5G Danger

September 13th, 2019 by Makia Freeman

The 5G danger can’t be overstated.

5G (5th Generation) is now being actively rolled out in many cities around the world. Simultaneously, as awareness over its horrific health and privacy impacts is rising, many places are issuing moratoriums on it or banning it, such as the entire nation of Belgium, the city of Vaud (Switzerland) and San Francisco (USA).

Radiofrequency radiation (RF or RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are being increasingly recognized as new types of pollution – environmental pollution. Here are 13 reasons exposing the 5G danger, which could turn into an unmitigated health and privacy catastrophe if enough people don’t rise up to stop it.

Read the complete article here.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5G Danger

UK: Tony Blair Think-Tank Proposes End to Free Speech

September 13th, 2019 by Judith Bergman

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has released a report, Designating Hate: New Policy Responses to Stop Hate Crime, which recommends radical initiatives to tackle “hate” groups, even if they have not committed any kind of violent activity.

The problem, as the think-tank defines it, is “the dangerous nature of hateful groups, including on the far right like Britain First and Generation Identity. But current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”. The think-tank defines what it sees as one of the main problems with hate crime the following way:

“A steady growth in hate crime has been driven by surges around major events. Often this begins online. Around the 2017 terror attacks in the UK, hate incidents online increased by almost 1,000 per cent, from 4,000 to over 37,500 daily. In the 48-hour period after an event, hate begins to flow offline”.

Specifically, the report mentioned as problematic the rise online in “hate incidents” after three Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK in 2017 — the Westminster car-ramming and stabbing attack in March by Khalid Masood, who murdered pedestrians and a police officer; the Manchester arena bombing in May, at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, in which Salman Abedi murdered 22 people — the youngest only 8 years old — and injured more than 200 people; and the London Bridge ramming attack in June, in which Rachid Redouane, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then proceeded to stab people in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were murdered in that attack.

Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair’s think-tank appears to be the online verbal “hatred” displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks – not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of UK life.

The report claims:

“Divisive groups – especially increasingly mainstreamed far-right groups – spread hatred with relative impunity because responses to nonviolent extremism remain uncoordinated; hate incidents spike around major events, leaving communities exposed; and perpetrators of religious hate are rarely prosecuted due to gaps in legislation”.

The problem, according to the report, is that “current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”.

One of the think-tank’s suggested solutions to this problem is to:

“Create a new law to designate ‘hate groups’. This new tier of hate group designation would be the first of its kind in Europe and would help tackle nonviolent extremist groups that demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religious, gender, nationality or sexuality … Powers to designate would, like proscription powers, fall under the Home Office’s remit and require ministerial sign off”.

The report defines a hate group as:

“Spreading intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, specifically because of these characteristics; Aligning with extremist ideologies… though not inciting violence; Committing hate crimes or inspiring others to do so via hate speech; Disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues”.

It would be up to the government to define what is understood by “spreading intolerance”, or “blaming specific groups for broader societal issues”.

Being designated a “hate group”, it is underlined in the report, “would sit alongside proscription but not be linked to violence or terrorism, while related offences would be civil not criminal”.

Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions, such as violence or terrorism, the designation of “hate group” would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.

The groups that Blair’s think-tank mentions as main examples of those to be designated hate groups are Britain First and Generation Identity. Both are political; Britain First is also an aspiring political party with parliamentary ambitions. If the report’s suggestions were to be adopted into law, these movements, if designated as “hate groups” would not be allowed “to use media outlets or speak at universities”. They would also not be allowed “to engage, work with or for public institutions”.

However, the report tries to assure us, “hate designation would be time-limited and automatically reviewed, conditioned on visible reform of the group”.

Although the report would still allow designated “hate groups” to “meet, support or campaign”, such a law would mean that the political speech of designated groups would be rendered null and void. The European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence on the convention from the European Court of Human Rights puts a special premium on political speech, which enjoys particular protection: it is so fundamental to the basic workings of a democratic society. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that the convention

“…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Even more important is that, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,

“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”. [emphasis added]

The European Court of Human Rights may therefore find aspects of the proposed law problematic precisely because of concerns with free speech and basic democratic values.

Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank’s least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK. The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of “spreading intolerance” or “aligning with extremist ideologies” — and designate it a “hate group”.

It would make the old Soviets proud.

*

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.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Note

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

Featured image is from iStock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK: Tony Blair Think-Tank Proposes End to Free Speech

Brexit Reveals Jeremy Corbyn to be the True Moderate

September 13th, 2019 by Jonathan Cook

If there is an upside to Brexit, it is this: it has made it increasingly hard to present Jeremy Corbyn, contrary to everything the corporate media has been telling us for the past four years, as anything but a political moderate. In truth, he is one of the few moderates left in British – or maybe that should read English – politics right now. The fact that still isn’t obvious to many in Britain is a sign of their – not his – extremism.

Brexit has brought into sharp focus, at least for those prepared to look, the fanaticism that dominates almost the entire British political class. Their zealotry has been increasingly on show since the UK staged a referendum in 2016 on leaving Europe that was won by the pro-Brexit camp with a wafer-thin majority. The extremism has only intensified as Britain approaches the exit deadline, due at the end of October.    

The feud has usually been portrayed this way: The UK has split into two camps, polarising popular opinion between those who feel Britain’s place is in Europe (Remainers) and those who prefer that Britain makes its own way in the world (Brexiters). But it has actually divided the British political class into three camps, with the largest two at the political extremes. 

On the one side – variously represented by the new prime minister Boris Johnson and many in his Conservative party, as well as Nigel Farage and his supporters – are those who want Britain to break from Europe and rush into the embrace of the United States, stripping away the last constraints on free-market, ecocidal capitalism. They aren’t just Brexiters, they are no-deal Brexiters, who want to turn their back on Europe entirely. 

The other side – variously supported by many Labour MPs, including the party’s deputy leader Tom Watson, and the Liberal Democrats – are those who wish to stay in the secure embrace of a European bureacracy that is nearly as committed to suicidal capitalism as the US but, given the social democratic traditions of some of its member states, has mitigated the worst excesses of free-market fundamentalism. These UK politicians aren’t just Remainers, they are Remainists, who not only refuse to contemplate any weakening of the bonds between the UK and Europe but actually want those bonds to tighten. 

Suspending parliament 

And as the divide has deepened, it has become clear that neither side is prepared to pay more than lip service to democracy.

On the Brexit side, Johnson has suspended parliament, an institution representing the people, that is supposed to be sovereign. Like his predecessor, Theresa May, he has repeatedly found there is no legislative majority for a hard or no-deal Brexit. He has faced an unprecedented and humiliating series of defeats in parliament in the few days he has been prime minister. So now he has swept parliament out of the way in a bid to run down the clock on a no-deal Brexit without legislative interference.

Watson and the Remainists have been trying a counter-move, arguing that the referendum is no longer valid. They believe that new voters, youngsters more likely to support Remain, have come of age in the three years since 2016, and that more information about the true costs of Brexit have lately swung support to their side. They want to ignore the original referendum result and run the ballot again in the hope that this time the tide will turn in their favour. 

The reality is that, if Johnson drives through a no-deal Brexit by ignoring parliament, or if Watson gets to quash the first referendum result to engineer a second, it is likely to trigger civil war in the UK. 

The first option will drive Scotland out of the union, could very well reignite the sectarian “Troubles” of Northern Ireland, and will have English urban elites in open revolt. The second option will ensure that large sections of the English public who voted for Brexit because they feel marginalised and ignored are up in arms too. Their trust in politics and politicians will sink even further, and there is the danger that they will turn in droves to a crowd-pleasing autocrat like Johnson, Farage or worse. 

Zealotry vs compromise 

In these circumstances, anyone responsible would be looking to find common ground, to understand that political compromise is absolutely necessary to stop Britain breaking apart. And that is exactly what Corbyn and the largely ignored and maligned third camp have been trying to do. 

They want to honour the spirit of the vote by leaving the EU but hope to do so in a way that doesn’t cut the UK adrift from Europe, doesn’t prevent the continuation of relatively free trade and movement, and doesn’t leave the UK exposed and vulnerable to serfdom under a new US master.

For many months Corbyn has been calling for a general election as a way for the majority of the public, having chosen in the referendum what they want to do, to now decide who they want to negotiate how Britain departs from Europe. But even that realistic compromise has not satisfied the fanatics within his own party.

Because the zealots of the right and the immoderate centre dominate the political and media landscape, this approach has barely registered in public debates. Corbyn’s efforts have been misrepresented as evidence of muddled thinking, ambivalence, or his covert opposition to Europe. It is none of those things.

Caught in the spider’s web

The common argument that Corbyn is a Brexit wolf in sheep’s clothing draws on the fact that, like many democratic socialists, such as the late Tony Benn, Corbyn has never been enamoured of the unelected European technocratic class that is misleadingly termed simply “Europe” or the “European Union”. 

Rightly, socialists understood long ago that the more Britain was locked into Europe’s embrace, the more it would become caught like a fly in the spider’s web. At some level, most people have started to recognise this, if only because finding a way to leave Europe, even for Brexiters, has proved so inordinately difficult.

Just like banks were too big to fail in 2008 so they had to be bailed out with our, public money to save them from their private malfeasance, the publics of Europe have incrementally had their sovereignty transferred to an unelected and centralised bureacracy all in the name of pursuing freedom – of movement and trade, chiefly for global corporations.

We haven’t noticed, it is true, because for decades our own, domestic politics has come in one flavour only – support for our little corner of the global neoliberal empire. Till recently the consensus of Britain’s ruling elite, whether of the right or of New Labour centrists, was that being a player in Europe was the best way to protect their – though not necessarily our – interests on that global battlefield. Now, as the neoliberal empire enters a period of terminal decline, this same elite are bitterly divided over whether the US or Europe is the best guarantor of their wealth and influence continuing a little longer. 

Iron fist in velvet glove 

But Britain and the world’s problems – whether in the shape of impending economic meltdown or environmental collapse – cannot be solved from within the neoliberal paradigm, as becomes clearer by the day. New political structures are desperately needed: at the local level to foster new, more decentralised economic models, free of corporate influence, resource-stripping and unnecessary consumption; and at the global level to ensure that such models reverse rather than perpetuate the ecocidal policies that have dominated under neoliberal capitalism.

To start on that path will require the democratisation of Britain. The fear of Benn and others was that even if a truly socialist government was elected, its ability to make real, profound changes to the political and economic order – by bringing much of the economy back into public or cooperative ownership, for example – would be made impossible within the larger framework of European corporate managerialism. 

We have been given glimpses of the iron fist Europe’s technocrats wield beneath the velvet glove in the treatment of Greece over its financial troubles and the Catalan independence movement in Spain. 

The attitude of Corbyn and other democratic socialists to Brexit, however, has been wildly misrepresented by the other two camps of zealots. 

In Benn’s time, it was still possible to imagine a world in which neoliberalism might be prevented from gaining a tyrannical grip on our political imaginations and on national economies. But things have changed since then. Now the issue is not whether Britain can stop being locked into a European neoliberal order. It is that the UK, like everyone else, is already in the stranglehold of a global neoliberal order. 

Not just that, but Britain has willingly submitted to that order. As the zealotry of most of the political class demonstrates, few can imagine or want a life outside the neoliberal cage. The debate is about which corner of that suicidal, ecocidal global order we prefer to be located in. The Brexit row is chiefly about which slavemaster, America or Europe, will be kinder to us. 

Inside the leviathan’s dark belly 

In this context, there is no real escape. The best that can be done, as the moderates in both the Brexit and Remain camps realise, is loosen our chains enough so that we have room once again to contemplate new political possibilities. We can then breathe deeply, clear our heads and start to imagine how Britain and the the world might operate differently, how we might free ourselves of the tyranny of the corporations and heal our planet of the deep scars we have inflicted on it.

These are big matters that cannot be solved either by binding ourselves more tightly to European technocrats or by cutting loose from Europe only to chain ourselves to the US. The Brexit feud is an endless theatrical distraction from the real questions we need to face. That is one reason why it drags on, one reason why our political class revel in it, John Bercow-style. 

Strangely, it is the Remainists of the immoderate centre – typified by commentary in corporate “liberal” media like the Guardian – who so often claim to lament the fact that the left has failed to offer a vision, a political future, that might serve as an alternative to neoliberalism. But how can such a vision emerge from deep inside the leviathan’s dark belly?

Hiding in ideological life-rafts 

It goes without saying that the Atlanticists cheerleading Brexit are up to no good when they speak of “taking back control” and “reclaiming our sovereignty”. They demand those powers only so they can immediately surrender them to a US master.

But the much-maligned leftwing, soft Brexit – a version that wishes to distance Britain from Europe without pretending that the UK can stand alone on the global neoliberal battlefield – also has use for such language.

This version of taking back control isn’t about spitting in the face of Europe, blocking the entry of immigrants, or reinventing the imagined halycon days of empire. It is about recognising that we, like the rest of humankind, are responsible for the crimes we have been, and still are, committing against the planet, against other species, against fellow human beings. 

Chaining ourselves to an unelected, distant European technocratic class that simply follows orders – implementing the requirements of an economic system that must end in the destruction of the planet – is cowardice. We can more easily shelter from that truth when we cede our political and economic powers to those compelled to carry out the (il)logic of neoliberalism.

Standing a little outside Europe is probably the best we can hope to manage in current circumstances. But it might give us the political space – and, more importantly, burden us with the political responsibility – to imagine the deep changes that are urgently needed. 

Change has to happen if we as a species are to survive, and it has to happen soon and it has to happen somewhere. We cannot force others to change, but we can recognise our own need to change and offer a vision of change for others to follow. That can begin only when we stop shielding ourselves from the consequences of our decisions, stop hiding in someone else’s ideological life-raft in the forlorn hope that it will weather the coming, real-world storms. 

It is time to stop acting like zealots for neoliberalism, squabbling over which brand of turbo-charged capitalism we prefer, and face up to our collective responsibility to change our and our children’s future.

*

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.

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

On Wednesday evening, Boris Johnson’s government was forced to release its forecast for a no-deal Brexit, codenamed “Operation Yellowhammer.” The six-page document affirms the social and economic catastrophe threatened by a no-deal Brexit and underscores the danger of authoritarian rule in the UK.

While the government insists that the scenarios outlined in Yellowhammer represent “reasonable worst case assumptions,” a widely shared version of the document from the same day uses the phrase “base scenario.”

The release of the document disproves the government’s claims, made last summer when the Times first leaked details of Yellowhammer, that the forecast was an outdated hangover from Theresa May’s time as Conservative prime minister. The document is dated 10 days after Johnson became prime minister, confirming that Yellowhammer presents the expected outcome of a no-deal Brexit.

The initial problem identified is the hold-up of freight transport at the Channel Tunnel and Britain’s ports. The flow rate of HGVs could drop to 40-60 percent of its current levels for three months following Brexit, with lorries stuck for up to two-and-a-half days, before “improving” to 50-70 percent.

Some level of continued disruption is expected to last “significantly longer.” The breakdown of supply chains will “have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies,” which, due to their short shelf life, are “particularly vulnerable.” The reduced supply of veterinary medicines will “reduce our ability to prevent and control [animal] disease outbreaks, with potentially detrimental impacts for… the environment, and wider food safety/availabilities and zoonotic diseases which can directly impact human health.”

The British Medical Association has described these points as “alarming,” saying they confirm its warnings about the threat of medical supply shortages in the case of a no-deal break with the EU.

As for food supplies, a no-deal Brexit will “reduce availability and choice of products and will increase price.” The document adds, “There is a risk that panic buying will cause or exacerbate” these problems.

Helen Dickinson of the British Retail Consortium commented,

“Fresh food availability will decrease, consumer choice will decrease, and prices will rise.”

A no-deal Brexit threatens to “disrupt fuel supply in London and the South East” and “customer behaviour could lead to local shortages in other parts of the country.” In addition, “Significant electricity price increases” are expected, “with associated wider economic and political impacts.” An “increase in inflation following EU exit would significantly impact adult social care providers … and may lead to provider failure.”

In one of the most telling passages, the document concludes that these effects will hit “vulnerable,” “low income” groups hardest, leading to a “rise in public disorder and community tensions.”

All of this is to say nothing of the impact of the government’s own economic plans for post-Brexit Britain. These include substantial tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations, the removal of many labour protections, deeper social spending cuts, and the setting up of “free ports” to enable the hyper exploitation of large sections of the workforce. These measures add up to the wholesale destruction of living standards for a large majority of the population.

A no-deal scenario is also expected to immediately create flashpoints for international tensions. Confusion and conflict over fishing rights between UK and EU fishermen are thought “likely” to produce “violent disputes or blockading of ports.”

The document describes the government’s promise not to establish a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland as “unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigations to address this will be available.”

A legal case is ongoing against the government, challenging the legality of a no-deal Brexit on the grounds that it would violate the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 promises to protect. The argument was rejected by the Belfast High Court on Thursday, with the judge saying that the main aspects of the case “were inherently and unmistakably political,” but will be appealed. Raymond McCord, a campaigner for victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles who brought the case, says he plans to take it to the Supreme Court.

The situation outlined in Operation Yellowhammer is one in which democratic forms of rule cannot be maintained. While the media has noted the document’s reference to the “significant amounts of police resources” required to deal with protests, next to nothing has been said about the wider plans for repression known to be in motion.

It is understood that 50,000 regular and reserve troops will be made ready “in case of civil unrest, to assist at Britain’s airports and to ensure fuel and medical supplies.” They will be backed up by 10,000 riot police, ready to be deployed in 24 hours, and 1,000 extra police from Britain sent to reinforce the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Discussions have been held amongst senior civil servants about the use of powers normally reserved “to deal with national emergencies such as acts of war and terrorism,” including the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, introduced by the Labour government of Tony Blair. These powers include, according to the Sunday Times, “Curfews, bans on travel, confiscation of property and, most drastic, the deployment of the armed forces to quell rioting.” Ministers “can also amend any act of parliament, except the Human Rights Act, for a maximum of 21 days.”

One paragraph in the document, numbered 15, has been redacted. Only members of the Privy Council—who swear an oath to keep matters discussed in the Council secret—will be allowed to read the text.

The government claims to have censored the paragraph “on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.” The Times leak in August revealed that this paragraph dealt with threats to the UK fuel industry and the political ramifications. It read: “Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0 percent inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2,000).

“Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.”

Given that this information is already in the public sphere, it is very likely that the government is trying to hide an updated, far worse, assessment. Significantly, the censored paragraph is the only point in the document to reference the threat of strikes.

The government has admitted the likelihood of “protests and counter-protests,” presumably relating to Leave and Remain supporters, and even “protests and direct action with road blockages” in Northern Ireland over border issues and their economic consequences. But it cannot acknowledge the prospect of industrial action, which would involve far more than 2,000 refinery workers.

For the last three years, the ruling class has been able to exclude the working class from intervening independently in the Brexit crisis thanks to the role played by the trade unions and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The number of workers involved in disputes in 2018 (39,000) was the second lowest since 1893. The lowest number since 1893 was in 2017, which saw just 33,000 workers involved in industrial action.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party and union bureaucrats have sought to tie the workers to one or the other of the equally reactionary factions—pro-EU or pro-Brexit—of the ruling elite.

The development of major strikes in the course or aftermath of Brexit threatens to bring the working class back into the political equation, where it can begin to assert its own interests. It is against this potential movement that the immense forces of repression built up through Operation Yellowhammer will be deployed.

*

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.

Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time.
.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen.
.
A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage.
.
Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children.
 .
Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull’s bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose.
 .
Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage.
Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage.
 .
In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.
 .

Policy Recommendations Based on the Evidence to Date

At the time of writing, a total of 32 countries or governmental bodies within these countries4 have issued policies and health recommendations concerning exposure to RFR (78). Three U.S. states have issued advisories to limit exposure to RFR (8183) and the Worcester Massachusetts Public Schools (84) voted to post precautionary guidelines on Wi-Fi radiation on its website. In France, Wi-Fi has been removed from pre-schools and ordered to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use, and children aged 16 years or under are banned from bringing cell phones to school (85). Because the national test agency found 9 out of 10 phones exceeded permissible radiation limits, France is also recalling several million phones.

We therefore recommend the following:

1. Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep, vision and hearing, and effects on children.

2. Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to respect users’ Right To Know. Cautionary statements and protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale. Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol.

3. Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device.

4. IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. We note that an IARC Advisory Group has recently recommended that RFR should be re-evaluated by the IARC Monographs program with high priority.

5. The World Health Organization (WHO) should complete its long-standing RFR systematic review project, using strong modern scientific methods. National and regional public health authorities similarly need to update their understanding and to provide adequate precautionary guidance for the public to minimize potential health risks.

6. Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org).

7. Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age.

8. Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools, and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and the young.

 emphasis added

***

 

To read the full report. Open access paper: Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices

Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M and Soskolne CL (2019)
Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Wireless Devices: Risks to Health and Well-Being

On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump finally fired his third national security advisor, John Bolton after eighteen long and grueling months. John happens to be the thirty-fifth member of Trump’s revolving door administration to get fired or resign, since he took office in 2016. Bolton gives a different version of events but regardless of whether he was fired or resigned, Bolton is not in a powerful position anymore (and hopefully nevermore), and the world is a better place for it.

Now some might think is an overly optimistic way to look at things and that his replacement might be just as bad or maybe even worse, but can we think of anyone who could possibly be worse? I think that would be a stretch for even the staunchest neo-conservatives. John was unapologetic about advocating for more war, he hungered with an insatiable appetite to bomb and nuke nations that he didn’t like, he made enemies out of our adversaries and although it’s possible, it would be a difficult task to find someone that matches his outspoken and hard-lined hostile views.

Non-interventionists and anti-war advocates rightfully celebrated what might possibly be the end of the Israel-First, war hawk’s political career. While progressives rejoiced, Democrats and even some Republicans expressed disappointment and sadness about his dismissal.

After having served under three previous presidents; Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush many questioned the reasoning behind Trump hiring Bolton in the first place. A staunch advocate for intervention and increased war, Bolton’s foreign policy views differed greatly from those Trump advocated for during his presidential campaign, which helped him win the presidency. Wanting to end our involvement in wars, and not get the United states into any additional regime change wars and advocating for diplomacy and negotiations when possible just wasn’t on par with how Bolton preferred to handle foreign affairs.

Bolton vocally opposed diplomacy and dialogue attempts by Trump. Whenever attempts were made to bridge gaps between the United States and its adversaries Bolton found ways to hinder or sabotage progress.

Some have stated that on Monday the two men reached a breaking point over Afghanistan and Iran. Bolton adamantly opposed the idea of Trump meeting with the Taliban in Camp David or Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani later this month in New York.

On Wednesday, Trump, said that they had disagreed on other matters including Venezuela, saying that Bolton “was way out of line”, and had tried to sabotage denuclearization talks with North Korea by mentioning the “Libya model.” That among other reasons might be why Kim Jong Un had a strong distaste for Bolton and didn’t want him involved in any negotiations.

Regardless of what the reasons were (and there are many to choose from including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela etc.) behind why Trump fired Bolton after eighteen months, he finally pulled the plug and not a day too soon after having disagreed on many issues.

Bolton’s overnight ouster has left many wondering who will replace him, and whether that person will be Bolton 2.0 or someone more closely aligned with Trump’s foreign policy views. Regarding this, Trump told reports in the White House on Wednesday that there are five people (originally the number being heard around town was nine) who want the position “very much” and the chosen person will be announced next week.

Some have said that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who is favored by Trump) might even straddle both positions as the nation’s chief foreign diplomat and the president’s top national security liaison much like Henry Kissinger did under former President Richard Nixon in 1973. Some are warning that this is a bad idea.

There’s a good chance that Pompeo not only supported but advocated for the ouster of Bolton. Some have said that Pompeo purposely left Bolton out of important meetings in recent weeks.

Many people inside and outside of Trump’s administration believe that Bolton’s dismissal will help ease diplomatic efforts such as peace talks with Iran and North Korea. The idea here isn’t that whoever takes on this role will have that much of an impact or real power but rather will they be able to carry out or execute the policies that Trump decides to put in place? For instance, when Trump announced last December that he wanted to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, Bolton did not agree with that, and worked with others to sway Trump to back down on his decision.

According to an article published by Foreign Policy on Wednesday, some of the names being tossed around are Douglas MacGregor a retired Army Colonel and defense analyst, who told Tucker Carlson on Tuesday that he’d execute Trumps policies unlike Bolton who had prevented him from implementing them. Another is Stephen Biegun, a veteran Republican foreign-policy expert and Trump’s envoy to North Korea. Keith Kellogg, Vice President Mike Pence’s national security advisor who is reportedly very much liked by Trump and a retired lieutenant general.

Some other names making the rounds are Iranian-crisis envoy Brian Hook who recently sent letters to Iranian ship captains filled with bribes and threats and U.S. ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell who is known for placing strategic interests ahead of ideological principles.

Just a day after letting Bolton go, Trump is supposedly considering a French plan to extend Iran a $15 billion-dollar credit line if they agree to return to complying with the JCPOA nuclear deal, something Bolton would have surely objected to.

We wish the impressively mustached Bolton good luck (more like good riddance) in his future endeavors (and hopefully less influential roles) and hope that he will someday realize that peace is a better option than war.

If he runs out of career options in the US, Israel might be an alternative, seeing how he won the “Defender of Israel” award in 2018 at the Zionist Organization of America’s annual Brandeis Award dinner in New York.

*

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.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

In delivering his first major policy-speech since being sworn in as US Defense Secretary in July, Mark Esper said in London on September 6th that the United States’ European allies needed to be wary of developing closer ties with China.

“The more dependent a country becomes on Chinese investment and trade, the more susceptible they are to coercion and retribution when they act outside of Beijing’s wishes,” he said.

Defense Secretary Esper also criticized what he called Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea, alleged Russian violations of arms-control agreements, and said that Russian missiles deployed within range of Western Europe were “probably nuclear-tipped.” He argued that the western alliance needed to do more to counteract what he saw as Russian and Chinese attempts to “disrupt the international order,” and also said that the Trump administration was determined to maintain economic “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Speaking in Paris the following day, Esper said that it would be great if the west could get Russia “to behave like a more normal country.”

One of the reasons why it has become standard practice for US government officials to put their rapid-fire word-salad together so loaded with vapid ideological signifiers is that they are perfectly well aware of Brandolini’s law, and milk it shamelessly.

However, aside from demonstrating their absurdity, we can still analyze Defense Secretary Esper’s remarks on two distinct levels – the first level purely tactical and political, and the second level more abstractly ideological.

What precisely is the point of the US Defense Secretary reiterating the same shopping-list of US foreign-policy and security-policy objectives using the same vapid rhetoric? Or, to ask that question in another way, who precisely were the intended addressees of his remarks?

His audiences in London and Paris had heard it all before ad nauseam. So who precisely was he actually attempting to persuade?

Firstly, quite obviously, he was addressing the grey cardinals who are his de facto superiors. One of the core purposes of the first major policy-speech given by any new US Defense Secretary is to demonstrate that he’s “a team-player.” So it’s best to just double-down on the same old exhausted, vapid rhetoric as un-ironically as you possibly can. Let’s call it the “Emperor’s New Clothes” political imperative.

Secondly, Esper’s speeches in both London and Paris are deliberately worded to appeal to the most naïve segments of the population. In the Occident, pre-pubescent children are now the primary addressees of political speeches. This point partially overlaps with my previous point about Brandolini’s law. In any case, if I attempt to persuade an adult of anything, then I will likely have to construct arguments, which will in turn evoke counter-arguments. The beauty of vapid buzz-words like “normal” is that, by virtue of their pre-discursive mystical quality, they pre-empt this entire process of argumentation. The Occident’s political elites seem to have simply assumed, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that neuro-linguistic programming is effective on pre-pubescent children. For this reason, NLP has become the standard modus of the infantilization of political discourse in the Occident.

In most religious households, parents do not teach their children theology. Theology is an activity which intellectually curious people engage in on their own initiative later, during adult life. For children, the concept of “God” has a charismatic power only if we keep it very, very simple. Attempting to assign characteristics to “God” would destroy the charismatic power of this word for the very young. For quite analogous reasons, secular liberal parents do not teach their children what “normalcy” is. The mythology must be easily graspable. The predicates must be left unsaid. In liberal anti-metaphysics, “normalcy” has become one of many conceptual substitutes for “God.”

Living in the Czech Republic for 9 years, I used to scratch my head and wonder why both Czech teenagers and young adults, both utterly indoctrinated in liberal ideology, used both the English adjective “normal” and the Czech adjective “normální” with such bewildering regularity. They had never experienced, or even cursorily thought about, any alternative way of doing anything to how it was done in their own immediate social environment. They simply had no historical or experiential basis for comparison, so they described almost EVERYTHING as “normální.”

Then again, in a country which is 77% atheist, it’s hardly surprising.

Christians, Muslims and Jews sometimes say that “God is everywhere.”

For post-communist Czech liberals, “normálnost” is everywhere.

It’s a pantheistic faith.

Like the Christian and Islamic conceptions of God, this crypto-deity named “normalcy” is implicitly postulated as transcendental, as existing outside of the process of human history, and therefore independent of historical conditions in the human world.

Didn’t the Euromaidan protestors in 2013/2014 also say that they just wanted to live in “a normal country?”

The irony which hardly requires explanation is that this vapid invocation of “normalcy” has become increasingly incessant at the very moment in history when the hegemonic geo-political power-relations which underpinned this liberal bourgeois sense of “normalcy” have disintegrated. That irony, in itself, is utterly predictable. The lady doth protest too much. Insofar as Mark Esper is a Trump administration loyalist, one point which his remarks demonstrate quite clearly is that the cultural and ideological war which is taking place within the United States today is a phony war. Both sides are simply advocating different interpretations of anti-historicist liberalism.

*

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.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s Search for “A Normal Country”. Beware of Russia and China Attempts to “Disrupt the International Order”
  • Tags:

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces another obstacle in the way of his path to a No Deal Brexit as it was ruled on Wednesday that his five week long suspension of parliament, condoned by the Queen herself, was ‘unlawful’. The case was brought to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by seventy MPs led by the Scottish National Party’s Joanna Cherry, who argued that the Prime Minister was attempting to prevent parliament from holding the government to account over Brexit.

The three judges unanimously agreed with this statement, ruling that Boris Johnson was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”, and furthermore, that he had effectively misled the Queen by advising her to suspend Parliament. They added:

‘The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”

There were unprecedented scenes on Monday night as parliament was officially prorogued until the 14th October, much to the vehemence of opposition politicians, who sat well into the night protesting the action. Labour politicians sang socialist anthem ‘The Red Flag’ as Scottish Nationalists blared out ‘Flower of Scotland’ in defiance of the ruling to shut down parliament for several weeks, at such a critical time in the Brexit negotiations. Several MPs, brandishing placards which read ‘SILENCED’ also tried to stop Speaker of the House, John Bercow, who has announced his plan to step down from his role on 31st October, from leaving the Commons.

The Scottish judges’ decision casts huge doubt on the legitimacy of the prorogation, with MP Joanna Cherry now calling for politicians to return to Westminster.  However the government stands by its decision, claiming that there is nothing unusual in requesting such a suspension, and suggesting that the real motivation was in order to hold a Queen’s speech, whereby the Johnson cabinet could outline its domestic agenda for the year ahead. Subsequently the government plans to challenge the outcome of the Scottish court in the highest court in the UK – the Supreme Court in London – next week.

The ruling also now raises questions for the Queen and how well she was advised when requested by Johnson to give permission to suspend parliament. It is now being asked whether the Palace should have pushed Downing Street further as to why such a prorogation was necessary, especially given the contentious nature of Brexit. It also puts her role as monarch under scrutiny, as if she herself has no discretion regarding such decisions, then what is her real purpose? If the Supreme Court does indeed rule in favour of the Scottish Court’s decision then it will only drag the Queen further into the Brexit discussion as she will likely be forced to rethink her position.

Calls are now being made for Boris Johnson’s resignation, by none other than former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, on the basis of Wednesday’s verdict. For a UK Prime Minister to have been accused by a court of misleading the Queen herself really is unprecedented. But then Boris Johnson it seems, is no ordinary politician. And he heads a gang of hard-core Brexiteers who in the opinion of many opposition politicians, believe they are above the law and will stop at nothing to see Britain leave the EU on October 31st. As Johnson heads towards crashing out of Europe, like a bull in a china shop, he is leaving nothing but destruction and mayhem in his path. And yet, he presses on regardless. It’s not clear whether, even given a Supreme Court decision that parliament was prorogued unlawfully, that he would pay heed to this verdict.

The Prime Minister’s honesty was questioned again on Wednesday evening as documents were released confirming the chaos which awaits the UK given a No Deal Brexit. This was in response to a law rushed through parliament by opposition MPs on Monday evening, before it was shut down. Previously having played down the consequences of a No Deal scenario, government ministers will now be forced to admit that their previous statements regarding the leaked Operation Yellowhammer documents being out of date, were not true. The outlook for No Deal Britain is bleak, with the report indicating that there would be severe disruption to food and medical supplies, delays at ports and public disorder. To put it in context, any of these issues in normal circumstances would be considered a national emergency; therefore to downplay them in order to push through Brexit is being seen by many as wholly irresponsible.

The European Parliament for its part said on Thursday it is open to a Brexit extension if asked. It seems the lack of progress on this matter is wholly down to inertia on the UK side, and all the evidence suggests this is because Johnson knows a No Deal Brexit is the most likely scenario. It seems this government is simply not prepared to risk another deal being rejected by parliament, leading to further delays. But this hard-headed approach comes with its own risks. Johnson is playing with fire; having already been accused of misleading the Queen and illegally proroguing parliament. The accusations could not be more serious. The best option he has now, if he is to save what is left of his withering reputation,  is to indeed get some kind of deal with the EU that can be presented to the British people. But whether the PM will have the sense to do that is another question…

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Schizoid Man: Trump Considers Throwing Money at Iran

September 13th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

President Trump is considering backing a French plan to extend a $15 billion line of credit to Iran. 

