presidents arrest or attempt to arrest outgoing presidents.

But we didn’t hear a word about the frame-up of General Flynn from the corrupt presstitutes.  On May 7 the editorial board of the New York Times published the largest and most egregious collection of lies in the entire history of the disreputable organization.  The editorial— “Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guillty. Twice.” —claimed the lies coerced from Flynn proved Flynn’s guilt, and that Attorney General William Barr is a “personal fixer for the president” and used the Department of Justice to protect friends and to go after political enemies.

The New York Times has it backwards. Going after political enemies is precisely what the Obama Regime’s concocted case against General Flynn (and Trump) was all about.  Remember, it was General Flynn who said on television that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama Regime to send the mercenary jihadists to attack Syria, a decision Obama made in the face of contrary advice by General Flynn, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. When Flynn revealed this, it blew up the fake news story spread by the Obama Regime and the presstitutes that the Obama-supported invasion of Syria by CIA mercenaries was an uprising by Syrian moderates fighting for democracy.  Flynn’s blood is blood that the corrupt Obama Regime wanted very badly.

Obama’s role in the frame-up of Flynn and the orchestration of the Russiagate hoax is now coming to light, making the former president nervous.  On May 10 the Wall Street Journal editorial board asked if Obama’s nerves are getting in the way of his judgment:

“Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn.  Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.”   

The Democrats’ frame-up of General Flynn and their two attempted frame-ups of President Trump show an extraordinary audacity and a corruptly compliant FBI and DOJ.  They thought that they could get away with it, and, of course, they had all the help possible from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the presstitute scum for whom lies are the currency of their fake news realm.  The presstitutes have made clear that the US media is devoid of integrity.

After high officials such as James Clapper, Susan Rice, Samatha Power, and others repeatedly claimed evidence of Trump and Flynn’s guilt, when under oath their story changed 180 degrees.  Here is Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: 

 “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Susan Rice, Obama’s incompetent National Security Adviser, and Samatha Power, Obama’s Russia-baiting ambassador to the UN, along with the rest of the disreputable Obama cabal, have admitted that they saw no specific evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. The entire thing was an orchestrated hoax that proves beyond all doubt that the Democrat Party and the US media are corrupt beyond redemption.

When the case against Flynn was dropped as a result of the damning evidence of egregious government misconduct in framing a senior official of the US government, the corrupt prosecutors who had prosecuted the innocent Flynn all resigned in a huff, pretending that it was Barr, not them, who used the Department of Justice for self-interested political purpose.

Two Georgetown University law professors, Kean K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, totally discredited themselves and the Obama contingent in the DOJ, by alleging in the New York Times that the dropped charge against Flynn has resulted in the “utter demoralization” of “the law enforcement community.”  In other words, for these law professors and “the law enforcement community” for which they claim to speak, dropping a case consisting entirely of an orchestrated frame-up, a contrived perjury trap, and threats against family members is demoralizing.  The professors are so thoroughly dishonest that they use the lies coerced from Flynn—the price of his “cooperation with the investigation” in order that his son would not also be framed-up—as “evidence” of Flynn’s guilt and proof of the political use of the Justice Department by Trump and Barr in dropping the contrived case.  

The frame-up of Flynn is not acknowledged by the law professors as political use of the Justice  Department. See this. 

Instead the law professors describe the vindication of an innocent man  on the basis of undeniable evidence as political use of the Justice Department. 

If this is the kind of law Georgetown University teaches, the law school should be promptly shut down.

The question that demands an answer is how do people as corrupt and devoid of integrity as Comey, Mueller, and Strzok get into top FBI positions?

*

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

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

Following its defeat in the second war on Lebanon, Israel discovered that its only way to suppress Hezbollah would be to close the supply line between Lebanon and Syria. That could only be achieved by removing President Bashar al-Assad from power, disrupting the “Axis of the Resistance” that extends from Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Gaza. But Israel and the US, supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates, Turkey, Europe and many other countries all failed to achieve their goal of making Syria a failed state. President Assad called upon his allies whose own national security was in jeopardy. If Syria were to fall, jihadists of al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” would be fighting in the streets of Beirut, Baghdad and Tehran. The jihadists would also be powerful enough to remove Russia from its Syrian naval base and to export the war beyond the Levant’s borders. So, Israel and the US failed to destroy Syria and to corner Hezbollah. On the contrary, Hezbollah has become stronger than ever. The Resistance has reaped the harvest of its victory. It has become the decision-maker with key institutions in Lebanon.

Israel sought to destroy Hezbollah because it is an obstacle to Israel’s expansionist plans in Lebanon, namely to steal Lebanon’s water and some of its territories, to force a peace deal of unconditional surrender, to break Lebanon’s alliance with Iran and deprive Tehran of its strongest ally in the Middle East. For the last forty years, since the victory of the “Islamic Republic” in 1979 led by Imam Ruhollah Khomeini which unseated the US proxy ruler, the Shah of Iran, Washington has imposed sanctions, because Iran has refused to submit to US power and because it supports its allies in the Middle East, mainly Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, to stand against Israel.

In 2006, the US was involved in the planning of Israel’s war on Lebanon. At the 2006 G8 Summit, President George W. Bush described the relationship between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria as one of the root causes of “instability”: “The World must deal with Hezbollah, with Syria, and continue to work to isolate Iran.” (Roshandel J. & Lean C.N. (2011) Iran, Israel and the United States, ABC-CLIO, CA, p. 109).

US Secretary Condoleezza Rice refused to mediate a ceasefire unless “the conditions are conducive”, thinking Israel would win the war. Hezbollah was not only left on its own to face the US and Israel, but Lebanese US-Saudi proxies (Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Druse leader Walid Jumblat) supported the position of the US and Israel, and argued that there was “no point in a ceasefire.” (Wilkins H. (2013). The Making Of Lebanese Foreign Policy: understanding the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War, Routledge, Introduction).

When Israel failed to achieve its objectives, the US agreed to mediate an end to the war. Negotiations concentrated on ceasing all hostilities (not a ceasefire) between the two countries. Tel Aviv and Washington failed to obtain the deployment of United Nations Forces in Lebanon, UNIFIL, on the borders with Syria. The US sought to accommodate Israel in its attempt to gain by negotiation what it failed to achieve using its huge war machine in 33 days of the war in 2006. “Israel’s objective was never realistic”, said Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

When its attempt to control the Lebanese-Syrian borders failed after its defeat in the 2006 war, Israel had one remaining option with which to counter Hezbollah: close the road via Damascus and find a way to curb Hezbollah’s supply line. This required war on Syria.

Since confronting Hezbollah face-face was no longer an option, Syria became the next target in the campaign to isolate Iran, as President Bush declared. The motives behind the war in Syria have been erroneously described by many researchers and analysts around the globe, who have depicted the war as the outcome of an “Arab Spring” against a dictatorial regime. Yet Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and other Gulf countries have been ruled by dictatorships and the same family members for decades and indeed are considered by the west as its closest- oil-rich- partners!

Actually, the war on Syria started just after the al-Qaeda 9/11 attack on the US. Four-star US general Wesley Clark disclosed Washington’s plan as he learned of it in the days after 9/11: “occupy Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finish with Iran.” Just a few months after the US invasion of Iraq, US Secretary of State Colin Powell visited President Bashar al-Assad and warned him that the US would invade Syria if he refused to interrupt his support for the anti-Israel organisations, Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups: the Syrian president would share the same fate as the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was far from being a piece of cake. The US occupation generated new resistance among both Sunni and the Shia. This encouraged President Assad to rebuff the US threat, unaware of what the future held for Syria. Dozens of states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, the Emirates, Europe and the US all supported a regime change operation via Takfiri proxies. But the consequences of destabilising Syria gave a unique opportunity for al-Qaeda to blossom in Syria and a more lethal group emerged, the “Islamic State” ISIS. President Assad called upon his few allies, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah, to stand against the massive coalition gathered to create this failed state in Syria. The Syrian war which ensued offered unprecedented experience to the Syrian army, gave birth to a new Syrian resistance and offered unique warfare knowledge to Hezbollah, with a base for Iran that Tehran could never before have dreamed of having in the Levant.

Hezbollah had forced unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in the year 2000 and challenged all those Israeli-US plans for a “new Middle East” after the second Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. And the long nine years of war in Syria Hezbollah forced Hezbollah to refine its tactics and armaments and provided Hezbollah with an unprecedented victory. Just as Israel had boosted the creation of Hezbollah, it taught this quasi-state actor all manner of skills and forced it to acquire more training and weapons to repel wars and dismantle the enemy’s objectives. Israel’s former Chief of Staff and Prime Ministerial candidate Benny Gantz believed that Hezbollah had become one of the strongest irregular-organised armies in the Middle East, capable of imposing its rules of engagement and its “balance of deterrence” on the strongest classical army in the Middle East.

“Show me four or five states with more firepower than Hezbollah: they are the US, China, Russia, Israel, France, & the UK,” Gantz said when speaking at the 2014 Herzliya Conference.

That was Israel’s assessment in 2014. Six years later, last February, Israel’s minister of defence Naftali Bennet said:

“For every convoy you hit, you miss five convoys and slowly Hezbollah accumulates the critical mass of rockets [missiles] that threaten us.”

Hezbollah has become stronger than many armies in the Middle East. Hezbollah is no longer the organisation that clashes with the Israelis on a hill or site or ambushes a patrol behind an alley. Rather, in Syria and Iraq, it has successfully experienced different warfare scenarios. It has acquired many advanced weapons and became a strategic threat to Israel if it ever contemplated waging outright war on Lebanon and Syria.

Israel set as its goal bringing down Assad in Syria and separating Syria from the “Axis of Resistance.” Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya’alon said that “Israel prefers ISIS on its borders over Assad.” But Israel, America, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates have lost the war. Israel has now chosen to maintain the conflict because it fears that America would let go. This is why Israel is hitting hundreds of targets in Syria, -most of the time without no strategic value whatsoever.

Sources in the “Axis of Resistance” in Syria say that

“Israel targeted the Iranian HQ at Damascus airport (a building with green glass where Israel destroyed two floors). The following day, Iran restored it and it is back in operation.  Israel has repeatedly targeted warehouses with Iranian weapons but also an abandoned training centre in the Kiswa area that has been empty for years. Their aim is to signal to the US that Israel is threatened and that the departure of the US forces would constitute a threat to Israel’s national security. It is indeed too late for Israeli jets to make any difference to Syria’s capabilities. Iran is not exporting weapons but manufacturing them. If it took Israel 9 years and 300 bombing raids to destroy Iranian warehouses in Syria, it took Iran only one year to refill and equip the Syrian army with much more sophisticated precision missiles- and all strategic missiles are in underground warehouses.”

Iran has only a few hundred advisers and officers in Syria, but it leads some tens of thousands of allies from Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and auxiliary Syrian forces that resemble irregular-organised military formations.