.

.

.

.

Needless to say, this is a 180 degree turn away from his previous stance. Last July, he tweeted a threat specifically aimed at Iranian President Rouhani. 

More recently, reality managed to sink in. 

If Trump follows the advice of Bolton and the neocons, it would be a sure bet he’d lose the 2020 election. A disastrous war against Iran would also crash a world economy that runs on oil and is already teetering on the edge. Americans suffering under the consequences would find somebody to blame, and that somebody would be Trump. 

No way in hell will Trump’s ego allow this to happen. 

The president showed arch-neocon, John Bolton, the door this week, but despite this welcome and positive move his administration remains chock full of neocons. Most disturbingly, his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is a dedicated anti-Iran and pro-Zionist fanatic. 

Following word of the plan, neocons went bonkers. 

Meanwhile, the Israelis were told, contrary to Trump’s wish to dial-down the hostilities, that the sanctions would remain in place and not to worry. 

Unfortunately, President Trump’s apparent willingness to step back from the neocon plan to set the Middle East on fire for the sake of tiny Israel is not set in stone. 

He’s not known as the King of Flip-flop for nothing. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

Video: Russia Resumes Strikes on Terrorists in Idlib

September 13th, 2019 by South Front

On September 11, the US-backed Revolutionary Commando Army claimed that it had repelled a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) attack in the 55km zone surrounding the US military garrison in al-Tanf. The militant group said that SAA units advanced using a Red Cross visit to civilians in the area.

A Syrian military source, stationed around the 55km zone, denied these claims. The source told SouthFront that no clashes happened in the area. There are about 300 Revolutionary Commando Army militants stationed in al-Tanf. They receive training, weapons and supplies from the US-led coalition despite multiple scandals surrounding this cooperation. Earlier in 2019, the group’s spokesperson, Mohamad Mostafa al-Jarrah, was caught raping a 10-year old girl from the nearby refugee camp.

A prominent Hayat Tahrir al-Sham commander, Abu Abd al-Ashda, left the militant group accusing its current leadership of massive corruption, and failing to defend militants’ territories in northern Hama during the recent SAA advance. According to him, millions of dollars that HTS had for rearmament simply disappeared.

Watch the video here.

Meanwhile, another key Hayat Tahrir al-Sham commander, Abu Abdul Mohsen al-Jazrawi, was assassinated in southeastern Idlib. The incident happened near the town of Saraqib on September 10. Al-Jazrawi, a Saudi citizen, was reportedly a close aide of the terrorist group leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

In the last few months, several prominent foreign terrorists were assassinated in Greater Idlib. The perpetrators of most of these attacks remain unknown.

On September 11, Syrian and Russian warplanes bombed positions of terrorists near the towns of Kafar Takharim and Darkush. The airstrikes were likely a response to the recently increased number of violations by militants in southern Idlib.

*

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

Russian media reported that the “multilateral strategic stability” proposal by some of the country’s leading experts to actively prevent a military confrontation between nuclear powers runs counter to Moscow’s current foreign policy, though its possible promulgation would represent a victory by the “Progressive” faction of its “deep state” over the “Traditionalists” and potentially return Russia to its originally envisioned “balancing” role in South Asian affairs.

The “Multilateral Strategic Stability” Model

Russia’s publicly financed international media outlet TASS reported in its recent press review on Kommersant’s article about the proposal put forth by some of the country’s leading experts to promote the new concept of “multilateral strategic stability” (MSS), which the outlet noted runs counter to Moscow’s current foreign policy. The gist of the idea is that “Russia’s traditional strategic stability concept is outdated”, thus making “the country’s highly valued mechanisms of limiting armaments…ineffective and even senseless.” The document that they presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs importantly states that “today the nature of strategic stability is multilateral – involving China and other nuclear states, while a non-nuclear conflict and its consequences can be compared with a nuclear one and there are higher chances than before that it may trigger the use of nuclear weapons.” That’s why the “experts suggest coining a new term – ‘multilateral strategic stability’, [which] implies that nuclear powers must prevent any military confrontation between each other – both deliberate and unintended – since any standoff could spark ‘a global nuclear war’.”

“Deep State” Drama

By all indications, it appears as though the “Progressive” faction of the Russian permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is lobbying hard to counteract the revived influence of their “Traditionalist” rivals after the latter succeeded in returning their country’s foreign policy back to its historic roots last week following through the informal alliance that was sealed with India during Modi’s participation in the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor. The author wrote two years ago about how “Russia’s Foreign Policy Progressives Have Trumped The Traditionalists” after Moscow began to actively pursue its 21st-century grand strategic vision of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, which later led to “Russia’s ‘Deep State’ Divisions Over South Asia Spilling Over Into The Public” in the aftermath of Russia “Returning To South Asia” through its proposal to host Indo-Pak peace talks earlier this year. Those plans were nearly scuttled after India’s “Israeli”-like unilateral moves in Kashmir last month compelled Russia to extend its full support to New Delhi and seemed to spell the endof the “Progressive’s” brief reign.

The “deep state” struggle for influence isn’t over, though, at least if the latest MSS proposal is anything to go by. Its possible promulgation would represent a marked departure from Russia’s “Traditionalist” position of staying out of bilateral disputes between nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan and instead encourage a more active effort to mediate or “balance” between them in pursuit of peace and the avoidance a military confrontation that could spark “a global nuclear war”. That’s not at all what India would want to see happen after it invested billions of dollars in military-technical and energy deals with Russia in the hopes of “buying off” Moscow and preventing the “Progressives’” return to power there. Nevertheless, the MSS proposal is extremely pragmatic and will likely be received very well by Russian diplomats, even if their positive reaction to it isn’t made public given how sensitive of a foreign policy shift it would be, especially regarding Russian-Indian relations if ever enters into practice. One possible indication that this could be the case comes from former Ambassador and current Vice President of the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs Gleb Ivashentsev.

E-CPEC+

Mr. Ivashentsev told Nezavisimaya Gazeta earlier in the week (as reported by TASS in the context of their daily press review) that “Russia cannot act as an intermediary (in Kashmir)…however, we must promote a rapprochement between the two countries”, which was an extremely bold statement to make given his country’s official position on the matter. That strongly hints that there’s serious interest in the Russian “deep state” to “recalibrate” their recent foreign policy “adjustment” in full-fledged partisan favor of India in order to make it more “balanced”, which would by default work out to the “Progressives’” advantage. Such a change wouldn’t be just for the strategic sake of it either, but could possibly be driven by Iran’s reported plans to build a CPEC-parallel pipeline (E-CPEC+) to China, a game-changing megaproject that Russia could participate in if it allows its offshore reserves in Iran to be transported through this pipeline and/or uses its world-class technical expertise to construct it. Any move in that direction could help Russia retain “balance” in its new relations with India but also just as importantly promote peace in South Asia too.

The MSS speaks about the need to actively “prevent any military confrontation between [nuclear powers] – both deliberate and unintended – since any standoff could spark ‘a global nuclear war’”, and while Russia isn’t able to mediate between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, it could “balance” out its regional investments in the former through its prospective leading participation in the latter’s E-CPEC+. The more economically connected that Russia becomes with the global pivot state of Pakistan (including through the RuPak rail proposal via Central Asia & Afghanistan that could become the main component of N-CPEC+), the less likely it is that India will seriously consider behaving aggressively against Islamabad out of concern that its informal ally’s investments might be impacted as “collateral damage”. The greater the tangible stake that Russia has in Pakistan, the more involved it would naturally become in promoting peace between this nuclear power and India in accordance with the strategic precept guiding the MSS proposal. Without any “skin in the game” in Pakistan, Russia’s efforts to prevent a military clash in the region would be unconvincing and ultimately futile.

Overcoming The Kashmiri Obstacle

India is powerless to prevent Russia from investing in a purely apolitical project such as E-CPEC+ if its partner is sincerely interested in doing so and desires the resultant aforementioned strategic gains that this would entail, but it might try to wage a low-intensity infowar out of desperation to pressure it against doing so, though going too far with this could risk undermining the hard-fought trust recently built between the two by amounting to blatant interference in its affairs. The most likely narrative approach that could be relied upon in this scenario is to emphasize how the Russian Ambassador to India explicitly said that his country recognizes India’s recent moves in Kashmir to be an “internal matter” and that “our views are exactly the same as India’s”, which implies full endorsement of New Delhi’s maximalist claims towards the Kashmir Conflict. That said, such an interpretation is merely an assumption, since Russia has the narrative leeway to assert that it set a “balanced” precedent and also therefore regards Gilgit-Baltistan (through which E-CPEC+ would traverse) as Pakistani territory, thus settling any Indian concerns over the legality of this move.

So long as Russia has the political will to defy Indian pressure (however direct or indirect it may be), it can return to its original plans of “balancing” South Asian affairs instead of privileging India over the rest of the region. The odds of this happening would become even more likely if the “Progressives” succeed with their plan to get the Foreign Ministry to promulgate the MSS proposal as its official policy, as this would then become the structural framework through which their active “balancing” efforts as practiced by the “energy diplomacy” of participating in E-CPEC+ would become institutionally justified. It might still take a while for the “Progressives’” vision, which may have actually been “ahead of its time” when it first began being practiced a few years ago, to catch on with the rest of Russia’s “deep state” and convince them of the useful flexibility of their MSS model as compared to the extant rigid one being defended by the “Traditionalists”, but the very fact that it’s being so prominently reported on by Russia’s publicly financed international media strongly suggests that there’s some degree of behind-the-scenes support for at least floating the idea in the public domain at this time.

Concluding Thoughts

The author previously wrote about how Russia is in the midst of two systemic transitions in the political (Post-Putin 2024, PP24) and economic (“Great Society”/”National Development Projects”) spheres, but now one can say that it’s also experiencing a similar systemic transition in the diplomatic one as well seeing as how the MSS is the natural evolution of Russian foreign policy in the emerging Multipolar World Order, especially if it intends to indefinitely remain the leader of the fledgling new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that it wants to lead throughout this century (whether by itself or jointly with India). Although the diplomatic transition was recently suspended in the South Asian sense out of financial considerations stemming from the planned multibillion-dollar deals that Russia later clinched with India in exchange for its partisan support of New Delhi’s actions in Kashmir, most of those agreements have been finalized after last week’s Eastern Economic Forum so India can no longer use them as “blackmail” leverage for pressuring Russia not to invest in E-CPEC+. Simply put, India already moved so close to Russia that it can’t disengage, thus leaving it no choice but to accept Moscow’s will.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s “Multilateral Strategic Stability” Proposal Could Bring “Balance” to South Asia
  • Tags: ,

War and militarism are class issues.”

Black Alliance for Peace national organizer and Black Agenda Report editor Ajamu Baraka delivered the following remarks to the International Trade Union Forum in Solidarity with Workers and People to Break the Economic Sanctions and in Rejection of Imperialist Intervention, held on September 7 through 9, in Damascus, Syria.

***

Thank you, and I bring you greetings from the struggling working-class peoples of the United States, but particularly from the anti-imperialist and revolutionary Black working class and our still imprisoned comrades from the Black Liberation Movement, many of whom have been imprisoned for over 40 years representing the longest held political prisoners on the planet!

We say “All power to the people, All power to the people! When we say all power to the people, we recognize this not as an abstract slogan but a call to action, a statement of values and an organizing principle.

My Name is Ajamu Baraka, and I am here in my capacities as a member of the leadership bodies of the U.S. Peace Council, The United National Anti-war Coalition and especially the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), a multi-tendency, Black Internationalist, anti-imperialist, working class oriented formation that is an integral part of the historic struggle for Black and working class liberation in the United States.

As a Black working-class oriented alliance residing in the center of empire and committed to peace and abolishing war, repression and imperialism, we are quite clear about how we see the world and our responsibilities.

We say that there can be no working-class justice, no working-class rights in a world where powerful elite social forces are prepared and are using extreme violencein the form of political and economic destabilization and war.

We are clear that war is a class issue.That it is always the rural and urban working classes that are required to fight the wars against other working classes and oppressed peoples and nations.

That is why we in BAP say clearly and without equivocation “Not one drop of blood from the poor and working-class to defend the capitalist dictatorship in the U.S. and oppressor classes and peoples’ world-wide.”

“There can be no working-class justice, no working-class rights in a world where powerful elite social forces are prepared and are using extreme violence.”

Let me share very briefly how the interests of the rulers’ clash with that of the working class in the U.S.

In the U.S.  Neoliberalism, state austerity and theft of public resources has had a devastating impact on workers.

It has been estimated that the U.S. state has spent 6 trillion dollars on U.S. wars over the last 18 years. The military budget for next two years will amount to over 730 billion a year!  The state has already committed 1.7 trillion over next ten years to upgrade U.S. nuclear arsenal.

What impact has that had on workers in the U.S. who make up majority of the population?

The UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights points out that : the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than China, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined.

But the report documents the social, economic consequences for workers related to the choice made by U.S. authorities to shift public expenditures away from the human rights of the vast majority of the population – workers — to the military. The report documents that:

  • US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
  • Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the US and its peer countries continues to grow.
  • US inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries.
  • In terms of access to water and sanitation, the US ranks 36th in the world.
  • The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.

The theft of public resources for the military and militarism domestically and abroad represent a one-sided class war waged on the working class in the U.S. The 6 trillion dollars spent on U.S. wars since 2003 are resources that could have been directed to address the increasing desperate plight of workers and poor people in the U.S.

“The U.S. spends more on national defense than China, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined.”

Today, as a result of the neoliberal policies supported by both parties over last forty years and the diversion of the people’s resources into war and militarism:

  • The average worker in the U.S. is making, adjusted for inflation, less than in 1973, i.e., some 46 years ago.
  • 140 million are either poor or have low-income with 80% living paycheck to paycheck
  • 34 million workers are still without health insurance (Austerity and militarism both kill, AB).
  • 40 million live in “official poverty;” and more in unofficial poverty as measured by alternative supplemental poverty (SPM).
  • More than half of those over 55 years-old have no retirement funds other than Social Security, which means that these seniors retire straight into poverty.

War and militarism are class issuesthat impact workers in various ways depending on the national context. In Syria workers and the people have suffered enormously as result of the criminal aggressions by a collection of rogue states with no regard for human life, human rights or established morality.

It is clear:

For workers and the people of Syria, women workers in aBangladesh garmentfactory, for African workers extracting precious materials for the world market in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, teacher unions in the U.S., sanitation workers in China, and for the thousands of workers and campesinos in Central America displaced by U.S. and European capital and repressive governmentsthere can be no workers’ rights without peace and social justice.

This requires a recognition that reciprocal solidarity, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, gender equality and opposition to patriarchy, and respect and support for the sovereignty of nations and peoples’ must be guiding principles of worker- centered internationalism.

BAP stands in fraternal solidarity with the people and working class of Syria and the world in the desire for a world in which the people can experience peace, people(s)-centered human rights and a sustainable future. We are confident that this gathering will move us closer toward realizing this common vision.

*

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

This article was originally published on Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded theSerena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There Can be no Workers’ Rights without Peace and Social Justice: Ajamu Baraka

Global Research Editor’s Note

The 9/11 Commission’s Report Chapter 2 provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones.

Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission had built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them “into large guided missiles” (Report, Chapter 2).

The 9/11 Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

This carefully researched documentary confirms unequivocally that Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission’s Report was fabricated.

The official 9/11 Narrative is a Big Lie. Given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell phone call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 13, 2019

VIDEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: September 11 2001: Were Passenger Cell Phone Conversations Possible?

We sent the War to Syria’s shores.

We sent the terrorists, the mass destruction, the mass lies.

We sent the evil, the death, the barbarism.

And we are still doing it.

In the following interview with Syrian Scientist Dr. Ayshar Midani, we learn that criminal “sanctions” are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We learn of the pre-planned, willful destruction of Syria’s water infrastructure, education infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, financial infrastructure, everything that makes a country function.

We learn how our governments and their terrorist proxies destroy children from the inside out, indoctrinating them in the takfiri ideology.

We know that Syria will win this war for democracy, for nation-state sovereignty, for religious pluralism, for civilisation, and that every inch of Syrian territory will be liberated.

The invisible wounds will take longer to heal. Syria will be forever changed in this battle against Evil that the West has imposed on Syria and Syrians. The battle will continue even when the guns are silent.

But Syria will win, and when she does, we all will win.

Dr. Midani is a Syrian anti-war activist based in France. She is the chairperson of NOSTIA, a network and community of expatriate Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators.

*

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. Midani is a Syrian scientist and anti-war activist based in France. She is the chairperson of NOSTIA, a network and community of expatriate Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators.

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.

Featured image is from the author


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Syria will Win this War for Nation-state Sovereignty, for Religious Pluralism, for Civilization”

First published on September 11, 2008

***

Note: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case the pages in my most recent book—“The New Pearl Harbor Revisited”—where the issue is documented and discussed more extensively.

(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks, the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (NPHR 206-11).

(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners were hijacked by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs to earn a heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).

(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from loved ones or flight attendants on the airliners, during which they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the planes. One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID. But the calls to Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls from the planes at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, it had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet (NPHR 111-17).

(4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife, Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which says that the only call attempted by her was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds” (NPRH 60-62).

(5) Although decisive evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks was reportedly found in Mohamed Atta’s luggage—which allegedly failed to get loaded onto Flight 11 from a commuter flight that Atta took to Boston from Portland, Maine, that morning—this story was made up after the FBI’s previous story had collapsed. According to that story, the evidence had been found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot and the trip to Portland was taken by Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. After the FBI learned that neither of the Bukharis had died on September 11, it simply declared that the trip to Portland was made by Atta and another al-Qaeda operative (NPHR 155-62).

(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers—such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a headband discovered at the crash site of United 93—also show clear signs of having been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).

(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have “squawked” the universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).

(8) Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military, according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military’s failure to intercept any of the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down order, prevented standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10, 81-84).

(9) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White House, apparently confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on the Pentagon. Another man has reported hearing members of LAX Security learn that a stand-down order had come from the “highest level of the White House” (NPHR 94-96).

(10) The 9/11 Commission did not mention Mineta’s report, removed it from the Commission’s video record of its hearings, and claimed that Cheney did not enter the shelter conference room until almost 10:00, which was at least 40 minutes later than he was really there, according to Mineta and several other witnesses, including Cheney’s photographer (NPHR 91-94).

(11) The 9/11 Commission’s timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” September 16, just five days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).

(12) Hani Hanjour, known as a terrible pilot who could not safely fly even a single-engine airplane, could not possibly have executed the amazing trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).

(13) Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be targeted by foreign terrorists, for several reasons: It was as far as possible from the offices of Rumsfeld and the top brass, whom Muslim terrorists presumably would have wanted to kill; it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced; the reconstruction was not finished, so there were relatively few people there; and it was the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented obstacles to a plane’s flight path (NPHR 76-78).

(14) Contrary to the claim of Pentagon officials that they did not have the Pentagon evacuated because they had no way of knowing that an aircraft was approaching, a military E-4B—the Air Force’s most advanced communications, command, and control airplane—was flying over the White House at the time. Also, although there can be no doubt about the identity of the plane, which was captured on video by CNN and others, the military has denied that it belonged to them (NPHR 96-98).

(15) The Secret Service, after learning that a second World Trade Center building had been attacked—which would have meant that terrorists were going after high-value targets—and that still other planes had apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the school in Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of 9/11, the White House started telling a new story, according to which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several minutes after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second WTC building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television (NPHR 129-31).

(16) Given the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had steel columns running from their basements to their roofs, they simply could not have come down as they did—straight down at virtually free-fall speed—unless these columns had been sliced by means of explosives. Therefore, the official theory, according to which the buildings came down because of fire plus (in the case of the Twin Towers) the impact of the planes, is scientifically impossible (NPHR 12-25).

(17) The destruction of the Twin Towers had many other features—such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams, the melting of steel, and the sulfidation and thinning of steel—that can be explained only in terms of powerful explosives. For example, the fires could not have come within 1000 degrees Fahrenheit of the temperature needed to melt steel (30-36).

(18) Members of the FDNY (Fire Department of New York) provided oral histories shortly after 9/11 in which one fourth of them testified to having witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers. Explosions in the WTC 7 as well as the towers were also reported by city officials, WTC employees, and journalists (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51).

(19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that day: “we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street . . . , and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it [the South Tower] did collapse before we could actually get out of the building.” However, there was no objective basis for expecting the towers to collapse; even the 9/11 Commission admitted that none of the fire chiefs expected them to come down. The FDNY oral histories show that the information that they were going to collapse came from the Office of Emergency Management—Giuliani’s own office. How could Giuliani’s people have known that the towers were going to come down, unless they knew that the buildings had been laced with explosives? (NPH 40)

(20) NIST, which produced the official reports on the Twin Towers and (recently) WTC 7, has been “fully hijacked from the scientific to the political realm,” so that its scientists are little more than “hired guns,” a former employee has reported, and the 9/11 Commission was no more independent, being run by Philip Zelikow, who was essentially a member of the Bush White House (NPHR 11, 238-51).

(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly growing numbers of physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officials (NPHR xi).

David Ray Griffin. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé. Olive Branch Press, September, 2008, ISBN-10: 1566567297

Established on August 22, 2011, around six months after US launched aggression on the country, the so-called “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (COI)” is mandated to investigate war-related human rights abuses.

Instead, it produced over 20 propaganda reports and periodic updates, largely blaming Syria and its allies for crimes of war and against humanity committed against the nation and its people by the US, its imperial partners, and jihadist foot soldiers.

Blaming victims is longstanding US, NATO, Israeli policy, the Big Lie supported by establishment media, most people none the wiser about the deception.

Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari earlier slammed the COI, saying the following:

It’s “deliberately blowing things out of proportion when displaying its findings, also fully disregarding or downplaying core issues,” adding:

“There are blood-curdling scenes that flagrantly contravene the Syrians’ dignity and human rights regarding the crimes of the armed terrorist groups…”

They “rang(e) from eating human flesh, cutting throats, mutilating bodies, beheadings on sectarian and confessional grounds, throwing bodies from rooftops to committing hundreds of suicide bombings using car bombs in populated areas, recruiting children, abducting and slaughtering clergymen, assassinating scholars in mosques, issuing instigative fatwas on ‘sexual jihad,’ killing children on the charges of infidelity, robbing factories and transporting them to Turkey.”

For over eight years, COI reports gave these atrocities scant coverage, focusing attention on vilifying Assad, wrongfully blaming his forces and allies for high crimes and other human rights abuses committed by the US, its imperial allies, and terrorist proxies.

COI reports are based on interviews with anti-Assad sources in neighboring countries, “photographs, video recordings, satellite imagery, forensic and medical reports” from nations and NGO’s hostile to Damascus, along with so-called “academic analyses” and other UN misinformation.

On Wednesday, the COI issued its latest report on Syria. Covering the first six months of 2019, it followed the pattern of earlier ones, largely blaming Syria and allied forces for US-led imperial crimes on the country and its people.

While acknowledging al-Nusra attacks on government forces and civilians in northern Syria, the COI failed to explain that its fighters are armed, funded and directed by the Pentagon, the CIA, and US imperial allies, including Israel.

“(P)ro-government forces” were falsely accused of “destroying infrastructure essential to the survival of the civilian population, including hospitals, markets, educational facilities and agricultural resources, and forcing almost half a million civilians to flee” from Idlib province and surrounding areas.

At the same time, the COI admitted that “large-scale operations by the US-led international coalition and (Pentagon supported) Syrian Democratic Forces caus(ed) widespread destruction of towns and villages in” Deir Ezzor province and elsewhere.

Around 70,000 Syrian refugees are located in the Al Hol camp, enduring “deplorable and inhumane conditions,” said the COI, omitting what Russian National Defense Management Center General Mikhail Mizintsev explained earlier, saying:

“All fundamental norms of international law are violated in (camps) controlled by the US. The situation at…Rukban and Al-Hol (is) critical.”

“By artificially creating inhuman conditions at the refugee camps on the illegally occupied territories in Syria, the US is creating a basis for the return of terror organizations with the goal of maintaining instability in the country and the region.”

Head of Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria General Viktor Kupchishin added the following;

Conditions in refugee camps controlled by the US are responsible for “10 (to) 20 people dy(ing) each day” because of lack of food, medical care, and overall inhumane conditions.

The COI report falsely said

“(i)n areas controlled by the government, civilians, including recent returnees, were arbitrarily arrested by the state or abducted by pro-government militias” — a tactic used by US-supported jihadists, not Damascus.

At the same time, it admitted that “the US-led international coalition…left essential infrastructure obliterated, civilians killed, maimed, and uprooted, and communities in ‘near complete destruction,’ ” — a rare acknowledgment of devastation by the Pentagon and allied forces.

Citing an incident in Hajin, Syria, part of the al-Jazeera Storm campaign in Deir Ezzor province, the COI said attacks by coalition forces may have “amount(ed) to a war crime in cases in which such attacks are conducted recklessly.”

There’s no ambiguity about US-led high crimes of war and against humanity throughout years of naked aggression in Syria.

Examples are endless, including CW incidents staged by US-supported jihadists, falsely blamed on government forces, destruction of vital infrastructure by Pentagon-led terror-bombing, and notably the rape and destruction of Raqqa in 2017.

Most of the city was turned to rubble, countless thousands of civilians massacred, a thriving metropolis transformed into a wasteland — on the phony pretext of combatting ISIS the US created and supports.

None of the above was included in COI reports — nor did they explain that there’s nothing civil about endless US aggression in Syria.

Wherever the US shows up, mass slaughter, vast destruction, and human misery follow.

WikiLeaks earlier released an email from Hillary Clinton when serving as Obama regime secretary of state, saying the following:

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability (sic) is to help the people of Syria overthrow…Bashar Assad,” adding:

“Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma (sic). Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program (sic).”

No such program exists, not then, earlier, or now. Israel’s only security threats are invented. No real ones exist, the same true for the US and its other imperial allies.

Hillary’s mail added that Israel fears loss of its regional “nuclear monopoly,” admitting its open secret.

She failed to explain that Iran and Syria threaten no other nations. The US, NATO, and Israel threaten humanity.

*

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.

Argentina Returns to Capital Controls

September 12th, 2019 by Kavaljit Singh

On September 1, the Argentine government led by President Mauricio Macri imposed capital controls in a bid to stem the fall in the foreign exchange reserves and the peso currency. This unexpected move was initiated soon after the authorities spent nearly $3 billion of forex reserves to repay short-term debt and to protect the value of the peso.

The announcement followed the Macri government’s unilateral decision taken on August 28 to delay repayment of short-term debt instruments (denominated in both US dollar and peso) to maintain liquidity in the financial system and to protect dwindling forex reserves. The government also unraveled its plans to seek a “voluntary reprofiling” of $50 billion of longer-term debt held by foreigners besides requesting the International Monetary Fund to restructure its debt repayment of $44 billion received under the Fund-supported bailout program.

The Policy U-turn

Hardly anyone anticipated that the Macri government would make a U-turn and embrace capital controls. Such was his commitment to market-friendly and pro-investor policies that Mr. Macri dismantled all capital controls introduced by the previous government in one go within hours of his inauguration in December 2015.

Just a few weeks back, he ruled out the imposition of capital controls when the opposition parties called for these measures to halt a slump in the forex reserves and the peso. Leave aside critics; even his supporters were not expecting a sudden policy reversal from President Macri – a firm believer of free markets and a vocal critic of capital controls and other interventionist policies of his predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Now the Macri government has undertaken a course correction, but will the gambit pay off? It is too early to make any reasonable assessment of the efficacy of capital controls introduced in Argentina just two days ago, but initial reports[1] suggest that these measures did help in arresting the free fall of the peso.

The Political Shock

Since April 2018, Argentina has been facing severe macroeconomic instability, but the recent slump in the peso and financial markets started with the August 11 primary elections when Mr. Macri suffered a resounding defeat by the left-leaning opposition candidate Alberto Fernández, thereby further dimming the chances of his re-election. The presidential election will take place on October 27, 2019.

The primary election results were viewed by many as a referendum on the Macri government’s deeply unpopular austerity policies. The election results sent a shockwave in the domestic financial markets as investors feared a break with the market-friendly policies pursued by the Macri government. That led to a massive sell-off in the financial markets and triggered a fresh wave of capital flight out of the country. On August 17, Argentina’s finance minister, Nicolás Dujovne, resigned while admitting that “undoubtedly we have made mistakes”[2] in his resignation letter to President Macri.

Amid financial fragility and political uncertainty, the peso plunged to record new lows against the US dollar as investors dumped Argentina’s sovereign bonds and stocks en masse. The country’s 100-year bond that was four times oversubscribed just over two years lost more than 50 percent of its value after the August 11 primary vote.  The chaos in the currency markets got further exacerbated when nervous Argentine depositors withdrew their savings from the dollar-denominated saving accounts.

In August alone, the peso dropped by more than 30 percent against the US dollar. The Macri government was left with no option but to impose capital controls to stem the peso’s slide and to protect forex reserves. According to data compiled by Capital Economics, Argentina’s foreign exchange reserves are currently at $58 bn, down by 25 percent from a peak of $77 bn in mid-April 2019.[3]

What is even more worrying is the low net forex reserves (now estimated at $19 bn) that cover only 25 percent of the country’s total external financing need. Such low net reserves not only increase external vulnerabilities but also preempt the possibility of undertaking large intervention in the forex markets to stabilize the peso.

The Controls

What are capital controls? In simple terms, capital controls are regulations that restrict or prohibit the movement of capital into or out of a country.

The controls imposed by the Macri government are only aimed at restricting capital outflows. No controls have been introduced to restrict capital inflows. The authorities have enforced controls for a short duration (120 days) and will remain in effect until December 31, 2019. Some of these measures are summarized below:

  • Residents are restricted to buy foreign exchange of no more than $10,000 a month. While no restrictions are imposed on residents to withdraw foreign exchange in cash from their bank accounts.
  • Non-residents can only buy foreign exchange of $1000 a month, and they are not allowed to make bank transfers abroad.
  • New deadlines have been imposed for exporters to repatriate foreign currency earned from sales abroad. Exporters will have to repatriate foreign exchange within five working days of payment or 180 days after the loading permit.
  • Companies, banks, and financial institutions will need prior authorization from the central bank to purchase foreign exchange or to distribute dividends abroad.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

From a broader policy perspective, it was a wrong move by President Macri to remove all capital controls in one go when he took office in December 2015. To a greater degree, capital controls would have provided his government breathing space to reduce inflation and address longer-term structural problems facing the economy. The removal of capital controls made the Argentine economy extremely vulnerable to sudden stops in capital flows.

Ideally, the government should have introduced capital controls in April 2018 when sudden capital flight out of peso-denominated assets began following the rise in U.S. interest rates and a surge in the US dollar. At that time, the rapid depreciation of the peso increased Argentina’s external vulnerabilities due to its heavy reliance on borrowings in foreign currency. That forced the Macri government to seek financial support from the IMF.

The Social and Economic Costs

Since early 2018, the rapid depreciation of the peso and rising public debt (nearly 75 percent is denominated in foreign currencies) have added to the country’s financial vulnerabilities. The market confidence and domestic demand are on the decline. At 60 percent (the highest in the world), benchmark interest rates have crippled domestic investment.

The Argentine economy is now suffering from a deep recession that is worsening social conditions. The recession has negatively impacted tax revenues, which implies that adhering to the program’s ambitious fiscal targets would necessitate more spending cuts. The inflation rate is currently at more than 50 percent and has drastically reduced private consumption, especially of poor households. Unemployment and poverty rates have risen considerably since mid-2018. According to a report by the Catholic University of Argentina’s Social Debt Observatory, almost a third of Argentines were living below the poverty line at the end of 2018.[4] Facing an imminent electoral defeat in October, Mr. Macri announced ad hoc relief measures including a three-month freeze on fuel prices and income tax cuts on August 14.

Is a Quick Recovery Possible?

Given the precarious state of the Argentine economy, it will be far-fetched to expect a quick economic recovery ahead of the presidential election in late October with the help of capital controls.

Sorry, Mr. Macri, capital controls are not a magic wand to turnaround a messed up economy in less than 60 days.

There is no denying that capital controls are useful policy tools, but these measures alone cannot restore financial stability. To be more effective, capital controls need to be complemented by other policy and regulatory measures such as counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies, tightening of financial regulations, and keeping public debt under control. Many of these measures may not be compatible with the policy recommendations of the ongoing IMF-supported program in Argentina.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that capital controls will be enforced in Argentina only for a limited period of 120 days which may not be sufficient for restoring macroeconomic stability.

What about the IMF?

At the time of writing, there is no official word from the IMF on the capital controls introduced by the government. No one can dispute that the IMF enthusiastically supported the Macri government’s pro-market reforms ‒ including the dismantling of capital controls and a floating exchange rate regime. When the country faced financial fragility last year, the IMF quickly approved a loan package of $57 bn – the biggest loan package in the IMF’s history – with the strong backing of the United States.

The IMF’s engagement with Argentina raises a critical question about the rationale of significantly frontloading disbursements under the program. Out of total $57 bn, $44 bn has been already disbursed to Argentina, and the next tranche of $5.4 bn is due in late September. As per the agreement, close to 90 percent of the total financial support is to be disbursed to Argentina before the 2019 presidential election. Isn’t a case of IMF supporting Macri’s re-election?

At present, the Argentine economy is in a much deeper recession than it was before the implementation of the IMF-supported program. It not only indicates that frontloading disbursements was a severe mistake but also suggests that the support program designed to restore market confidence and sustained economic expansion is not delivering positive results. It begs the question: What is the accountability of the IMF Executive Board, Managing Director, and senior staff members who designed and approved the support program?

Rather than acknowledging the likelihood of policy failure, Mr. David Lipton, the IMF’s Acting Managing Director and Chair, strongly backed the IMF-supported program just a few weeks back. On July 12, he stated:

“These policy efforts are starting to bear fruit. Financial markets have stabilized, the fiscal and external positions are improving, and the economy is beginning a gradual recovery from last year’s recession.”[5]

One can only hope that the new Managing Director of the IMF will undertake a complete review of its lending programs as well as its broader policy framework. In particular, the IMF should revisit its 2012 Institutional View[6] that endorses capital controls as a last resort, imposed selectively on capital inflows, and on a temporary basis. As several other emerging market economies are also experiencing sudden reversals in capital flows, the IMF should adopt a more flexible approach towards capital controls and support member-countries with all the policy options needed to safeguard financial stability.

It is yet unclear what kind of renegotiations with the IMF would take place if Mr. Fernández becomes Argentina’s next president. Most Argentines blame the IMF policies for exacerbating the financial crisis of 2001, which deepened the recession and triggered social unrest and political instability.

The Importance of Capital Controls

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the current financial crisis in Argentina. First, the policymaking in a complex, uncertain, and the financially integrated world should not be driven by financial orthodoxy endorsed by the IMF, G7, financial markets, and credit rating agencies. Instead, the policymakers should adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach towards managing cross-border capital flows and, therefore, they should not hesitate to use capital controls (along with macroprudential measures) for maintaining financial and macroeconomic stability. Needless to say, financial stability is a public good that every modern economy needs.

As I discussed elsewhere[7], capital controls should be viewed as a legitimate tool of macroeconomic policy to manage the risks associated with volatile capital flows. In recent years, several countries have deployed controls on outflows as part of crisis management tools with positive outcomes. This long list of countries includes Malaysia in 1998, Iceland in 2008, Cyprus in 2013, and China in 2016.

It is high time that the stigma attached to capital controls is removed. Apart from academia and civil society groups, the IMF, World Bank, OECD, UN, and other international organizations should play an important role in removing the stigma. In a more interconnected and integrated global financial system, national measures alone may not be sufficient to address the systemic risks posed by cross-border volatile capital flows to financial stability. Hence, there is a need for regional and international cooperation for maintaining global financial stability.

Lessons for India Too

Argentina’s current crisis has highlighted the issue of currency risks associated with a large share of foreign currency-denominated public debt. As nearly 75 percent of Argentina’s public debt is denominated in foreign currency, it has risen over 30 percentage points due to depreciation of the peso over the past year.

The Argentine crisis offers important lessons for New Delhi as the Ministry of Finance is planning to raise as much as $10 billion this fiscal year via sovereign bonds denominated in foreign currencies. In her budget speech on July 5, finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, stated: “India’s sovereign external debt to GDP is among the lowest globally at less than 5%. The government would start raising a part of its gross borrowing programme in external markets in external currencies. This will also have a beneficial impact on demand situation for the government securities in the domestic market.”[8]

Till now, India has never issued a foreign currency-denominated sovereign bond due to the inherent risks posed by currency volatility. In the international markets, India has issued sovereign bonds (such as masala bonds) but only in Indian rupees so that the bond investors bear the exchange rate risks.

The finance minister is sticking to the issuance of sovereign bonds in foreign currency despite the widespread criticism of this proposed move and serious apprehensions expressed by some former RBI governors about the potential risks involved in issuing such bonds.

Of course, India’s external debt situation is vastly different from Argentina but as pointed out recently by Duvvuri Subbarao, former RBI governor, “Governments start off believing that they will remain prudent, open their doors wider, and soon become so addicted to foreign money they wouldn’t stop until a crisis hits them. To believe that markets can discipline governments is a stretch. The stories of Argentina and Turkey are telling examples.”[9]

One of the main reasons why India has so far avoided financial crises like those experienced by other emerging markets in Asia and Latin America is because of not borrowing funds from international markets in foreign currencies. Much of India’s external debt is in the form of long-term borrowings from official sources (multilateral and bilateral) and that too on concessional terms.

If nominal currency depreciation and hedging costs are taken into account, foreign currency-denominated sovereign bonds may not turn out to be a cheaper option. Nor is a compelling need to raise funds from international markets in foreign currencies at this moment.

Let’s hope better sense prevails in New Delhi too.

*

This article was first published on Madhyan

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

Notes

[1] Benedict Mander, “Argentine Peso Strengthens after Capital Control Measures,” Financial Times, September 3, 2019; Reuters, “Argentine Peso, Bonds Whiplashed After Capital Controls Imposed,” September 2, 2019.

[2] The text of the resignation letter in Spanish is available at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/sin-dudas-hemos-cometido-errores-escribio-nicolas-nid2278599.

[3] Edward Glossop, A Closer Look at Argentina’s FX Reserves, Capital Economics, August 28, 2019.

[4] 31.3% of population living below poverty line, says UCA report, Buenos Aires Times, March 25, 2019.

[5] Quoted in “IMF Executive Board Completes Fourth Review Under Argentina’s Stand-By Arrangement, Approves US$5.4 Billion Disbursement,” Press Release No. 19/268, IMF, July 12, 2019.

[6] IMF, The Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows – An Institutional View, November 14, 2012.

[7] Kavaljit Singh, What Are Capital Controls?, Policy Brief # 1, Madhyam, January 2, 2019; Kavaljit Singh, Recent Experiences with Capital Controls, Policy Brief # 4, Madhyam, May 2, 2019.

[8] The full text of the budget speech is available at https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/Budget_Speech.pdf.

[9] Duvvuri Subbarao, “The name is Dollar Bond,” Indian Express, August 3, 2019.

Featured image is from 123rf.com

In a new peer-reviewed paper, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stands accused of giving “low-quality scientific advice” in its favourable opinion on the cultivation in the European Union of Monsanto/Bayer’s GM Bt insecticidal maize variety MON810.

The maize is the only GMO approved for cultivation in the EU. Based on EFSA’s opinion, the European Commission has decided to renew the authorisation for cultivation, in spite of the fact that 19 Member States have banned it from their territories and the European Parliament has demanded that the Commission withdraw its decision.

EFSA issued an opinion in 2009 stating that MON810 was as safe as non-GM maize regarding potential effects on human and animal health and posed a “very low” risk of adverse effects on non-target organisms and the environment.

But those conclusions are challenged in the new paper, published in Environmental Sciences Europe by the scientist Veronika Chvátalová of Masaryk University in the Czech Republic.

Chvátalová looked at EFSA’s risk assessment of MON810, focusing on two non-target organisms, honeybees and earthworms.

Chvátalová found that

“EFSA omits relevant available studies, selectively cites information, misquotes studies, fails to acknowledge uncertainties, fails to call for further research where needed, and fails to critically interpret studies and their findings”.

GMWatch observes that while such failures could hypothetically be the result of simple incompetence, in the case of EFSA’s opinion on MON810, they all tend in one direction: to claim, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that MON810 is safe. This suggests that EFSA’s performance is not driven just by incompetence but by an intent to mislead the public and take industry’s side on the safety of this GMO.

In one example from EFSA’s honeybees risk assessment, Chvátalová found that the authority selectively used scientific information in a biased way. It only mentioned parameters that were not affected by exposure to the GM insecticidal protein in MON810, while it omitted one that was negatively affected.

In the risk assessment for earthworms, Chvátalová found that EFSA used double standards, only applying criticism to a study that reported an adverse effect and not to other studies that reported no adverse effects. EFSA also adopted the opinion of a review in which the study’s method was criticised, even though the critique was irrelevant. This use of double standards, according to Chvátalová, “does not inspire confidence in the scientific rigour of the EFSA”.

Chvátalová found that contrary to EFSA’s reassuring conclusion on MON810,

“the body of referenced evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on risk” and that the authority’s environmental risk assessment was “incomplete”. She concluded, “Overall, the findings indicate that the reliability of scientific information and particularly its use by the EFSA GMO Panel produces low-quality scientific advice, which is inconsistent with the Authority Mission Statement.”

Chvátalová also took aim at EFSA’s record on conflicts of interest:

“The GMO Panel that was responsible for issuing the favourable report on GM maize MON810 has been criticised for more than half of its members having a conflict of interests.”

Double standards

Chvátalová is not the first scientist to accuse EFSA of operating unscientific double standards in the context of studies on GMOs. In 2012 Dr Angelika Hilbeck and Dr Hartmut Meyer accused EFSA of double standards when it rejected the study led by Prof GE Séralini, which found adverse effects in rats fed a GM maize and very low levels of Roundup herbicide, while uncritically accepting at face value Monsanto’s own studies on the same maize, which concluded that it was safe.

Yet when EFSA’s own criteria for judging Séralini’s study were applied equally to Monsanto’s studies, all the studies were found to satisfy or fail to satisfy EFSA’s criteria to a comparable extent. Drs Hilbeck and Meyer concluded,

“The rejection of only one of the papers is, thus, not scientifically justified.”

MON810: A history

MON810 maize was first permitted to be grown in the EU in 1998 for a 10-year period. In 2007 Monsanto applied for renewal of the cultivation authorisation, but a qualified majority of Member States could not agree to grant the renewal. The row dragged on until 2016, when the European Commission unilaterally issued a decision renewing the authorisation of the cultivation of MON810 maize.

However, later the same year, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the Commission to withdraw its decision. A group of NGOs agreed.

Chvátalová states in her paper that her research led her to support the Parliament’s and NGOs’ demand:

“These results would support the call on the EC [Commission] to withdraw its draft implementing decision to renew the authorisation of MON810 cultivation voiced by the European Parliament and NGOs.”

Nineteen EU Member States have made use of the EU’s “opt-out” rule to pre-emptively ban the cultivation of MON810 maize on their territories. Spain is the only country that continues to grow it on any significant scale, with a small area in Portugal.

***

A critical evaluation of EFSA’s environmental risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON810 for honeybees and earthworms
by Veronika Chvátalová
Environmental Sciences Europevolume 31, Article number: 52 (2019)
(open access)

Abstract

Background

In the European Union (EU), genetically modified (GM) crops are permitted for cultivation only after a thorough risk assessment and a decision by the European Commission (EC). The central scientific body assessing food-related risks is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It aims to provide high-quality scientific advice for EU decision-makers. However, both the way EFSA performs risk assessment and the independence of its panel members have been subjected to consistent criticism. In this paper, I examine part of the environmental risk assessment in the Scientific Opinion issued by the EFSA GMO Panel, specifically, the impacts of GM maize MON810 on honeybees and earthworms. The evaluated EFSA document forms the scientific basis of the pending EC Draft implementing decision to renew the authorisation for the lawful cultivation of MON810. I assess the reliability of scientific information cited in the Opinion, the use of this information by EFSA, and the safety conclusions drawn in a form of an extended peer review.

Results

My research indicates that the scientific studies cited in the EFSA Opinion in the sections concerning the possible impacts of GM maize on honeybees and earthworms stem predominantly from reliable sources in terms of authorship, financial support, and status of the study. However, the reliability of the studies varies significantly concerning the ecological relevance of the experiments. Moreover, the body of referenced evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on risk. Relevantly, several types of shortcomings in the use of scientific information in the risk assessment were identified as prevalent, namely: EFSA omits relevant available studies, selectively cites information, misquotes studies, fails to acknowledge uncertainties, fails to call for further research where needed, and fails to critically interpret studies and their findings.

Conclusions

Overall, the findings indicate that the reliability of scientific information and particularly its use by the EFSA GMO Panel produces low-quality scientific advice, which is inconsistent with the Authority Mission Statement. My research would support the call by the European Parliament and NGOs on the EC to withdraw its Draft implementing decision intended to renew the authorisation of MON810 cultivation.

*

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 GMWatch

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Low-quality Scientific Advice” on GMOs: New EU Study Endorses Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Maize MON810
  • Tags: , , ,

After years of improvements in drilling techniques and impressive “efficiency gains,” there is now evidence that the U.S. shale industry is reaching the end of the road on well productivity.

A report earlier this month from Raymond James & Associates finds that the U.S. shale industry may struggling to achieve further productivity gains. If these improvements begin to fizzle out, it could result in “an inflection point in future global oil supply/demand balances,” the investment bank said.

Well productivity is “tracking WAY below our model,” analysts Marshall Adkins and John Freeman wrote in the report. They note that U.S. oil production is up less than 100,000 bpd over the first seven months of 2019, compared to the 600,000-bpd increase over the same period in 2018.

The analysts note that over the past eight years, Raymond James has been one of the most aggressive forecasters for U.S. shale growth, and even then, actual output tended to exceed their forecasts. But this year U.S. shale growth is significantly below their prediction.

The reason is that productivity improvements have suddenly come to an end. Since 2010, initial production rates for the first 30 days of production (IP-30) improved by 30 percent annually on average, according to Raymond James. That was largely the result of the “bigger hammer” approach, the bank said. In other words, drillers threw more of everything at the problem – more money, longer laterals, more sand, and more frac stages. Earlier this decade, IP-30 rates were growing by roughly 40 percent per year. But that slowed to 11 percent in 2017 and 15 percent last year.

However, in the first seven months of 2019, IP-30 rates are up only 2 percent, compared to the 10 percent prediction from Raymond James. Part of the reason is that there is simply a limit to “more, longer and bigger,” the analysts said.

“We believe that this represents clear evidence that U.S. well productivity gains are beginning to reach maximum limits and may even roll over in the coming years as the industry struggles to offset well interference issues and rock quality deterioration.”

Even 2018 figures may have been a “one-off” increase as the oil majors – Chevron and ExxonMobil – escalated activity.

But perhaps the first 30 days is too short of a timeframe to analyze well productivity. So, the investment bank looked at 90 days of production (IP-90). On that metric, the industry is faring even worse, showing an outright decline of 2 percent in the first half of the year compared to the first six months of 2018.

“Recent Permian IP-90 well productivity trends are especially dire,” the analysts wrote. “While U.S. IP-90s declined 2%, Permian IP-90s declined 10% relative to 2018.”

Because the Permian is the largest source of shale production and the most important source of growth, whatever happens there will determinate the trajectory for U.S. production figures on the whole.

Raymond James said that a slight uptick in productivity on an IP-30 basis but a decline on an IP-90 basis suggests that well interference is taking a toll. In other words, shale well performance is suffering as time goes on because wells have been spaced too close together. “Put another way, the average decline curve is becoming steeper than we thought because the wells are starting to cannibalize each other,” the analysts wrote.

Problems with “parent-child” well interference have become more of a concern over the past year or so, which refers to the first well drilled within a given block (the parent well), and subsequent wells drilled (the child wells). As Raymond James notes, not only do they cannibalize each other, but the longer the parent is online, the more the block sees a drop in pressure.

But here’s the thing – a lot of companies have drilled parent wells on various tracts, incentivized to do so because their leases can expire if they don’t demonstrate activity. They held off on the child wells, focusing on drilling parents. Then, at a later point, they go back and drill child wells to squeeze more oil from their acreage. The problem is that so much of the output growth over the last few years came from parent wells. Going forward, the growth will need to increasingly come from the less productive child wells.

But as Raymond James notes, the longer they wait, the less productive the child wells become, because the area loses more and more pressure over time.

In specific terms, the average child well is 30 percent less productive than the parent. But a child well drilled six months after the parent may only see a 10 percent degradation in productivity, while a two-year delay might result in more substantial 40 percent reduction in productivity.

On the other hand, the “cube development” approach, which entails intense development all at the same time, also has problems. Cube development consists of multiple wells, often rising to more than a dozen, are drilled pretty much simultaneously to avoid well interference and pressure decline. Also, in theory, costs are lower because it takes less time, while shared infrastructure reduces costs as well.

But well interference still occurs, and a growing number of companies have reported disappointing results, suggesting that there are limits to density. In a high-profile admission just a few weeks ago, Concho Resources said its 23-well “Dominator” project proved disappointing. The company said it would space out its projects more. Raymond James says there is some middle ground on well-density that companies still need to figure out, but because the industry has boasted about ever-increasing well-density, the pullback is translating into stagnating productivity.

Ultimately, the investment bank says that because of weaker-than-expected productivity, U.S. oil production may only grow by around 350,000 bpd in 2020, versus the market consensus of around 1.5 million barrels per day. In a scenario in which productivity actually falls to zero, production would remain flat for the next few years.

Because “the single most important driver of the oil market over the next decade will be trends in U.S. well productivities,” Raymond James analysts wrote, this is “VERY bullish for oil prices next year.”

“Given that the oil market seems to be pricing in virtually unlimited U.S. oil supply growth at $50/bbl over the next five years, the implications…are very, very important to upside oil price surprises over the coming years.”

*

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

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist, covering oil and gas, energy and environmental policy, and international politics. He is based in Portland, Oregon. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Weakening U.S. Shale Productivity “Very Bullish” for Oil Prices
  • Tags: , ,

A Morning in Afghanistan

September 12th, 2019 by Kathy Kelly

On a very warm September morning in Kabul, several dozen men, women, and children sit on the carpeted floor of a room at the Afghan Peace Volunteers’ Borderfree Center. The women cluster together. All wear burqas, but because of the heat they push the steel blue veils back, revealing their faces. Most of the men wear traditional tunics and pakol hats.

Parents and children alike listen intently to Masoma, a young Afghan woman who coordinates the Center’s “Street Kids School.” She explains the importance of steady attendance, and parents nod in agreement. Most of the 100 students come on time for their Friday classes, but a handful had recently skipped, showing up only on the day when the center distributes monthly food rations for the Street Kids families.

The previous Friday, those who had missed more than two classes prior to the food distribution day walked away empty-handed—a hard lesson, but the volunteer teachers felt they must abide by the short list of rules governing the center. Anyone who misses classes two or more times in a month won’t receive the ration.

Then Masoma’s colleague, Dr. Hakim, stands and poses two blunt requests. “Please raise your hand,” he says, “if you and your family have at least enough resources to meet your basic needs.”

About six hands are raised. Next he asks people to raise a hand if they couldn’t make ends meet. Seven hands go up. Hakim says his organization wants to help families become self-reliant so that after their children leave the Street Kids School, they will have another way to acquire essentials like beans, rice, and cooking oil.

Hakim now asks people to raise their hands if they could send one family member, like an older brother, to a three-month course on how to repair mobile phones. The idea is well-received. Notebook papers are circulated to gather parents’ names, and, if possible, mobile phone numbers. Several women seek Masoma’s help to write their names. She assures them she will stay in touch.

A tall young man, Habib, carrying a large tray of bananas and apples, politely offers fruit to each guest. Six years ago, Afghan Peace Volunteers members had befriended Habib when they met him in a busy market-place. His father had been killed when a bomb exploded in Kabul. I remember watching him work on a dusty, crowded street during a chilly afternoon shortly after he and his family had taken up residence in a miserable shack in Kabul. His little brother walked alongside him, holding his hand, while Habib carried a scale and asked people to weigh themselves on it. Habib looked forlorn and worried. The shy, anxious youngster had been regularly beaten by an uncle who tried to force him to join a militia; he now recognizes that Habib was wise to run away from the militia.

Today, Habib towers over me. Yesterday, he spoke eagerly at a small group meeting he had helped plan about ways to build caring relationships. Over the past three years, he has learned to read and write and has been at the top of his classes at a government school. He has also developed some construction skills. When I remark that several walls at the center were repaired and newly painted, Masoma smiled happily. “Habib!” she says. “He was a big help.”

A few adults linger alongside the center’s shady garden, filled with fruit trees, grapevines, herbs, and flowers. Some of the Afghan Peace Volunteers used permaculture methods to design and cultivate the space. Others recently dedicated themselves to a “renewable energy team.” Last year, the team helped forty-four families acquire solar energy. This year they hope to expand the effort.

Over the past week, young volunteers have gathered to plan for an upcoming “On the Road to Peace” conference. This will be the Afghan Peace Volunteers’ third annual gathering of participants from each of Afghanistan’s thirty-four provinces. The conference offers four days of intensive learning and discovery about cross-cultural understanding, nonviolence, and ways to abolish war.

Yesterday, Dr. Hakim and I asked for complete quiet inside the center’s “office”—a large room lined with bookcases, file cabinets, mats, and sturdy pillows. In the center of the room, a jumble of cords and power strips are connected to a solar power battery, a fan, a router, and a collection of  cell phones and laptops.

Earlier, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! had invited Dr. Hakim and me to participate in interviews regarding President Trump’s sudden decision to call off a secret meeting he claimed to have arranged between himself, Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani, and representatives of the Taliban who have been meeting with United States envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Sitting on the floor, we huddled over Dr. Hakim’s well-worn laptop waiting for Democracy Now! engineers to contact us by Skype.

Hakim and I suggested that neither Trump nor any of the negotiators in Doha were participating in a genuine peace process. Rather, it was a cruel charade, with each side seeking greater leverage by demonstrating their willingness to kill innocent people.

Many people living in Afghanistan greatly fear increased Taliban power over their cities, villages, roadways, and crumbling infrastructure. Taliban war crimes are frequently covered in global media. Less obvious to people in the U.S., but horribly real for people in Afghanistan, are acts of aerial terrorism regularly waged by the United States military.

Writing for The Daily Beast earlier this year, Andrew Quilty described how one Afghan family in the Helmand province suffered a vicious attack on their home last November. Two Taliban fighters had come to their home, insisting that Obaidullah, the householder, let them in. He pleaded with them to leave, but instead the Taliban fighters fired on a joint United States and Afghan military convoy. Shortly thereafter, a United States A-10 Warthog plane strafed Obaidullah’s home.

“Hundreds of rounds of ammunition—bullets the size of large carrots—fired by a weapon designed to disable armoured tanks, poured out of the plane’s Gatling gun,” Quilty wrote. “The two Taliban fighters had fled. Instead, Obaidullah and his fifteen-year-old son Esmatullah were killed; thirteen others suffered broken bones and shrapnel injuries from head to toe. One boy, fourteen-year-old Ehsanullah, lost both his eyes.”

In a report on civilian casualties, the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan attributed a rise in civilian deaths in 2019 to an escalation of the U.S. air war in the country. In addition, countless night raids carried out by joint U.S./Afghan forces have struck terror in families whose loved ones were killed in front of them. Ordinary Afghans whom I have met with in the past week are acutely aware of the night raids and link the gruesome pattern of killing civilians to United States trainers and the CIA.

Before Donald Trump pulled back U.S. participation, there had been nine rounds of talks, and the United States special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was supposedly edging closer to a “peace” deal with the Taliban.

A genuine peace process would hold all warring parties accountable for crimes against humanity and would call for an immediate end to U.S. and NATO militarism in Afghanistan. It would urge the United States to humbly acknowledge the recklessness of its invasion and occupation. Reliable non-governmental parties would be asked to develop ways for Afghans to receive reparations from all countries who’ve participated in the past eighteen years of war. Those responsible for pursuing a genuine peace process would need mentors and advisors. I recommend the Afghan Peace Volunteers.

*

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 first appeared on The Progressive Magazine.

Featured image is from Dr. Hakim via  Voices for Creative Nonviolence

There is a phenomenon being reported by numerous people worldwide. A growing number of citizens are becoming aware of being stalked, surveilled and manipulated possibly by their own government, other organizations or even individuals. The resulting symptoms include, but are not limited to, sleep disturbance, anxiety, hostility, aggression, depression, anger, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia and cognitive problems. Many are being labelled as delusional. I’m not questioning the presence of psychotic people in the world, but there are too many people complaining of stalking, surveillance and harassment for it to be psychosis in every case. So, what’s happening?

There are existing technologies and agendas available that affect a person’s well-being and behavior such as electronic surveillance, stalking, microwave hearing, silent subliminal messages and behavior modification.

Electronic surveillance is rampant in our country.

“A May 2003 report by Toffler Associates (a global forecasting and consulting company) mentioned 24/7 ‘global persistent surveillance’ accomplished using all sources. According to the report, surveillance technology is to be used to make the targeted individual aware that they’re being watched in order to alter their behavior.”[1] 

Following the attacks on 9/11, President Bush had authorized illegal wiretaps[2] by passing the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001 (see Department of Justice, The USA Patriot Act) that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens in numerous ways.

In January 2008, the US Department of Justice publicized its survey “Stalking Victimization in the United States.” According to the survey an estimated 3.4 million people were victims of stalking while another 2.4 were victims of harassment.[3]

From a KION Central (West) Coast News report:

“The news report included an interview with Santa Cruz, California Police Lieutenant Larry Richard, who explicitly admits organized stalking is a real phenomenon that has been occurring for a long time.”[4]

Stalking by the government has occurred. Former FBI supervisor Ted L. Gunderson in a sworn affidavit in a legal action case against the FBI and DOJ said,

“I firmly believe that most individuals working in the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and the government overall are honest, law abiding public servants. However, a sophisticated network of rogue operatives has secretly infiltrated the FBI, other intelligence agencies including the CIA, and other key government positions. This rogue element seeks personal power and wealth and considers themselves above the law and the Constitution.”

Gunderson continued,

“In addition to high-ranking members of the FBI, other intelligence services, and the government overall, wealthy, powerful members of criminal syndicates, multi-millionaires and the corporate elite are using the government gang stalking program to harass enemies. . . . “The victims are targeted for a variety of reasons including government and corporate whistleblowers, parties to financial and employment disputes, parties to marital disputes (usually divorced women), and jilted paramours.”

Unfortunately, persons of convenience are also selected.

He stated that

“Journalists covering controversial issues, and even attorneys and private investigators representing unpopular clients or interests, have been targeted by this program.”[5]

“Psychological Operations (PsyOp), are a planned process of conveying messages to a target audience (TA) to promote certain attitudes, emotions and behavior. PsyOp is basically the use of communication to influence behavior.” [6] 

Direct energy, biological and chemical weapons and computer network operations are all used in PsyOps.

One of the hallmark symptoms that distinguish between the mentally normal and mentally ill is the presence of voices in the head or auditory hallucinations. However, there are weapons that can direct sound onto a person. “Microwave hearing” refers to the production of audible artificial hearing or audible artificial hallucination.

A microwave voice transmission non-lethal weapon is referenced in the thesaurus of the Center for Army Lessons Learned, which is a military instruction website. It also lists analogous devices using silent sound.

A 1980 NASA document (NASA abstract report number AD-A090426, June 1, 1980) stated that

“one can remotely create the perception of noise in the heads of personnel by exposing them to low power, pulsed microwaves. By proper choice of pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created.”

The US Army in its “Bioeffects of Selected Non-lethal Weapons” document states that the use of this technology could be psychologically devastating.

Silent subliminal messages are powerful subliminal messages that can be transmitted by infrasound (just below human hearing) directly to the subconscious mind to influence thought and emotions with no conscious filtering. Subliminal mind-control is considered a non-lethal weapon.

Lt. Colonel John B. Alexander of the US Army, one of the prime movers behind the advanced development of non-lethal weapons, states in an article “The New Mental Battlefield: ‘Beam me up Spock’” in the US Army Military Review, Dec. 1980 EPI 6022,

“Mind-altering techniques designed to impactopponents are well advanced. The procedures employed include manipulation of human behavior through the use of psychological weapons affecting sight, sound, smells, temperature, electromagnetic energy or sensory deprivation.” [7]

In the June/July 1987 issue of Peace Magazine, former Congressman James Scheur (R-NY) is quoted as saying,

 “We are developing devices and products capable of controlling violent individuals and entire mobs without injury. We can tranquilize, impede, immobilize, harass, shock, upset, chill, temporarily blind, deafen, or just plain scare the wits out of anyone the police have a proper need to control and restrain.”

Between 2016 and 2018 there are news reports of U.S. and Canadian diplomats in Cuba and China experiencing a strange perception of high frequency noises and neuro-behavioral symptoms such as headaches, dizziness and vertigo. There are reports from others around the world suffering with similar symptoms.

Some think we are being experimented on with these weapons. Citizens don’t want to believe that our government would allow this to occur, but unfortunately my research has shown that this is indeed a possibility. In 2007, NBC News quoted the Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne:

“Non-lethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd control situations before they are used on the battlefield.”[8]

Non-consensual experimentation is not just current. Past experiments include radiation tests and mustard gas experiments in the 1940s, testicle implants from 1910 to the 1950s, the use of STDs in Guatemala in the 1940s, and the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments that ran from 1932 to 1972.

Jim Guest, former Representative (R-MO) and retired aerospace engineer, wrote the members of the Missouri Legislature asking for help for the many “who are being affected unjustly by electronic weapons torture and covert harassment groups.”[9]

Why haven’t we known about this? In an article called “The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War” Stephen Metz, PhD, director of Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College, and James Kievit, a research analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute, state,

“The use of new technology may also run counter to basic American values. The advantage of directed-energy weapons over conventional ones is deniability. Deniability must be aimed at the American people…”[10]

There are some schools of thought that claim when an individual is too close to revealing these programs, they are considered a threat in one way or another and neutralized through a concept known as targeting, which includes the use of weapons and including death. Some who have died under “suspicious circumstances” include Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), bioweapons expert Dr. Frank Olson, Dr. Fred Bell (a radio host and whistleblower on non-lethal weapons) and Dr. Rauni Kilde, former medical doctor for Finland and whistleblower on mind control technology.

Committing and discrediting individuals is another way of silencing victims. Of course, not discussing cases is used to deny anything. Censoring and classifying are common.

Do you think this all sounds like science fiction? You bet. There’s a quote by Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuham: “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”

It is now clear these programs do exist and are capable of inducing mental illness symptoms, which could be labeled by psychiatrists as psychotic. In the modern world, if you could evoke these symptoms, it could be used to silence people by mimicking mental illness. Once a person is designated abnormal, all his/her behavior and characteristics are covered by that label . . . forever. Who will then listen to them?

If you know someone who insists this is happening to them, don’t automatically discount them as delusional. Consider they may be a victim of one or more of these programs.

 

 

*

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

Notes

  1. Mark M. Rich. New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control, pg. 89 (see also Toward a Revolution in Intelligence Affairs, Rand Corporation, 2005.)
  2. David Sanger. “Bush Admits He Ordered Domestic Spying Program,” The New York Times, reprinted Anchorage Daily News, 18 December 2005. (See also: “The Fisa Amendments Act Authorizes Warrantless Spying on Americans,” by Jennifer Granick, The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society Blog, 5 November 2012). Sourced fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/bush-says-he-ordered-domestic-spying.html
  3. US Department of Justice Survey, “Stalking Victimization in the United States,” January 2009. Sourced from https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/baum-k-catalano-s-rand-m-rose-k-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0
  1. “Gang Stalking, Bullying on Steroids,” 29 January 2011. KION Central (West) Coast News. Sourced from https://medium.com/@thomas.mcfarlan/the-numerous-reports-of-organized-stalking-bycalifornia-tv-news-outlets-24d806873606
  1. Ted L. Gunderson, sworn affidavit 26 April 2011, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Keith Labella action against FBI and DOJ. Sourced from https://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/gunderson.pdf
  2. Mark M. Rich. New World War, pg. 103.
  1. “Military Review,” the US Air Force Institute for National Security Studies. Sourced from https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/alexander-new-battlefield.pdf
  2. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14806772/ns/us_news-security/t/nonlethal-weapons-touted-use-citizens/). See also:https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/cnn_claims_af_secretary_wants_to_test_weapons_on_protestors/
  3. Representative Jim Guest. 10 October 2007 excerpt from Jim Guest’s letter to members of the Legislature. Sourced from https://targetedindividualscanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/letter2.jpg
  4. Steven Metz, James Kievit. “The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War.” US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA. 17013-5050. Sourced from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1994/ssi_kievit-metz.pdf
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Psychotic Impacts of Stalking, Electronic Surveillance, Harassment and Wiretaps: The Neuro-Behavioral Symptoms

Chinese-Indian relations are worsening after reckless statements by the latter’s media and officials, proving that ties between the two Asian Great Powers are much shakier than either side publicly acknowledges and thus raising the risk that President Xi’s unconfirmed visit to the South Asian state next month might not happen at all if this worrying trend isn’t reversed.

CGTN opinion editor Huang Jiyuan published a thought-provoking piece earlier this week titled “Is this a turning point in India’s foreign policy towards China?“, which raised awareness about worsening Chinese-Indian relations as a result of the latter’s recklessness. The writer elaborated on how concerning it was that Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar parroted Trumpian “trade war” talk about China’s economic practices while speaking at a conference in Singapore on Monday, questioning whether this should be interpreted as India reconsidering its commitment to reaching a deal for forming the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) between itself, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the ASEAN states and concluding that “enough has happened already to raise the alarm on the possibility of a rockier China-India relationship.”

That’s a very insightful perspective that perfectly complements the author’s own recent piece for the same outlet about how “India is rapidly approaching a pivotal geopolitical moment“, which points out that the two main variables determining the future of Chinese-Indian relations are whether New Delhi continues to proceed with the RCEP negotiations and if it solicits Huawei’s world-class services for constructing its nationwide 5G network. It’s presently uncertain what India will ultimately decide, but judging by two recent media reports and the latest statement from its Ministry of External Affairs, ties between the two are shakier than ever and might even imperil President Xi’s unconfirmed trip to the South Asian state next month if they aren’t resolved before then because it might be inappropriate for the Chinese leader to visit his Indian counterpart in what could possibly become an increasingly tense context.

Indian media and a local politician from the ruling BJP alleged that the Chinese military secretly built a bridge in the part of South Tibet that New Delhi de-facto administers as its own and regards as “Arunachal Pradesh”, though this was denied by the Indian Army. Even so, it contributed to the creation of a toxic atmosphere in Indian-Chinese relations, one made even worse by a scandalous follow-up report purporting that China is financing anti-hydropower NGOs in that same disputed territory. On the topic of territorial disputes, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also lashed out at China earlier this week for issuing a joint statement with Pakistan during Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit that condemned India’s unilateral actions in Kashmir and praised the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) whose transit through Pakistani territory that India claims as its own is why it refuses to join this global initiative.