In Syria, Hezbollah was able to operate in an area ten times the size of Lebanon, which gave it a unique experience any army in the world would have wished to have. It was also subjected to attacks by a NATO member, Turkey, which used armed drones on the battlefield. That provided Hezbollah with a wealth of experience and taught them lessons that have become integrated into curricula at military schools and colleges in Iran with Hezbollah and their allies.

President Assad does not say that it is time for his allies (especially Hezbollah) to leave Syria. Rather, he says – according to this source – that “Syria has a debt to Hezbollah. Wherever Hezbollah wants to be, it will be also Syria’s wishes.” America and Israel created an unbreakable alliance between Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has started to harvest its gains. Hezbollah was able to impose the name of the President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, despite repeated opposition from Saudi Arabia and the US, the losers in the Syrian war. Lebanon remained without a president for several months until General Aoun assumed the presidency.

Hezbollah rejected multiple offers from different countries by giving the Presidency of the Parliament to anyone other than President Nabih Berri, leader of the Amal movement, who has been on this throne for decades. Hezbollah holds the real power – though not all of it – in Lebanon to call for the appointment of the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Parliament.

As for the premiership, it cannot be assumed without Hezbollah’s approval of the candidate. Hezbollah has sufficient political weight within the House of Representatives and the Presidency of the Republic to nominate or accept the nomination or direct the appointing of a prime minister. Former prime minister Saad Hariri is making sure his daily friendly contacts with Hezbollah are maintained because he would very much like to return to power. Hariri knows that the door to the premiership goes through one gate: Hezbollah.

This does not mean that Hezbollah wants to take control of Lebanon as a whole. Hezbollah leaders are aware that the Druse leader Kamal Jumblatt, Sunni leader Rafic Hariri, the Maronite Christian leader Bashir Gemayel and the Palestinians have all failed in controlling Lebanon and seizing the country. Hezbollah does not want to succumb to the same mistakes and doesn’t wish to control all of Lebanon. This means that the counter influence of other countries exists and is well-rooted in Lebanon. For example, the US ambassador in Beirut is threatening the Lebanese government with a warning not to remove the Central Bank Governor Riad Salama. Also, the US removed a Lebanese-Israeli agent, Amer Al-Fakhouri, via a plane which landed him at the US embassy without taking into consideration Lebanese sovereignty. The US supports the Lebanese army and internal security forces to maintain its dominance over certain key figures.

Syria has given the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, powers in Lebanon that he would not have obtained without the intervention of Israel and the allies in Syria. Hezbollah has managed to preserve its military pipeline via Syria by defeating the Takfiris (al-Qaeda and ISIS) and has prevented them from establishing an “Islamic emirate” in Lebanon and Syria.

Hezbollah’s victory comes at a price: thousands of martyrs and thousands of wounded. However, the resulting harvest is so abundant and strategic that the Lebanese Shiites now enjoy more power in Lebanon and Bilad al-Sham than they have since the year 661 when the fourth caliphate’s Imam Ali bin Abi Talib was killed.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

Cyber ​​warfare is one of the main bellicose activities of contemporary times. Through technologically advanced and powerful weapons, the great world powers face each other on the international stage in an invisible field, far from media attention, where the most complex networks of information and state secrets circulate. The fundamental nature of the cyber field for modern warfare is currently undeniable. More and more cases of virtual clashes between world powers are confirmed, with secret cyber warfare units being revealed day after day. Now, this confrontation seems to have definitely come to rivalry between Iranians and Israelis in the Middle East.

On May 9, a major cyberattack was registered against Iran. The main victim of the operation was the network in the port area of ​​Bandar Abbás, in the south of the country. An unidentified source, who claims to be “an official of a foreign government”, said in an interview that the attack was “very accurate”, causing “total disorder” in Iranian authorities, with almost irreparable damage. He further claims that the damage was much greater than was officially reported by the Iranian government. It is possible that much information of precious strategic value was captured with this virtual attack.

Now, a recent article in The Washington Post, bringing together information from several sources – many of which are classified – states categorically that the attack was led by Israel, which reportedly carried out the operation as part of a cyberwarfare scheme.

“The attack, which snarled traffic around the port for days, was carried out by Israeli operatives, presumably in retaliation for an earlier attempt to penetrate computers that operate rural water distribution systems in Israel, according to intelligence and cybersecurity officials familiar with the matter”, writes the newspaper.

Israel recently formally accused Iran of being behind a series of “daily cyberattacks” against Tel Aviv. In his speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that such attacks occur on a daily basis and are constantly monitored and repelled by Israeli security forces. Tehran not only denies involvement in the case but claims to have no participation in cyber wars. The May 9 attack was supposed to have been a retaliation for these attacks against Israel.

The director of the Iranian Maritime and Port Organization, Mohammad Rastad, confirmed on May 10 that a recent cyberattack could “damage several private operating systems in ports”. Some foreign intelligence sources cited by The Washington Post on May 8 pointed out that Iran was linked to the April 24 cyberattack against at least two rural water distribution networks in Israel – part of the attacks mentioned in the previous paragraph.

In September last year, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohamad Yavad Zarif, said Iran is facing a cyberwar. The minister mentioned the so-called Operation Olympic Games, which the United States and Israel reportedly launched in 2006 against the Iranian nuclear program, and the acts of sabotage carried out with the cyber weapon “Stuxnet worm”. Identified in 2010, this virus is malicious code that attacks Windows operating system computers through various vulnerabilities. It was used in 2009 and 2010 to infect computers at various Iranian entities, including the Iranian nuclear plant at Bushehr, and has been detected in other countries such as Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and the USA, and is apparently a cyberweapon in common use by various armed forces and intelligence agencies worldwide.

The most interesting and important of all this is not to identify who actually committed such attacks, but to recognize the problem of cyber wars in contemporary geopolitics. The current world cannot be understood by the simple duel of “visible” forces, as it was in the Cold War, where the nuclear race marked the struggle for power between nations. Today, most weapons are outside this scope of easy identification and great damage can be done to entire nations through absolutely invisible and immaterial attacks. This new reality raises the complexity of the debate about everything we know about international relations, geopolitics and international law to a new level and brings deep reflections on the world in which we live.

Apparently, the confrontation between Iranians and Israelis has reached a new stage, in which nations also face each other in cyber reality. And this will be a stage to which all armed confrontations and geopolitical rivalries on the planet will be elevated until there is a definitive international consensus on the nature of cyberspace. Perhaps, more than ever, it is necessary to think about the possibility of creating a “cyber nomos”, a legal status for cyberspace in international law, where specific limits on war, crimes, espionage and terrorism in cyberspace are established. Only then, cyberattacks can be combated with formal sanctions and condemnations, without rebuttal and without the perpetuation of the conflicts.

*

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.

Federal, state and local agencies have teamed up to operate a warrantless cellphone tracking program to monitor compliance with COVID-19 social distancing requirements.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the program provides information on people’s movements in over 500 U.S. cities. According to the report, the CDC spearheads the program known as the COVID-19 Mobility Data Network with assistance from state and local governments. Tech companies and data providers have reportedly been cooperating with the effort.

This information has been fed to law enforcement agencies. For instance, according to a report from the Daily Mail, “one source shared that researchers learned that a huge number of New Yorkers had been visiting Brooklyn’s Prospect Part and handed the information over to authorities.”

Emergencies create the perfect excuse for government power to expand.

The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. The spread of coronavirus and the fear generated has opened the door to all kinds of government actions that would be intolerable in normal times. Once established, these government powers never go away. In fact, the 9/11 emergency allowed the federal government to create the foundation for the surveillance state that exists today with the passage of the Patriot Act and other post-9/11 “authorities.”

Since then, the federal government has been constructing an integrated national surveillance state with the cooperation of state and local agencies. The COVID-19 “emergency” provides an excuse to put that system to “good use.” it also sets the stage for further expansion and abuse of the system in the future.

Some have pushed back against further expansion of the surveillance state during the pandemic, recognizing the inherent danger of letting that particular cat out of the bag. The New York-based Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) released a statement opposing the expanded use of location data to track coronavirus.

“Even as we battle this unprecedented public health threat, we still have to uphold the Constitution. Warrantless cellphone location tracking has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and this surveillance program poses dire consequences for Americans’ privacy. We are deeply concerned that this data was not only collected in secret, but that it’s apparently being shared with no protections against being used by police or even ICE. While it’s unclear if this sort of surveillance state helps prevent the spread of COVID-19, it’s quite clear that it undermines our most fundamental rights and risks driving countless Americans into the shadows.”

The COVID-19 tracking program reportedly strips records shared with government agencies of identifying information. But as a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out, it’s virtually impossible to truly anonymize location data.

Practically speaking, there is no way to deidentify individual location data. Information about where a person is and has been itself is usually enough to reidentify them. Someone who travels frequently between a given office building and a single-family home is probably unique in those habits and therefore identifiable from other readily identifiable sources. One widely cited study from 2013 even found that researchers could uniquely characterize 50 percent of people using only two randomly chosen time and location data points.

It is possible to aggregate data in a way that protects individual identities, but once the pandora’s box is open, how do you keep everything inside? By its nature, government pushes the boundaries. It’s only a matter of time before police agencies are using this information to identify individuals.

Other countries have already used location data to identify specific people. China was particularly aggressive in using mass surveillance of phones to classify individuals based on their health status and to then restrict their movements. Those who claim “that can’t happen here” are naive. In fact, police have already used mass location tracking to hunt down fugitives.

Judges across the U.S. are issuing search warrants that effectively authorize police to search broad geographical areas to determine who was near a given place at a given time. In practice, these warrants give police permission to use Google location data to engage in massive fishing expeditions and subject hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to police location tracking.

In practice, “geofence” warrants authorize police to search Google’s massive location tracking database for all of the phones within a given geographical area during a specific timeframe. According to the New York Times, federal agents first utilized the practice in 2016.

According to the Times, these broadly construed warrants help police pinpoint possible suspects and witnesses in the absence of other clues. Google employees said the company often responds to a single warrant with location information on dozens or hundreds of devices.

North Carolina produced the first public reports of this investigative tactic last year after detectives obtained warrants to obtain location data for all the phones that were in the area of two shootings. According to WRAL, “On a satellite image, they drew shapes around the crime scenes, marking the coordinates on the map. Then they convinced a Wake County judge they had enough probable cause to order Google to hand over account identifiers on every single cell phone that crossed the digital cordon during certain times.”

Geofencing could also be accomplished in real-time using celt site simulators, commonly known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower. This allows law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

Some argue that this kind of mass surveillance is necessary to catch “bad guys.” But what happens when the government defines a person stopping at the gun store or attending a church a “bad guy?”

Government powers never shrink. They only expand. Each expansion begets new expansions. It is imperative to place absolute limits on surveillance. We can’t trust government agents to limit themselves. As Patrick Henry warned, “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed in the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty.”

*

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

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

A Fundação Rockefeller apresentou o “Plano de Acção Nacional Covid-19”, indicando os “passos pragmáticos para reabrir os nossos locais de trabalho e a nossa comunidade”. No entanto, como aparece no título, não se trata apenas de medidas de saúde.