Bearing these recent developments in mind, the conclusion reached in Huang Jiyuan’s latest op-ed that “enough has happened already to raise the alarm on the possibility of a rockier China-India relationship” is proven to be even more correct than the writer might have realized at the time of publication. India is indeed rapidly approaching a pivotal geopolitical moment, though all indications seem to worryingly suggest that it’s poised to position itself as the regional countervailing “balance” to China per the US’ “Indo-Pacific” strategy of using the South Asian state to “contain” the People’s Republic. Unless this trend is reversed within the coming weeks, President Xi’s unconfirmed trip to India might change from being a sequel to his and Modi’s famous 2018 Wuhan Summit and turn into a damage control mission instead, if not outright scrapped in response and thus representing the informal commencement of a new era of rivalry between the two.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China-India Relations Are Real Shaky Ahead of President Xi’s Unconfirmed Visit Next Month
  • Tags: ,

Although the Russian Far East has huge investment potential in the fields of raw materials, mineral resources, fisheries, forestry’s and tourism, it still remains a sparely populated area of only around 7 million people. With China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Russia projected to be some of the world’s biggest economies by 2030 according to many experts, the 21st Century has been dubbed as the “Asian Century,” and it is for this reason that Russian President Vladimir Putin has prioritized the rapid development of the Russian Far East.

The region is not only resource rich, but is also conveniently located in northeast Asia, bordering Mongolia, China and North Korea, while sharing a maritime border with Japan. It is so strategic and rich that only weeks ago French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his belief that Europe stretches from Lisbon on the Atlantic Coast to the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok. Vladivostok has hosted the Eastern Economic Forum annually ever since its establishment 2015, in part to attract foreign investors to diversify from only Chinese investments in the Russian Far East. China has invested tens of billions into the region, making it easily the biggest foreign investor in the region.

However, with Indian Prime Minister Modi on the eve of Vladivostok’s 5th Eastern Economic Forum proposing a trilateral cooperation between India, Russia and Japan by jointly developing the Russian Far East, it appears that China’s economic influence in the region will be challenged. Although China emphasizes peaceful relations through mutual economic development and prosperity, it still has frosty relations with Japan and India. It is therefore unsurprising that India and Japan have opted to invest in the Russian Far East to challenge China’s economic might in a region that also shares a vast border with China.

India, Japan and Sri Lanka signed an agreement to build a new container terminal in the port of Colombo, demonstrating that New Delhi and Tokyo have experience in cooperating in a trilateral format. With India opting to be the only South Asian country not involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), India continues to show coldness to China as the latter continues to rapidly develop neighboring countries, especially with Nepal and rival Pakistan. With the BRI developing Sri Lanka, it appears India and Japan are creating a new economic duo to match China’s economic strength, and are now prepared to take this to a new front away from Sri Lanka and to the Russian Far East.

Japan’s investments in the Russian Far East’s economy already exceeds $15 billion and will continue to develop, according to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And with India also expressing its interest, the Russian Far East has become a promising place for all prospectors. With Russian President Vladimir Putin offering free land handouts in the Far East to Russians and naturalized citizens in May 2016, it demonstrates that Russia has identified that if it wants to benefit from Asia’s rapid development and economic dominance in the 21st century, it needs to develop its regions in Asia.

With the development of the region naturally meaning increased trade and cultural exchanges with China, tens of thousands of Chinese citizens have now migrated to the region in search of opportunities and establish themselves as merchants and entrepreneurs. Whether we begin seeing Indian and Japanese merchants in the Russian Far East remains to be seen.

With India and China competing in Nepal and border issues on the Indian-Chinese frontier remaining unresolved in New Delhi’s eyes, it appears that India is now wanting to compete against China in a region that has had connections with China for millennia. Russia has been encouraging more and diversified investments in the Far East and Japan and India will take every opportunity to do this.

Russia and China remain strategic partners and are also pragmatic international players that continue to pursue a policy of non-interference. Therefore, although China has frosty relations with Japan and India, it can respect Russia’s ties with both countries. This pragmatism has now allowed India and Japan to engage in a friendly competition for economic influence over Russia’s resource rich region. Although both Japan and China invest in raw material and energy projects in the Far East, India will be a new player to this sector with Indian Oil and Gas Minister Dharmendra Pradhan expressing his long-term interest in the Russian coal and steel sector during his visit to Russia last week.

With India becoming increasingly energy hungry because of its enormous and growing population, alongside its economic development, it is easily seen why the resource rich Russian region is of critical importance to it. For Japan, the region presents unmatched economic opportunities. Most interestingly to observe is whether India and Japan will continue to work in trilateral formats to continue expanding their economic interests and challenge the BRI in other regions. It appears now that after their cooperation in Sri Lanka, their second step is to challenge the expansion of the BRI in Russia’s Far East by competing for lucrative contracts and opportunities that the region can offer.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is Director of the Multipolar research centre.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

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

Michel Chossudovsky

$15.00, Save 40% on list price

 The following text is the Preface of  Michel Chossudovsky’s New Book entitled: The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity

The Book can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers.  

Scroll down for more details

PREFACE

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

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.1

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations, which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.2

The Globalization of War by Global Research

click image to order

Worldwide Militarization

 From the outset of the post World War II period to the present, America’s s global military design has been one of world conquest. War and globalization are intricately related. Militarization supports powerful economic interests. America’s “Long War” is geared towards worldwide corporate expansion and the conquest of new economic frontiers.

The concept of the “Long War” is an integral part of U.S. military doctrine. Its ideological underpinnings are intended to camouflage the hegemonic project of World conquest. Its implementation relies on a global alliance of 28 NATO member states. In turn, the U.S. as well as NATO have established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network of bilateral military alliances with “partner” countries directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. What we are dealing with is a formidable military force, deployed in all major regions of the World.

The “Long War” is based on the concept of “Self-Defense”. The United States and the Western World are threatened. “The Long War” constitutes “an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant western dominance”. Underlying the “Long War”, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, the Western World must address “three potential threats”:

  • those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict,
  • those related to the use of terrorism • those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). … in order to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to make a concerted effort across all three domains.3

Our objective in this book is to focus on various dimensions of America’s hegemonic wars, by providing both a historical overview as well as an understanding of America’s contemporary wars all of which, from a strategic viewpoint, are integrated.

Our analysis will focus on the dangers of nuclear war and the evolution of military doctrine in the post-9/11 era.

The central role of media propaganda as well as the failures of the anti-war movement will also be addressed. While the first chapter provides an overview, the subsequent chapters provide an insight into different dimensions of America’s long war.

Chapter I, Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity provides a post World War II historical overview of America’s wars from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There is a continuum in U.S. Foreign Policy from the Truman Doctrine of the late 1940s to the neocons and neoliberals of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Part II focuses on the dangers of nuclear war and global nuclear radiation.

Chapter II, The Dangers of Nuclear War Conversations with Fidel Castro consists of Conversations with Fidel Castro and the author pertaining to the future of humanity and the post-Cold War process of militarization. This exchange took place in Havana in October 2010.

Chapter III focuses on the doctrine of Pre-emptive Nuclear and the Role of Israel in triggering a first strike use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Chapter IV, The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States? focuses on the persistent U.S. threat (since 1953) of using nuclear weapons against North Korea while labeling North Korea a threat to global security.

Chapter V, Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War. The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation examines the dangers of nuclear energy and its unspoken relationship to nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap.

Part III illustrates at a country level, the modus operandi of U.S. military and intelligence interventions, including regime change and the covert support of terrorist organizations. The country case studies (Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine) illustrate how individual nation states are destabilized as a result of U.S.-NATO covert operations and “humanitarian wars.” While the nature and circumstances of these countries are by no means similar, there is a common thread. The purpose is to provide a comparative understanding of country-level impacts of America’s long war against humanity. In all the countries analyzed, the intent has been to destroy, destabilize and impoverish sovereign countries.

Chapter VI, NATO’s War on Yugoslavia: Kosovo “Freedom Fighters” Financed by Organized Crime examines the role of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as an instrument of political destabilization. In Yugoslavia, the endgame of NATO’s intervention was to carve up a prosperous and successful “socialist market economy” into seven proxy states. The political and economic breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s served as a “role model” for subsequent “humanitarian military endeavors.”

Chapter VII, The U.S. led Coup d’Etat in Haiti against the government of Jean Bertrand Aristide was carried out in February 2004 with the support of Canada and France. In a bitter irony, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti James Foley, had previously played a central role as U.S. special envoy to Yugoslavia, channeling covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In Haiti, his responsibilities included U.S. aid to the Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) (National Liberation and Reconstruction Front) largely integrated by former Tonton Macoute death squads. Closely coordinated with the process of regime change and military intervention, the IMF-World Bank macroeconomic reforms played a crucial role in destroying the national and impoverishing the Haitian population.

Chapter VIII, “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa reveals the hidden agenda behind NATO’s 2011 humanitarian war on Libya, which consisted in acquiring control and ownership of Libya’s extensive oil reserves, that is, almost twice those of the United States of America. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) played a key role in the war on Libya in coordination with NATO.

Libya is the gateway to the Sahel and Central Africa. More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa at the expense of France’s historical spheres of influence in West and Central Africa, namely a process of neocolonial re-division.

Chapter IX, The War on Iraq and Syria. Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads examines U.S.-NATO’s covert war on Syria, which consists in creating Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist entities. The U.S.-led covert war consists in recruiting, training and financing Islamist death squads which are used as the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The ultimate military objective is the destruction of both Iraq and Syria.

Chapter X, War and Natural Gas. The Israel Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields focuses on Israel’s attack directed against Gaza with a view to confiscating Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

In Chapter XI, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, the structure of the U.S.-EU sponsored proxy regime in Kiev is examined. Key positions in government and the Armed Forces are in the hands of the two neo-Nazi parties. The Ukraine National Guard financed and trained by the West is largely integrated by Neo-Nazis Brown Shirts.

Part IV is entitled Breaking the American Inquisition. Reversing the Tide of War focuses on some of the contradictions of the antiwar movement.

Chapter XII, The “American Inquisition” and the “Global War on Terrorism” analyzes the central role of America’s “war on terrorism” doctrine in harnessing public support for a global war of conquest. The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the multi-billion dollar U.S. intelligence community.

Today’s “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a modern form of inquisition. It has all the essential ingredients of the French and Spanish Inquisitions. Going after “Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “protect the Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

In turn, “The Global War on Terrorism” is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

Chapter XII, “Manufactured Dissent”, Colored Revolutions and the Antiwar Movement in Crisis examines the role of corporate foundations in funding dissent and the inability of “progressive” civil society organizations and antiwar collectives to effectively confront the tide of media disinformation and war propaganda.

COMMENDATIONS

The Globalization of War is an extraordinarily important book. It tags the origin of a long series of wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the present, as being direct products of U.S. Foreign Policy. Nothing happens by accident. U.S. provocateurs, usually agents of the CIA, incite one conflict after another in what Michael Chossudovsky labels America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

It comprises a war on two fronts. Those countries that can either be “bought,” or destabilized by a corrupt international financial system, are easy targets for effective conquest. In other cases insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit American military intervention to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. The “End Game” is a New World Order embracing a dual economic and military dictatorship prepared to use atomic weapons and risk the future of the entire human species to achieve its ends.

Michel Chossudovsky is one of the few individuals I know who has analyzed the anatomy of the New World Order and recognized the threat to the entire human species that it is. The Globalization of War is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair. Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He does not lie for money and position, and he does not sell his soul for influence. His book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that hegemonic and demonic American neoconservatism poses to life on earth. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Treasury, former Wall Street Journal editor,  former Wm. E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. 

At these moments when  the threat  of humanity’s  extinction  by the forces  unleashed by the  empire  and its vassals,  it is imperative that we  grasp  the nature of the beast  that threatens us with  its endless wars perpetrated in the name of the  highest levels of freedom.

This  vital work by an outstanding teacher  will remain an enduring testimony  of the author’s  all-embracing  humanism and scholarship that has always been inseparable  from his political activism  that spans  several decades.    It should be mandatory reading  for those seeking to understand , and thus  to contain and repel,   the  compulsive  onslaughts   of the hegemon’s  endless wars with its boundless bestialities and crimes against humanity..Dr Frederic F. Clairmonte, award winning author and political economist, distinguished (former) economic analyst at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. It comes from the pen of one of the most insightful and incisive writers on global politics and the global economy alive today.

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world. This Machiavellian, indeed, diabolical agenda not only centres around wars of conquest and subjugation but also seeks to dismember and destroy sovereign states. Russia, China and Iran are the primary targets of this drive for dominance and control. The underlying economic motives behind this drive are camouflaged in the guise of a civilized West fighting “barbaric Islamic terrorism” which as Chossudovsky exposes is sometimes sponsored and sustained by intelligent networks in the West.

Chossudovsky has aptly described this US helmed agenda for hegemony as a “long war against humanity.” It is an assertion that is backed by solid facts and detailed analysis in a brilliant work that should be read by all those who are concerned about the prevailing human condition. And that should include each and every citizen of planet earth. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and former Professor of Global Studies at the Science University of Malaysia.

The media, political leaders, academics and the public at large often forget to put into historical perspective the spiral of daily news: we tend to concentrate on the latest events and crisis.

This may explain why the latest report of the US Senate on CIA’s rendition flights, detention places in black wholes and use of torture following 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq has been received as a surprise and shocking news. Such practices have been well known by the international community and depicted, among others, in a number of United Nations documents as well as in Dick Marty’s reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

This CIA’s behavior has a long history including assassination plots of political leaders, coups d’Etat, terrorist attacks and other subversive actions that merge into a recurrent pattern.

The Pax Americana like the Pax Romana has been built through wars and domination. General Smedley D. Butler, a hero and the most decorated soldier of the United States had already denounced the US policy in his book “War is a racket”, written over 70 years ago.

Michel Chossudovsky’s book “The Globalization of Warfare” has the great merit of putting into historical perspective the hegemonic project that has been carried out by the United States through various centuries for the control and exploitation of natural resources. Jose L. Gomez del PradoUN Independent Human Rights Expert, Former Member UN Group on the use of mercenaries

Michel Chossudovsky leads the world in communicating critical information that few or none know. He is a perfect guide for the East European to Russia war now in the making. John McMurty, professor emeritus, Guelph University, Fellow of the Royal Society of  Canada

Michel Chossudovsky ranks as the world’s leading expert on globalization – a hegemonic weapon that empowers financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population. The Globalization of War exposes covert operations waging economic warfare designed to destabilize national economies deemed to be inimical to the USA and her NATO allies. The military dimension of western hegemonic strategies threatens to trigger a permanent global war. Chossudovsky’s book is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly. Michael Carmichael, President of the Planetary Movement 

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $24.95

Special Price: $15.00


Special: Dirty War on Syria + Globalization of War (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

original

Special: Globalization of War + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

 

Special: Globalization of War + Towards a World War III Scenario (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only)

Click here to order in PDF format

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity by Michel Chossudovsky

Debt-Entrapping: The US Student Loan Racket

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Entrapping students into longterm or permanent debt bondage is part of a government/corporate scheme to enrich private lenders.

Because of the high cost of higher education, millions of students need large loans to pay tuition, fees, and other expenses.

Some face burdens up to $100,000 or higher. If unpaid after 30 years, it can be multiples this amount because of debt service costs. If default or declare bankruptcy, it’s unforgiven. Bondage is permanent.

Exceptions are only granted in extreme hardship cases likely to continue for the term of indebtedness, along with having shown good faith efforts to repay.

In the vast majority of cases, loans must be repaid as long as they’re outstanding. Federal laws mandate it – perhaps to get worse. More on this below.

The longer unpaid student loan balances remain outstanding, the more profitable it is for lenders, including from defaults.

Wages can be garnished. So can portions of Social Security and other retirement benefits. A conspiratorial alliance of lenders, guarantors, servicers, and collection companies derive income from debt service and inflated collection fees.

Principle, accrued interest, late payments and collection agency penalties create enormous burdens to repay. Once entrapped, escape is impossible. Unless repaid, future lives and careers are impaired.

According to CollegeDebt.com, current student loan debt exceeds $1.7 trillion, second only to mortgage debt, over $800 billion more than credit card debt, nearly $1 trillion above auto loan debt.

The total for FinAid.org is slightly lower at under $1.7 trillion, the amount increasing exponentially, expected to reach $2 trillion by 2022 – permanent debt bondage for millions of Americans.

The above figures exclude compounded interest charges, making the overall burden exponentially higher for countless numbers of debt entrapped individuals.

About 45 million students and graduates have outstanding student loan indebtedness.

It’s hard to repay because of protracted main street Depression conditions. Real unemployment exceeds 20% based on how the Labor Department calculated it in the 1980s – before numbers were manipulated lower to create the illusion greater jobs creation, low unemployment, and prosperity than exist.

The 3.7% number is pure deception. Most jobs available are rotten low-pay/poor-or-no-benefit part-time or temp ones – millions of industrial and high-paying better jobs offshored to low-wage countries.

For individuals entrapped in high student loan debt, serving and repaying it is especially burdensome, forcing millions into default but not free from their obligation.

According to theFreeThoughtProject.com, citing government data, “11.5% of student loans are 90 days or more delinquent or are in default” – a nearly $200 billion unrepayed debt obligation, increasing because of mounting debt service costs.

GOP Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar Alexander proposed legislation to automatically deduct monthly student loan indebtedness for worker paychecks.

If enacted into law, the change could affect around 40 million individuals. Federal student loans can now be repaid 14 different ways.

Alexander proposed cutting it to two. By one route, monthly debt service would be capped at 10% of discretionary income – the residual amount after taxes and what’s needed for necessities, including food, shelter, clothing, and medical expenses.

A second option is repaying student loan debt over a 10-year period. Either way, employers would make automatic payroll deductions. A sub-option would be for borrowers to set up their own automatic debt service arrangement with their lenders directly.

The  National Consumer Law Center slammed Alexander’s proposal, saying “(f)or borrowers with tight budgets that need to be navigated on a monthly basis, forced automatic payroll withholding may mean diverting money away from rent, heat or food in order to pay their student loans.”

The problem with them is once entrapped, escape is nearly impossible. Except for court ruled hardship cases, as explained above, student loan indebtedness remains for life as long as it’s outstanding.

It’s part of a colossal scheme to transfer the nation’s wealth from ordinary Americans to the nation’s super-rich. It’s been going on for decades, accelerated under Obama, more so under Trump.

For most students in need of financial help to pay tuition, fees and other expenses, loans are relatively easy to get, tough to service, almost never forgiven.

A vicious circle entraps students, graduates and workers, even retirees if entrapped with unrepayed debt.

Student loans take years or decades to repay. Much can happen over an extended period, including unemployment for short or longer periods.

At best, most all debt entrapped individuals can only delay repayment, not get out from under it.

The longer debt remains unrepayed, the greater the service costs, why repayment most often takes many years.

Millions of Americans are entrapped in longterm or permanent debt bondage. America’s ownership society favors capital at the expense of popular rights and well-being – ordinary people exploited to benefit the privileged few.

*

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.

Hong Kong Protest Leader Hangs Out with White Helmets Boss

September 12th, 2019 by Makia Freeman

Joshua Wong has recently been doing some flyin’ around and hobnobbing with the rich, famous and powerful. He went to Berlin and met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other ‘pro-democracy’ figures like Mayor of Kiev Vitaly Klitschko, who was for awhile himself a Western favorite when the US was actively involved in the color revolution in Ukraine. While there, Wong met with Raed Al Saleh, the head of the White Helmets. For those who don’t know, the White Helmets are a Western propaganda construct with close links to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Jahbat Al Nusra  (now known as Tahrir Al Sham). What would a supposedly organic grassroots movement leader in China have in common with a Syrian war organization? On the surface, nothing; under the surface, everything; they are both propaganda and destabilization tools of Western (US-UK) foreign meddling and interference.

A Brief Background: The White Helmets-Al Qaeda-Al Nusra Connection

The White Helmets paraded around like heroes pretending to be the saviors of the Syrian people during the earlier years of the Syrian War (which is still ongoing). Appropriately, they were the stars of a TV documentary which won Oscars. Oscars are awarded for acting – and that’s all it really was, acting. The White Helmets were founded in 2013 by James Le Mesurier, a British ex-mercenary and intelligence agent. True independent journalists such as Vanessa Beeley exposed how the White Helmets were a front for various groups of US-UK-Israeli funded rebel terrorists, who were fighting the legitimately elected president of Syria, Bashar Al Assad. In videos like this and this, Beeley walks through an abandoned White Helmets center in Sakhour, East Aleppo … right next door (20 meters) from the Al Nusra Front Aleppo headquarters. In fact, both centers had various entrances to each other and the only thing dividing them is a playground wall. Beeley noted:

“On the 30th April 2017 we visited the abandoned White Helmet centre in Sakhour, East Aleppo. This was the biggest, and most publicized White Helmet centre in East Aleppo. Paperwork left behind proves that various US, UK, EU countries were supplying the group … The White Helmets, as we know, are exclusively embedded in Nusra Front, ISIS & other extremist controlled areas … that contain maximum 20% of the Syrian population, many of whom are living under enforced starvation, deprivation, lack of medical care, imprisonment, torture, execution, rape … at the hands of the extremist factions that the White Helmets support and assist.”

Hong Kong Protest Leader Joshua Wong Also Met with Neocon Coup-Plotter Marco Rubio

If Joshua Wong is trying to paint himself as a leader of a grassroots movement, he’s doing the worst job possible. The evidence is overwhelming that he’s just another pawn of US foreign policy and regime change efforts, led by notorious NGOs like the NED (National Endowment for Democracy). This is the case even if a large segment of the Hong Kong protestors are grassroots activists and ordinary people. As mentioned in articles like Taunting the Dragon: Background to US-China Trade War & Hong Kong Protests, Wong was caught meeting with senior US official Julie Eadah from the USA’s Hong Kong consulate.

Not surprisingly, if you’re following the thread by now, he even met with devoted war hawk, neocon and Venezuelan coup-plotter Marco Rubio. I highlighted Rubio’s role in the US coup against Venezuela earlier this year in 2019. I also mentioned in the above-linked Taunting the Dragon article that Rubio had been drafting legislation to forge a split in China between Beijing and the Uyghur minority group. Why on Earth would Wong be associating with Rubio, unless it was precisely because he was getting tuition and instructions on how to split Hong Kong away from China, thus causing Beijing the maximum amount of difficulty as possible?

Hong Kong Protests: Begging for US Intervention and ‘Liberation’?

As “brutal and authoritarian” as the Chinese Government might be in relation to its own people, one has to wonder what the Hong Kong protestors are thinking when they are holding up signs asking President Trump to “liberate them”? Talk about jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan. What do they want – the US to attack China and annex Hong Kong? Do they somehow think that Beijing will fold under pressure from the US-China Trade War and just let the US intervene in Hong Kong without consequences? According to RT, here’s what happened at recent protest rally on September 8th 2019:

“Hong Kong protesters rallied in their thousands and clashed with police in fresh unrest. They even called on Washington to “liberate” them from Chinese rule, suggesting some may now view the US as their patron. Thousands of demonstrators marched to the US Consulate in Hong Kong on Sunday, in what they said was an appeal to President Donald Trump to intervene in the weeks-long political turmoil. Videos of the rally show protesters waving American flags as they sing the US national anthem and play ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ through the speakers on their phones.”

US interference has reached the point of such blatancy that the color revolution protestors are actually waving US flags and playing the Star Spangled Banner! Holy cow! Guess it moved on from a weeks ago when they holding up the union jack, the flag of their former colonial rulers, the UK. RT also reported on Hong Kong Protest leader Jimmy Lai and on another Hong Kong Protest leader Martin Lee, more supposedly grassroots’ leaders who just happen to be meeting with Zionist neocon, ex-CIA head and current Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo:

One of the men at the center of the protest movement is a Hong Kong tycoon, Jimmy Lai, whose company owns one of the most-read local papers, a tabloid called the Apple Daily. Another one is politician and barrister, Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the local Democratic Party. Both men visited Washington at the height of the protests to meet with some high-ranking US officials including State Secretary Mike Pompeo.

And as a former senior adviser in the Trump and Bush administrations Christian Whiton, who met both Lai and Lee in Hong Kong this summer, put it “causing this crisis for the Chinese government … is good in the national interests of the US.””

Final Thoughts

The Hong Kong protests are now in their 15th week and show no sings of slowing down. With the US gradually moving its focus away from Russia as enemy #1 and onto China as the new enemy #1, you can expect to see more Sinophobia (and less Russophobia). You can expect to see more foreign meddling and interference, more deals with and ‘aid’ to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, the Uyghurs, the Dalai Lama (Tibetans) and any other minority group which could cause friction with the ruling Chinese Communist Party. This is the 21st century, and all of these economic and meddling shenanigans are part of the 21st century new hybrid warfare.

*

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

https://williambowles.info/2019/09/11/color-revolutionaries-of-the-world-unite-hong-kong-protest-leader-pictured-with-white-helmets-boss/

https://www.mintpressnews.com/james-le-mesurier-british-ex-military-mercenary-founded-white-helmets/230320/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4JFcB-sHv8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7omLaKwRT4

https://thefreedomarticles.com/ngos-choice-tool-subversion-nwo/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/soros-hack-top-10-machinations/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/taunting-dragon-us-china-trade-war-hong-kong-protests/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/4th-generation-warfare-us-attacks-venezuela/

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/666795258747953152

https://twitter.com/camilateleSUR/status/1171171454349729792/photo/1

https://www.rt.com/news/468361-us-hong-kong-protesters-meddling/

https://www.rt.com/news/468301-hong-kong-protest-leaders-ties-us/

Featured image: Hong Kong protest leader Joshua Wong meets with neocon coup-plotter Marco Rubio on September 8th 2019. Image credit: CamilaSUR

Over the course of the past decade the United States, following decades of relative stagnation in oil production, has surprised many to become the largest oil producer in the world, exceeding Russia as well as Saudi Arabia.

Latest daily production is just above 12.1 million barrels a day. In November 2018 for the first time in decades the US became a net oil exporter.

The geopolitical implications to this energy boom in a world where oil determines the growth of entire economies, would appear to be great. Almost all the increase owes to the exploitation of what is called shale oil, unconventional oil found in shale rock formations. The US Department of Energy projects a rise to 8.8 million barrels daily from US shale oil alone, a new record. Now though, we are seeing the first clear signs that the “shale boom” could implode even faster than it rose. The implications for American foreign policy and global geopolitics and economics are significant.

The ‘Fracking’ Revolution

The idea of extracting oil or natural gas embedded in shale rocks has been known for years. However shale oil, or tight oil as it is known, first became economical with introduction of new horizontal drilling techniques combined with oil prices of $100 a barrel or more. This was about two decades ago.

In hydraulic fracturing or fracking, oil embedded in shale rock thousands of feet down is injected with a high pressure mix of water, lots of it, mixed with chemicals and sand. The de facto sand blasting creates fissures where oil can flow into the oil pipeline. The actual drilling of a shale well is only about 30-40% of the total cost. Up to 55-70% are from completion which includes actual fracking. The independent oil consultancy, Wood Mackenzie, recently estimated that the USA held an impressive 60% of all world shale reserves that are economically viable at oil prices of $60 per barrel or less.

Now it begins to get interesting. The current price for the West Texas Intermediate marker grade of oil is around $58 a barrel, where it has been for months. The price has not shot up as many expected despite the disruptions in Venezuela, in Iran and around the Persian Gulf. This puts shale well production, much of which today is in the Permian basin in West Texas or Bakken in North Dakota, at a delicate point.

When Saudi Arabia and the Arab OPEC producers decided to flood the market in 2014 with cheap oil in order to force the US shale producers into bankruptcy, the results were disastrous for the OPEC countries financially, but new technology advances allowed the major part of US shale oil production to survive at far lower prices. That, combined with a Federal Reserve Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), made borrowing to produce oil attractive for shale companies. Now, with two years of gradual Fed rate increase policies, shale companies are beginning to show signs of major stress.

Economic Troubles

Little known is the fact that despite all technological advances and economies of scale, the USA shale oil industry as a whole has yet to turn a net profit. At a juncture when world GDP growth begins to look very bleak, whether in China or in the EU or Emerging Markets like Brazil or Argentina or Turkey, US shale companies face a critical juncture.

The year 2018, according to projections of the International Energy Agency was supposed to be the year that the shale industry finally turned a profit. The IEA wrote in early 2018 that “higher prices and operational improvements are putting the US shale sector on track to achieve positive free cash flow in 2018 for the first time ever.” Since it began, until the Saudi price crash, that is from 2000-2014, US shale companies as a whole according to IEA estimates, already generated a cumulative negative free cash flow of more than $200 billion. With glowing predictions for a “new Saudi Arabia, and banks willing to lend to after the 2008 financial crisis, money poured into shale. Companies claimed once infrastructure was in place the profits would soon flow. It didn’t. Despite over two years of rising world oil prices, some 33 US publicly traded shale companies had a combined negative cash flow of $3.9 billion in the first half of 2018.

But with possible war with Iran and the unrest in Venezuela combined with projections of a growing US economy, the US shale industry told their bankers that 2019 would be the year finally of net profit. The reality has been the opposite. Shale company combined capital expenditures for the first Quarter of 2019 alone have exceeded operating cash flow by a whopping $5 billion. And now with oil prices stuck seemingly at $58 and the prospects for economic slowdown, not only abroad but more recently in the USA itself, many bank lenders to the US shale oil bonanza are having second thoughts.

Unconventional means more cost

Unconventional means by definition more costly to produce. Shale, unlike conventional oil reservoirs, deplete far faster than normal oil wells. In many cases a shale well loses 70% of recoverable oil the first year. The Permian Basin has been measured at 22% a year. To justify taking on debt via junk bonds and other lending to continue producing, shale companies went to the best, so-called “sweet spots” and projected the optimistic numbers into the future.

Explaining second quarter 2019 profits, the CEO of one of the most successful companies, Scott Sheffield of Pioneer Natural Resources warned in early August that most of the oil from so-called “sweet spots,” or “tier 1 acreage,” has already been extracted. “Tier 1 acreage is being exhausted at a very quick rate,” Sheffield stated.

To counter faster depletion rates of shale wells, companies have resorted to technical changes in terms of sand, closeness of drilling and other means. As the drilling is forced to go to less ideal areas, one oil industry source likened it to walking up the down escalator, drilling more just to stay even. That costs more per barrel.

Now an alarming new industry report suggests that the shale oil producers, at least in the rich Permian Basin, have been faking their numbers or under-reporting the shale wells completed to make the numbers look better. A detailed report by energy analysts at Kayrros indicates that oil companies in the Permian Basin greatly under-reported the number of shale oil wells completed in 2018. Kayrros estimates that more than 1,100 wells were completed in the Permian Basin but not reported as required by law. That would mean a significant 21% greater number of completed wells to produce the same volume as had been reported. That means the average well is far more expensive per barrel and far less efficient. Kayrros advisory chairman and CEO of Schlumberger, Andrew Gould remarked,

“With far more wells contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed.”

Kayrros estimates that in 2018 in the Permian Basin alone that actual demand for special grade sand was under-estimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water under-estimated by 12.5 billion gallons. That’s a lot of sand and a lot of water. At some point the companies will be importing sand from the deserts of Arabia at that rate. The environmental costs of shale oil fracking in terms of water, contamination, earthquakes are enormous and need a separate treatment.

To worsen the energy outlook, the spectacular oil production growth rates in the US appear to be stagnating, a worrisome sign given the fact that shale wells deplete annually at anywhere between 20-40% per year or more compared with around 4% for conventional wells. Earlier estimates suggested that the largest US shale region, Permian Basin, would reach its economic peak around 2025 or after.

A recent study of shale production by J. D. Hughes, an oil geologist who has followed the industry closely, suggests that with productivity per well peaking or even in some regions like North Dakota actually declining, oil companies are being forced to pour more money in, drill more just to replace lost output. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells, according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil.

“Of the $54 billion spent on tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,” Hughes wrote.

He added,

“production will fall as costs rise. Assuming shale production can grow forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake—geology will ultimately dictate the costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered.”

Add to this all the huge debts of the shale oil companies are a growing problem. According to the Wall Street Journal some $9 billion worth of debt is set to mature over the second half of 2019 and banks are becoming reluctant to continue financing in a weaker economy. Then a staggering $137 billion in debt matures between 2020 and 2022, debt that was taken on to survive the 2014-15 oil market meltdown. Many producers will likely go down, though giants like ExxonMobil will survive.

If major oil shale regions are already beginning to shows signs of limits at present prices, and if decline rates are about to significantly accelerate over the coming 2-3 years, it will have major implications for US foreign policy as well as the economy. A major factor in the recent actions of Washington in the Middle East and even Venezuela has clearly been driven by a sense that America no longer depends on foreign oil and can take greater geopolitical risks. Oil and the remarkable shale boom were largely behind this impression.

The Trump Administration began in 2017 as one of the most oil-friendly in recent history. Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, was named Secretary of State. Texas oil-friendly Governor Rick Perry headed Energy Department. Others were named who favored expansion of shale oil as a national priority. If this domestic shale oil support suddenly begins to vanish, it will send major new shock waves around the globe at a time when shock waves are coming from every direction. It’s not the end of the Oil Age, but it could soon be the end of the USA shale oil boom, one fueled on mountains of debt, horrendous environmental destruction and wishful thinking. In turn that could trigger a global oil price shock that will turn the economy dramatically down.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New American Oil Empire Built on Sand. The “Fracking Revolution”
  • Tags: ,

Post-Bolton Thaw in US Relations with Iran?

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Hold the cheers!

The US has been hostile toward Iran since its 1979 revolution. It’s hostile toward all nations it doesn’t control.

Its imperial project calls for transforming them into US client states, pro-Western puppet rule replacing their sovereign independence, gaining control over their resources and populations.

The US has been waging war on Iran by other means for 40 years, including by Obama straightaway after the JCPOA was consummated.

In November 1979, the US seized $12 billion in Iranian government bank deposits, securities, gold, and other properties. They included $5.6 billion held by overseas branches of US banks.

A full trade embargo followed. In January 1981, it was lifted under provisions of the Algiers Accords. Most Iranian assets were unblocked. Iranian Assets Control Regulations remained in place.

US war on Iran by other means rages more intensively since Trump took office, co-orchestrated by now departed Bolton and Pompeo, far-right hardliners representing two sides of the same coin.

In the 1980s, Tehran was falsely accused of supporting international terrorism and attacking Persian Gulf shipping.

Reagan’s 1987 Executive Order (EO) 12613 embargoed Iranian goods and services.

In March 1995, Clinton’s EO 12957 prohibited US involvement with Iranian oil development.

His 1995 EO 12959 imposed new illegal sanctions. His 1997 EO 13059 prohibited virtually all trade and investments with Iran.

In 1996, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) became law. In 2006, it was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA).

It prohibits US and foreign oil development investments. Violators face stiff penalties. They include denial of Export-Import Bank of the United States help, rejection of export licenses, and/or sanctions.

In 2008, banks and other US depository institutions were prohibited from processing transfers between Iranian and non-Iranian banks.

In 2010, the US Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) became law.

It extended sanctions imposed by the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act,  punishing entities doing business with Tehran’s oil sector.

Section 103 prohibited importing certain Iranian foodstuffs and carpets. Other provisions banned various Iranian imports, directly or through third countries.

Exporting goods, technology, or services to Iran are prohibited, including from offshore locations.

US individuals and companies are prohibited from engaging in purchases, sales, transportation, swaps, financing, or brokering transactions related to goods or services of Iranian private or government origin.

In July 2017, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) imposed tough new sanctions on Iran.

They target its legitimate ballistic missile program, its nonexistent WMD development, banning the sale or transfer of military or so-called dual use sales to Iran, and financial help, along with directing the president to sanction violators of CAATSA provisions.

Trump’s unlawful May 2018 JCPOA pullout was followed by imposing multiple rounds of tough US sanctions on Iran, including on its energy sector, petroleum related products, other economic sectors, and central bank transactions.

Aiming to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero, Trump regime hardliners want its economy crushed, its people immiserated.

Iranophobe Bolton is gone. Militantly hostile to Iran Pompeo and his hardline henchmen remain.

Is any change in Trump regime policy toward Iran likely? Will 40 years of US hostility toward the country be softened — with arguably the most hardline executive branch and congressional policymakers in US history running things?

Will Trump and Iranian President Rouhani meet on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly session later this month?

On Wednesday, Rouhani said “as long as there are sanctions in place, there is no point in negotiating with the US.”

On the same day, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani commented on Bolton’s sacking, saying:

“Superficial changes in the American governing body do not alter Iran’s perception of the nature of US actions and policies,” adding:

“Obama and Trump both pursued a policy of sanctions against the Iranian nation. (Its) criterion for assessment is the actual policy and performance of the United States, especially its adherence to international obligations and removal of sanctions against the Iranian people.”

US war by other means rages against Iran, Venezuela, and other nations, along with its endless hot wars in multiple theaters.

On Wednesday, did Trump suggest he’d consider softening White House policies on Iran? Virtually nothing he says is credible, time and again saying one thing, then going another way.

At the same time, he said “(w)e cannot let Iran have nuclear weapons” he knows or should know they don’t seek and never did.

He also claimed sanctions on the country are working. So why lift them.

In two summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Trump refused to ease sanctions on the country even modestly as a good will gesture.

He demanded full denuclearization and elimination of DPRK ballistic missile capabilities — in return for empty promises, how the US always negotiates, why it can never be trusted.

Will Iran be treated differently, a nation on the US target list for regime change for 40 years? Trump’s suggestion otherwise fooled no one in Tehran.

According to the Daily Beast, Trump “is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the” JCPOA, “not…impede (Persian Gulf) maritime navigation, (and) commit to Middle East talks”  — citing unnamed sources.

Fact: Iran threatens no one. At peace with its neighbors, it never attacked another nation.

Fact: Its nuclear program has no military component, repeatedly affirmed by IAEA inspectors.

Fact: It wants Persian Gulf maritime traffic operating freely unimpeded. With its coastline extending hundreds of miles, Tehran considers itself the protector of navigation through its waters.

Fact: In good faith, Iran spent years engaged in nuclear talks, agreeing to the JCPOA in 2015, sacrificing more than got back when the deal was consummated — then was betrayed by the Trump regime’s pullout and Europe’s failure to fulfill its mandated obligations.

President Rouhani and other Iranian officials said they’re willing to meet with Trump and other White House officials if he rejoins the JCPOA he illegally abandoned and lifts unlawfully imposed sanctions.

Without a US show of good faith, talks with Trump regime officials will accomplish nothing — the North Korea betrayal scenario to repeat.

*

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.

18 years after NATO’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared.

Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

The decision to wage war on Afghanistan was taken on September 12, 2001 on the grounds that Afghanistan had attacked America on September 11, 2001. It was presented to the public as a war of “self defense”. 

This GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV was first published in 2016. 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Afghanistan: 18 Years of US-NATO Occupation. The Decision to Invade Afghanistan was Taken on 9/12

Observe 9/11 Anniversary by Calling for an End to the Afghan War

September 12th, 2019 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

On the eve of the 18-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks and the illegal U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the United States and the Taliban completed nine rounds of peace talks with no deal.

Although they had reportedly reached an agreement in principle, Donald Trump insisted on a secret meeting at Camp David with the Taliban and the puppet Afghan government so he could take credit as dealmaker-in-chief. The idea of finalizing the negotiations at Camp David was “a prospect that appealed to the president’s penchant for dramatic spectacle,” The New York Times reported.

Trump, however, abruptly canceled the meeting, slated to occur last weekend, citing a Taliban car bombing that killed an American.

There are “questions about the accuracy of [Trump’s] assertion that the Taliban had accepted his invitation to Camp David on Sunday, and that he was the one calling off the meeting,” according to The New York Times.

“Taliban negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed to come to the United States only after a deal was announced and only to meet with the American side, suggesting that Mr. Trump may have canceled a meeting that the key participants were not planning to attend.”

Trump’s excuse for calling off the Camp David meeting is also belied by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s claim that the United States was responsible for “over a thousand Taliban killed in just the last 10 days alone.”

Two days after cancelling the meeting, Trump told reporters the peace talks with the Taliban are “dead as far as I’m concerned.”

The Tentative Peace Deal Would Leave Thousands of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

There are currently 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Under the Trump administration’s tentative agreement with the Taliban, the U.S. would pull 5,400 troops out of Afghanistan within 135 days of signing, reducing the number to 8,600. This would still leave more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the 8,400 who were there when Barack Obama left office. The remaining troops would be withdrawn gradually over a 16-month period.

In return, the Taliban would agree to not support international terrorist groups and would prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan to mount attacks. The Taliban would also conduct political negotiations with the Afghan government (although it’s unclear how these would fare, given that a senior Taliban leader told The New York Times, “we do not recognize the [U.S.’s] stooge government” in Kabul.)

However, even if a firm deal were negotiated, Trump stated, “we’re going to always have a presence” in Afghanistan. U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reportedly said the United States would reserve the right to help Afghan government forces in the event they are attacked by the Taliban. And senior White House advisers favor secretly increasing the CIA’s presence in Afghanistan as U.S. forces withdraw.

The Taliban, however, see little difference between U.S. military forces and CIA agents, and have repeatedly maintained that they will not agree to a ceasefire until all U.S. troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, although many politicians are criticizing Trump for arranging the Camp David meeting with the Taliban, few are questioning the legality of the United States invading Afghanistan in the first place.

The U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan Was Illegal

The U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan violated the United Nations Charter, which mandates that countries settle their disputes peacefully. The Charter forbids the use of military force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The invasion was not lawful self-defense, as it did not respond to an armed attack by Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Afghan government. And although the Council passed Resolutions 1368 and 1373 in response to the 9/11 attacks, neither resolution authorized the United States to use military force against Afghanistan. Instead, the resolutions condemned the 9/11 attacks; ordered the freezing of assets and criminalization of terrorist activity; urged steps to prevent terrorist activity, including sharing of information; and advocated ratification and enforcement of international conventions against terrorism.

Since 9/11, under the guise of George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” the United States has illegally attacked, invaded and bombed several countries and tortured untold numbers of people, with no legal accountability.

At the end of 2018, The New York Times reported that regional Afghan forces led by the CIA “operated unconstrained by battlefield rules designed to protect civilians, conducting night raids, torture and killings with near impunity.”

The 18-year U.S. war in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of 139,000 Afghan civilians and combatants, and more than 6,300 U.S. soldiers and mercenaries.

And the carnage in Afghanistan is only getting worse. July 2019 was the deadliest month of the past two years, with 1,500 civilians killed or wounded. During the first half of 2019, nearly 4,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, and it was primarily the United States that caused most of the civilian deaths in that time period.

Furthermore, the United States has spent over $1 trillion on the war in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion in 2001.

“Washington was politically defeated in Afghanistan long ago, and no shift in US tactics will change that — whether it is a troop surge, the renewed training of local soldiers, or a focus on counterterrorism,” Reese Erlich writes at Common Dreams. The U.S. lost because most Afghans see the U.S.A. as an occupying power,” he added.

Thus, the only acceptable course of action is a total end to the U.S. war in Afghanistan and reparations for its people.

The United States must withdraw all of its troops, CIA agents and mercenaries and close its military bases in Afghanistan. Moreover, the U.S. government should redirect a significant amount of money toward small international aid groups that can help rebuild the country, as suggested by Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Kelly told Erlich, “Reparations should be paid to the Afghan people, not the government.”

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image: U.S. soldiers fortify an Afghan highway police checkpoint with razor wire in Robat, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2010. (Source: TECH. SGT. FRANCISCO V. GOVEA II / U.S. AIR FORCE)

Video: Color Revolution Comes to Hong Kong

September 12th, 2019 by South Front

The Hong Kong protests represent a major challenge not only to the authorities of Hong Kong itself, but also to Beijing, due to both their protracted nature and a high level of organization resembling the Kiev Maidan of 2013/14.

The Hong Kong rioters have gone so far as to produce and disseminate a veritable urban warfare manual describing in detail the division of labor between the close-combat fighters, ranged-weapon fighters, as well as various support roles. Their “Plan A” appears to be, as cynical as this may sound, to provoke bloodshed by inducing local law enforcement to use firearms against the rioters.

Thus far this has not come to pass. On the one hand, Hong Kong police has displayed considerable self-restraint, and their rules of engagement seem to favor withdrawal and disengagement when faced with superior numbers of rioters. On the other hand, irrespective of the will of the riot planners, the actual rioters have, again thus far, displayed healthy self-preservation instincts. In the few cases where firearms were brandished by Hong Kong police, usually in cases of police officers finding themselves surrounded by the raging mob, the sight of weapons proved enough to compel the rioters to withdraw. That by itself, however, will not solve the problem of riots because there also seems to be a “Plan B.” Whereas, for example, the Kiev Maidan was largely confined to the Maidan Square itself, the geography of Hong Kong riots is much more extensive and unpredictable. Hong Kong rioters have not shrunk from attacking strategic infrastructure, including the now-infamous occupation of the Hong-Kong International Airport that caused massive air traffic disruptions.

Likewise the violent riots in popular malls and tourist destinations all over the Hong Kong area have had the effect of depressing tourism and even prompting fears of a capital flight. While so far there are no indications of a lasting effect on the enclave’s economy, this is due to the still-lingering perception the unrest is a temporary phenomenon. Should it continue with present intensity, or, worse, escalate in terms of numbers of participants and methods used, there will be severe negative effects. For these reasons, China’s authorities cannot hope to win through a war of attrition, or expect that an escalation of violence will somehow cure this problem. There are genuine underlying problems in Hong Kong which have made themselves visible through these demonstrations.

Watch the video here.

What ails Hong Kong?

As with other “color revolutions”, the Hong Kong protests have tapped into a deep vein of discontent within the population. In this instance, rather than poverty or corruption or even the institutional design of Hong Kong’s government, the banal problem facing the average Hong Kong resident is the extremely high cost of living combined with the highly visible class divisions. Since this “special administrative region” of People’s Republic of China represents a major concentration of financial industries, it is also home to massive wealth which, alas, does not appear to be trickling down. While there is also considerable wealth inequality in China proper which is expanding its list of billionaires at a steady pace, the less well-off Chinese urban-dwellers have the option of migrating from city to city in search of better opportunities. But that option is not one the average inhabitant of Hong-Kong is likely to adopt. Moving to China proper would run counter to the strong local Hong Kong identity, and moreover represent a move to a considerably less wealthy part of the world. Thus while the average Chinese citizen is unlikely to exhibit much sympathy for the plight of the protesters from the special administrative area, Hong Kong residents do not evaluate their well-being in comparison with mainland China. For them, the only relevant reference is Hong Kong itself.

One should also note that the violent component of Hong Kong protests is disproportionately composed of young men in their late teens and twenties suggesting the influence of a generation gap and the breakdown in the intergenerational social contract. While Hong Kong, if it were a sovereign state, would have one of the world’s highest life expectancies, its population is rapidly aging due to the low birth rates of the past several decades. A large age cohort is nearing the retirement age, placing a significant financial burden on the considerably smaller younger generation.

Pining for Tiananmen

Further complicating matters for Beijing is Western powers’, and principally the US, interest in using Hong Kong as an instrument in the gradually escalating confrontation between East and West. The rioters’ awareness of their foreign audience was made plain by the displays of US flags as well as the flags associated with Hong Kong’s British colonial past. From the US perspective, crippling Hong Kong economically would inflict serious damage to China’s economy and also badly dent its political image.  Entirely unsurprisingly, Western governments and media wholeheartedly endorsed the protests while turning a blind eye on the increasing violence perpetrated by Hong Kong’s urban warriors who make no bones their aim is to provoke security forces to spill demonstrators’ blood. It is not difficult to predict what kind of Western reaction would follow: sanctions on Hong Kong officials, financial institutions, perhaps even on top Chinese leadership.

The media outcry would be so large that countries thus far unwilling to jump on the anti-Huawei bandwagon would find it difficult to maintain that position. It is evident the Trump administration is raring for a pretext to break as many ties between United States and China as possible, and also to force third countries, most notably the states of the European Union, to choose continued economic integration with United States or with China—but not both.  Furthermore, Hong Kong’s financial institutions have played an important role in furthering China’s economic objectives in the last several decades. In addition to playing a role of a major supplier of financial investments, they also  are China’s “invisible hand of the market”. While today China’s economy is far less dependent on Hong Kong, thanks to several “special economic zones” such as Shenzhen located only a short distance from Hong Kong itself, a major crisis in Hong Kong would reverberate throughout China.

Fortunately, there appears to exist a key difference between the Kiev Maidan and the Hong Kong protests, namely the absence of a wealthy oligarch or oligarchs pursuing a reactionary political agenda. None of the Hong Kong business elite have given any indications of supporting the rioters’ more radical agenda, nor is there evidence of their contacts with Western diplomats or intelligence services. It is doubtful such contacts would escape the attention of China’s counter-intelligence services, and China’s political leadership is unlikely to show the sort of timidity Ukraine’s President Yanukovych did in a similar situation, to his own chagrin.

One Country, One System?

The current “one country, two systems” paradigm unfortunately lies at the core of Hong Kong’s current troubles. The establishment of an economic enclave, with little labor mobility across this veritable intra-Chinese border, turned Hong Kong into a political pressure cooker. Its political autonomy in turn meant policies that favored the economic elite, causing the growth of wealth inequality which contributes to the high level of the local government’s unpopularity, to the point it has become a liability for Beijing itself. In the short term, Beijing will likely be forced to funnel considerable financial resources into Hong Kong to relieve the social pressures. In the longer term, however, a lasting solution will require not only a more close oversight of Hong Kong’s social policies, but also promotion of two-way migration between China proper and Hong Kong.

*

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

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has called out the US for delivering more than 30,000 weapon-laden trucks to Syria to support the PKK-linked People’s Protection Units (YPG) terrorist group, reported Press Tv.

.

.

Speaking at the Justice and Development Party’s meeting in Eskişehir, a city in northwestern Turkey, Erdogan said he wouldn’t sit back in the shadows anymore about a superhighway of weapons supplied by the US, amounting to more than 30,000 truckloads of weapons, equipment, and ammunition to northern Syria to support YPG terrorists.

Erdogan further criticized the Trump administration for its “lack of commitment” to construct a safe zone in Syria along the Turkish border. He added that he would “sort out” the issue with President Trump at a meeting later this month.

“We must resolve this … There are differences between what is said and what has been done,” Erdogan said.

Washington and Ankara have been at odds with one another of who should control northeast Syria, where YPG terrorist and other Kurdish militias have had the luxury of receiving American weapons.

Ankara has viewed the YPG as an extension of its own Kurdish militancy, insisting the US needs to cut ties with the terrorist organization.

Erdogan also criticized the European Union for the lack of support regarding the millions of Syrian refugees.

He said Ankara has already spent $40 billion hosting four million Syrian refugees, adding that a new project could be announced momentarily to resettle one million refugees in northern Syria.

“Our goal is to settle at least one million Syrian brothers and sisters in our country in this safe zone,” said Erdogan. “If needed, with support from our friends, we can build new cities there and make it habitable for our Syrian siblings.”

The European Union has given Turkey $7 billion since 2015 to restrict the flow of migrants. But with Turkey granting millions of refugees asylum status, the migrant problem is worsening through 2019.

“If there is no safe zone we can’t overcome this,” Erdogan said.

Syrians have already begun traveling to Europe again. Turkish and international refugee officials warned about new waves of migrants headed towards the continent. Over 500 refugees landed by vessel in the Greek island of Lesbos earlier this month.

Erdogan also touched on falling interest rates and said they would also lead to lower inflation rates.

“Inflation is falling, so are interests and they will fall even further. The capital market board will convene on Thursday, and I believe interests will fall afterward,” Erdogan said.

Erdogan has just given the world a dose of reality of where some of the weapons used by terrorists in Syria are coming from.

*

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.

Will there be a snap-election or not – that is the big question right now. The earliest date is now mid-November. Whatever happens, money needs to be raised for campaigning. Theresa May’s snap election cost over £18million and she lost – so she grabbed a few billion of taxpayers hard-earned cash to pay for a bunch of terrorist sympathisers to get on board and support her failed bid to achieve anything at all. One can assume Boris Johnson is going to need at least £20 million to have some sort of fighting chance, especially given the support from the DUP is falling away fast.

According to political betting and the polls, Johnson has to retain all the seats he currently has and add at least 35 for the majority he needs. He has to do some apologising in an attempt to encourage a few of those he unceremoniously sacked. Six have already declared they will not stand again.

It doesn’t bode well though for a Tory party who was funded by bankers and hedge funds that Jeremy Corbyn, widely regarded by the financial industry as a banker-baiting, old-school Marxist with big plans for nationalization and tax hikes has the likes of Citibank and Deutsche Bank behind him. “Is Corbyn as bad as no-deal? Perhaps no longer,” said Citi’s Christian Schulz.  Deutsche’s Oliver Harvey said –

A fiscally profligate no-deal Conservative government is no longer as enticing. We see the magnitude of economic damage caused by a no-deal Brexit as much higher than the policies proposed in the last Labour manifesto.”

Do the Tories have the right people in place to raise the money for a successful snap election that this time will be more akin to trench warfare than the usual nonsense we have become accustomed to? Well, they do have Dominic Cummings – the sociopath who dragged the Vote Leave campaign into financial crimes territory to get a Brexit result.

However, things are looking up, now that the Tories have got Ehud “Udi” Sheleg, the Conservatives’ largest current donor and now the party’s sole treasurer holding the purse-strings.

Sheleg is an ‘art dealer’ and he’s just given the Conservatives another £1m in the second quarter of this year, making him their most generous current benefactor by some margin. Arguably more important, however, is his recent appointment as sole Tory party treasurer.

Until July, Sheleg had been co-treasurer with party chief executive Sir Mick Davis. But with Davis’s resignation, his elevation has given him a senior role that includes no less than being – “responsible for all operational matters including fundraising, membership and candidates”.

First, you should know some background about Sheleg. His brother (and business partner) was involved in a company promoting an online investment industry that was later associated with serious fraud. An investigation by Finance Uncovered, Private Eye and The Times of Israel found that for three years, Ehud’s brother Ran was part of a company that marketed binary options – an industry largely run out of Israel. Binary options were promoted as a form of financial product to thousands of investors around the world, but their sale was halted by European and Israeli regulators last year when it was found that the industry was rife with fraud. It was a high-tech variant of boiler room scams.

Binary options cost UK investors (who reported their losses) some £60million but overall, losses to scamsters is considered to be much larger. When questioned – Ehud Sheleg said he had been completely unaware of the company in which his brother had been involved.

Ehud has ‘establishment’ connections too. His Mayfair-headquartered Halcyon Gallery, an exclusive art dealership boasts of close ties to the Royal Family and the Conservative Party. That company is located in a tax haven (of course). Finance Uncovered also reported that both the Halcyon Gallery and the binary options business were exposed in the huge Panama Papers scandal that exposed tax fraud on a global scale. In the meantime, the gallery sponsors events at Buckingham Palace and has co-hosted a party with Princess Eugenie. It also sponsors an annual charity polo match, where Princes William and Harry have played for the Halcyon Gallery team.

Private Eye also reports that:

Sheleg’s promotion doesn’t say much for the importance Boris Johnson as party leader and James Cleverly MP as co-chairman attach to financial probity in fundraising matters. Our special report earlier this year revealed not just Sheleg’s close relations with Moscow, hosting Russia’s ambassador at the height of post-Crimea-invasion sanctions in 2015, but also his major deal with organised-crime-connected figures in establishing a Cyprus outlet of Halcyon the same year. At a minimum, due diligence appears not to be Sheleg’s strong suit. The Eye’s report also showed how Sheleg’s Halcyon company had filed erroneous accounts (not great for a party treasurer), and how in 2009 it had liquidated one of its subsidiary companies (high street art chain Castle Galleries), walking away from £4m of debts and simply carrying on the business under a new company.

Private Eye also unearthed in an earlier edition, Sheleg’s previous track record of “unfiled accounts, unpaid suppliers, investigations and VAT penalties from HM Customs and Excise, along with millions of pounds in dodged tax”. So serious had his habit of dissolving companies and avoiding liabilities been, said Private Eye, that one businessman from the early 2000s said he’d acquired the nickname “Alka Seltzer”. Given a political party’s onerous accounting and reporting requirements, Sheleg is certainly an interesting choice to hold the finance brief in the Tory boardroom.

However, given the very shady nature of Tory party donations and supporters, it appears this choice of Treasurer is ideal.

Dodgy donors, illegal cash

The Tory party are now little more than anarchists. They have systematically gone about the destruction of political and economic stability in their quest for a new form of power.

During all the scandals that emanated from the EU referendum, a powerless Electoral Commission and a toothless (or frightened) National Crime Agency did nothing after discovering Conservative party donors had invested in the very company that spawned the election consultancy at the centre of a storm about the illegal use of data. Worse, we now know that these new technologies at this same organisation were in fact, designed for the British and American military as a propaganda tool, then used on the civilian population of Britain to achieve their goals. The scandals and lawbreaking were breathtaking in scale given the attack on Britain’s democratic traditions.

Theresa May faced questions in the House of Commons over Tory links to the company.

“As far as I’m aware the government has no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica or with the SCL Group,” the prime minister said.

Either her eyes and ears were looking the other way – or she lied.

Filings for SCL Group, which is at the top of a web of companies linked to Cambridge Analytica, show that since its conception in 2005 its shareholders and officers have included senior Tory MP’s (former and current), Tory insiders, Lords, military men and even a business minister under David Cameron.

The Guardian reported at the time –

From its outset as a UK-registered company, SCL Group had investors from the upper echelons of British life. Lord Marland, a successful businessman who became a minister in 2010, held shares personally. Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former Conservative defence and industry minister, took a key role in the company for its first three years. Other big investors (of SCL) went on to make huge donations to the Tory party. For instance, Roger Gabb, introduced the Volvic water brand to the UK and property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz donated large sums as well – both investors in SCL Group.

Then there’s Nigel Oakes, an old Etonian from a military family – his father is Major John Waddington Oakes – and a former boyfriend of Lady Helen Windsor. Oakes had previously set up a company called Behavioural Dynamics which made many similar claims to SCL about its ability to influence voters. He was involved with Alexander Nix – the fellow old Etonian at the heart of the SCL/Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal.

Brexit is one of Britain’s biggest crime scenes ever. Immersed in mass population data theft, unlawful invasions of privacy, illegal cash from obscure offshore entities, foreign actors, dodgy donors and a myriad of other scandals that would in normal times bring down any British government – the country is being driven over a political, economic and constitutional cliff for an ideology created by the rich and powerful.

Tory donors came out the woodwork again when Theresa May and her disastrous attempt to strike a deal with the EU sank and Boris Johnson ascended to the party throne. Up popped more ‘dodgy donors‘ such as Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russian oligarch Vladimir, who famously wrote a large cheque to play tennis with Johnson in 2014. Her donations had declined under Theresa May but suddenly became positively lavish after BJ arrives and a few thousand quid turns into a £200,000 handout. That amount is now believed to be £626,000 from another investigation. 

Subject to yet another lawsuit – The Times reported how “MI5 launched an investigation into a Russian lobbying campaign to infiltrate British politics that received advice and support from a senior Conservative MP.” Alexander Shchukin, a Russian oligarch who is under house arrest in Siberia over a string of corruption charges is involved. (Times article link). Have a look yourself, it’s not good reading when considering who is running the country.

Only six months ago, the Conservative Party was under fire after it was revealed that the party illegally accepted over £1 million in funds from individuals who are actually based in tax havens in the run-up to the last election. They ignored the investigation and illegality of those donations.

Twelve months ago, the Tories refused to assist a French investigation into suspected money laundering and tax fraud by the UK telecoms giant Lycamobile – citing the fact that the company is the “biggest corporate donor to the Conservative party” and gives money to a trust founded by Prince Charles.

Eighteen months ago, the Tory party refused to hand back over £800,000 in donations from Russian oligarchs and their associates.

When these people hand over such large sums of money – what exactly do they expect in return?

And just to provide an answer to that question, one Tory party donor Mohammed Shahid Khan, 55, of Wimbledon, gave a £20,000 donation to the Tory party. He also got a multimillion-pound “golden visa” to ensure he and his family could stay in the country. He has since been arrested for funding and equipping terrorist organisations, for illegal arms dealing, fraud and money-laundering in Bangladesh and was using Britain and the Conservative party as cover. In the raid in his home country, the police found detonators, weapons, radical literature linked to Al Qaeda and counterfeit money along with 54 bank accounts. Why was Khan not vetted? Where were MI5 and MI6?

In the background, the list of the rich and powerful usurping democracy in favour of reshaping Britain into an offshore tax-free plaything also goes on.

Tax advisers to the super-rich also stand to gain much from Brexit-era Britain becoming a happy tax-planning hunting ground. When they hand over donations of £50,000 they want results. There are many others too and they all want something in return.

In the meantime, dark money is pouring into Boris Johnson’s snap election campaign machine. Cash from think tanks linked to some of the hardest of hard right-wing free-market jihadists on the planet is filling Dominic Cummings war-chest. Matthew Elliot is there at the centre of this continuing attack against democracy. Both were at the heart of the crime scene that was the Vote Leave/SCL/Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal. Their tactics will be the same. Stolen data, voter manipulation, engagement and disengagement tactics, AB testing, micro-ad targeting. In other words – the illegal gaming of an electoral system unable to defend itself.

The Tories are already at it again – targeting millions with micro-ads. They say there’s nothing wrong with it – and there wouldn’t be if the data wasn’t stolen or gained without consent. It wouldn’t be if the technical delivery systems weren’t built around military structures to win ‘hearts and minds’ on the battlefield and it wouldn’t be if the tactics used weren’t just unethical or immoral but downright sinister. But they are.

This dark money – what is it? It’s illegal cash stuffed into third-party organisations to beat antiquated electoral laws in Britain and keep private the donors. For example, one trail of dodgy cash leads from American so-called think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the all-powerful Atlas Network – the same organisations who surround Donald Trump. Another involved in the UK is the Taxpayers Alliance and Insitute of Economic Affairs. The former was caught stuffing its bank account with hundreds of thousands of US dollars in money from undeclared American donors, the latter caught on videooffering American donors access to Tory MP’s inside the Brexit negotiations. Of course, none of this seems to be illegal or even immoral nowadays. Somehow, none of these organisations have been properly reprimanded as the pitiful fines dished out are minuscule to their budgets.

Going back to the Tory party treasurer, what do you now see?

It’s a party immersed in dirty money, much of it laundered through the City of London. Its origins come mainly from billionaires, many are foreign, but also from opaque think tanks and front charities. Charlatans, crooks and con-artists whose money comes comes from tax evasion, financial crime and more – are represented by the establishment, just as much as they are at the very heart of the British government.

And those extreme Brexit fanboys, the far-right thugs on Britain’s streets, such as the followers of Tommy Robinson, (himself funded by American far-right organisations), the loudmouths with big shiny boots and green bomber jackets don’t realise whose side they are fighting for. Do they really think that the likes of old Etonians, billionaires, bankers and oligarch’s are somehow going to reward them for being fellow travellers of an ideology designed to benefit the rich?

*

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

Trump the Russian Puppet. A Story That Just Will Not Die

September 12th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

Certainly, there are many things that President Donald Trump can rightly be criticized for, but it is interesting to note how the media and chattering classes continue to be in the grip of the highly emotional but ultimately irrational “Trump derangement syndrome (TDS).” TDS means that even the most ridiculous claims about Trump behavior can be regurgitated by prominent journalists without anyone in the media even daring to observe that they are both professional dissemblers of truth who lie regularly to enhance their professional resumes.

There are two persistent bogus narratives about Donald Trump that are, in fact, related. The first is that his campaign and transition teams collaborated with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton. Even Robert Mueller, he of the famous fact-finding commission, had to admit that that was not demonstrable. The only government that succeeded in collaborating with the incoming Trumpsters was that of Israel, but Mueller forgot to mention that or even look into it.

Nevertheless, Russia as a major contributing element in the Trump victory continues to be cited in the mainstream media, seemingly whenever Trump is mentioned, as if it were demonstrated fact. The fact is that whatever Russia did was miniscule and did not in any way alter the outcome of the election. Similarly, allegations that the Kremlin will again be at it in 2020 are essentially baseless fearmongering and are a reflection of the TDS desire to see the president constantly diminished in any way possible.

The other narrative that will not die is the suggestion that Donald Trump is either a Russian spy or is in some other, possibly psychological fashion, controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin. That spy story was first floated by several former senior CIA officers who were closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently because they believed they would benefit materially if she were elected.

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell was the most aggressive promoter of Trump as Russian spy narrative. In August 2016, he wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” Morell’s story began with the flat assertion that

“Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president – keeping our nation safe… Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

In his op-ed, Morell ran through the litany of then GOP candidate Trump’s observed personality and character failings while also citing his lack of experience, but he delivered what he thought to be his most crushing blow when he introduced Vladimir Putin into the discussion. Putin, it seems, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is “trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

How can one be both unwitting and a recruited agent? Some might roll their eyes at that bit of hyperbole, but Morell, who was a top analyst at the Agency but never acquired or ran an actual spy in his entire career, goes on to explain how Moscow is some kind of eternal enemy. For Morell that meant that Trump’s often stated willingness to work with Putin and the nuclear armed state he headed was somehow the act of a Manchurian Candidate, seen by Morell as a Russian interest, not an American one. So much for the presumed insider knowledge that came from the man who “ran the CIA.”

The most recent “former intelligence agents’” blast against Trump appeared in the Business Insider last month in an article entitled “US spies say Trump’s G7 performance suggests he’s either a ‘Russian asset’ or a ‘useful idiot’ for Putin.” The article cites a number of former government officials, including several from the CIA and FBI, who claimed that Trump’s participation at the recent G7 summit in Biarritz France was marked by pandering to Putin and the Kremlin’s interests, including a push to re-include Russia in the G-7, from which it was expelled after the annexation of Crimea.

One current anonymous FBI source cited in the article described the Trump performance as a “new low,” while a former senior Justice Department official, labeled Trump’s behavior as “directly out of the Putin playbook. We have a Russian asset sitting in the Oval Office.” An ex-CIA officer speculated that the president’s “intent and odd personal fascination with President Putin is worth serious scrutiny,” concluding that the evidence is “overwhelming” that Trump is a Russian asset, while other CIA and NSA veterans suggested that Trump might be flattering Putin in exchange for future business concessions in Moscow.

Another recently retired FBI special agent opined that Trump was little more than “useful idiot” for the Russians, though he added that it would not surprise him if there were also Russian spies in Trump’s inner circle.

The comments in the article are almost incoherent. They come from carefully selected current and former government employees who suffer from an excess of TDS, or possibly pathological paranoia, and hate the president for various reasons. What they are suggesting is little more than speculation and not one of them was able to cite any actual evidence to support their contentions. And, on the contrary, there is considerable evidence that points the other way. The US-Russia relationship is at its lowest point ever according to some observers and that has all been due to policies promoted by the Trump Administration to include the continuing threats over Crimea, sanctions against numerous Russian officials, abrogation of existing arms treaties, and the expansion of aggressive NATO activity right up to the borders with Russia.

Just this past week, the United States warned Russia against continuing its aerial support for the Syrian Army advance to eliminate the last major terrorist pocket in Idlib province. Once against, Washington is operating on the side of terrorists in Syria and against Russia, a conflict that the United States entered into illegally in the first place. Either Donald Trump acting as “the Russian agent” actually thinks threatening a Moscow that is pursuing its legitimate interests is a good idea or the labeling of the president as a “Putin puppet” or “useful idiot” is seriously misguided.

*

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 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 Wikimedia Commons

Activists Follow the Money Fueling Amazon Fires

September 12th, 2019 by Negin Owliaei

While the world watches in horror as fires rage on in the Amazon, activists are shining a light on the big businesses destroying what’s popularly known as the “lungs of the Earth.” On September 5, people around the globe stood in solidarity with the rainforest’s indigenous communities by partaking in the Global Day of Action for the Amazon, staging protests and singling out the bad actors profiting off deforestation. 