O Plano – para o qual contribuíram algumas das universidades de maior prestígio (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins e outros) – prefigura um verdadeiro modelo social hierárquico e militarizado.

No topo, o “Conselho de Controlo da Pandemia, análogo ao Conselho de Produção de Guerra que os Estados Unidos criaram na Segunda Guerra Mundial”. Seria composto pelos “‘leaders’ do mundo dos negócios, do governo e do mundo académico” (assim enumerados por ordem de importância, em primeiro lugar, não os representantes do governo, mas os das finanças e da economia).

Este Conselho Supremo teria o poder de decidir produções e serviços, com uma autoridade semelhante à conferida ao Presidente dos Estados Unidos em tempo de guerra pela Lei de Produção de Defesa.

O plano prevê que sejam submetidos semanalmente ao teste Covid-19,  3 milhões de cidadãos dos EUA e que esse número deve ser elevado a 30 milhões de testes por semana, dentro de seis meses. O objectivo, a ser alcançado dentro de um ano, é atingir a capacidade de testar Covid-19 em 30 milhões de pessoas por dia. Para cada teste, prevê-se “um reembolso adequado, ao preço do mercado, de 100 doláres”. Assim, serão necessários, em dinheiro do erário público, “biliões de dólares por mês”.

A Fundação Rockefeller e os seus parceiros financeiros ajudarão a criar uma rede para o fornecimento de garantias de crédito e a assinatura de contratos com fornecedores, ou seja, com grandes empresas produtoras de medicamentos e equipamentos médicos.

De acordo com o Plano, o “Conselho de Controlo de Pandemia” também está autorizado a criar um

“Corpo de Resposta à Pandemia”: uma força especial (não é por acaso que é denominada “Corpo” como o dos Marines/Fuzileiros Navais) com uma equipa de 100 a 300 mil componentes. Seriam recrutados entre os voluntários do Peace Corps e  dos Americacorps (oficialmente criados pelo Governo dos EUA para “ajudar os países em desenvolvimento”) e entre os militares da Guarda Nacional.(1)

Os membros do “Pandemic Response Corps” receberiam um salário bruto médio de 40.000 dólares/ano, para o qual está prevista uma despesa estatal de  4 a12 biliões de dólares por ano.

O “Corpo de Resposta à Pandemia” teria, sobretudo, a tarefa de controlar a população com técnicas do tipo militar, através de sistemas de rastreio e identificação digital, nos locais de trabalho e estudo, nos bairros residenciais, nos locais públicos e de deslocação. Sistemas deste tipo – recorda a Rockefeller Foundation – são fabricados pela Apple, Google e Facebook.

De acordo com o Plano, as informações sobre os indivíduos, relacionadas com o seu estado de saúde e com as suas actividades, permaneceriam confidenciais “na medida do possível”. No entanto, todas seriam centralizadas numa plataforma digital co-gerenciada pelo Estado Federal e por empresas privadas. Com base nos dados fornecidos pelo “Conselho do Controlo da Pandemia”, seria decidido, periodicamente, quais as áreas que estariam sujeitas a ‘lockdown’ e por quanto tempo. Este é, em resumo, o plano que a Fundação Rockefeller deseja concretizar nos Estados Unidos e não só.

Se fosse efectivado, ainda que parcialmente, haveria uma maior concentração do poder económico e político nas mãos de elites ainda mais reduzidas, em prejuízo de uma maioria crescente que seria privada dos direitos democráticos fundamentais. Operação realizada em nome do “controlo Covid-19”, cuja taxa de mortalidade, segundo dados oficiais, até agora tem sido inferior a 0,03% da população dos EUA.

No Plano da Fundação Rockefeller, o vírus é usado como uma arma real, mais perigosa do que o próprio Covid-19.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Piano Usa: controllo militarizzato della popolazione

 

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

 

(1) Mencionado na pag. 17 do PDF da ‘The Rockefeeler Foundation’.

Every regional trade bloc could put this strategy into practice so that the final phase of this plan could see them all eventually opening up with one another. Be it the East African Community (EAC) or Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) in Africa, the EU, the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, South America’s Mercosur, South Asia’s SAARC, or North America’s USMCA (formerly NAFTA), among others, they can all come together within the next 1-2 years in order to return the world to its pre-COVID-19 status quo.

The “gate” suffix has been wearing thin since the break-in scandal that gave it its birth.  Since Watergate, virtually anything dubious and suggestive, and much more besides, is suffixed.  Which brings us to the issue of President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama. Finding himself in hot water (did he ever leave it?) Trump has been sowing the seeds of “Obamagate”, a fairly grotesque measure that serves to fill the shallow spaces of the social mediaverse. 

Obamagate is a show without much of a script, supported by the faintest of threads.  Supposedly, they revolve around the merrily murky former national security advisor Michael Flynn, a serial perjurer who was “unmasked” as an American talking to foreigners under the routinely engaged eyes of the intelligence community.  The revelations emerged from the declassification by acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell of unmasking requests made by the Obama administration in 2016.  The exercise raised eyebrows, at least among certain Trump critics who detected a heavy accent of politicisation. 

On the surface, the move was distractingly galvanic.  The declassified document listing officials keen to identify Trump associates and any relevant ties to Russia suggested that Trump was going to embark upon yet another one of his exercises in mass distraction.  The president duly hopped on the Twitter train to drive a narrative of criminality, making his Mother’s Day a special one.  126 tweets and retweets featured, making it the second most prolific single-day posting of the Trump presidency.  Interspersed in the scatter were a few favourites: the QAnon conspiracy theory on Democrats being tied to a paedophilia cult; punchy counterattacks on those critical of his coronavirus non-policy.  The retweets also featured monumental errors of judgment, including messages critical of the Trump administration.  But something new had emerged in the smoke, all shinily suffixed.

Obama had, supposedly, committed “the biggest political crime in American history, by far”, one that made “Watergate look small-time.”  When pressed for details by such individuals as Philip Rucker of the Washington Post, Trump was not particularly forthcoming, suggesting it was patently obvious. “It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that is being released – and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning – some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.” 

Russia, yet again, features. But this is not Democratic demonization in the Hillary Clinton mould so much as a claim of Deep State antics gone awry.  Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists sees it as a ploy to seize the Russia narrative by the throat. “It is putting the spotlight on the investigators rather than the investigated.  It is saying what is irregular here is not the extraordinary contacts with the Russian government but the attempt to understand them.”  Obamagate has taken the place of “Crooked Hillary” as a call to arms.  As Fox News host Brian Kilmeade observed, reflecting on the November election, “it’s not gonna be Biden against Trump. It’s gonna be Obama against Trump.” 

Terms such as Obamagate only exist because thinking of it makes it so.  It is the conjuring trick of a few words, fed by supposition and even superstition.  It is the howl and bark of the social media echo chamber. In a sense, such terms do not matter, though they do exercise such individuals as Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  The “idea of Obamagate”, he writes despairingly, grew “in Trump’s diseased mind and springing like a virus to his compromised and unjust Justice Department, his propagandists on Fox News’ quasi-state-media, and millions of truth-decayed supporters”. 

As with so many assessments of Trump’s time in office, these are only some aspects of a broader, decaying Republic for which Trump’s opponents also have to answer for.  He is the excremental reminder of a state in ruins, of an imperium gasping on a respirator. Bunch gives Trump too much credit for killing “the very idea of objective truth”, suggesting a certain monopoly on criminality.  He even reserves some criticism for Obama, who he accused of being “too timid in looking into Trump and Russia.”  And there, the Russian bogeyman makes yet another appearance.

How catching will this noise prove to be?  Attention has turned to prosecutor John H. Durham, who examined the initial leak of information to the Washington Post on phone calls that took place between Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak to the United States in 2016.  The Grenell list could, in turn, be leaked.  A fittingly messy turn that would be.

A sense that this will go nowhere is already being floated by Trump’s most loyal of deputies, the Attorney General William Barr.  “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.”  There is still time, but Obamagate is already expiring.

*

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

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

Featured image is from The Ecologist

New 5G cellular wireless technology is already rolling out in some states. But as a country, there is little to no research on the health effects of the new technology. As one United States’ senator put it, we are “flying blindly” and a group of scientists agreed calling for an immediate moratorium on the installation of 5G until proper research on the health effects are conducted.

More than 250 scientists and medical doctors signed the 5G Appeal claiming that 5G, or 5th generation, wireless technology “will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), that has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment,” the appeal reads.

“NUMEROUS RECENT SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT EMF AFFECTS LIVING ORGANISMS AT LEVELS WELL BELOW MOST INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL GUIDELINES. EFFECTS INCLUDE INCREASED CANCER RISK, CELLULAR STRESS, INCREASE IN HARMFUL FREE RADICALS, GENETIC DAMAGES, STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL CHANGES OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, LEARNING AND MEMORY DEFICITS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON GENERAL WELL-BEING IN HUMANS. DAMAGE GOES WELL BEYOND THE HUMAN RACE, AS THERE IS GROWING EVIDENCE OF HARMFUL EFFECTS TO BOTH PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE.”

— The International EMF Scientist Appeal,

While the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled RFR as a possible carcinogen to humans in 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it would “soon reaffirm the RFR exposure limits that were adopted by the commission in the late 1990s,” Scientific American reported. But the FCC’s RFR exposure limits are based mostly off of research from the 1980s and only regulates the intensity of exposure and frequency of the carrier waves, yet dismisses the “signaling properties” of RFR, Scientific American reported. Signaling properties are important because they have an effect on the exposure, therefore, increasing the health impacts, scientists said.

In 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a study that concluded that exposure to cell phone RFR over a two-year period had “increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes.” The FDA recently “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and the “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.”

The new 5G cellular technology will use “millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G,” Scientific American reported. The new technology will require “small cell” antennas every 300 to 600 feet because of the limited reach exposing even more people to radiation.

“THE WIRELESS TELECOM INDUSTRY INTEND TO OUTFIT NEARLY EVERY LAMP POST OR UTILITY POST AROUND THE COUNTRIES WITH THESE WIRELESS SMALL CELL ANTENNAS BEAMING HAZARDOUS RADIATION NEXT TO, OR INTO OUR HOMES, SCHOOLS, WORKINGPLACES AND EVERYWHERE, 24/7.”

—5G Appeal

According to a scientific paper published in 2017 by the Department of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Southern University:

“Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system.”…Thus,when a larger phased antenna is used or when a user moves closer to the AP, the PD value becomes a major health concern which inevitably requires more research about health effects of 5G before it is deployed successfully by strictly following the RF emission standards.”

Not only is cancer an overall harmful risk, according to scientific evidence, RFR also causes many neurological disorders and reproductive harm. Scientists and doctors are now urging governments worldwide to put “safety guidelines” in place to protect the health of the people, not the industry.

“Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety,” Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, said.

*

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

On April 21st the Washington Post savaged Georgia governor Brian Kemp’s decision to begin opening his state after locking down for weeks. “Georgia leads the race to become America’s No. 1 Death Destination,” sneered the headline.