In Washington, D.C. protesters chanted “Put out the flames, we name your names — politicians, corporate vultures, you’re the ones we blame,” as they marched from the White House to the Brazilian Consulate. Activists around the world have been protesting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who has steadily rolled back indigenous land rights and environmental protections from his very first hours in office. A coalition — which includes Amazon Watch and Friends of the Earth, among others — is also putting pressure on the multinational corporations turning a profit off the destruction of the Amazon.

Amazon Watch, a California-based organization that works in concert with indigenous and environmental groups, issued a report earlier this year documenting the dozens of companies that stand to make money as Bolsonaro strips regulations in Brazil. The report, titled Complicity in Destruction, highlights the main drivers of deforestation — from soy and beef commodity traders like Cargill and JBS, to their financiers in North America and Europe, like BlackRock, Santander, and JP Morgan Chase. And research from Mighty Earth has documented the retailers most associated with those traders, like Costco, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize — which owns Stop & Shop, Giant, and Food Lion.

Protesters in D.C. took aim at the U.S.-based companies highlighted in the campaign to defund deforestation.

“There are many, many large corporations in the United States — including Cargill, ADM and BlackRock — who all have a hand in the destruction of the Amazon and we encourage all Americans to use their economic power to put pressure on these companies to do the right thing,” Todd Larsen, the Executive Co-Director for Consumer & Corporate Engagement at Green America told Inequality.org.

Green America is encouraging Americans to use their investments to put economic pressure on the companies profiting off deforestation.

“The only reason these companies are able to keep burning down the forest year over year is because their customers keep paying them to do so,”  Bárbara Amaral of Brazilians for Democracy and Social Justice told the crowd in D.C. “It’s time for supermarket giants like Costco, Walmart, Ahold, to immediately suspend contacts with Cargill and JBS, and for the public to show up at the front doors of Cargill headquarters and yell that it’s time to protect the Amazon.”

Protecting the environment must include structural changes to the economy that keep companies from making a quick buck off climate disaster, protesters said.

“I came out today because I am in support of changing the climate debate into a debate that is critical about the current economic system that exists in the world that is perpetuating climate change,” Gabby Rosazza, a campaigner with the International Labor Rights Forum told Inequality.org. “In particular, I’m tired of hearing about how individual actions can address climate change such as buying metal straws versus plastic straws. I’m more interested in learning about who is profiting from climate change.”

One of the companies profiting the most? BlackRock — the largest asset manager in the world. A report released last month by Amazon Watch and Friends of the Earth found BlackRock to be among the top three shareholders in 25 of the largest publicly-traded deforestation-risk companies. And the asset manager’s deforestation presence grew by more than $500 million between 2014 and 2018. Activists in London, Stockholm, San Francisco, Boston and Hong Kong targeted BlackRock during Thursday’s Global Day of Action, holding protests and die-ins outside the asset manager’s offices.

The recent report and protests are the latest addition to a pressure campaign mounting on BlackRock for continuously profiting off climate destruction, from the Amazon to the Alberta tar sands to Arctic oil reserves. Indigenous and environmental activists held protests at BlackRock’s annual general meeting earlier this year. Luiz Eloy Terena, legal counsel for the National Indigenous Organization of Brazil (also known as APIB) and a member of Brazil’s indigenous Terena community, expressed her criticism to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink directly during the meeting and demanded an audit of BlackRock investees operating on Brazilian indigenous territories.

 “Brazilian indigenous peoples and lands are under immense threat from the beef and soy industries working hand in glove with the Bolsonaro regime to undermine protections that keep our forests standing and our climate stable,” Terena said in a statement released after his conversation with Fink.

“When BlackRock funnels investments to these bad actors in Brazil, it is complicit in the destruction of tropical forests and violation of human rights. BlackRock must use its significant influence over these companies to signal that it will not tolerate policies that violate indigenous rights and damage the climate.”

*

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.

Negin Owliaei co-edits Inequality.org.

Kelsey Hawkins-Johnson is a Landau Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Featured image is from Greenpeace

“USA Pretend” Unmasked

September 12th, 2019 by S. Brian Willson

Viet Nam – Epiphany for the USA

There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I had been taught about “America” was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. It was April 1969, and I had just experienced witnessing the aftermath of a series of bombings of supposed military targets. They were in fact inhabited, undefended villages where virtually everyone in those villages perished from low flying bombings, that included napalming. The majority of dead – murdered – were young burned children. On several occasions I observed those bodies up close, sickened by the sight, now burdened by the criminal nature of the US war. The policy of accumulating massive numbers of body counts was an inkling of the Grand Lie. Reading the entrance sign to my squadron in-country headquarters, “Welcome to Indian Country,” was a first clue.

My duty station was the “home” of the fighter-bombers and pilots who followed orders to destroy those “enemy targets”, i.e., villages. I was the USAF night security commander following orders to protect those soldiers and planes from mortar and sapper attacks.

A few days later I was reading an article in Stars and Stripes, an official, independent newspaper for soldiers, reporting on a recent Supreme Court decision (Street v. New York, 1969) that upheld the right of desecrating our “sacred” symbol – the US flag. During a period of increased burnings of the US American flag in protests of the US wars against African-Americans at home, and Asians abroad, an African-American veteran recipient of a Bronze Star, Sidney Street, publicly burned his personal flag on a New York City street corner for which he was arrested and convicted.

Depressed, I pondered how it is that one could be arrested for burning a piece of cloth – even a national symbol – that represented an official policy of criminally burning innocent human beings, including large numbers of young children, while the pilot-perpetrators were commended, and whom, in my duties I was protecting? Initially suicidal, I had difficulty wrapping my head around this dystopian nightmare. I was in psychic shock from extreme cognitive dissonance.

Our behavior against the Vietnamese, a nation of peasants with one-sixth the population of the USA, one-thirtieth its size, certainly must rank as one of the worst of a number of barbarisms in the 20th Century. The US left 26 million bomb craters, sprayed 21 million gallons of DNA-altering chemical warfare on the landscape and people, murdered some 6 million Southeast Asians, destroyed by bombing over 13,000 of Viet Nam’s 21,000 villages, 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, 3,000 high schools and universities, 15,000 bridges, etc.

Why all this overwhelming firepower and destruction? Incredulously, to prevent the Vietnamese from enjoying their self-determination, absurdly touted as necessary to stop “communism.” Does there in fact exist a kind of psychopathy in our cultural DNA? Though I hadn’t fired a bullet myself, or dropped a bomb, I had been a compliant participant in a mindless murder machine. Viet Nam was not an aberration, but consistent with a long history of arrogant interventions revealing something very dark about who we are. Was I part of a savage culture of unthinking sadists, I wondered?

VNWarMontage.png

Clockwise, from top left: U.S. combat operations in Ia Đrăng, ARVN Rangers defending Saigon during the 1968 Tết Offensive, two A-4C Skyhawks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, ARVN recapture Quảng Trị during the 1972 Easter Offensive, civilians fleeing the 1972 Battle of Quảng Trị, and burial of 300 victims of the 1968 Huế Massacre. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Learning Real People’s Versus Fake, Kool Aid US History

I have spent countless hours studying a more comprehensive people’s version of world and US history. Study of US history of course is part of the Eurocentric globalization/colonization over the past 500 years. The 20 percent Eurocentric “developed-world” is a product of self-proclaimed “superiors” violently and deceitfully stealing resources and labor from the other 80 percent, all cloaked in the conceited rhetoric of spreading “civilization.” This patriarchal policy is totally unsustainable from a social, political, ecological, psychological, and moral perspective.

It is instructive to learn that the “Founding Fathers” chose, not democracy, but oligarchy/plutocracy “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” was a vision to expand private property for large landowners. Our Constitution is more a document to preserve freedom of “property” and commercial transactions, than it is to preserve human liberty, of which free speech is the most fundamental. Historian Staughton Lynd summarized it thus: inherited land replaced inherited government. Recently the highest court of the land ruled the legal fiction that property (money) is a person with free speech rights, as preposterous as the earlier legal fiction that a person (slave) is property.

A fear-laden gun culture originating in violent settler-colonialism and white nationalism-supremacy serve as a basis for the founding ideology and military strategy of the United States. Slave patrols and Indian fighters were our first “special operations,” establishing the essential White character of our militarized culture. As the systematic dispossession project continued, the US government signed over 400 treaties with Indigenous nations, violating every oneof them, establishing deceit and outright lying as part of our cultural DNA.

The politics of violence based on classism and racism has been incessant throughout our history. Examining the US criminal injustice system housing a quarter of all the world’s prisoners reveals brutal truth when comparing extreme disparities in punishments by race, and class. Justice?

I studied the history of the city of my birth – Geneva, New York, which in the 1700s was Kanadesaga, capitol of the Seneca nation. On September 8, 1779, Major General John Sullivan and his forty-five hundred soldiers eradicated these “merciless Indian Savages” in the largest Revolutionary War battle of 1779 – a terrorist, scorched-earth campaign massacring civilians while destroying all forty of the well-established Seneca towns, including Kanadesaga. By 1788, the European settlers renamed it Geneva, as if nothing had happened, a deserved reward for superiors.

All those arrowheads I enjoyed collecting as a child possessed a profound dark secret about the nature and character of my ancestors. However, I would only discover their secret after deep reflections from my Viet Nam awakening.

Official US military interventionism began with the US Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1798 during the undeclared naval war with France. However, hundreds of settler paramilitary units had been killing Indians since the 1620s. But imperialism has been explicit policy since the late 1890s to assure domestic prosperity. In 1907, Woodrow Wilson while president of Princeton University (six years before being elected US president) lectured:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down.….Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

President McKinley, and various Senators continued to advocate “a foreign market for our surplus products.” US meddling, both “soft,” and hard, has never stopped.

Traveling to a number of nations in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have exposed me to details of hundreds of US overt interventions, and thousands of covert destabilization actions. These policies have caused the murders of millions, 20 to 30 million alone since WWII during the so-called “Cold War”. Only five of these nearly 600 military interventions have been declared wars as required by the Constitution, clearly indicating our sacred document is not taken seriously. This also tells us the system has no interest in being accountable to its own Constitution, or international law. Speaking with peasants in these victim-countries invariably reveals the horrendous cruelty of US interveners and their surrogates. Does the US possess any intentions to be law-abiding? Does the US possess any feelings for others, or only selfish imperial ambitions? And does anyone care?

Violence against even White citizens has matched violence we have carried out in foreign policy. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1917-18 were enacted to suppress anti-war dissent against US entrance into World War I. Thousands of US Americans were deported and imprisoned following World War I for “radical” anti-war expressions, including labor leaders and socialists. Some were tortured in US prisons. Ironically, free speech dissent is most critical when a government decides to go to war. The original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 stifled free speech of US citizens, including elected officials, who objected to the undeclared war against France. Free speech?  Huh?

While the US was locking up and deporting citizens for opposing World War I, the FBI was ignoring extremely violent KKK supremacist groups whose six million members – nearly 25 percent of the white male population at the time – were lynching with impunity an average of six African-Americans a month. Equal protection?

The first known use of air power against civilians was committed by US Marines in Haiti in 1919. But, the second known use of US air power against civilians occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, May 31-June 1, 1921, when hundreds of economically successful Black residents living in a 36-square block community were murdered, including from low flying white-piloted planes dropping incendiaries, destroying nearly 1,300 buildings. How many US Americans know about this abomination?

Walter White, a longtime leader in the National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), concluded that southerners fear of Negro progress offends the intangible feeling of racial superiority, explaining the intensity of White savagery. The sense of established White superiority (or anyone possessing those feelings) often leads to an insecure character from lack of practicing accountability with others in a world of varied, challenging relationships. Those feelings easily morph into paranoia of others, and delusions of self grandeur – one of the most difficult psychological orders to treat, as the persistent pathology of racism (and classism) so attests.

The third known use of US bombing civilians occurred at Blair Mountain, West Virginia, August-September 1921. As many as 15,000 striking coal miners attempting to unionize were attacked by 2,000 armed sheriff’s deputies, coal company paramilitaries, US troops, and US Army Martin MB-1 bombers, killing as many as 100 miners, with many more wounded. Before the battles had ended, more than a million ammunition rounds had been fired. Nearly 1,000 miners were ironically indicted for murder of the nearly 30 deaths among the miner’s attackers. Over 700 union organizers have been murdered in our history. Is this known by many?

We continue to be obsessed with personal and government guns (police and military) as a guarantor of our security. Those who question easy access to guns, even assault weapons, or the ridiculously wasteful military spending, are thought of as nearly traitorous. US citizens personally own nearly 400 million firearms, or 40 percent of all private guns in the world. On average, three US citizens are killed every day by police, disproportionately African-Americans. So far in 2019, the US has experienced more than one mass shooting (4 or more shot) everyday. Our gun death rate is ten times above that of other high income countries. Using violence as a default position historically ends in disaster, as it has been proven over and over that violence spirals out of control into more violence, while distracting from serious discourse. Why the incredible record of violence? Insecurity?

Under its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance, the US government routinely dispatches military ships to every sea space, military planes to every airspace, hundreds of satellites into outer space, while ordering Special Forces units to operate clandestinely in nearly three-fourths of the world’s countries. Additionally, of the 1.4 million US soldiers in the world, nearly 200,000 are positioned in as many as 150 countries, most stationed at 800 major military bases in 80 nations. The US also possesses a large percentage of the world’s weapons of mass destruction, and recently has dispensed with any genuine effort at containing the spread of nuclear weapons. The annual military budget, including hidden costs, amounts to an exorbitant $1.25 trillion a year, more money than the next seven countries combined spend on their militaries. If you want to be guaranteed health care and a modest house, join the Army. Otherwise these human rights are “unaffordable.” If you want gun control, start at the top.

How to explain the extent and breadth of our violent militarism and global imperialism? Paranoia? It seems that our sense of superiority justifies hurtful dispossession from others to acquire and preserve undeserved privilege.

After exiting the military in 1970, my opinions about the US war against the Vietnamese were affirmed with the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers revealing the more than 20 years of criminal intentions, and deceit, to thwart Vietnamese aspirations for self-determination. Earlier in 1971, January 31-February 2, Vietnam Veterans Against the War conducted the “Winter Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes” when nearly 120 veterans testified about the war crimes and atrocities they committed or witnessed in Viet Nam. I was aghast when learning about Nixon’s intended Huston plan to criminally interrupt antiwar activities, the FBI’s sixteen-year COINTELPRO of more than 2,000 illegal actions against innocent US citizens, the CIA’s Operation CHAOS keeping tabs on 300,000 citizens opposed to the Viet Nam war, and the National Security Agency’s Operation SHAMROCK watch lists of those communicating with people overseas. Respect for the law? Huh? Further research revealed that as early as 1934 President Roosevelt instituted a long-standing joint FBI-military program to conduct domestic intelligence with broad investigative scope. The “American” Kool Aid indeed has sedated us.

Today our freedoms are further curtailed, for example, as the National Security Agency (NSA) spies on everyUS American, the Authorization of Military Force Act (AUFA) allows warrantless electronic surveillance of anyone suspected of aiding terrorism, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) enables indefinite detention of US citizens, even arrest by the military. Where is the Constitution when we need it? Or was it ever really there for us?

One of the most revealing chapters in our history is the incredible sympathy the US possessed for authoritarian Nazi Germany. Even though the Soviet military was most critical in defeating the Nazis in World War II, deep fear of the Bolsheviks (the emergence of an alternative social-economic system to capitalism) motivated US America’s wealthy class, with complicity of the US government, to support the rise of Nazi Germany from the mid-1930s into the war years themselves. The US capitalists supported the Nazi capitalists to defeat the “threat” of socialism. Elite power brokers included leaders of Wall Street and wealthy “barons” such as the Rockefellers and Andrew Mellon, and businesses such as Ford Motor, IBM (tabulating daily location of Jews in the Holocaust), General Motors, General Electric, Standard Oil, Texaco, ITT, International Harvester, Chase Manhattan Bank, the House of Morgan banking dynasty, DuPont, United Aircraft, etc., who enjoyed huge profits from the war. And following the war, the US’s “Operation Gladio” systematically defeated popular anti-Nazi groups throughout Europe, while “Operation Paperclip” secretly brought Nazi scientists and other professionals to the US.Our affinity for fascism has been established.

Psychologically, it is important to note that our national identity has consistently been markedly defined by demonizing others – “merciless savages”, “uppity ni**ers”, “anarchists”, “radicals”, “communists”, “Russians”, “alien filth”, “narco-traffickers”, “terrorists”, “shithole countries”, “vermin”, etc., echoing psychologist Carl Jung’s principle of “shadow projection.” Jung described a cowardly trick we play on ourselves: avoid looking in the mirror so as not to take responsibility for seeing our own demons. We “see” the evil in others, perpetuating a nation addicted to war against them, obscenely profiting as we self-righteously deny our own severe pathologies. If we had looked in the mirror we would have learned what Pogo told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Eco-psychologist Chellis Glendinning suggests that modern humans suffer from deep insecurity that emerged from collective traumas hundreds of generations ago. A serious disconnect from intimacy with the earth occurred when our ancient ancestors began controlling nature through agriculture and animal domestication. Evolutionary philosopher Gregory Bateson concludes that addictive behavior is consistent with the Western approach to life that pits mind against body, while behaving as if the natural world is a commodity. We seek various distractions to numb our pain from this feeling of aloofness. Technology, not Nature, has become our God.

Recognizing the Lie

Could it be that virtually everything I was taught by my parents, community, school, church, and political leaders in terms of factual history, morality, ethics, and rational thinking about “America” was the opposite of what had been represented? How could that be?

Yes, I have been conditioned by an incredibly comfortable fairy tale, a massive cultural system denying or distorting historic realities, founded on shameful genocides. I had been betrayed. We are told we are the greatest, even as we (s)elect imperial Presidents and Congresspeople in an orgy of fantastic fiction about “democracy.” The US Senate is a millionaire’s club, with many members of the US House also in that class. Indian author Arundhati Roy describes “democracy” and “pro-democracy” as the “Free World’s whores”, hollow words satisfying a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will where facts don’t matter.

US America loves its myth of being committed to justice for all, but in fact it is a society ruled and funded by a wealthy elite. This is not a government of, by and for the people! It is a ruthless oligarchy sanctioned by a majority of the people believing their vote counts. Money has always mattered, severely rigging the game in many ways toward an upper class (obscenely bribing candidates, corporate personhood power, gerrymandering, proprietary election software, hacking capacity to effect results, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression, etc.). The oligarchy approves “acceptable” candidates, while contrived rhetoric, propaganda, and our education system keep us faithful to our political system comprised of one party with two right wings, the winner ruling by tyranny of its majority. But the bottom line is that (s)elected representatives obey their large donors who thrive on war-making against vulnerable others.

Nonetheless, these facts do not preclude existence of individual conscientious politicians. However, the political economic system itself is fixed, it is not broken, a dilemma every honest politician must face. This delicious Kool Aid has in fact concealed a delusional madness, a Kafkaesque, Orwellian nightmare. Our political leaders have consistently and collectively acted outside the Constitution, while selectively applying laws that preserve the cabal in power. It has always been this way, though the social revolution of the 1960s threatened to overturn the oligopoly. This revolution was unfortunately unsuccessful but the fearful system’s repressive reaction is now in its fifth decade. In the end, we are in fact a nation of men, not laws.

So, in effect, our mythological story made me functionally stupid, a “good kid” who became complicit in mindless, mass murder. And I am suggesting that it has created a society comprised of millions of functionally stupid people. This is different from intelligence. This is not idiocy. This is serious non-thinking of intellectually capable people who, in effect, have suspended their autonomous critical thinking, basking in an intoxicated spell of our sense of national invincibility. It has enhanced the Friedman era of neoliberal privatization, worshipping greed, while millions are without health care and homeless. This is mass psychopathy, a dangerous cultural mental illness.

German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, while a prisoner in one of Hitler’s jails, wrote about the role of stupidity in the German people that substantially contributed to the rise of Nazism and worship of savior Hitler. He argued that it is very separate from intellectual capacity but occurs when a cult-like belief system dangerously suspends critical thinking, bringing collective relief to an emotionally anxious population. It is a form of voluntary servitude more dangerous than malice, an entrenched belief system that makes genuine dialogue and education almost impossible. (Bonhoeffer was hung in April 1945).

As US Americans we possess no visceral memory of the two unspeakable genocides our ancestors shamefully committed, forcefully dispossessing Indigenous Africans of their labor, and genuine Americans of their land, murdering millions with impunity. Even though we are superficially taught about slavery and conquering the Indigenous, their egregious suffering has been outsourced outside our feeling fields for 25 generations. Thus, was established our cultural “DNA” of achieving expansion benefitting a few (mostly White males and those who think like them) through any means while escaping any accountability whatsoever. Now nearly 600 overt, and thousands of covert interventions later, US Americans still know little or nothing about our unspeakable imperialism. Why not? Isn’t it critically important that we seriously grapple with our diabolical history?

In 2019, the President, US military, CIA, and other “regime change” entities like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and their funders in Congress, continue to intervene almost everywhere, destabilizing with crippling sanctions, sadistically causing suffering, causing chaos, creating kill lists, murdering, bombing, etc. Does any of this criminal insanity even happen? Has it ever? Does it matter to most people? I believe there is a deep shame that burdens us. It is understandable to avoid looking at shame, but the cost is perpetual war for perpetual peace until we are all dead. The era of privilege is over, as we enter the terrifying era of consequences, bringing fear, insecurity and anxiety to many heretofore privileged folks. Denial becomes a lethal seduction.

Our amnesia has precluded emotional intelligence, a depth of character, so necessary for mature development, with little understanding of historical context. We are effectively emotionally retarded, blocking the universal embedded human feeling of empathy, and the collective solidarity that emerges therefrom. Thus, “America” is very insecure having been conveniently wrapped in a fake, pretend narrative, convincing us of our “exceptional” nature, ignoring both our systemic pattern of domestic violence, and global imperialism. The corporate media, and corporate-owned social media platforms, serve as stenographers for our oligarchic policies and values. They create an agenda-driven narrative that inoculates our minds with constant group think untruths of neo-liberal capitalism.

We now live in a post-truth world, where narcissistic life is experienced as virtual, not real. Do we feel the pain of the Afghani, Yemeni, the Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan, Somali, the Russian, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican, Palestinian in Gaza, or our neighbor down the street whose cancer left her homeless due to foreclosure? How much do we care? Answering these questions can tell us a lot about our own survival, including yours and mine.

Serious discussion and debate of a broad range and depth of ideas is virtually nonexistent. Mention of “socialism” is considered traitorous to the religion of neoliberal corporatism. In reality, we promote individualism over community, competition over cooperation, and acquisitiveness over inquisitiveness. These capitalist characteristics condition human development in a way that is diametrically opposed to our inherent, genetic nature as a social species requiring for survival cooperation in all our relations.

The economy and political system is now virtually dependent upon what Eisenhower proclaimed as the military/security industrial complex, and that complex thrives on creation of endless “enemies” which produce obscene war profits for a very few. Community and family units have disintegrated, and citizenship is less engaged as life is increasingly defined in terms of commodities. Everything and everybody is for sale to the highest bidder. This leads to anomie, violence and madness. And yet, we continue to enjoy shopping as the government conducts its daily bombing. How can this be? How can we pay taxes and go about our business as usual when so many people in the world are being impoverished or eliminated by US policies facilitating the wealthy getting richer?

The Deep Divide – 1959 – 2019

Having graduated from a rural upstate New York high school in 1959 at the height of post-WWII Cold War euphoria, in the midst of the short historic blip of aspiring consumerism, the “American” Kool Aid I and my 28 fellow graduates drank at that time was delicious. I was raised in a lower middle class home by conservative, religious parents, not dissimilar to the upbringings of many of my classmates. Life seemed great, and simple. However, my Viet Nam experience rudely exposed the poisonous nature of this delicious drink and its true ingredients.

Discovering information about my former classmates finds several still living in the same area we grew up, possessing similar views to that which we believed in 1959 – religiously and politically conservative, but now supporters of MAGA, Trump and Israel. One classmate who had been a basketball cheerleader, still married to her high school sweetheart after 60 years, read my Facebook postings from Nicaragua, then declared me “a fool” admonishing me to “stay there.” This same cheerleader chanted for each starter before games, such as “Brian, Brian, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, nobody can.”

Being raised in and conditioned by US America instills a desire to preserve a fantasy of post-WWII euphoria for many, at least until President Reagan. But experiential reality painfully destroys make-believe. I argue that the USA has never been great, but suspect many of my 1959 classmates would vehemently disagree.

Trump Exposes the Pretend Society

The phenomenon of the Presidency of Donald John Trump disturbingly “offers” our culture, and the world, an overdue undisguised photo of our real culture and its politics. Some say Trump brings out the worst in people – hatred, self-centeredness, cruelty, insensitivity, crassness, racism, insulting language, poisonous divisiveness, adolescent delinquency, etc. But is it possible that his language and demeanor are validating expressions of historically suppressed feelings and values which have never been sufficiently addressed or openly acknowledged in our Eurocentric, capitalist, money-oriented, nature-defying, often mean-spirited culture? These censored feelings once unleashed, no matter how adolescent they seem, are capable of manifesting in a vicious authoritarian and neo-fascist state, as they did in Germany nearly 100 years ago. It seems we are at that point again.

The “developed” world, now led by the United States of America, has historically been built on egregious exploitation and violence hidden under fanciful rhetoric. Inevitably, the chickens will come home to roost. As Eurocentrics we have been lying to ourselves and the world with our highly touted economic system and “democracy,” fooling ourselves by myths and lies we have long believed about our “superiority” built on the suffering of others. As stated above, we have (s)elected leaders who are to varying degrees corrupted by money who use politically “correct” language and a finessed demeanor to gain approval. In fact, they have consistently been imperial and oligarchic, selfishly stealing to assure an insatiably consumptive lifestyle for under 5 percent of the world’s population (but only benefitting a minority of its own people), while gobbling up anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the globe’s resources (depending on the resource and era examined). We ad nauseum excuse our interventions using “national security” or “humanitarian justice.” We have followed in the footsteps of our imperial teachers in the United Kingdom. Fair? Sustainable? Ever thought about the structural unfairness and gross arrogance that has enabled 500 years of colonization? Trump’s Presidency reveals a lot about us that we have not wanted to recognize. Scary? Our historical chronic complicity in this horror story cannot be ignored.

Trump serves as an avatar, or caricature, of a collective, creepy, violent, disgusting, mean-spirited, immature culture, at least as experienced by large numbers of people both in the US and the world. Trump’s appeal can largely be attributed to the fact that he has taken the clothes off of Pretend. His childish nature of lying, tweeting and exaggerating, ironically reveals an ugly “truth” about our modern selves that has been drowned under incredible “public relations” – education, the media, Hollywood, sports, the State Department, etc. His extreme personal narcissism matches well our extreme collective exceptionalism. Is it clearer now just how big the LIE has been, protected by our comfortable 500-year myths? Welcome to dystopia, Kafka, and Orwell.

Conclusion

The 400-year history of Western dualistic Cartesian thinking (named after French philosopher Rene Descartes’ view of reductionist mind-body dualism) divorcing human beings from study of observable nature, has produced a terribly flawed epistemology. The opposite basis for knowledge is holism, a framework that enables comprehension of multiple interconnections and historical context. Dispensing with any serious concern for consequences, the insatiably consumer-driven materialistic Western Way of Life has ironically and blissfully been destroying life itself by its addiction to burning finite fossil fuels. The harsh truth is that a capitalist system is on a direct collision course with sustainable societies that require conserving healthy interconnected relationships with each other and the earth’s eco-system. We have become accustomed to wishful thinking that resources are infinite, and that they belong to us. This theft can only happen, of course, by force or its threat, and deceit, while living in the toxic illusion we are better than others. Does this suggest a kind of arrogant collective stupidity?

Nature bats last, something our cortex apparently chose to fatally ignore. We now face the greatest existential crisis as Nature bats last humbling modern humans into extinction, or near so. We somehow forgot the most critical truth of all – that we all part of the One. If we can now recognize our various levels of “stupidity”, we have an adrenaline opportunity to leap out of our heretofore seductive comfortable fantasy, choosing instead to access our buried human characteristic of interconnection with everything and everybody, i.e., mutual respect and accountability. This leap now must be of a revolutionary nature, rocketing us out of our historic arrogant pleasureableness. Our survival foundation: embracing the evolutionary feeling of empathy. Saving ourselves is pretty damn important, and that means saving life for all. Let’s do it! We are not worth more; they are not worth less.

*

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

Brian Willson, Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer, has been a lifelong critic of US domestic and foreign policy. His essays and biography are found at his website: brianwillson.com. His recent book, “Don’t Thank Me for My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies” is published by Clarity Press (2018). His psycho-historical memoir, “Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson” was published by PM Press (2011). A documentary, “Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson” was produced in 2016 by Bo Boudart Productions.

Assad Government Saves Christianity in Syria

September 12th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Syria is being reborn, and its religious pluralism is being resurrected, sometimes literally from the ashes.

The ancient town of Maaloula, where Aramaic, the language of Christ, is still spoken, where St. Takla miraculously cured the sick, where NATO’s takfiri terrorists committed massacres, and destroyed shrines, churches, and mosques, is yet again an example of the religious pluralism typical of the Levant.

Yet again it is attracting people from Syria, Lebanon, and beyond to its sacred sites, ensconced, in the “land of the prophets.”

The twisted ideology and barbarity of the West’s terrorist proxies is gone now.

The Syrian Arab Army defeated Western imperialism here, and the Syrian government promises to continue its righteous fight until every inch of Syria has been liberated.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author


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

Trump Replaces Bolton with Fringe Neocon

September 12th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

It was too good to be true. For a moment, I actually thought Trump had come to his senses and decided to scour the neocons from his administration.

I was overly optimistic. I should have known better.

.

.

Back in 2016, I wrote a small ebook about the neocons giving Trump advice during his presidential campaign. I focused on the influence of Frank Gaffney, founder of the Islamophobic Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Trump’s interim national security adviser, Charles Kupperman, was John Bolton’s sidekick. He is associated with CSP and its pro-Israel, anti-Iran, Islamophobic agenda. 

Kupperman is neck-deep in the military-industrial complex. He held senior positions at Lockheed Martin and Boeing. I’m sure Trump approves, having acted as a salesman for the death merchants. He used the ineffectual and illegal missile strike on Syria as a PR event. 

For now, Kupperman is interim national security adviser. Trump is looking at equally unqualified warmongers to eventually fill the slot. For instance, Brian Hook, Trump’s Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

Hook co-founded the John Hay Initiative—named after President Theodore Roosevelt’s chief diplomat—a concerted effort to brainwash politicians and their staffs in the neocon way of doing things. Advisers include the high-level neocon Robert Kagan, former Dick Cheney adviser Eric Edelman, “the most influential neocon in academe,” Eliot Cohen, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, former NSA director Michael Hayden, and a host of others.

The list of insiders and neocons considered to replace Bolton is lengthy. The list of potentials includes Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the president and CEO of CSP. He served as chief of staff to Undersecretaries of State for Arms Control John Bolton during the Bush regime. 

Trump is clueless. At first glance, it appeared the president may have tried to dampen the influence of the neocons on his disastrous foreign policy, but this assessment is far too optimistic. He fired Bolton—who said he resigned—because the mustachioed neocon disagreed and argued with Trump over hosting the Taliban at Camp David. Bolton and the neocons are not interested in peace, they’re masters of forever war. 

It was personal for Trump, as always. 

The neocons will continue to leverage their influence within the administration and Trump will continue to fire those who argue too vociferously. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

September 12th, 2019 by David Ray Griffin

Many people have said that this Report “reads like a novel.” It is indeed surprisingly good when judged in terms of criteria appropriate to works of fiction. But the 9/11 Commission was supposed to conduct a serious investigation into the question of who was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Instead, it simply presupposed the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks were planned and carried out solely by al-Qaeda. The Commission entirely ignored all evidence for the alternative conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks succeeded only because of complicity by members of the US government.

Having written a book that summarizes much of the evidence supportive of this alternative theory (“The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11”), I read “The 9/11 Commission Report” to see how it handled this evidence. I found that it simply omitted most of it and distorted the rest.

For example, the Report simply repeats the official story about the 19 Arab hijackers, failing to mention that at least six of the named men have shown up alive. It even suggests that Waleed al-Shehri, who visited the US embassy in Morocco after 9/11, stabbed a flight attendant on AA 11 before it hit the North Tower (page 5). This sloppy scholarship proves to be no aberration.

With regard to why jet fighters failed to intercept any of the flights, the Report provides a radically revisionist account of 9/11. Claiming–in contradiction to the timeline provided by NORAD on September 18, 2001–that the FAA never notified the military about Flights 175, 77, and 93 until after they crashed, the Report fails to explain why NORAD had earlier said otherwise. This new timeline also changes the starting times of all the teleconferences, in order to claim that they could not have been the means for the military to have learned about the hijackings from the FAA. Also, to bolster the claim that the shootdown order was not given until after Flight 93 had crashed, the Report also contradicts by 45 minutes all prior testimony–including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s eyewitness testimony to the Commission itself–as to when Vice President Cheney descended to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

With regard to the World Trade Center, the Report fails to mention that fire had never caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. It also, by way of suggesting why the Twin Towers could have collapsed so easily, says that the core of each building consisted of “a hollow steel shaft” (541n1), whereas in reality the core of each consisted of 47 massive steel columns. While mentioning that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds (305), the Report otherwise fails to mention the fact that the collapses manifested 10 standard features of controlled demolitions. The Report handles the collapse of Building 7, which even FEMA admitted it could not explain, by simply failing to mention it.