The author, liberal pundit Dana Milbank, actually found the possibility of Georgians dying to be hilarious, suggesting that, “as a promotion, Georgia could offer ventilators to the first 100 hotel guests to register.”

Milbank, who is obviously still getting paid while millions are out of work, sees his job as pushing the mainstream narrative that we must remain in fear and never question what “experts” like Dr. Fauci tell us.

Well it’s been three weeks since Milbank’s attack on Georgia and its governor, predicting widespread death which he found humorous. His predictions are about as worthless as his character. Not only has Georgia not seen “coronavirus…burn through Georgia like nothing has since William Tecumseh Sherman,” as Milbank laughed, but Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have seen a steep decline since the governor began opening the state.

Maybe getting out in the fresh air and sunshine should not have been prohibited in the first place!

In fact, as we now have much more data, it is becoming increasingly clear that the US states and the countries that locked down the tightest also suffered the highest death rates. Ultra locked-down Italy suffered 495 Covid deaths per million while relatively non-locked down South Korea suffered only five deaths per million. The same is true in the US, where non lockdown states like South Dakota were relatively untouched by the virus while authoritarian-led Michigan, New York, and California have been hardest hit.

In those hardest hit states, we are now seeing that most of the deaths occurred in senior care facilities – after the governors ordered patients sick with Covid to leave the hospitals and return to their facilities. There, they infected their fellow residents who were most likely to have the multiple co-morbidities and advanced age that turned the virus into a death sentence. Will these governors be made to answer for this callous disregard for life?

Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar admitted the obvious: “We are seeing that in places that are opening, we’re not seeing this spike in cases.” So why not open everything? Because these petty tyrants cannot stand the idea of losing the ability to push people around.

Shutting down the entire United States over a virus that looks to be less deadly than an average flu virus – particularly among those under 80 who are not already sick – has resulted in mass unemployment and economic destruction. More Americans may die from the wrong-headed efforts to fight the virus than from the virus itself.

Americans should pause and reflect on the lies they are being sold. Masks are just a form of psychological manipulation. Many reputable physicians and scientists have said they are worthless and potentially harmful. Lockdowns are meant to condition people to obey without question. A nation of people who just do what they are told by the “experts” without question is a nation ripe for a descent into total tyranny. This is no empty warning – it’s backed up by history. Time to stand up to all the petty tyrants from our hometowns to Washington DC. It is time to reclaim our freedom.

*

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.

Capitalism is a system to accumulate capital. People are only a commodity in this system. The Coronavirus crisis has enabled the capitalists to pay less for the healthy laborers to make more profit. The rest are left to their own demise. 

-Massoud Nayeri, May 19, 2020

***

Chile’s economic crisis unleashed by President Sebastian Piñera’s neoliberal policies and exacerbated by the pandemic revived images that had not been seen in Chile since the time of the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1990).

Thousands of people living in poor neighborhoods eat every day thanks to the “common pots”, a solidarity mechanism that allows families to access some food.

Over the last weeks, this form of social organization has proliferated in the periphery of Santiago city where thousands of families have been left without income because of the closure of shops and the suspension of construction works.

“The most immediate memory of the common pots dates back to the crisis that hit the country in 1982,” the University of Chile professor Nicolas Angelcos said.

After 38 years, in Puente Alto, one of Santiago’s poorest communes, social leader Susana Castillo prepares 250 servings of rice with chicken.​​​​​​​

🔹 Efecto coronavirus: pobreza en Chile podría llegar a los dos dígitos durante este añohttps://t.co/BxwKyjf1du

— T13 (@T13) May 13, 2020

Coronavirus effect: poverty in Chile could reach double digits this year. The meme reads, “according to an ECLAC report, poverty will increase significantly in Latin America.”

“More families are coming, especially since the quarantine has been extended. There are more and more people who are losing their jobs,” she said at a site where the Puente Alto municipality delivers food to some 5,000 people.

“We lived on the salary of my partner, who was a merchant, and now we are left with nothing,” a mother of five children Guacolda Bueno said and added that the common pot has allowed her at least to “have lunch.”

by Massoud Nayeri

According to the Health Ministry, Puente Alto is the second Chilean neighborhood with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (1658), only behind Santiago downtown (1873).

In this South American country, unemployment increased to 8.2 percent in the first quarter of 2020 and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) estimates that the economy will fall by 4 percent and poverty could rise to 13.7 percent this year.​​​​​​​

*

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: Women prepare food for the people of the Los Troncos neighborhood, Chile, May 13, 2020. | Photo: Twitter/ @ComunOlla

Al Jazeera reports Monday: “Afghan intelligence officials killed in Taliban car bombing.”

He said today: “With the recent spate of attacks in Afghanistan, the so-called ‘peace agreement’ between the U.S. and the Taliban signed just a few weeks ago seems to be in tatters. The purported truce that was to be had went to shreds the moment the negotiations ended in some resolution. The only provision that seems to have been implemented is a prisoner exchange.

“After dragging its feet” in the prolonged war, the U.S. government “was now willing to meet the principal Taliban demand: withdrawal of all U.S. forces, gradually over the next fourteen months. However, the absence of, and indifference toward, the Afghan government itself was glaringly visible in these U.S.-Taliban peace talks.

“Observers now widely believe that an Afghan ‘puppet’ government, utterly reliant on U.S. protection, is outraged by these negotiations. President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan, along with his close Indian allies, do not seem to be keen on any U.S. withdrawal that would almost certainly lead to the Taliban, or what is more appropriately considered the ethnic Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan, to win over both more territory and loyalties from the other ethnic forces in the country. The latter has already begun to happen.

“The latest Taliban attack on Afghan intelligence personnel in the city of Ghazni rests upon a strong belief that the Afghan intelligence services, alongside their Indian counterparts, are engineering a number of spectacular attacks within the country precisely to prevent the Americans from considering to withdraw. All of the attacks are routinely condemned by the Afghan government as the work of the Taliban, who on the surface of it, would have no interest in breaking the truce and peace accord since the Americans agreed to their main demand.

“What began as a hopeful sign of the ending of the two-decade bloody American occupation of the country, torn by internecine warfare for four decades now, has now (re-)turned into a chaotic war zone where the geopolitics of the region, and outside actors, prevent any steps toward reconciliation and peace.”

*

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

This article was originally published on the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Ahmad is director of the Center for Global Dialogue and professor of Middle Eastern politics at the University of Lahore, Pakistan. See his interviews on The Real News.

The following article published by the British Medical Journal provides a critical perspective on the health impacts and political implications of  the Lockdown. 

Lockdown is a crude instrument. On its own it can’t eliminate covid-19, but it buys a country time to prepare its health systems and to mount a public health response. Tragically, the UK government has squandered much of the precious eight weeks bought at such great social and economic cost. The question now is whether it is willing to admit mistakes and do what’s really needed to suppress the virus (See this).

It seems clear the UK locked down late and too gradually, that we lacked basic preparedness despite clear warnings of a likely future pandemic (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1879), and that our healthcare and public health systems were already reeling from lack of investment and the unnecessary disruptive reorganisations of the previous decade (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1284). In the past frantic few weeks the NHS has responded magnificently (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1444), but it has survived only by discharging people back into the community and by stopping everything other than covid related care. The resulting loss to health and life will become clear, as will the impact on staff who have shouldered the covid burden. Despite these exceptional efforts it is therefore wrong to say that the NHS has not been overwhelmed.

The government’s public health response has been exceptional in a far less glorious way. Especially shambolic has been its approach to testing and contact tracing. What little community testing had been achieved by mid-March was abandoned for lack of capacity. Failure to test patients transferred into the community fuelled the devastating outbreaks in care homes, and inability to test patients being admitted to hospital now makes it almost impossible to prevent hospital infection. While the tests themselves need to be interpreted with caution (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1808), and there is continuing uncertainty about how long a person remains infectious (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1724), lack of community testing makes it hard to estimate the true prevalence of the virus (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1891).

Much promised “ramping up” of testing has failed to deliver a workable system (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1922). Rules for who could be tested made no practical sense and, even with the help of misleading statistics (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1863), have failed to hide the extent of the gap between what was needed and what could be achieved. Rather than build on existing locally integrated systems, testing has been contracted out to four large private “Lighthouse” laboratories. GPs and emergency departments can’t order tests and don’t get sent the results (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1881). The top-down vertical system has been fraught with operational problems and delays. And that’s before we get onto the urgent need for contact tracing and isolation (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1859), without which we stand no chance of suppressing the virus sufficiently to safely exit lockdown (https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/01/we-urgently-need-to-start-contact-tracing-to-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19).

Many of these concerns have been raised in the first report of the independent scientific advisory group for emergencies (iSAGE) (doi:10.1136/bmj.m1917). It is well argued, wide ranging, and evidence based, and refreshing in its openness about uncertainties, disagreements, and debate on key issues. The government is buying more time with continued lockdown. It will be good for all of us if it spends some of that time absorbing and acting on this advice.

*

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.

There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The first involves Michael Flynn’s dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.

The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to something.

In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23^rd.

In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn’s request.

The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign or ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation’s foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump’s point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu’s staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel’s illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.

And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn’t quite see himself that way.

Kushner’s actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a “conspiracy against the United States.” But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis, that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.

The second story, which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists, critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers located in California to enter the accounts.

NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to clients who themselves operate it with the “advice and technical support to assist customers in setting up” but it also promotes its products as being “used to stop terrorism, curb violent crime, and save lives.” It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone numbers.

Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720 hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp’s servers and deploy “its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets” before “…covertly transmit[ting] malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]” spyware into telephones without the knowledge of the owners.”

The filing goes on to assert that the “Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp’s servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp’s servers and users’ devices constitutes unlawful computer hacking.”

NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which “can gather information about a mobile phone’s location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages.” Pegasus was reportedly used in the killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.

Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a “backdoor” for secretly accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more aggressively than any other “friendly” country, which once upon a time included being able to tap into the “secure” White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica Lewinsky.

Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be considered top secret.

A Politico report detailed how “miniature surveillance devices” referred to as “Stingrays” were used to imitate regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians as “international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.”

Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis involved dismantling the devices to let them “tell you a little about their history, where the parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get you to what the origins are.” One source observed afterwards that “It was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible.”

So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough, but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any restraint when dealing with the “useful idiots” in Washington.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from TUR

“Lockdowns are meant to condition people to obey without question. A nation of people who just do what they are told by the “experts” without question is a nation ripe for a descent into total tyranny.” —Ron Paul

Donald Trump calls the media “the enemy of the people”, but it’s much worse than that. The media is a national security threat. Just look at the way they’ve handled the coronavirus. The hysterical 24-7 coverage has people so terrified they’ve locked themselves in their homes inflicting catastrophic damage on the economy. That disaster never would’ve taken place if the media hadn’t focused all their energy on scaring people to death. Now the damage is done, millions of people have lost their jobs, tens of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses are facing bankruptcy, and the world’s biggest economy has been reduced to a smoldering wastelands. And what was gained? Nothing. Check out this excerpt from an article by economist Jack Ramsay:

“The magnitude and rapidity of the shutdown of the real economy in the US is unprecedented. Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the contraction of the real economy occurred over a period of several years—not months….

…once the contraction in the real economy accelerates and deepens, it inevitably leads to defaults and bankruptcies…. The defaults and bankruptcies then provoke a financial crisis that feeds back on the real economy, causing it to deteriorate still further. Income losses by businesses, households and local government thereafter in turn cause a further decline. Once negative feedback effects within the economy begin, it matters little if the health crisis is soon abated. The economic dynamic has been set in motion. ….The Fed.. can make a mass of free money and cheap loans available, but businesses and households may be reluctant to borrow, preferring to hoard their cash—and the loans as well. In other words, the deeper and faster the contraction, the more difficult and slower the recovery” (“The Myth of V-Shape Economic Recovery“, Jack Rasmus)

Every sector of the economy is shrinking and shrinking fast. Oil prices have plunged, activity in all 50 states is slumping badly, business confidence is at record lows, personal spending continues to shrivel, consumer confidence is dropping sharply, the service sector is tanking, restaurant traffic, industrial production, manufacturing, corporate earnings, business investment, personal consumption, bank lending, imports-exports; are all down, down, down and down. There’s not a glimmer of light to be seen anywhere. The economy is in freefall while people remain hunkered down inside their homes thinking they are stopping the spread of a deadly virus. But lockdowns don’t stop infections, at best they postpone them to a later date, and even that is doubtful.

The whole idea of isolating the healthy members of the population to counter the spread of a highly-contagious virus is delusional. There’s no historical precedent to the policy at all. There was no lockdown during the Spanish Flu in 1918 (when 50 million died), no lockdown during the Asian Flu in 1957, no lockdown during the Hong Kong Flu in 1969, no lockdown during SARS in 2002, no lockdown during the Swine Flu in 2009, no lockdown during MERS outbreak in 2012, and no lockdown during Ebola epidemic in 2014.

Get the picture? There was no lockdown, no time, NEVER.

But just ask someone about the lockdown today and they’ll announce with absolute certainty, “It’s the only way to beat this thing”. Right, by locking yourself indoors and waiting for the economy to crash, is that it?

Three bulletpoints you won’t see in the MSM:

1–There is no historical precedent for lockdowns

2–There is no scientific basis for lockdowns

3–A number of infectious disease experts, like Swedish Professor John Giesecke, believe that lockdowns are the wrong policy to contain the spread of the virus, they’re politically dangerous and they’ll be difficult to end. Here’s what he said:

“When you start looking around now at the measures that are being taken by different countries you find that very few of them have a shred of evidence-based [support] … border closures, school closures, social distancing – there’s almost no science behind most of these.”

Lockdowns are not science-based policy. They’re a faith-based catch-as-catch-can concoction that’s accepted as Holy Writ by the vast majority of Americans who are so terrified by the virus that they have allowed themselves to be duped by a manipulative, agenda-driven media that has convinced them that hibernating while the economy disintegrates is somehow performing their civic duty. But they’re wrong. One’s real civic duty is to engage their own critical thinking skills, skeptically analyze the idiocy that government passes off as social policy, and resist those directives that are clearly destructive to the interests of the American people and the country. Lockdowns certainly meet that criteria. Here’s a clip from Pepe Escobar’s latest article that helps to put things in perspective:

“The notion of a generalized obligatory confinement is not warranted by any medical justification, or leading epidemiological research, when it comes to fighting a pandemic. Still, that was enshrined as the hegemonic policy – with the inevitable corollary of countless masses plunged into unemployment. All that based on failed, delirious mathematical models of the Imperial College kind, imposed by powerful pressure groups ranging from the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the Munich Security Conference.

Enter Dr. Richard Hatchett, a former member of the National Security Council during the first Bush Jr. administration, who was already recommending obligatory confinement of the whole population way back in 2001. Hatchett now directs the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a very powerful entity coordinating global vaccine investment, and very cozy with Big Pharma. CEPI happens to be a brainchild of the WEF in conjunction with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation….

Rumsfeld, crucially, had been the chairman of biotech giant Gilead. After 9/11…That’s when “generalized obligatory confinement” was conceptualized, with Hatchett among the key players.

As much as this was a militarized Big Pharma spin-off concept, it had nothing to do with public health. What mattered was the militarization of American society to be adopted in response to bioterror – at the time automatically attributed to a squalid, tech-deprived al-Qaeda.

The current version of this project – we are at “war” and every civilian must stay at home – takes the form of what Alexander Dugin has defined as a medical-military dictatorship.” (“How Biosecurity Is Enabling Digital Neo-Feudalism” Unz Review)

So, there is no “medical justification, or leading epidemiological research” to support lockdowns. It’s all made-up out of whole cloth. Lockdowns are the result of political manipulation (of a public health crisis) intended to simulate martial law. “Go home and stay home,” that’s the message not “Go home and be healthy” . That doesn’t factor into the government’s calculus at all.

So on whose behalf are these lockdowns being imposed? Certainly not Trump who’s wanted to lift them from Day 1. No, it’s his surrounding cast, like the affable Dr Anthony Fauci who just recently appeared before the Senate and ominously cautioned them against lifting restrictions too soon. His warnings closely resembled those of his colleague and perhaps, benefactor, Bill Gates, whose tentacles are wrapped tightly around the global health network and who, many think, uses philanthropic initiatives as a vehicle for advancing his own malign vision of the future. As for the lockdowns, we’ll let Gates speak for himself:

“First, we need a consistent nationwide approach to shutting down. Despite urging from public health experts, some states and counties haven’t shut down completely. In some states, beaches are still open; in others, restaurants still serve sit-down meals….

The country’s leaders need to be clear: Shutdown anywhere means shutdown everywhere. Until the case numbers start to go down across America — which could take 10 weeks or more — no one can continue business as usual or relax the shutdown. Any confusion about this point will only extend the economic pain, raise the odds that the virus will return, and cause more deaths….

To bring the disease to an end, we’ll need a safe and effective vaccine. If we do everything right, we could have one in less than 18 months — about the fastest a vaccine has ever been developed. But creating a vaccine is only half the battle. To protect Americans and people around the world, we’ll need to manufacture billions of doses.” (“Bill Gates: Here’s how to make up for lost time on covid-19“, Washington Post)

Here’s one more from Gates in case there’s any doubts about his intentions:

“One of the questions I get asked the most these days is when the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic. My answer is always the same: when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID–19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.” (“Bill Gates — Gates Notes)

What the heck is he talking about? Gates isn’t a doctor, a scientist, an epidemiologist, or an elected official who sets policy. He’s a rich-guy dilettante who made zillions by ruthlessly dominating the software industry. That’s all. Does that make him an expert on infectious diseases? Does that give him the right to order the summary lockdown of 328 million Americans? No, it doesn’t, but Gates’s tentacles are also wrapped around the media (which helps him to shape public opinion) as this clip from an article at Lew Rockwell points out:

“The Gates Foundation gives grants in the hundreds of thousands and often millions to such media organizations as NBCUniversal, Al Jazeera, BBC, Viacom (CBS) and Participant Media …Both Gates and the Gates Foundation are sizable shareholders in Comcast,… as well as….MSNBC and NBC News…In 2009, the New York Times reported that the Gates Foundation was partnering with media companies to write and shape stories to ‘embed’ messages in primetime dramas:”

“’It [the Gates Foundation] is less well known as a behind-the-scenes influencer of public attitudes toward these issues by helping to shape story lines and insert messages into popular entertainment like the television shows ER, Law & Order: SVU and Private Practice…..

“His enormous wealth and the reach of media parent corporations seem to exempt Gates from routine disclosure requirements. …. He is given softball interviews in Comcast-backed Vox without disclosure that he’s a major Comcast investor. Because his stake in media companies is laundered enough times, it’s assumed not to merit mention.” (“Bill Gates, HR6666, Remdesivir, Deaths in Italy“, Lew Rockwell)

Bill Gates has critical contacts across the spectrum of media, global health care and politics. If he wants to his views widely disseminated, all he has to do is say the word. That said, we may never know if the lockdowns were his idea, but he certainly has the power to have them implemented if he so chooses. And for those who remain skeptical on this point, consider these words of warning from James Corbett’s excellent three-part video series on the Microsoft mucky-muck titled “Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid”:

“The takeover of public health that we have documented in How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and the remarkably brazen push to vaccinate everyone on the planet that we have documented in Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World was not, at base, about money.

The unimaginable wealth that Gates has accrued is now being used to purchase something much more useful: control. Control not just of the global health bodies that can coordinate a worldwide vaccination program, or the governments that will mandate such an unprecedented campaign, but control over the global population itself.”(James Corbett, The Off-Guardian)

The lockdowns are all about power; raw, political power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable “do goodie” oligarchs who are determined to save humanity whether we like it or not.

God help us.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Following the demise of the communist regimes, and the collaboration of so many social-democratic parties in neoliberal, capitalist globalization, a strong anarchist sensibility emerged, quite understandably, on the radical left, and remained influential for a considerable period of time. From the continent-spanning anti-globalization protests at the turn of the millennium to the rapid spread of Occupy Wall Street from New York to other US and international cities, the predominant mood reflected a widespread suspicion, if not disdain, for any political strategy that involved going into the state.

And then, rather suddenly, there seemed to be a widespread realization that you can protest until hell freezes over, but you won’t change the world that way. That realization came during the very short time bridging the occupations of the squares in Madrid and Athens and the rapid electoral breakthroughs of Syriza and Podemos. It also seeded the Corbyn and Sanders insurgencies inside the dominant center-left parties of the United Kingdom and the United States.

John Holloway’s work Change the World Without Taking Power, inspired by the Zapatistas of Chiapas in Mexico, famously summed up the earlier mood on the Left. An important new book, inspired by a very different Latin American example, has captured today’s contrasting zeitgeist: Rebecca Tarlau’s Occupying Schools, Occupying Land: How the Landless Workers’ Movement Transformed Brazilian Education.

Tarlau is a DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) activist who teaches at Penn State and just happens to be the daughter of long-time CWA (Communications Workers of America) union leader Jimmy Tarlau. She presents the movement’s “long march through the institutions” of Brazil’s educational system in vivid detail, from grade schools to universities, and all the way from Rio Grande do Sul up to Pernambuco in the northeast, drawing even more upon her undergraduate training in anthropology at University of Michigan Ann Arbor than upon her graduate studies in education at UC Berkeley. The result is one of the most profound analyses ever written of what it means to be “in and against the state” as a strategic practice.

Forged in the crucible of struggle against the Brazilian military regime during the 1970s, the cadres of the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) were closely aligned with those of the new Workers’ Party (PT). The PT’s distinctive strategic orientation at the time could be expressed as follows: “We are organizers. That’s what we’re good at. But we need to get into the state. Once we get into the state, we have to continue to be organizers. We have to use state resources to help organize those who remain unorganized.”