With regard to the Pentagon, the Report fails to mention that the West Wing would have been the least likely target for terrorists, that its facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike, and other facts in tension with the idea that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77. And while claiming that al-Qaeda operatives did not strike a nuclear plant for fear that their plane would be shot down (245), the Report fails to point out that the Pentagon is even better protected, so that any aircraft without a military transponder would have been automatically shot down.

With regard to the FBI, the Report fails to mention many stories that are damaging to the official account of 9/11. These omitted stories include attorney David Schippers’ report that several FBI agents told him of their advance knowledge of the New York attacks, the complaint by Coleen Rowley (Time magazine person of the year) that FBI headquarters sabotaged the Moussaoui investigation, and the damning allegations made by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds in her 3.5-hour testimony to the Commission.

What about the allegation by Craig Unger (popularized in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”) that the White House authorized a private flight carrying Saudis on September 13, before private flights were otherwise allowed? The Report “refutes” this allegation by simply saying that US airspace had been reopened at 11 AM that day (329, 556n25), thereby ignoring the crucial distinction between commercial flights, which were then allowed, and private flights, which were not.

The Report also provides radically ahistorical accounts of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring all the evidence that these attacks were motivated by desires to establish military bases and to take over the oil (rather than by desires to protect human rights and promote democracy). In this and other ways, the Report omits all evidence that the Bush administration had plans of the sort that could have provided motives for allowing or even engineering the attacks of 9/11.

I have documented these and dozens of other problems in my book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions . These problems are so great that the Report, instead of being nominated for a National Book Award, should be designated a National Disgrace.

David R. Griffin is author of The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions — A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report

y

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

For background, read this and this.

Excerpt:

An Iranian parliamentary faction has come up with the idea of establishing a club of sanctioned countries for concerted action against the US economic terrorism.

The chairman of the Parliament’s faction on countering sanctions, Poormokhtar, gave a report on the formation of the faction and its activities, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish the club of sanctioned countries. Iran’s FM, Zaraf, said this would be enhancing the already existing alliance of Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela against US economic terrorism.

***

PressTV: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela are among the nations that have come out against the United States’ use of sanctions to enforce its foreign policy around the world. In what ways can they fight these US sanctions as a group?

Peter Koenig: Brilliant idea. Solidarity makes stronger and eventually will attract other countries who are sick and tired of the US sanction regime, and since they have the backing of Russia and China – that’s a very strong alliance, especially an economic alliance. The sanction regime can only be broken through economics, meaning decoupling from the western monetary system. I said this before and say it again, at the risk of repeating myself.

After all, China is the world’s largest and strongest economy in Purchasing Power GDP measures – which is the only comparison that really counts. I believe this solidarity alliance against US sanctions is certainly worth a trial.

And personally, I think it will be a successful trial, as more countries will join, possibly even non-sanctioned ones, out of solidarity against a common tyrant.

The countries in solidarity against sanctions, in addition to ignoring them – and the more they ignore them, the more other countries will follow-suit, that’s logical as fear disappears and solidarity grows.

For example, Iran and Venezuela, oil exporting countries, could accompany their tankers by war ships. Yes, it’s an extra cost, but think of it as temporary and as a long-term gain. Would “Grace I” have been accompanied by an Iranian war ship – the Brits would not have dared confiscating it. That’s for sure.

PressTV: Many of the US sanctions have led to death of civilians in those particular countries. At the same time, sanctions have also led to the improvement of these countries to the point where domestic production in various fields advanced. Don’t sanctions become country-productive to US aims?’

PK: Of course, the sanctions are counter-productive. They have helped Russia to become food-self-sufficient, for example. That was not Washington’s intention and less so the intention of the EU, who followed Washington’s dictate like puppets.

Sanctions are like a last effort before the fall of the empire, to cause as much human damage as possible, to pull other nations down with the dying beast. It has always been like that – starting with the Romans through the Ottoman’s. They realize their time has come – but can’t see a world living in peace. So, they must plant as much unrest and misery as possible before they disappear.

That’s precisely what’s happening with the US.

Intimidation, building more and more military bases, all with fake money, as we know the dollar is worth nothing – FIATmoney – that the world still accepts – but less and less so, therefore military bases, deadly sanctions – and trade wars –
Trump knows that a trade war against China is a lost cause. Still, he can intimidate other countries by insisting on a trade war with China – or that’s what he thinks.

PressTV: The more countries US sanctions, illegally, more people turn against the US: doesn’t that defeat the US so-called fight against terrorism and violence?

PK: Well, US sanction and the entire scheme of US aggression has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, as you know. It’s nothing but expanding US hegemony over the world, and if needed, and more often than not, the US finances terrorism to fight proxy wars against their so-called enemies, meaning anybody not conforming to their wishes and not wanting to submit to their orders and not letting them exploit – or rather steal – their natural resources.

Syria is a case in point. ISIL is funded and armed by the Pentagon, who buys Serbian produced weapon to channel them through the Mid-East allies to Syrian terrorists, the ISIL or similar kinds with different names -just to confuse.

Venezuela too – the opposition consist basically of US trained, financed and armed opposition “leaders” – who do not want to participate in totally democratic elections – order of the US – boycott them. But as we have seen as of this day, the various coup attempts by the US against their legitimate and democratically elected President, Nicolás Maduro, have failed bitterly – and this despite the most severe sanctions regime South American has known, except for Cuba, against whom the US crime has been perpetuated for 60 years.

So, nobody should have the illusion that Washington’s wars are against terrorism. Washington is THE terrorist regime that fights for world hegemony.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image: Trump reinstate sanctions against Iran (White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

The Iranian Ambassador to India shocked his host nation by announcing that his country was considering building a CPEC-parallel LNG pipeline to China in response to New Delhi’s submission to the US’ unilateral sanctions regime, which could completely ruin India’s regional vision if this ambitious plan comes to pass and especially if Russia decides to actively participate in it.

Exciting News About E-CPEC+

India’s zero-sum plans of using its reinvigorated strategic partnership with Russia to “balance” China in the region of “Greater South Asia” are at risk of being ruined if Iran goes through with its recently announced interest in building a CPEC-parallel LNG pipeline to China (E-CPEC+, with the “E” standing for “energy”) and receives Moscow’s world-class support in constructing this game-changing piece of integrational infrastructure. The Iranian Ambassador to India shocked his host nation by declaring that “Iran is now discussing an LNG pipeline to China along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), as India is not expected to retain its prior interest in LNG imports from Iran”, according to The Hindu’s report about his comments made to members of the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents on Monday. His words are especially significant for the fact that they represent his country’s first public recognition that India submitted to the US’ sanctions regime and also signify a bold endorsement of the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project of CPEC that India is adamantly against because of its maximalist claims in the Kashmir Conflict.

The Meek Shall Rise 

India already humiliatingly made a fool out of Iran on the world stage by complying with the US’ sanctions demands, victimizing its partner through blowback from the Hybrid War on CPEC, and entering into informal military alliances with its hated American and “Israeli” enemies, but the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and got Iran to stop behaving as India’s “junior partner” and finally become serious about changing its approach to it was likely the brutal use of force that was inflicted earlier this week upon the Kashmiris who were commemorating the matrydom of Imam Hussein. Publicly funded Iranian international media outlet Press TV extensively covered the wanton human rights abuses committed by the occupying Indian forces during this time and specifically pointed out to anyone who was unaware that Imam Hussein was also the third Shia Imam as well as the grandson of Prophet Muhammad, which is exceptionally important because the Islamic Republic of Iran is first and foremost an ideologically driven state constitutionally beholden per Article 154 to “support the struggles of the oppressed for their rights against the oppressors anywhere in the world.”

It is therefore absolutely unacceptable for Iran to not at the very least respond in an asymmetrical way while its co-confessionals are being visibly oppressed by occupying forces while attempting to commemorate the martyrdom of such an important Islamic figure, which explains why Tehran decided to cross the Rubicon and have its Ambassador to India publicly talk about its plans to construct E-CPEC+ despite knowing that his words would indelibly alter the dynamics of the Iranian-Indian Strategic Partnership. The Ambassador wisely referenced India’s decision to discontinue purchasing his country’s resources as the reason for his government exploring such a game-changing move, thereby ensuring that it can’t be interpreted as anything “hostile” or “anti-Indian” and indirectly laying the blame for any repercussions it could have on the regional balance of power solely at the feet of India’s political leadership. This is crucial to mention because the outcome could very realistically ruin India’s regional plans if the pipeline is ever constructed.

“Energy Diplomacy”

Not only would it naturally strengthen China and Pakistan’s joint regional position, but it might also do the same for Russia’s as well if Moscow decides to get involved in this promising project by bidding to construct it and then pairing its offshore gas reserves in Iran with the rest of the Islamic Republic’s available reserves in order to ensure that the pipeline is truly transformational in the geopolitical sense. Russia already signed a $10 billion memorandum of understanding with Pakistan last October to build an undersea pipeline connecting Iran and India via that nation’s territorial waters, but with New Delhi no longer buying Tehran’s resources, it makes sense for Moscow to modify the proposed project to end in the People’s Republic instead. While India might have thought that it bought Russia’s eternal geopolitical allegiance through the multibillion-dollar deals that were struck in exchange for its full support on Kashmir during Modi’s visit as the guest of honor at the recent Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, it could very well soon find out that there are limits to its influence.

Russia and India are indeed on the same page as regards their grand strategic interest in jointly leading a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM), which was elaborated upon by the author in his latest piece about Moscow’s “New Detente” with the West and importantly given an indirect endorsement by the Valdai Club in its latest publication about “The Eurasian Chord and the Oceanic Ring: Russia and India as the Third Force in a New World Order“, in which Moscow’s top think tank toyed with rebranding this concept as the “Peaceful Development Movement”. That said, Russia is sincere in its desire to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia and isn’t hiding behind euphemisms to disguise any zero-sum ambitions like India is, so it’s entirely feasible that Moscow might seriously consider resuming the original “balancing” intentions of its “Return to South Asia” (prior to them having been offset by its partisan support of India on Kashmir).

Back To “Balancing”?

By doing so, not only would Russia prove its neutrality in the New Cold War, but it would also be advancing the “Golden Ring” geopolitical concept of strengthening ties between itself, Iran, Pakistan, and China, as well as preempting the possibility of becoming too strategically dependent on India (seeing as how its “Pivot to India” in Vladivostok was due in part to similar concerns vis-a-vis China). These interconnected outcomes would reassure Russia’s partners that its joint leadership of the Neo-NAM isn’t against any of them but is instead intended simply to maintain “balance” in the hemisphere. The resultant goodwill that Russia would receive from them, and especially the global pivot state of Pakistan, might even give it the edge over India in this nascent “balancing” structure that it’s jointly building with it and therefore enable Moscow to keep New Delhi’s pro-Western leanings towards the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific” strategy of “containing” China in check.

In other words, although Russia’s leading participation in E-CPEC+ would be driven mostly by economic interests, it would nevertheless also have a strategic impact in maintaining the intra-Neo-NAM “balance” between itself and India, which would in turn allow it to avoid becoming the latter’s “junior partner” in this informal organization by providing it with the possibility of leveraging its future regional influence with other partners through this project’s successful completion in order to “re-balance” their relationship if the need ever arose. The very thought of this happening would hang over the head of Indian strategists like a Damocles’ sword in a way that’s impossible for India to ever reciprocally do to Russia even if it throws its full weight behind the US’ “Indo-Pacific” vision since that decision wouldn’t have any direct impact on Russia like its partner’s growing relations with the “Golden Ring” and the global pivot state of Pakistan would have on India.

Concluding Thoughts

The balance of power in the transregional space between West, Central, and South Asia was on the brink of being redefined had Trump not unexpectedly called off his country’s peace talks with the Taliban, but while the scenario predicted by the author in his recent analysis on the topic could still unfold if a deal is ultimately struck sometime in the future, it might have to be greatly modified to account for Iran’s abrupt change of approach towards India after its Ambassador there just announced his country’s interest in exploring the possibility of building E-CPEC+. The unforeseen timing of this development could change the grand strategic calculus at play by providing Russia with the much-needed opportunity to show the rest of Eurasia that it wasn’t “bought off” as India’s “junior partner” for “balancing” China through the jointly pursued Neo-NAM after the outcome of last week’s Eastern Economic Forum. Russia can put to rest any suspicions about its long-term intentions by actively participating in the construction of E-CPEC+ and strengthening its ties with each of the three other involved countries as a result, which could also enable it to keep India’s pro-Western leanings in check too.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

We Are All Hostages of 9/11

September 12th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

Afghanistan was bombed and invaded because of 9/11. I was there from the start, even before 9/11. On August 20, 2001, I interviewed commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, the “Lion of the Panjshir,” who told me about an “unholy alliance” of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the ISI (Pakistani intel).

Back in Peshawar, I learned that something really big was coming: my article was published by Asia Times on August 30. Commander Massoud was killed on September 9: I received a terse email from a Panjshir source, only stating, “the commander has been shot.” Two days later, 9/11 happened.

And yet, the day before, none other than Osama bin Laden, in person, was in a Pakistani hospital in Rawalpindi, receiving treatment, as CBS reported. Bin Laden was proclaimed the perpetrator already at 11am on 9/11 – with no investigation whatsoever. It should have been not exactly hard to locate him in Pakistan and “bring him to justice.”

In December 2001 I was in Tora Bora tracking bin Laden – under B-52 bombers and side by side with Pashtun mujahideen. Later, in 2011, I would revisit the day bin Laden vanished forever.

One year after 9/11, I was back in Afghanistan for an in-depth investigation of the killing of Massoud. By then it was possible to establish a Saudi connection: the letter of introduction for Massoud’s killers, who posed as journalists, was facilitated by commander Sayyaf, a Saudi asset.

For three years my life revolved around the Global War on Terror; most of the time I lived literally on the road, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Brussels. At the start of ‘Shock and Awe’ on Iraq, in March 2003, Asia Times published my in-depth investigation of which neo-cons concocted the war on Iraq.

In 2004, roving across the US, I re-traced the Taliban’s trip to Texas, and how a top priority, since the Clinton years all the way to the neo-cons, was about what I had baptized as “Pipelineistan” – in this case how to build the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, bypassing Iran and Russia, and extending US control of Central and South Asia.

Later on, I delved into the hard questions the 9/11 Commission never asked, and how Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign was totally conditioned by and dependent on 9/11.

Michael Ruppert, a CIA whistleblower, who may – or may not – have committed suicide in 2014, was a top 9/11 analyst. We exchanged a lot of information, and always emphasized the same points: Afghanistan was all about (existent) heroin and (non-existent) pipelines.

In 2011, the late, great Bob Parry would debunk more Afghanistan lies. And in 2017, I would detail a top reason why the US will never leave Afghanistan: the heroin rat line.

US troops at an opium field in Afghanistan

Now, President Trump may have identified a possible Afghan deal – which the Taliban, who control two-thirds of the country, are bound to refuse, as it allows withdrawal of only 5,000 out of 13,000 US troops. Moreover, the US ‘Deep State’ is absolutely against any deal, as well as India and the rickety government in Kabul.

But Pakistan and China are in favor, especially because Beijing plans to incorporate Kabul into the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and have Afghanistan admitted as a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, thus attaching the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass to the ongoing Eurasia integration process.

Praying for a Pearl

Eighteen years after the game-changing fact, we all remain hostages of 9/11. US neocons, gathered at the Project for the New American Century, had been praying for a “Pearl Harbor” to reorient US foreign policy since 1997. Their prayers were answered beyond their wildest dreams.

Already in The Grand Chessboard, also published in 1997, former National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, nominally not a neocon, had pointed out that the American public “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

So, Brzezinski added,

America “may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” HREEEEE

As an attack on the homeland, 9/11 generated the Global War on Terror, launched at 11pm on the same day, initially christened “The Long War” by the Pentagon, later sanitized as Overseas Contingency Operations by the Obama administration. This cost trillions of dollars, killed over half a million people and branched out into illegal wars against seven Muslim nations – all justified on “humanitarian grounds” and allegedly supported by the “international community.”

Year after year, 9/11 is essentially a You Have The Right to Accept Only The Official Version ritual ceremony, even as widespread evidence suggests the US government knew 9/11 would happen and did not stop it.

Three days after 9/11, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that in June 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA that Middle East terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.”

In August 2001, President Putin ordered Russian intel to tell the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings, MSNBC revealed in an interview with Putin that was broadcast on September 15 that year.

No US government agency has released any information on who used foreknowledge of 9/11 in the financial markets. The US Congress did not even raise the issue. In Germany, investigative financial journalist Lars Schall has been working for years on a massive study detailing to a great extent insider trading before 9/11.

While NORAD sleeps

Discrediting the official, immutable 9/11 narrative remains the ultimate taboo. Hundreds of architects and engineers engaged in meticulous technical debunking of all aspects of 9/11’s official story are summarily dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”

In contrast, skepticism rooted in Greek and Latin tradition came up with arguably the best documentary on 9/11: Zero, an Italian production. Just as arguably the most stimulating book on 9/11 is also Italian: The Myth of September 11, by Roberto Quaglia, which offers a delicately nuanced narrative of 9/11 as a myth structured as a movie. The book became a huge hit in Eastern Europe.

Serious questions suggest quite plausible suspects to be investigated regarding 9/11, far more than 19 Arabs with box cutters. Ten years ago, in Asia Times, I asked 50 questions, some of them extremely detailed, about 9/11. After reader demand and suggestions, I added 20 more. None of these questions were convincingly addressed – not to mention answered – by the official narrative.

World public opinion is directed to believe that on the morning of 9/11 four airliners, presumably hijacked by 19 Arabs with box cutters, traveled undisturbed – for two hours – across the most controlled airspace on the planet, which is supervised by the most devastating military apparatus ever.

American Airlines Flight 11 deviated from its path at 8.13am and crashed into the first World Trade Center tower at 8.57am. Only at 8.46am did NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defense Command – order that two intercepting F-15s take off from Otis military base.

By a curious coincidence a Pentagon war game was in effect on the morning of 9/11 – so air-controllers’ radars may have registered only ‘ghost signals’ of nonexistent aircraft simulating an air attack. Well, it was much more complicated than that, as demonstrated by professional pilots.

‘Angel was next’

World public opinion is also directed to believe that a Boeing 757 – with a wingspan of 38 meters – managed to penetrate the Pentagon through a six-meter-wide hole and at the height of the first floor. A Boeing 757 with landing gear is 13 meters high. Airliners electronically refuse to crash – so it’s quite a feat to convince one to fly five to 10 meters above the ground, landing gear on, at a lightning speed of 800 kilometers an hour.

According to the official narrative, the Boeing 757 literally pulverized itself. Yet even after pulverization, it managed to perforate six walls of three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a two-meter wide hole in the last wall but only slightly damaging the second and third rings. The official narrative is that the hole was caused by the plane’s nose – still quite hard even after pulverization. Yet the rest of the plane – a mass of 100 tons traveling at 800 kilometers an hour – miraculously stopped at the first ring.

All that happened under the stewardship of one Hani Hanjour, who three weeks before had been judged by his flight instructors to be incapable of piloting a Cessna. Hanjour, nonetheless, managed to accomplish an ultra-fast spiral descent at 270 degrees, aligning at a maximum 10 meters above ground, minutely calibrating the trajectory, and keeping a cruise speed of roughly 800 kilometers an hour.

At 9.37am, Hanjour hit precisely the Pentagon’s budget analysts’ office, where everyone was busy working on the mysterious disappearance of no less than $2.3 trillion that Defense Secretary Donald “Known Unknowns” Rumsfeld, in a press conference the day before, said could not be tracked. So, it’s not only Boeings that get pulverized inside the Pentagon.

World public opinion is also directed to believe that Newtonian physics was suspended as a special bonus for WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11 (not to mention WTC 7, which was not even hit by any plane). The slower WTC tower took 10 seconds to fall 411 meters, starting from immobility. So it fell at 148 kilometers an hour. Considering the initial acceleration time, it was a free fall, not the least impeded by 47 massive, vertical steel beams that composed the tower’s structural heart.

World public opinion is also directed to believe that United Airlines Flight 93 – 150 tons of aircraft with 45 people, 200 seats, luggage, a wingspan of 38 meters – crashed in a field in Pennsylvania and also literally pulverized itself, totally disappearing inside a hole six meters by three meters wide and only two meters deep.

Suddenly, Air Force One was “the only plane in the sky.” Colonel Mark Tillman, who was on board, recalled:

“We get this report that there’s a call saying ‘Angel’ was next. No one really knows now where the comment came from – it got mistranslated or garbled amid the White House, the Situation Room, the radio operators. ‘Angel’ was our code name. The fact that they knew about ‘Angel,’ well, you had to be in the inner circle.”

This means that 19 Arabs with box cutters, and most of all their handlers, surely must have been “in the inner circle.” Inevitably, this was never fully investigated.

Already in 1997, Brzezinski had warned,

“it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”

In the end, much to the despair of US neocons, all the combined sound and fury of 9/11 and the Global War on Terror/Overseas Contingency Operations, in less than two decades, ended up metastasized into not only a challenger but a Russia-China strategic partnership. This is the real “enemy” – not al-Qaeda, a flimsy figment of the CIA’s imagination, rehabilitated and sanitized as “moderate rebels” in Syria.

*

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.

9/11: You Weren’t Stupid, Mr. Brown!

September 12th, 2019 by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

Aaron Brown, news anchor during most of CNN’s coverage on September 11, 2001, was interviewed on the 15th anniversary of the event. He said in that interview that he had felt “profoundly stupid” when he was reporting the destruction of the first Tower (the South Tower) on that morning.

I…I will tell you…that a million things had been running through my mind about what might happen. About the effect of a jet plane hitting people above where the impact was, what might be going on in those buildings. And it just never occurred to me that they’d come down. And I thought…it’s the only time I thought, maybe you just don’t have what it takes to do a story like this. Because it just had never occurred to me.” (CNN, Sept. 11, 2016, interviewer Brian Stelter)

Is it not remarkable that Brown was made to feel stupid, and to feel inadequate as a news anchor, during the precise moments of his coverage of that day when his senses and his mind were fully engaged and on the right track?

Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness.

He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon:

Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion…we can see a billowing smoke rising…and I can’t…I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this…it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower…” (9:59:07 a.m.)

Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news anchor. He let his audience know that while he did not know what had happened it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play, the explosion hypothesis and the structural failure hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities, to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.

Here are examples of his setting forth—after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed—the rival hypotheses:

and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed. And that’s what we saw and that’s what we’re looking at.” (10:03:47)

This is just a few minutes ago…we don’t know if…something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened…it just collapsed.” (10:04:36 a.m.)

we believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both Towers of the World Trade Centre, have collapsed. Whether there were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell you.” (10:29:21 a.m.)

Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making these huge noises as they came down.” (11:17:45 a.m.)

Brown’s honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:

it almost looks…it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see except there is nothing controlled about this…this is devastation.” (10:53:10 a.m.)

His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.

Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.

Brown: Was there…Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?” (10:41:08 a.m.)

Palmer: “Well, from our distance…I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some “boom” and then the building fold in on itself.”

Two others were more definite about what they perceived.

Brown: Rose, whadya got? (10:29:43 a.m.)

Rose Arce: I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up…

Brown: Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there? (10:57:51 a.m.)

Patty: Yes, I am here.

Brown: Whaddya got?

Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.

As can be seen, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing. Even the news caption at the bottom of the screen shortly after the destruction of the South Tower (10:03:12 a.m.) is striking to read today:

“THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK”

After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. “Authorities” are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception.

First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the Mayor of New York City on the line.

Brown: Sir, do you believe that…was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?” (12:31:45 p.m.)

Giuliani: I don’t, I don’t know, I, uh, I, uh…I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second ‘cause I was in a building when the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure.”

Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning.

Finally, Brown brought in an engineer, Jim DeStefano–associated, we were told, with the National Council of Structural Engineers. DeStefano’s brief comments put an end to Brown’s explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN’s news coverage safe for public consumption.

Brown: Jim De Stefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sort of catastrophic moments. He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits…what…and I hope this isn’t a terribly oversimplified question, but what happens to the building itself? (04:20:45 p.m.)

DeStefano: …It’s a tremendous impact that’s applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it’s clear that that impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.

I am not in a position to call DeStefano a fake or to claim he was reading from a script given to him by others, but I am prepared to say he was extremely irresponsible. He did not say “here is one hypothesis.” He said, in effect, “this is what happened.” He was in no position to make this claim. There had been no photographic or video analysis of the building destruction, no analysis of the remains of the WTC, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, nor any of the other methods of evidence gathering. He was shooting in the dark. He was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth. As we have known for years now, DeStefano not only could have been wrong: he was wrong.[1]

And let us remember that the entire War on Terror, with its suffering and oppression, has depended on this false structural failure hypothesis. No structural failure hypothesis, no guilty Muslim fanatics. No guilty Muslim fanatics, no War on Terror.

Some readers will feel I am too generous with Brown and with CNN. But I am not interested in portraying them as broadly “dissident” or as on the political Left. I am simply interested in calling things as I see them and giving credit where credit is due. Anyone who wants a contrast to Brown’s performance is free to watch the work of Fox News anchor, Jon Scott, on September 11, 2001. The same confidence that allowed him to name Bin Laden as a suspect 42 seconds after the impact of the second plane allowed him to proclaim the structural failure hypothesis directly after the destruction of the South Tower. He persisted even when his reporters in the field clearly spoke of explosions.

David Lee Miller reported:

we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us…” (10:01:17 a.m.)

Rick Leventhal said:

The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.” (10:06:39 a.m.)

News anchor Scott was troubled by none of this. He overrode, silenced and patronized Fox reporters. At no point did he even acknowledge the existence of a second reasonable hypothesis for the Trade Center destruction.

Of course, it is true that by the end of the day of September 11, 2001 CNN and Fox were singing from the same hymnbook. But I believe we ought to acknowledge Brown’s brief, shining moment and consider what might happen if journalists found their courage and trusted their senses and their minds.

*

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 OffGuardian.

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Same-day coverage by CNN and Fox for September 11, 2001 has been sporadically available on the Internet. My notes are from my own previously downloaded files. Times should be accurate to within two seconds.

Notes

[1] Many works have appeared over the years refuting the account of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But special note should be taken of two sources:

Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015.

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, First Amended Grand Jury Petition, filed July 30, 2018 at the office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, N.Y.

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-first-amended-grand-jury-petition/

In addition, a recent academic report on the related destruction of World Trade Center 7 destroys whatever confidence we might have in NIST’s accounts:

J. L. Hulsey, et al, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (draft), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Sept. 2019.

https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/signup_page/uaf-wtc7-draft-report?killorg=True&loggedOut=True

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Many who oppose the aggressive foreign policy of the United States under President Donald Trump, which has resulted in record numbers of bombs dropped, regime change operations against Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran and Hong Kong, the abusive use of unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) and record military budgets, cheered when uber-hawk, John Bolton was removed as the National Security Advisor.

Bolton undermined Trump numerous times such as when Trump wanted to get out of Syria and sought negotiations with North Korea and Iran. Bolton led Trump into regime-change operations in Nicaragua and Venezuela, both of which backfired.

The firing of Bolton is an opportunity for Trump to make a major course correction on foreign policy as the 2020 election heats up. The escalation of military aggression and regime-change actions that have occurred in the Trump era have been inconsistent with his previous campaign statements, which indicated he opposed never-ending wars, nation-building, and interventions abroad and wanted to focus on fixing problems at home in the United States.

Trump has long expressed skepticism about US foreign intervention in activities that he has labeled as “nation-building.” During the presidential election campaign, Trump criticized the war in Iraq, claiming he opposed George W. Bush’s Iraq War at the time and accused Bush of lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. In October 2015, he criticized US interventions saying,

“We’re nation-building. We can’t do it. We have to build our own nation. We’re nation-building, trying to tell people who have [had] dictators or worse for centuries how to run their own countries.”

In December 2016, before his inauguration, Trump said that the policy of “intervention and chaos” must come to an end. He pledged to “build up our military not as an act of aggression, but as an act of prevention. In short, we seek peace through strength.”

Trump has opportunities to take another course, one that is more consistent with his rhetoric. Chairman Kim of North Korea said he was open to another meeting with President Trump on September 10, the next day, Bolton was fired. Shortly after the firing of Bolton, Secretary of State Pompeo gave the green light for Trump to meet with the President of Iran without preconditions at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in a few weeks. The firing of Bolton may not be enough, Iranian officials have refused any meeting until sanctions are lifted. After Bolton’s firing, President Hassan Rouhani said Trump “should distance itself from ‘warmongers’” after the dismissal of Bolton.

When it comes to Latin America, Trump has been silent, especially about his failed coup in Venezuela. Trump’s previous National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster, strongly recommended to President Trump not to pursue a military option in Venezuela when Trump suggested it in 2017. He explained that Latin American governments were against foreign intervention in the region. John Bolton gave contrary advice when he dubbed Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba the “Troika of Tyranny” and gave Trump bad advice by urging a strategy of escalating intervention in Venezuela, recognition of a failed coup government and military threats.

When Bolton was fired, the New York Times reported:

 “Mr. Trump also grew disenchanted with Mr. Bolton over the failed effort to push out President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. Rather than the easy victory he was led to anticipate, the president has found himself bogged down in a conflict over which he has less influence than he had assumed. The political opposition backed by the White House could not turn Venezuela’s military against Mr. Maduro and has been stuck in a stalemate for months.”

President Maduro has consistently expressed his willingness to meet with President Trump, despite the brutal economic war, military threats and recognition of the fraudulent Juan Guaido. Trump knows that Maduro is solidly in place as the president of Venezuela. US efforts to undermine his re-election in May of 2018 failed, the multiple coup efforts with Juan Guaido have failed, Venezuela exposed a series of terrorist plots the US was backing and there is little support for military intervention. In addition, because of Trump’s threats, Venezuela has strengthened its relationships with China and Russia, bringing them into Latin America in ways they have never happened before and squeezing out US interests.

John Bolton has put Trump in a trap in Venezuela. Trump has two choices: continued his failed strategy of regime change which has become a quagmire or stop interfering in the internal affairs of the sovereign nation of Venezuela. Once Trump recognizes that Venezuela is an independent nation he can have a diplomatic relationship with the country as exits between most nations. It is time to give up on the embarrassing failed Bolton strategy and pursue a new approach of non-interference and diplomacy.

For most of its history, the US and Venezuela have been allies. It has only been during the eras of Clinton through Obama and the Bolton-era during the Trump administration that the US has been in conflict with Venezuela. Trump can now reverse those mistaken policies and put the United States back on a constructive track.

*

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

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

Farewelling Dr No: The Sacking of John Bolton

September 12th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Every time the president, or Pompeo, or anyone in the [Trump] administration came up with an idea, they had to face Dr No.” — Cliff Kupchan, Chairman of the Eurasia Group, The Washington Post, Sep 11, 2011. 

It was compelling viewing (one does not so much read Twitter as see it as a series of violent flashes).  John Bolton, the armed-and-ready national security adviser who has been tiring of the US President’s jerks and adjustments, had floated the prospect of resignation. 

“I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow.’” 

To the New York Times, Bolton reiterated the account. 

“Offered last night without [Trump] asking.  Slept on it and gave it to him this morning.”

Hours are lethal in Trumpland; entire worlds can implode at that time, and new ones grow with equal violence.  President Donald Trump was keen to set the record crooked. 

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed in the White House.  I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration”. 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was certainly one of them. 

“There were many times Ambassador Bolton and I disagreed; that’s for sure.” 

It pays, however, to qualify: “But that’s true for lots of people with whom I interact.”

What matters in a Trump sacking is less the normality of its occurrence but its manner of execution.  The axe is always held aloft, and, as with any court run by a fickle despot, may fall at any given time.  On Tuesday morning, the signs of any movement regarding Bolton were entirely absent.  At 11, a news briefing was announced by the White House for 1.30 that afternoon.  Bolton would keep company with Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a chat on terrorism.  Bolton never appeared, leaving Pompeo and Mnuchin to chuckle before the cameras.

Pompeo, unlike Bolton, has certainly found it easier keeping up appearances.  Disagreements with the President are kept close to his broad chest.  He is the manager of Trump’s ever changing approach to policy, and capable articulating foreign policy swerves.  But do not be fooled, suggest the talking heads. 

“Pompeo is as much a hawk on Iran as Bolton,” claims John Glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.  Glaser’s diagnosis of it all?  “It mostly boils down to Bolton’s reputation as a bureaucratic manipulator who makes enemies within the executive branch as a matter of habit.”

The manipulation had been placed in another register over the US-Taliban peace agreement.  Trump was happy with the detail; Bolton wanted the agreement sunk as textbook example of capitulation.  Trump’s circle of aides had gotten irate as Bolton’s public dissatisfaction grew.  There were leaks into the atmosphere, and not very pleasant ones at that. 

The decision to evict Bolton could easily have been caused by something else, the straw that tantalisingly, and destructively, broke the camel’s back.  On Monday, the possibility of easing sanctions against Iran as part of a preliminary step to meeting Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani, was mooted by the President and aides.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was certainly open to the suggestion.  Trump tested the water and concluded that “they’d like to make a deal.”  A far cry from June, when Bolton’s apocalyptic fantasy was being entertained: a possible airstrike on Iran.  With 10 minutes to spare, Trump called it off.

On Wednesday, the president attempted to add more light and shine to the canvas.  Areas of disagreement with Bolton were articulated.  The former adviser had not been “getting along with people” in the administration; he had been “way out of line” on Venezuela.  Such points merely underscore the difficulties Bolton was always going to face: from his moustache, which Trump detests, to his priestly dogmatism in international relations. 

North Korea was always a case in point: for Trump, a moment for the picture books, the firm handshake for history, and promises for rosy readjustments; for Bolton, a chance to cause a flutter of terror in Pyongyang, airing the view that a “Libya” solution for nuclear disarmament might be in the offing.  (That corker eventually assisted the toppling of the Qaddafi regime, hardly a recipe for smooth talking and deal making.) 