It was this orientation that inspired the famous Porto Alegre experiment in participatory budgeting, where a PT mayor had already been elected by the late 1980s. As I can personally attest, when activists attending the World Social Forums at the turn of the millennium heard about the achievements of this experiment, most of them returned from Porto Alegre sounding much like Lincoln Steffens after he went to the USSR in 1919 and came back declaring, “I have seen the future, and it works.”

In fact, the participatory-budget process was full of contradictions and limitations, as was already quite clear to those who had launched the experiment a decade before — not least in the sense that participants at the base never got to decide upon the most important strategic questions with which the local PT government had to deal. Yes, the representatives from the favelas were allowed to choose whether to put resources into building a sewer rather than a road, but they were never involved in addressing the strategic questions of how to deal with the landlords who were reclaiming the land once those roads and sewers were built. By contrast, the MST actively engaged in developing political and strategic capacities in its encampments and settlements (as well at its national cadre school just south of São Paulo). MST activists also devoted themselves, as Rebecca Tarlau shows so well, to fostering such capacities through the public-school system.

When the PT elected its first mayors in the late 1980s, the party discovered that it faced accusations of clientelism if it hired a bus to take demonstrators to Brasília to challenge the way federal state expenditure on services was being off-loaded onto the cities. Since party leaders had committed themselves to doing away with clientelist practices, they didn’t know how to answer that criticism, so they simply stopped doing it. The MST didn’t have to face the same political contradiction. But its own long march through the weak educational structures of clientelist state and municipal governments soon left those governments relying on the MST to help run the schools, even as the MST was able to radicalize many of the teachers who were initially suspicious of it.

What made the MST distinctive in this respect as a social movement was, and remains, its status as an explicit class movement — and, no less explicitly, a socialist movement. Most of the literature on social movements in recent decades took shape in hostility to class analysis, not to mention the “grand narrative” of replacing capitalism with socialism. Tarlau’s achievement is to turn social-movement analysis back toward class analysis. She also foregrounds the type of socialist strategy that involves working “in and against” the institutions of the state so as to transform them — rather than merely protesting outside of them, still less “smashing” them in the old insurrectionary sense.

Yet this remarkably sober book is by no means an exercise in cheerleading. Indeed, Tarlau’s close study of the MST’s involvement in “contentious co-governance” of Brazil’s educational institutions contrasts sharply with most of the existing literature on Brazil’s participatory-budgeting institutions, which so often presented them as “real utopias.” The MST has not transformed the whole of the Brazilian educational system. It has only changed those educational apparatuses in closest proximity to its own spaces of occupation and settlement, and those higher-education institutions directly involved in teacher training for rural areas. As Tarlau shows, the Ministry of Education itself has hardly changed at all.

This raises the further question of what it would mean to go beyond transforming state structures that are primarily involved in social reproduction, by bringing into question those institutions that are centrally involved in capitalist economic reproduction, like central banks and departments of finance or commerce. And insofar as this speaks to the very different experiences of the MST and PT in Brazil, it raises yet another question: Namely, what strategic capacities should a mass political party be trying to develop, if its aim is to occupy the whole terrain of the state in order to transform it? This is the key question facing the socialist left in our time. That Rebecca Tarlau’s important book induces us to ponder it is yet another of its considerable achievements.

*

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.

Leo Panitch is a professor of political science at York University and the co-editor of the Socialist Register. His latest book, with Sam Gindin, is The Making of Global Capitalism.

Despite its peaceful reputation, Canada is not acting as a benevolent player on the international stage.

Rather, Canada ranks among the twelve largest arms exporters and its weapons have fueled conflicts across the globe, including the devastating war in Yemen.

In a disappointing move, Canada refused to join 122 countries represented at the 2017 UN Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination.

Ottawa has also been an aggressive proponent of the nuclear-armed NATO alliance, and currently leads coalition missions in Latvia and Iraq.

Echoing Trump’s foreign policy, Canada has backed reactionary forces in the Americas. The Trudeau government has led efforts to unseat Venezuela’s UN-recognized government, while propping up repressive, corrupt and illegitimate governments in Haiti and Honduras. Canada also lent its support to the economic elites and Christian extremists who recently overthrew the democratically elected indigenous president of Bolivia.

In the Middle East, Canada has sided with Israel on almost every issue of importance. Since coming to power the Trudeau government has voted against more than fifty UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights backed by the overwhelming majority of member states. The Canadian government has refused to abide by 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334, calling on member states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied in 1967.” On the contrary, Ottawa extends economic and trade assistance to Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise. Should it win a seat on the UNSC, Ottawa has stated that it will act as an “asset for Israel” on the Council.

Canadian mining companies are responsible for countless ecological and human rights abuses around the globe. Still, Ottawa defends the most controversial mining firms and refuses to restrict public support for companies responsible for abuses. The chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights criticized the Trudeau government for refusing to rein in mining abuses while the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes has decried the “double standard” applied to Canadian mining practices domestically versus internationally.

Falling short of its responsibilities as a global citizen, Canada continues to oppose the Basel Ban Amendment on the export of waste from rich to poor countries, which became binding in late 2019 after ratification by 97 countries. Ottawa also failed to ratify the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Ottawa has refused to ratify more than 50 International Labour Organization conventions. In November 2019, Canada once again refused to back a widely supported UN resolution on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Violating the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Trudeau government sent militarized police into unceded Wet’suwet’en Nation territory to push through a pipeline. The UN Human Rights Committee recently documented various ways Canada is failing to live up to its obligations towards indigenous people under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Ignoring front-line victims, Ottawa refuses to keep Canada’s dirty oil in the ground. Canada is on pace to emit significantly more greenhouse gases than it agreed to in the 2015 Paris Agreement and previous climate accords. Already among the world’s highest per capita emitters, the Canadian government is subsidizing further growth of heavy emitting tar sands, at the expense of impoverished nations who’ve contributed little to the climate crisis but bear the brunt of its impacts.

The international community should not reward bad behaviour. Please vote against Canada’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.

Signatories

David Suzuki, Award winning geneticist/broadcaster

Roger Waters, co-founder Pink Floyd

Noam Chomsky, linguist, author & social critic

Ellen Gabriel, artist and activist

Roméo Saganash, former MP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou

Sid Ryan, former president of Ontario Federation of Labour and CUPE Ontario

Rawi Hage, novelist

Amir Khadir, former Quebec National Assembly member

Pam Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson

Judy Rebick, activist and author

Jord Samolesky, Propagandhi

Steve Ashton, long-serving member of the Manitoba legislature and cabinet minister

George Elliott Clarke, poet and professor

Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize co-winner (1976)

Trevor Herriot, author and activist

John Clark, activist

Charles Demers, comedian & author

Alain Deneault, essayist and philosophy professor

Martin Duckworth, laureate of the 2015 Albert-Tessier Prix du Quebec for cinema

Cy Gonick, former Manitoba NDP MLA and founding editor of Canadian Dimension

John Greyson, film-maker & professor

Syed Hussan, Migrant Workers Alliance

El Jones, activist, educator, journalist and poet

Gordon Laxer, author/founding Director Parkland Institute

Monia Mazigh, PhD, author and activist

Jim Manly, Member of Parliament 1980-88

Kanahus Manuel, activist

Tim McCaskell, educator & activist

Sheelah Mclean, co-founder Idle No More organizer

Serge Mongeau, author & editor

Mike Palecek, former National President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Dimitri Roussopoulos, author, and long-time peace movement activist

Clayton Thomas-Müller – Director, Author, Senior Campaign Specialist – 350.org

Rinaldo Walcott, professor

Ingrid Waldron, author & professor

Harsha Walia, author & activist

Antonia Zerbisias, journalist & activist

Greg Albo, Professor of Politics, York University

August Arnold, journalist and author

Antonio Artuso, Front uni contre le fascisme et la guerre

Corey Balsam, National Coordinator, Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Nik Barry-Shaw, author

Corey Balsam, National Coordinator, Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Susan Bazilli, PhD – Director, International Women’s Rights Project

Ron Benner, artist

Karl Beveridge, artist

Raul Burbano, activist

Nancy Brown, teacher/librarian, peace/human rights activist

David Camfield, activist and academic

Stefan Christoff, artist & activist

Carole Condé, artist

Gerry Condon, Veterans for Peace (US), former president

Deborah Cowen, Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto

Raju J Das, York University

Judith Deutsch, academic

Gord Doctorow, educator

Martine Eloy, antiwar and human rights activist

Darren Ell, Photographer

Gary Engler, author

Yves Engler, author & activist

Joe Emersberger, author

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law emeritus, Princeton University

Kiran Fatima, co-chair Toronto Association for Peace & Solidarity

Richard Fidler, Author and Activist

Miguel Figueroa, President, Canadian Peace Congress

Don Foreman, Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Alan Freeman, author & economist

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies Saint Mary’s University

Dr. Todd Gordon, Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University

Peter Gose, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology Carleton University

Harry Glasbeek, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar, Osgoode Hall Law School

Tracy Glynn, activist and writer

Cory Greenlees, activist

Malcolm Guy, documentary film director/producer

Michael Harris, author

Jamelie Hassan, artist

David Heap, teacher-researcher; peace & human rights advocate

Evert Hoogers, CUPW (retired)

Pierre Jasmin, artiste pour la paix

Dru Jay, author & activist

David Kattenburg, University instructor & journalist

Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence (USA)

Gary Kinsman, activist and author

Harry Kopyto, legal activist

Jonathan Kuttab, International human rights lawyer

Dimitri Lascaris, lawyer/journalist/activist

Ed Lehman, Regina Peace Council

Raymond Legault, activist, Collectif Échec à la guerre

Tamara Lorincz, PhD candidate and member of the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Martin Lukacs, journalist

Eva Manly, retired filmmaker

Robin Mathews, author

Amy Miller, filmmaker

David Mivasair, retired rabbi

Bianca Mugyenyi, activist, former Co-ED The Leap

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, researcher, writer and activist

Nino Pagliccia, activist and freelance writer

Dr. Idrisa Pandit, academic

Brent Patterson, activist

Justin Podur, author and professor

Judi Rever, journalist and author

Karen Rodman, human rights activist

Richard Roman, retired professor, writer

Reuben Roth, Professor

Herman Rosenfeld, Socialist Project

Grahame Russell, Co-Director – Rights Action

Joan Russow, activist

Cory Greenlees

Sakura Saunders, activist

Harold Shuster, Independent Jewish Voices-Winnipeg

Ken Stone, President – Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War

Donald Swartz, Carleton University

Koozma J. Tarasoff, peace activist

Marianne Vardalos, PhD Department of Sociology

Jay Watts, co-chair Toronto Association for Peace & Solidarity

Paul Weinberg, author

Barry Weisleder, federal secretary, Socialist Action

Elizabeth Whitmore, activist

Ellen Woodsworth, writer, organizer and former Vancouver City councillor

Dwyer Sullivan, board member – Conscience Canada

Dr. Thom Workman, professor, University of New Brunswick

Ann Wright, retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat.

Organizations

Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) – Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain

Mining Watch

Independent Jewish Voices/ Voix juives indépendantes

Mouvement Québécois pour la Paix

Solidarité Québec-Haïti

Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War

Council of Canadians – London Chapter

Canada Palestine Association-Vancouver

International League of Peoples’ Struggle

Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement pour une Paix Juste

Socialist Project

Canadian BDS Coalition

Socialist Action

Canadian Boat to Gaza,

Leap Montreal

CAIA Victoria

Freedom Flotilla Coalition

Gaza Freedom Flotilla Australia

Regina Peace Council

Al-Haadi Musalla

The petition will be delivered to UN member states prior to the vote for the security council seat in June.

If your group or organization would like to endorse the open letter, please write to us at [email protected].

*

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.

La Fondazione Rockefeller ha presentato il «Piano d’azione nazionale per il controllo del Covid-19», indicando i «passi pragmatici per riaprire i nostri luoghi di lavoro e le nostre comunità». Non si tratta però, come appare dal titolo, semplicemente di misure sanitarie.

Il Piano – cui hanno contribuito alcune delle più prestigiose università (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins e altre) – prefigura un vero e proprio modello sociale gerarchizzato e militarizzato.

Al vertice il «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia, analogo al Consiglio di produzione di guerra che gli Stati uniti crearono nella Seconda guerra mondiale». Esso sarebbe composto da «leader del mondo degli affari, del governo e del mondo accademico» (così elencati in ordine di importanza, con al primo posto non i rappresentanti governativi ma quelli della finanza e dell’economia).

Questo Consiglio supremo avrebbe il potere di decidere produzioni e servizi, con una autorità analoga a quella conferita al presidente degli Stati uniti in tempo di guerra dalla Legge per la produzione della Difesa.

Il Piano prevede che occorre sottoporre al test Covid-19, settimanalmente, 3 milioni di cittadini statunitensi, e che il numero deve essere portato a 30 milioni alla settimana entro sei mesi. L’obiettivo, da realizzare entro un anno, è quello di raggiungere la capacità di sottoporre a test Covid-19 30 milioni di persone al giorno. Per ciascun test si prevede «un adeguato rimborso a prezzo di mercato di 100 dollari». Occorreranno quindi, con denaro pubblico, «miliardi di dollari al mese».

La Fondazione Rockefeller e i suoi partner finanziari contribuiranno a creare una rete per la fornitura di garanzie di credito e la stipula dei contratti con i fornitori, ossia con le grandi società produttrici di farmaci e attrezzature mediche.

Secondo il Piano, il «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia» viene anche autorizzato a creare un

«Corpo di risposta alla pandemia»: una forza speciale (non a caso denominata «Corpo» come quello dei Marines)  con un personale di 100-300 mila componenti.  Essi verrebbero reclutati tra i volontari dei Peace Corps e degli Americacorps (creati dal governo Usa ufficialmente per «aiutare i paesi in via di sviluppo»)  e tra i militari della Guardia Nazionale. (1)

I componenti del «Corpo di risposta alla pandemia» riceverebbero un salario medio lordo di 40.000 dollari l’anno, per cui viene prevista una spesa statale di 4-12 miliardi di dollari annui.

Il «Corpo di risposta alla pandemia» avrebbe soprattutto il compito di controllare la popolazione con tecniche di tipo militare, attraverso sistemi digitali di tracciamento e identificazione,  nei luoghi di lavoro e di studio, nei quartieri residenziali, nei locali pubblici e negli spostamenti. Sistemi di questo tipo – ricorda la Fondazione Rockefeller – vengono realizzati da Apple, Google e Facebook.

Secondo il Piano, le informazioni sulle singole persone, relative al loro stato di salute e alle loro attività, resterebbero riservate «per quanto possibile». Sarebbero però tutte centralizzate in una piattaforma digitale cogestita dallo Stato Federale e da società private. In base ai dati forniti dal  «Consiglio di controllo della pandemia», verrebbe  deciso di volta in volta quali zone sarebbero sottoposte al lockdown e per quanto tempo. Questo, in sintesi, è il piano che la Fondazione Rockefeller vuole attuare negli Stati uniti e non solo.

Se venisse realizzato anche in parte, si produrrebbe una ulteriore concentrazione del potere economico e politico nelle mani di élite ancora più ristrette, a scapito di una crescente maggioranza che verrebbe privata dei fondamentali diritti democratici. Operazione condotta in nome del «controllo del Covid-19», il cui tasso di mortalità, secondo i dati ufficiali, è finora inferiore allo 0,03% della popolazione statunitense.

Nel Piano della Fondazione Rockefeller il virus viene usato come una vera e propria arma, più pericolosa dello stesso Covid-19.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Ok, let me be perfectly clear here. I know, from years of studying the real American history from writers like Parenti, Chomsky, Zinn, Chossudovsky, even Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznik, that the fix has always been in. Meaning, that this Two Party/One Party political system has always done the bidding for the Uber Rich… Period!

As a socialist I have come to understand how this Military Industrial Empire operates for the continuance of corporate capitalism. I hold few illusions as to what the Democratic Party can actually do to help us working stiffs. Are we hopelessly held hostage, or is prisoner a better word, by the wizards behind that curtain called Democracy? Well, even prisoners, maybe not hostages, sometimes have a voice through mass protest.

Reminds me of a B- movie from the 1950s regarding working stiffs under the thumb of a corrupt union at the waterfront (No, NOT ‘On the Waterfront’ folks). In this film the union was controlled by a rich shipping magnate, a ‘Mr. Big’, from his penthouse uptown. The working stiffs had enough of the violence and threats from the union bosses, and did a massive ‘Wildcat Strike’. Along with a couple of old style muckraking reporters (this is a fictitious movie guys) the working stiffs closed down the entire pier and were out in the streets in force, demanding to the news cameras ‘Reform’! The next scene is from a penthouse apartment, with ‘Mr. Big’ watching the news coverage on his television. He quickly orders his butler to get the union boss on the phone. “Do you see what is on every local news channel? This is no good! Do what you can to get these people back to work! Give them something, anything, and get this thing to end! This is no good for my business… or for YOU!!”

The moral to this story is not so complex. Sometimes, when things just get so bad for us working stiffs, Frederick Douglass’s words ring out: “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has. It never will.” Well, forget the Democrats for a minute. What we have here in this, the middle of an ‘era changing’ pandemic, is the use of power by this administration and its Republican Party cohorts  going right off the radar screen! If this writer had a few hours to list all the terrible actions (or inactions) of Mr. Trump and his party, maybe then I could accomplish my task. Well, to condense things to a few major items:

A) They did nothing from November 2019 to well into this past March to meet this crisis head on. No, instead of that, all we need do is go to the news clips and videos of them calling this a ‘hoax’ and ‘it is well contained now’. NO moves by them to get us all into secure face masks, or enough ventilators and hand sanitizers, along with rules for social distancing. NO moves to give funds, early on into this pandemic, to the states to help provide the proper equipment for our brave and helpful first providers;

B) The right wing that runs our government, sometimes with ‘silent approval’ by the Dems, did not create enough money for us working stiffs and the sea of small businesses to stay afloat. Instead, most of the electronically created money went, as in 2008-09, to those who need it the least. If they really wanted to prop up this economy, they would have instituted what many (including former presidential candidate Andrew Wang) advocated, that being a Universal Basic Income of anywhere from $ 1000 and up per month for every citizen (and half for each child) TAX FREE. Talk about economic stimulus – put the money in the hands of 320+ million of us and see how all commerce would be stimulated!

C) This desperate president and his crew, as with most politicians, only care about being re-elected. Imagine if you time travelled into the future and studied this: Trump wants to allow electoral college electors to be able to use their own judgment during an election. Translated: They can vote for any candidate they choose, rather than honor their pledge to vote for the candidate they promised to vote for. This is right out of the textbook ‘Elections in Banana Republics.’ In addition to this Trump wants to do away with mail in voting… even though he himself does it! Obvious why he wants this done: If you make folks leave their homes to vote during a pandemic, many, especially the old and informed, WON’T! Pollsters know that higher voter turnout always favors the Democrats. Finally, his boy Kushner has been floating the idea out there NOW that if things are not improved by November, the election may have to be cancelled. Herr Hitler never cancelled elections, only all the opposing political parties. One surmises the Trump crew figured that would be too difficult to accomplish, so just don’t have any vote at all!

We are living in more than just a terrible pandemic. We are living in a culture that former progressive radio talk show host Jay D. has always said is influenced by the rise of right wing talk radio. In many locations throughout Amerika if you stroll the radio dial you may run into Limbaugh or Hannity and their ilk on a slew of stations… at the same time! Jay D. feels that the reality of Uber Rich right wing owned stations flooding our airwaves. along with the ending of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ (whereupon rebuttals by the target of a radio host’s attacks is given air time on that same station), has signaled the end of the ‘Good Old Days’ of balanced talk radio shows. Factor that with another sad reality of the Two Party/One Party System. That being one party, the Democrats, who would have been labeled ‘Moderate Republicans’ in the 60s and 70s. The other party, as this title alludes to, is so far right that it reeks of Proto Fascism, or perhaps something even more frightening than that.

*

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].

MLB, the NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA tout the surreal idea of playing in empty stadiums.

The roar of the crowd for home teams is part of the game.

I don’t follow sports like I did long ago after my dad introduced me to MLB in 1945 — before WW II ended and many stars in the military returned to the game like Red Sox great Ted Williams, a fighter pilot during the war.

Half the fun of the game was cheering for the home team at Boston’s Fenway Park’s packed ballpark with other fans.

Later I enjoyed watching immovable object Celtics great Bill Russell match up against unstoppable force Wilt Chamberlain in the stands.

Without the roar of the crowd, games would be sterile, no interaction between players and fans that’s part of the game, no atmosphere the way games are supposed to be played, no authenticity, no fun fans in the stands enjoy, what I introduced my children to long ago.

At a time of highly infectious COVID-19 outbreaks, stadiums filled with fans would be petri dishes for spreading them more widely.

Filled stadiums account for a large percentage of team revenues, especially for MLB and the NBA with lengthy regular seasons and playoffs.

A reported MLB document titled “Economics of Playing Without Fans in Attendance” for half the 2020 season, beginning around July 4, would result in $4 billion of lost revenue.

The NY Yankees would lose about $312 million, $232 million for the LA Dodgers, the NY Mets $214 million, Chicago Cubs $199 billion, and Boston Red Sox $188 million.

These teams most often play to sellout crowds, not the case for many other teams.

On May 4, an ESPN reported Coronavirus Lockdown Fan Study conducted from April 17 – 20 showed around two-thirds of respondents favor resumption of sports even with no fans in the stands.

On April 10, Sports Illustrated (SI) magazine predicted no quick resumption of professional and college sports that draw large crowds under normal conditions.

SI downplayed the idea isolating players in a bubble in one or a few venues, saying:

“It all sounds great, until you talk to people who actually know science,” adding:

Most ideas are “the same: The players live in quarantine, shuttling from the hotel to the stadium, for the duration of the season(s). They undergo daily COVID-19 tests.”

What sounds reasonable on paper may not work in reality.

Epidemiologist Zack Binney, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on NFL injuries, expressed a dim view, saying:

“We will not have sporting events with fans until we have a vaccine.”

Chances of developing a safe and effective one is highly unlikely to impossible without some sort of scientific breakthroughs never before achieved, none in prospect.

In February, a soccer match in Bergamo, Italy resulted in widespread COVID-19 outbreaks in the city.

What about resumption of sports in empty stadiums? According to Binney, the idea sounds good in theory.

“(I)t’s a lot harder to pull off in practice than most people appreciate.”

Players, coaches, trainers, the media, referees, and others entering stadiums would have to be initially tested and quarantined for two weeks to assure they’re virus free.

Thereafter, they’d have to be tested daily. When not playing games, they’d be quarantined in hotels or other accommodations — their food and whatever else they need brought to them.

The same goes for hotel and stadium employees. Along with players, they’d be away from families and friends under virtual house arrest.

It’s one thing for highly paid players putting up with these conditions, quite another for workers and most reporters, their pay a small fraction of what professional athletes make.

Would they put up with onerous conditions even with extra pay? Perhaps some would. Many others most likely would not.

Despite regular testing, if some players or others in contact with them become infected, it could spread to many others, especially in teams engaged in close contact football, basketball, and hockey.

Any player suffering an injury that requires outside medical treatment would have to self-quarantine for two weeks before returning to their team.

Another consideration is the value of league championships with an asterik under above conditions. They won’t likely be the same for players or fans.

If an emergency arises at home for players, requiring their return, they’d be self-quarantined again for 14 days before allowed to play.

MLB baseball with minimal contact would have the best chance of operating under the above conditions.

All players on all teams of all sports returning to action would have to agree to live under house arrest throughout their seasons — perhaps in 2021 as well.

Everything explained above working as planned would be a long shot at best.

Anyone becoming infected by COVID-19 with close contact to players could unravel the best laid plans — especially because sports seasons are months long and perfection isn’t a human attribute.

According to SI, even if this never before tried experiment begins, “we almost certainly can’t finish it.”

What can go wrong most likely will. Former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitt tweeted:

“I’m as big a sports fan as anybody, but this is reckless. Leagues need to follow the science & do the right thing.”

According to SI, “(t)hey know how farfetched their ideas are. So do the players’ unions.”

“They continue to explore options because they would be remiss not to. But fans should understand how unlikely this all is.”

Even if tried that may happen, chances of failure are huge.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is by Andy Lyons/Getty Images

Now begins the grand effort, on display in thousands of articles and news broadcasts daily, somehow to normalize the lockdown and all its destruction of the last two months. We didn’t lock down almost the entire country in 1968/69, 1957, or 1949-1952, or even during 1918. But in a terrifying few days in March 2020, it happened to all of us, causing an avalanche of social, cultural, and economic destruction that will ring through the ages.

There was nothing normal about it all. We’ll be trying to figure out what happened to us for decades hence.

How did a temporary plan to preserve hospital capacity turn into two-to-three months of near-universal house arrest that ended up causing worker furloughs at 256 hospitals, a stoppage of international travel, a 40% job loss among people earning less than $40K per year, devastation of every economic sector, mass confusion and demoralization, a complete ignoring of all fundamental rights and liberties, not to mention the mass confiscation of private property with forced closures of millions of businesses?

Whatever the answer, it’s got to be a bizarre tale. What’s truly surprising is just how recent the theory behind lockdown and forced distancing actually is. So far as anyone can tell, the intellectual machinery that made this mess was invented 14 years ago, and not by epidemiologists but by computer-simulation modelers. It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians.

Let’s start with the phrase social distancing, which has mutated into forced human separation. The first I had heard it was in the 2011 movie Contagion. The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is “social distancing,” which is the new politically correct way of saying “quarantine.”

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators — and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.

Maybe you don’t remember that the avian flu of 2006 didn’t amount to much. It’s true, despite all the extreme warnings about its lethality, H5N1 didn’t turn into much at all. What it did do, however, was send the existing president, George W. Bush, to the library to read about the 1918 flu and its catastrophic results. He asked for some experts to submit some plans to him about what to do when the real thing comes along.

The New York Times (April 22, 2020) tells the story from there:

Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.

When they presented their plan not long after, it was met with skepticism and a degree of ridicule by senior officials, who like others in the United States had grown accustomed to relying on the pharmaceutical industry, with its ever-growing array of new treatments, to confront evolving health challenges.

Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing instead that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.

How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.

It required the key proponents — Dr. Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr. Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser — to overcome intense initial opposition.

It brought their work together with that of a Defense Department team assigned to a similar task.

And it had some unexpected detours, including a deep dive into the history of the 1918 Spanish flu and an important discovery kicked off by a high school research project pursued by the daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories.

The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.

Notice that in the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise. Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett.

But what is this mention of the high-school daughter of 14? Her name is Laura M. Glass, and she recently declined to be interviewed when the Albuquerque Journal did a deep dive of this history.

Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957. They conclude with a chilling call for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown, all stated very matter-of-factly.

Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted. However, if neighboring communities do not also use these interventions, infected neighbors will continue to introduce influenza and prolong the local epidemic, albeit at a depressed level more easily accommodated by healthcare systems.

In other words, it was a high-school science experiment that eventually became law of the land, and through a circuitous route propelled not by science but politics.

The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology.

That explains why Dr. D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme.

Says the NYT:

Dr. Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.

The measures embraced by Drs. Mecher and Hatchett would “result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems,” Dr. Henderson wrote in his own academic paper responding to their ideas.

The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out: Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back.

AIER’s Phil Magness got to work to find the literature responding to this 2006 and discovered: Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. The authors included D.A. Henderson, along with three professors from Johns Hopkins: infectious disease specialist Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.

Their paper is a remarkably readable refutation of the entire lock-down model.

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. … It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration…

Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of 3 feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened….

Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.”… It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme. …

During seasonal influenza epidemics, public events with an expected large attendance have sometimes been cancelled or postponed, the rationale being to decrease the number of contacts with those who might be contagious. There are, however, no certain indications that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic. Were consideration to be given to doing this on a more extensive scale and for an extended period, questions immediately arise as to how many such events would be affected. There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences…

Schools are often closed for 1–2 weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome….

Thus, cancelling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic. While local concerns may result in the closure of particular events for logical reasons, a policy directing communitywide closure of public events seems inadvisable. Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable….

Finally, the remarkable conclusion:

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Confronting a manageable epidemic and turning it into a catastrophe: that seems like a good description of everything that has happened in the COVID-19 crisis of 2020.

Thus did some of the most highly trained and experienced experts on epidemics warn with biting rhetoric against everything that the advocates of lockdown proposed. It was not even a real-world idea in the first place and showed no actual knowledge of viruses and disease mitigation. Again, the idea was born of a high-school science experiment using agent-based modelling techniques having nothing at all to do with real life, real science, or real medicine.

So the question becomes: how did the extreme view prevail?

The New York Times has the answer:

The [Bush] administration ultimately sided with the proponents of social distancing and shutdowns — though their victory was little noticed outside of public health circles. Their policy would become the basis for government planning and would be used extensively in simulations used to prepare for pandemics, and in a limited way in 2009 during an outbreak of the influenza called H1N1. Then the coronavirus came, and the plan was put to work across the country for the first time.

[Note: You can read the 2007 CDC paper here. It is arguable that this paper did not favor full lockdown. I’ve spoken to Ajeev Venkayya, MD, who assures me that they never envisioned this level of lockdown.]

The Times called one of the pro-lockdown researchers, Dr. Howard Markel, and asked what he thought of the lockdowns. His answer: he is glad that his work was used to “save lives” but added, “It is also horrifying.” “We always knew this would be applied in worst-case scenarios,” he said. “Even when you are working on dystopian concepts, you always hope it will never be used.”

Ideas have consequences, as they say. Dream up an idea for a virus-controlling totalitarian society, one without an endgame and eschewing any experienced-based evidence that it would achieve the goal, and you might see it implemented someday. Lockdown might be the new orthodoxy but that doesn’t make it medically sound or morally correct. At least now we know that many great doctors and scholars in 2006 did their best to stop this nightmare from unfolding. Their mighty paper should serve as a blueprint for dealing with the next pandemic.

*

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

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and eight books in 5 languages, most recently The Market Loves You. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. Jeffrey is available for speaking and interviews via his email.  Tw | FB | LinkedIn

Featured image is from AIER

About 2 dozen Turkish-backed militants have been killed or wounded in a recent series of clashes in northern Syria. 14 of them were reportedly killed in a failed attack on positions of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near Kubrlik overnight on May 17 and up to 10 were killed or injured in clashes near Hazwan on May 15. Reacting to its own failures, Turkish-backed forces carried out a series of mortar and artillery strikes on SDF positions near Ayn Issa, Tall Tamr and Tall Unayb on May 16, May 17 and early on May 18.

Firefights and artillery duels between Turkish-backed forces and the SDF regularly erupt in this part of Syria. However, both sides do not conduct large-scale offensive operations against each other and despite the violations the ceasefire regime formally remains in force.

On May 17, seven former ISIS members fled the SDF-controlled camp of al-Hawl in the province of al-Hasakah, which holds a large number of the former ISIS fighters and their families. Following the incident, SDF security forces in the area were placed on a high alert. The search operation has been ongoing. Some pro-Kurdish sources claim that the fleeing terrorists have been already detained, but these calms remain unconfirmed. This is the second security incident in al-Hawl in less than 10 days. On May 13, SDF security forces foiled a plot of ISIS wives to set the camp on fire and flee to Turkey.

Early on May 18 reports appeared that a drone strike allegedly struck the area near a convoy of the Syrian Army in the district of Maadan in Raqqa province. Several Syrian Army soldiers were reportedly wounded. It remains unclear who was behind the attack, but the two main suspects are Turkey and the US-led coalition.

On May 17, US armoured vehicles chased in the province of al-Hasakah a Russian military convoy with 150 tones of humanitarian aid being sent to civilians in northeastern Syria, but were unable to stop it.

A firefight between the Syrian Army and ISIS members erupted near the town of al-Sukhna, on the Homs-Deir Ezzor highway. According to reports, ISIS cells tried to cut off the road, but were forced to retreat. Regular attacks by ISIS cells operating in the desert area remain a notable security threat for government forces.

At the same time, the situation in Greater Idlib once again de-escalated. After failing to capture Tanjarah in northwestern Hama last week, al-Qaeda-linked groups reduced their activity on the frontline. Despite this, it’s highly likely that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies will conduct more limited attempts to expand their zone of control in southern Idlib and western Hama in the coming weeks.

*

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