The point was something Trump did not miss

“We were set back very badly when John Bolton talked about the Libyan model!  And he made a mistake!  As soon as he mentioned that, the Libyan model, what a disaster!  Take a look at what happened to Qaddafi with the Libyan model.”

Bolton’s sabre-rattling enthusiasts were bound to see things differently.  “While John Bolton was national security adviser for the last 17 months, there have been no bad deals,” claimed a Bolton confidante.  In another take, Bolton has been portrayed as the less mad of the two.  Jay Nordlinger, senior editor at The National Review, saw JB as a model of consistency. Trump, on the other hand, had been dancing merrily off queue, breaking much fine china on the way. Certainly on Russia; certainly on Ukraine.  At the last G7 meeting in Biarritz, Trump expressed his desire that Russia be readmitted to the club. He sported a curious account of Crimea, which was “sort of taken away from President Obama”.  It was “embarrassing” for him, being “outsmarted by Putin” as he was.

Trump had put a halt on military aid to Ukraine and shown a coldness to the newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky.  His idea here is to push for a Ukrainian investigation of Joe Biden, the stuff of side-splitting hilarity.  Bolton, on the other hand, was in Kiev paying respect to Ukrainians felled “in the defence of their nation against Russian aggression.”  In saluting “the Stache” Nordlinger was hoping for his return.  The chicken hawks will have their day.

Such shuffling and bloodletting is normally the stuff that thrills political wonks and media vultures.  Engineered in-house political assassinations are manna from heaven, and supply good copy in bureaucratic hot houses like Washington.  But Trump has made political sacking the stuff of banal ritual, ceremonial inevitability made that much duller for its frequency.  Bolton came in praise, worked in disagreement and discomfort, and was ejected.  Time for the next mug to take his place.

*

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

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 Christopher Halloran via Shutterstock

Netanyahu Repeated His Vow to Annex West Bank Land if Reelected

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Israel is the only nation without official borders. Its longstanding policy calls for redrawing the Middle East map.

It aims to annex more territory, including from neighboring states and all valued parts of Judea and Samaria.

Ahead of last April’s Israeli elections, Netanyahu said the following:

“A Palestinian state will endanger our existence (sic), and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years (sic). No prime minister has withstood such pressure (sic). We must control our destiny,” adding:

“Will we move ahead to the next stage? Yes. I will extend sovereignty, but I don’t distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated ones, because each settlement is Israeli, and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty.”

“I will not divide Jerusalem. I will not evacuate any community, and I will make sure we control the territory west of Jordan…I promised and it will happen at the soonest opportunity.”

At the time, Israel’s Channel 13 said Netanyahu is “more ready than ever” to annex and extend Israeli law to the settlements.

Israel controls the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, annexation if occurs to formalize what already exists.

On Tuesday, feeding red meat to his base pre-election next week, Netanyahu said if reelected he’ll annex the Jordan Valley.

It’s around 30% of West Bank territory. He called Trump’s no-peace/peace plan a “historic opportunity” to annex Palestinian land, adding:

“…I want to apply sovereignty in the communities and other areas with maximum coordination with the US.”

“But there is one place where it is possible to apply Israeli sovereignty immediately after the election.”

“Today I am announcing my intention to apply, with the formation of the next government, Israeli sovereignty on the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea.”

Netanyahu wants all settlements annexed, earlier saying:

“All the settlements, without exception, those that are in blocs and those that aren’t, need to remain under Israeli sovereignty. This will happen.”

On Tuesday, a Trump regime statement said

“(t)here is no change in United States policy at this time. We will release our vision for peace (sic) after the Israeli election and work to determine the best path forward to bring long sought security, opportunity and stability to the region (sic).”

Joint (Arab) List chairman Ayman Odeh called Netanyahu’s campaign propaganda his “vision of apartheid.”

Israel controls the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, including illegal settlements, outposts, military areas, no-go zones, checkpoints and other barriers, nature reserves, commercial areas, by-pass roads, and the separation wall — constructed more for land theft than security.

According to StoptheWall.org:

“The Wall is an integral part of the Zionist project to remove Palestinians from Palestine.”

It’s being built on 10% or more of Palestinian land. B’Tselem said its construction “la(id) the groundwork for” annexing the settlements, including “much land for their future expansion.”

It’s part of Israel’s plan to isolate Palestinian communities from each other. Still under construction, its 712 km route is double the Green Line’s length — the 1949 armistice lines established between Israel and neighboring Arab states.

Israel seized West Jerusalem in 1948, the remainder in 1967, formally and illegally annexing the UN-designated international city in 1980.

Years earlier, a two-state solution was possible, no longer. Netanyahu and majority hardline MKs reject the idea.

Israel has virtual control over the entire West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza by blockading and isolating the Strip.

Whether Netanyahu is reelected or defeated next week won’t matter for Palestinians.

Their fundamental rights are denied no matter what ruling coalition is formed — including no chance for self-determination, free from repressive occupation.

In response to Netanyahu’s Tuesday remarks, PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi tweeted the following:

“Netanyahu’s cheap pandering to his extremist racist base exposes his real political agenda of superimposing ‘greater Israel’ on all of historical Palestine & carrying out an ethnic cleansing agenda. All bets are off! Dangerous aggression. Perpetual conflict.”

That’s how it’s always been since creation of the Jewish state on stolen Palestinian land.

*

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.

Executive summary

“In 2018 and early 2019, the performance of the Palestinian economy and humanitarian conditions reached an all-time low. Per capita income fell, mass unemployment increased, poverty deepened and the environmental toll of occupation has been rising in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The Palestinian people are denied the right to exploit oil and natural gas resources and thereby deprived of billions of dollars in revenue.

The international community should help the Palestinian people to secure their right to oil and gas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and ascertain their legitimate share in the natural resources collectively owned by several neighbouring States in the region.

In March 2019, the Government of Israel started to deduct $11.5 million monthly (equivalent to $138 million annually) from Palestinian clearance revenues.

The Palestinian National Authority responded that it would not accept anything less than the full amount of its rightful clearance revenues, which represent two thirds of Palestinian fiscal revenue. This fiscal shock is compounded by declining donor support.

UNCTAD continues to respond positively to the needs of the Palestinian people. However, securing extrabudgetary resources remains critical to fulfilling the requests in the Nairobi Maafikiano and in General Assembly resolutions for UNCTAD to report on the economic costs of occupation for the Palestinian people,”

***

The UNCTAD report focusses on the impoverishment of the Palestinian population: “Falling per capita income and worsening depression-level unemployment”

It also examines in length how Israel took control of Palestine’s offshore oil and natural gas reserves in derogation of both Israeli and international law.

This constitutes an act of outright theft by Israel of billions of dollars of revenue, which is barely acknowledged by the Western media.

Below are selected excerpts of the UNCTAD Report pertaining to the theft of oil and gas revenues (emphasis added by Global Research):

Studies by geologists and natural resources economists have separately confirmed that the Occupied Palestinian Territory lies above considerable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth off the coast of Gaza and in the West Bank. Within this context, UNCTAD (2019) prepared a study to sketch preliminary outlines of the economic loss incurred by the Palestinian people as a result of being denied their right to develop and exploit their oil and natural gas resources.

… In 1999, the BG Group (BGG) discovered a large gas field (Gaza Marine) at a distance of 17 to 21 nautical miles off the Gaza coast. In November 1999, within the bounds of the Oslo Accords, which give PNA maritime jurisdiction over its waters up to 20 nautical miles from the coast, PNA signed a 25-year contract for gas exploration with BGG. In 2000, BGG drilled two wells in the field and carried out feasibility studies with good results.

… With reserves estimated at 1 trillion cubic feet of good quality natural gas, it was envisioned that the Palestinian people would be able to satisfy domestic demand and export the remainder. The 25-year contract gave BGG 90 per cent of the licence shares and PNA, 10 per cent, until production began. Subsequently, the PNA share was slated to increase to 40 per cent.

In July 2000, the Government of Israel granted BGG authorization to drill the first well, Marine 1. The authorization to drill the second well and the successful gas strikes at the two wells promised a potential windfall for the Palestinian people. In September 2000, the head of PNA, accompanied by Palestinian businesspeople and the media, lit the flame proving the presence of gas at the BGG offshore exploration platform. The PNA agreement with BGG included field development and the construction of a gas pipeline and the licence covered the entire Gaza offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities.

In May 2002, the Government of Israel agreed to negotiate an agreement for an annual supply of 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for a period of 10 to 15 years. Yet in 2003, the Government of Israel reversed its position, stating that funds flowing to PNA could be used to support terrorism. However, in April 2007, the Government of Israel approved a proposal to renew discussions with BGG, whereby Israel would purchase 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian natural gas for $4 billion annually, starting in 2009, with profits in the order of $2 billion, of which $1 billion was to go to Palestinians. It was argued that this would generate mutual benefits deemed to foster a good atmosphere for peace.

The Government of Israel, however, had different plans for sharing revenues with Palestinians. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up to formulate a deal with BGG, bypassing Palestinians. It appeared that the Israeli team wanted the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insisted that no money should go to the Hamas-controlled government in Gaza. The effect was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between PNA and BGG.

In November 2008, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures, Energy and Water Resources of Israel instructed the Israel Electric Corporation to enter into negotiations with BGG on the purchase of natural gas from the BGG offshore concession in Gaza. However, a new territorial arrangement emerged subsequent to the Israeli military operation in Gaza in December 2008, featuring the militarization and control of the entire Gaza coastline and maritime areas and the de facto confiscation of Palestinian natural gas fields and their integration into Israel’s contiguous offshore installations.

Nineteen years have passed since the drilling of Marine 1 and Marine 2. Since PNA has not been able to exploit these fields, the accumulated losses are in the billions of dollars and the Palestinian people have been denied the benefits of using this natural resource to finance socioeconomic development and meet their fiscal and energy needs.

 

Read the full UNCTAD report here.(pdf)

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Israel Steals Palestine’s Offshore Oil and Gas Revenues. Outright Theft. Billions of Dollars Stolen
  • Tags: , , ,

Question. What leader saw his country’s military dropping 26,171 bombs in one year?

That works out at every day of that year, the country’s military dropped 72 bombs, or 3 bombs every hour, 24 hours a day, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a Nobel peace prize winner.

Answer: Barack Obama. That same year, 2016, special operators from the United States could be found in 70 percent of the world’s nations.

One last question. What UN Security Council member has not fired a shot in anger outside its borders for 30 years but is nonetheless being accused of military expansionism?

Answer: China.

They see things differently in China. What we in the West refer to as the Middle East, they call the Middle West.

There are many in the West who view China as a military threat, a clear and present danger. China, needless to say, see things from a different perspective.

The United States occupies prime global real estate. It has two friendly neighbors in Canada and Mexico. China has strained relations stretching back centuries with many of its neighbors. These include India, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom), China is the only one that has not fired a single military shot outside its border in thirty years. A naval clash with Vietnam in 1988 was the last time a shot was fired in anger.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was, in the West, viewed as a victory for human rights. In China it was viewed as a damming indictment of poor economic planning. China learned its lesson. Economic growth must come before military expenditure. The Chinese economy may not be as strong as official figures suggest. No one here really believes that the economy is growing at 6.5 per cent annually.

But there can be no doubting the economic growth over the last four decades or so.

By comparison after adjusting for inflation, workers’ wages in the US are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973 when Nixon was in the White House. Annual real wage growth is just below 0.2 percent. The US economy has experienced long-term wage stagnation.

Trade between the US and China grew from $5 billion in 1980 to $660 billion in 2018. A communist run country is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury securities. This funds the federal debt and keeps US interest rates low.

China is also the largest US merchandise trading partner, biggest source of imports, and third-largest US export market.

Have the Chinese played fast and loose with global trade rules? Probably. Do they try to use their money to buy political influence overseas? Probably. Does China use unfair trade practices (such as an undervalued currency and subsidies given to domestic producers) to flood US markets with low-cost goods? Yes. But China is not to blame for the stagnation in US wages. That was apparent long before China was a factor.

Since 1978 China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and created the largest middle class in the world.

The Chinese people are not blind to the inequalities, injustices and brutality in their own society. The Chinese people admire much about the US. Many send their children to be educated there.

The Chinese people would relish the opportunity to have a greater say in the running of their affairs.

But history and its lessons are important in China.

They have learned from bitter experience over several thousand years of history that they suffer most when the central government is weak and divided.

After the Opium War of 1842 the country was torn asunder by invasions, civil wars and famines. Since 1949 its borders have been secure and after the disaster of the Mao years, its people have a standard of living unimaginable when Nixon was in the White House in 1973 reflecting on meeting Mao the previous year and wondering how best to deal with a word that was entering the political lexicon; Watergate.

*

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

Tom Clifford is an Irish journalist based in China. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

As Hurricane Dorian approached the Bahamas, the mainstream media  “scared the hell” out of thousands of Floridians as they trembled with the forecast of a calamitous weather scenario about to ravage the entire east coast.  Intimidated by the power of the storm and their own lack of hurricane smarts, their trepidation was understandable since the MSM can take credit for assorted faulty disasters like WMD’s in Iraq, Russian collusion influencing the 2016 election and the complexity of 9/11 was accomplished by unemployed Saudi Arabian wanna-be pilots armed with box cutters.

In other words, since only 6% of the American public have confidence in the MSM to provide  objective factual reporting, can we realistically expect the media to report on whether an extreme weather disturbance is geo-engineered by pulsing microwave transmissions or a true phenomena of Mother Nature and how would the public know the difference?

Before the next potential weather cataclysm is upon us, it would behoove citizens to do their own due diligence to determine for themselves if a hurricane’s path is a real threat, the result of media hoopla or one meant to frighten the public into fear and submission.

With their storm shutters firmly screwed on, thousands of Florida’s east coast residents lived in a cave for the first few days of September before they realized that Hurricane Dorian’s category 5 storm was not going to materialize as the Weather Channel and MSM meteorologists predicted.  Dorian’s assault on the Bahamas notwithstanding, the Greatest Hurricane Ever was down graded to a category 3 and then to a tropical storm avoiding landfall along the Florida coast.

As it turned out, there was no need to suffer through the ad nauseam media hubris and bluster as stressed out residents could have tuned into the National Hurricane Center (NHC) maps or the Hurricane.Terrapin.com (HT) storm track plot.  Both sites provided accurate detailed information  clarifying some of the MSM’s problematic predictions and demonstrated that Dorian’s ‘Eye’; that is the Eye wall, potentially the most damaging part of any hurricane, was never directly threatening the Florida coast.  

Barring a last minute shift in direction, theEye wall was not going to make landfall and instead would take its treacherous low pressure area out to sea. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale identifies an ‘absolute devastation” event as “in the path of the Eye of a landfall Category 5 In the case of Dorian, Category 5 was not traveling the same path as the Eye as the NHC and HT clearly demonstrated.

However, little, if any, of that crucial information was conveyed to millions of anxious Floridians who were left with the belief that an ominous Category 5 was imminently about to destroy their homes along with the entire coastline.  It is true that hurricanes, like the weather and climate in general, may be notoriously unpredictable, always shifting and changing but both of the aforementioned websites offered alternative factual basis for the storm’s evolution into a less threatening tropical storm.

Nor was any mainstream  explanation offered that as Category 5 is identified as one band of weather, it naturally follows that there will be a downgrade to Cat 4 and so on down the line as both NHC and NT provided estimates of how and when those downgrades were expected to occur.

When the storm stalled, just after passing through the Bahamas, the media continued to report on the stall as “dangerous” while weather professionals confirmed that Dorian’s stall was indicative of an imminent northward shift which is exactly what happened; thus changing the entire forecast for the coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. None of that made it into the mainstream news until it was embarrassingly obvious that Dorian was not cooperating in fulfilling its earlier pessimistic predictions.

In the future, would-be meteorologists might be interested in tracking a storm’s direction by monitoring its longitude and latitude comparing Dorian in the Bahamas to those potentially threatened communities.  For instance, if Dorian had stayed on a westward track after the Bahamas, it would have come in at the Jupiter Inlet but it stalled out in preparation for its northward shift, just as the HT’s track plot had always predicted.

Here are two examples of ‘fake news’ broadcast on live tv by the mainstream media hyperventilating on a storm’s local impacts:

  • In 2011 NBC’s Matt Lauer was interviewing a reporter about Hurricane Irene’s ‘severe flooding’ along the Passaic River in NJ as she was paddling a canoe when two men wearing waders nonchalantly ambled through the interview scene with the alleged flooded river barely up to their ankles.
  • In 2018 during Hurricane Florence, the Weather Channel’s Mike Seidel was allegedly braving   furious winds and struggling to stay upright  as he proclaimed “this is about as nasty as it’s been when two men in bermuda shorts casually strolled into view behind Seidel.

If the mainstream media will deceive the American public on weather forecasting, why should they be trusted to truthfully report on issues of greater magnitude?

So how did the establishment media get the forecast so consistently askew when they had access to the same information that any inquisitive Floridian had access to?  You already know the answer:  a bevy of television personalities (aka meteorologists) were scripted to present a version of extreme weather events in order to enhance audience ratings and thereby assure an increase in advertising revenue. as well as exhibit how easily an emergency can be used to control the population.

It is not a stretch that long time Floridians who have experienced multiple hurricane threats over the years may exhibit PTSD symptoms with an irrational anxiety or an overwhelming sense of panic as living through a real robust hurricane is not a normal life experience – all of which makes it easier to negatively influence those vulnerable citizens.

It is interesting to note that the Weather Channel television network (formerly owned by Bain Capitol, Comcast et al) was sold recently to Entertainment Studios which focuses on lifestyle programming such as pets, recipes and cars rather than science.  That sale says something about the commitment to provide scientifically authenticated weather forecasts.   Inexplicably the Weather Channel’s digital assets, its app and website, were not included in the Entertainment Studios $300 million purchase as they were acquired by IBM in 2016.  Separate corporate ownership using the same Weather Channel name leaves open the question as how each entity serves the greater public good as they compete for headlines, ratings and advertising revenue.

In case you had not noticed, there is a concerted effort to dominate an unsuspecting and unquestioning American public with a very specific reality that requires a consistent unanimity of thought.  That reality is necessary to continue the wars and global military dominance,  to create severe economic disturbance and disparities; a reality that relies on disinformation and hypocrisy while stirring citizens into a frenzied level of confusion, worry and anxiety about the future.  A distracted population living on the edge is more easily stage managed to accept a further loss of civil liberties than a politically informed, diligent population of infinite consciousness.

*

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.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Forecasting” Hurricane Dorian. Relentless Media Disinformation. “Scripting of Extreme Weather Events”
  • Tags:

Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001.

The four words “Building Seven Freefall Speed” provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called “official narrative” promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.

Building.

Seven.

Freefall.

Speed.

Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building — rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).

This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt “official” narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.

Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building 7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.

Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence which points to the same conclusion.

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).

However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore — except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.

For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan, whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united states — as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.

Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11, which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.

I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the Guns and Butter podcast archive here. These interviews, from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.

I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner’s show, even though I do not of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully read Kevin Ryan’s blog which was linked above, you will find a blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of 9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.

In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled “Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative?” which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019.

That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy — even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.

This quotation is from Sagan’s 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan’s teachings and opinions).

This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world’s ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self, sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here.

The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement of that which the egoic mind refuses to see — which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god’s anger: Agamemnon’s refusal to free the young woman Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.

Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the divine realm.

If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm. Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must be corrected.

In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that the “terrorists” who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.

Please note that I am very careful not to say that “the government” is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution, forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution,  which establishes a very clear penalty for treason.

When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called “USA PATRIOT Act” which was enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.

The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of “preventing terrorism” (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September 11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies which flagrantly and shamelessly violate “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.

When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” — including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and women.

Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001 — and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 — but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.

Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called “official narrative” of September 11.

But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we’ve ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle still has 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.

David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army’s Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division’s Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.

The Alleged Cell Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights

September 11th, 2019 by Consensus911.org

An unpublished manuscript investigating the alleged cell phone calls from the 9/11 flights has recently been released by the well-known British writer and Consensus 9/11 panelist, Rowland Morgan.

Morgan, a former columnist for London’s The Guardian and The Independent, undertook an in-depth investigation of the 9/11 phone calls in his extraordinary manuscript, Voices, researched from 2008 to 2010.  (He also co-authored, with Ian Henshall, Flight 93 Revealed, Carroll and Graf, 2006).

Voices cites an Associated Press report on April 6th, 2006, that “much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones.”

However, the US government’s own telephone data presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006 showed that Moussaoui prosecutor David Raskin “had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93.”

Morgan goes on to reveal:

“The telephone data contained more bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware:

  • The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed “hijackers” armed with “cardboard-cutters” aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.
  • The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan “Let’s Roll”, had never occurred. The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.

Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory.”

The full manuscript for Rowland Morgan’s brilliant study of all the alleged 9/11 cell phone calls, Voices, is available on the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s website.

*

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

The 9/11 Legend Lives On. The “Official Story” Prevails

September 11th, 2019 by Dr. Ludwig Watzal

The 18th anniversary of the attacks on 11 September 2001 (9/11) will be commemorated in the US and worldwide by the corporate media to keep the legend about 9/11 alive.

The official 9/11 narrative, however, is not only riddled with contradictions and outright lies, but any deviation from this fairy tale will cost any detractor his existence. “Conspiracy theorists” works like a weapon of mass destruction, meaning, nobody of the ruling class and their moral mainstream media enforcer will deviate one inch from the official story.

After 13 minutes, Osama bin Laden surfaced as the guy responsible for the attacks. President George W. Bush declared shortly after America is under attack”. The official account emerged within days and goes the following:

“On the morning of 11 September 2001 four civilian airlines with dozens of passengers and crew, designated as flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93, were hijacked by teams of four or five Muslim fanatics. Each team included one trained pilot. The hijackers took control of the airliners and flew a Boeing 767 assigned to flight AA11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, another Boeing 767 assigned to flight UA175 into the South Tower and a Boeing 757 assigned to flight AA77 into the Pentagon. The fourth airliner, a Boeing 757 assigned to flight UA93, presumed to have been destined to crash on the White House, did not reach its target. It crashed in an empty field in Pennsylvania after the passengers rose up and tried to seize control of the aircraft. As a result of the impact of the aircraft on the Twin Towers and the ensuing fires, both towers collapsed soon afterwards onto their own footprint, causing massive deaths. Almost 3,000 people died in the attacks. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa’eda network were shortly thereafter blamed for conceiving, planning, financing and coordinating the attacks.”

The swiftness of the fabricated account is remarkable; such is everything surrounding the context of 9/11. One can state with confidence that the story the peoples are made to believe is false from start to finish.

To start with the alleged hijackers for whom there is not a shred of evidence that they did it. The collapse of the Twin Towers caused by fire has been repudiated a thousand times. The Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, which pulverized the two 110 stories high-rises. Also, WTC 7 that wasn’t hit by a plane came down in free fall. Another airplane crashed into the Pentagon. This aerial maneuver couldn’t even be undertaken by the well-experienced pilot not to speak of amateurs who could hardly navigate a Cessna. Even more implausible was the disappearance of the United-Airlines flight 93 on a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There was just a whole, no debris, only nothing.

Within a month, the contaminated wreckage was sold abroad to prevent an investigation. From the beginning, the Bush/Cheney administration sabotaged any inquiry and curtailed its authorities. The cover-up, however, overseen by then FBI Director Robert Mueller, the infamous guy responsible for the solution of the Russian hoax against President Donald Trump. Bush was pressured by Congress and the public to appoint a commission of inquiry. He came up with the most dubious figure in US politics; Henry Kissinger. The outrage was long in the coming and Kissinger had to resign. On 17 December 2002, appointed former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean as chairman of the commission. The Democrats nominated Lee H. Hamilton. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip Zelikow, the most untrustworthy figure Bush could find. He was involved in Bush’s preemptive war strategy. Accordingly, the 9/11 Commission Report is not worth the paper it’s written on. This storybook didn’t waste a single word on the collapse of WTC 7.

Neither the witnesses who reported explosions during the collapse of the Twin Towers nor the witnesses who didn’t see any debris in Shanksville were heart. Instead Zelikow ramp his premeditated report down the throat of the commission members. Finally, the commission was set up to fail and to cover up what really happened on 9/11. This report is just a joke but the world has no other choice than to believe in it.

9/11 was a propaganda-coup, unprecedented in history. “When the sun rose on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the official legend of 9/11 lay ready to be promoted worldwide. It was conceived before the events and confirmed by the U.S. Congress – give or take minor details – within 24 hours of the deadly incidents.“ Within hours, the entire world was led astray into believing what can be labeled an absurd tale. The author can’t understand that the Western world swallowed “this legend hook, line, and sinker.“

The main suspects of the heinous crime committed on 9/11 are not found in the caves of Afghanistan but in government offices in Washington. Elias Davidsson writes in his book “The Betrayal of America”:

“Had the crime of 9/11 been carried out by rogue elements of the U.S. government or by a foreign state against the real interests of the ruling class of the United States and its allies, the plotters and perpetrators would have been exposed and punished long ago.“

The disgusting spectacle designed as a horror show lasted 90 minutes just like an ordinary movie. The incident was intended to rally the Americans behind the flag and their President. And the media promoted the official account day in, day out. And even the leftists capitulated before this brainwashing. No one of the so-called left asked for evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Even when counter-evidence surmounted against the legend of 9/11, the left kept mum and stuck to Bush’s fairy tale. They also slandered respectable critics.

Instead of celebrating the myth about 9/11, the American public and peoples around the world should demand an independent investigation into 9/11. The curtain of lies about this organized crime, which plunged the world into an endless war on terror aimed at the peoples of the so-called Third World, must be lifted.

As long as military, intelligence and law enforcement officials worldwide cooperate with the rulers of the murderous U.S. regime or its stooges in other countries the physical security of ordinary citizens is in danger.

*

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. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

Trump Sacks Bolton. Who is the Next National Security Advisor?

By Stephen Lendman, September 11, 2019

It’s a good start, way short of what’s needed — cleaning house of all Trump regime far-right extremists, notably Pompeo and likeminded hardliners.

The Whitewashing of the Nazis

By Christopher Black, September 11, 2019

On June 30 1934, Hitler ordered the unit to arrest the members of the SA organisation, led by Ernst Rohm, that was vying for power with him in the overall Nazi organisation. The arrests were carried out in Munich and that night men of the unit murdered several leaders of the SA including five generals and a colonel.

9/11 Truth: Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Collapse

By wtc7.net, September 11, 2019

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least 23 minutes before the event.

Will Iran be a Full Nuclear Power by the End of 2020? No Return to the 2015 Agreement

By Elijah J. Magnier, September 11, 2019

Iran has been following a “strategy of patience” since US President Donald Trump unlawfully revoked the nuclear deal. Tehran allowed Europe, for an entire year, to think about a way to tempt Iran to stay within the nuclear deal on the basis of 4 (France, Russia, China, UK) + 1 (Germany), excluding the US.

9/11 “Justice”: The Pentagon’s Upcoming Kangaroo Show Trial in Cuba

By Jacob G. Hornberger, September 11, 2019

After 18 years, there is a possibility that the Pentagon is finally going to permit a “trial” of five men who are accused of conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks. If so, the proceedings will prove what a charade the Pentagon’s entire “judicial system” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been and continues to be.

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good

By John W. Whitehead, September 11, 2019

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

Western Media Portrays Hong Kong Hooligans as Heroes. But Are They?

By Andre Vltchek, September 11, 2019

On Sunday, huge US flags were waving in the air. A massive demonstration, consisting of mainly young people, was moving up from the old British-built downtown area of the city towards the US Consulate General, often erroneously called the “embassy.”

*

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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump Sacks Bolton. Who Is the Next National Security Advisor?

Trump Sacks Bolton. Who is the Next National Security Advisor?

September 11th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

It’s a good start, way short of what’s needed — cleaning house of all Trump regime far-right extremists, notably Pompeo and likeminded hardliners.

Chance for positive change is virtually nil. Dirty business as usual in Washington won’t miss a beat — other than perhaps somewhat less toxic rhetoric with Bolton gone, short of enough to matter.

From inception, the US has been a culture of violence. Throughout most of its history, it’s been at war at home and/or abroad.

Since attacking North Korea preemptively in June 1950, it’s been permanently at war against one or more nonthreatening states, waging them endlessly today in multiple theaters.

Democracy is its deadliest export, a notion it deplores, tolerating it nowhere, especially at home.

US post-WW II history isn’t pretty. Its record includes assassinations of foreign leaders, staging color revolutions and coups, along with meddling in elections worldwide — what imperialism is all about.

Trump announced the news on Bolton, tweeting:

“I informed (him) last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning.”

Trump added that he’ll name a new national security advisor next week. Bolton’s deputy Charles Kupperman replaced him on an interim basis — perhaps to remain in the post.

Hold the cheers. He’s closely tied to US military, industrial, security interests, earlier holding senior Lockheed Martin and Boeing positions.

From 2001 – 2010, he was a board member of neocon/Islamophobe Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, a far-right figure The American Conservative called an “uber-foreign policy hawk…re-ascendent in Trump’s orbit” through his connection to Kupperman.

Bolton earlier praised his deputy, saying

he “has been an advisor to me for more than thirty years, including during my tenure as National Security Advisor to President Trump,” adding:

“Charlie’s extensive expertise in defense, arms control and aerospace will help further President Trump’s national security agenda.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif accused Bolton and Netanyahu of “lur(ing) Donald Trump into killing (the) JCPOA (by) delu(ding)” him.

On Tuesday, Russia’s envoy to the IAEA Mikhail Ulyanov said Iran’s “full cooperation with the” agency confirms its nuclear program is peaceful.

Bolton’s announced sacking came shortly before a press conference with Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin he was scheduled to attend.

In office since April 9, 2018, he proved his raging hawk reputation time and again — one critic saying “(h)e never met a country he didn’t want to destroy.”

Another said he’s far more than “a run-of-the-mill hawk…He’s never seen a foreign policy problem that couldn’t be solved by bombing.”

He earlier called for military action against North Korea and Iran.

On the DPRK, he said  “the only longterm way to deal with (its) nuclear weapons program is to end (the) regime,” adding:

“It’s not enough…to impose sanctions…(North Korea) poses a threat to stability in the region that undermines security…”

“I think further discussions with North Korea, further efforts to pressure North Korea, are basically a waste of time. The way to end the North’s nuclear program is to end the North.”

He falsely said “Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident,” adding:

“The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure.”

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required.”

Iran’s legitimate nuclear program has no military component — confirmed time and again by the IAEA. The US intelligence community found no evidence of Iran seeking the bomb because none exists.

Pyongyang called Bolton a “war maniac,” adding:

“(I)t will be fit to call (him) not a security adviser striving for security but a security-destroying adviser who is wrecking peace and security” worldwide.

He earlier said

“(t)here is no United Nations. There is a international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world (the US) when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along.”

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation director Alexandra Bell said

“(b)etween Pompeo and Bolton, you’re looking at a neocon foreign policy (team) jacked up on steroids.”

They and their henchmen are militantly hostile toward Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

They never met a conflict resolution plan they didn’t want to undermine — notably against Trump’s announced troop pullout from Syria, rapprochement steps with North Korea, and cutting a deal with the Taliban.

They sabotaged Obama’s Cuba agenda by Trump’s imposition of new illegal sanctions on the country. They orchestrated a color revolution attempt in Nicaragua that failed — so far.

They planned and got Trump to go along with all-out war by other means on Venezuelan social democracy and nonbelligerent Iran — both countries threatening no one, seeking cooperative relations with other nations.

They got Trump to veto a congressional measure to end US involvement in Yemen. They convinced him to escalate hot wars he inherited, wage trade war on China, and helped prevent improved relations with Russia.

In Washington, names and faces change. Dirty business as usual continues under both right wings of the US war party — waging endless wars at home and abroad, serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.

Bolton’s departure won’t change a thing with Pompeo at state, Abrams as White House envoy for regime change in Venezuela, Brian Hook in the same capacity against Iran, along with numerous other Trump regime hardliners in place, and a hornet’s nest of likeminded bipartisan congressional members.

Commenting on Bolton’s ouster, Iranian President Rouhani advisor Hesameddin Ashena  mistakenly said it’s a “sign of the failure of US ‘maximum pressure’ strategy.

Last week, Brian Hook said more Trump regime sanctions on Iran are coming, indicating no letup in its “maximum pressure” policy.

Through his spokesman Abbas Mousavi, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said

“(w(e) will not be issuing any statement on US internal affairs” — referring to Bolton’s sacking.

Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-e Ravanchi stressed that

“there is no room for talks as long as the US administration’s economic terrorism and cruel sanctions against the Iranian people are in place.”

“The topic could be discussed only when they lift the sanctions,” adding: Possible future talks will only occur through the P5+1, indicating they also depend on the Trump regime returning to the JCPOA it illegally abandoned, breaching international law.

In Washington and the West, everything changes but stays the same.

Since the neoliberal 90s, it’s been for the worse with no prospect for positive change.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Whitewashing of the Nazis

September 11th, 2019 by Christopher Black

I was going to write about Iraq and the American control of that tragic nation that has been, like many others, destroyed by the American war machine, but it is difficult to find out any real facts about anything in Iraq. All the news and reports are controlled, events are unexplained, the politics unclear, the American influence hidden in the dark shadows of their crimes, so I decided to write about the whitewashing of Nazis.

For while pondering what to write I watched a film on Netflix, a film that exposes just what the NATO countries are, the roots of their present foreign policies and treatment of their peoples. It’s a film that really excuses the barbarity of the US and NATO war machine, and their objective of revisiting World War II, which never ended for them and their Nazi friends, but was transformed into the Cold War, and the new Operation Barbarossa they are preparing against Russia, as the American withdrawal from the intermediate nuclear missile control treaty proves to be their intent.

The film bears the title, “My Honour Was My Glory.” It sounds like it could be the title of any war film, but it has a special meaning because that phrase was the motto of the Waffen SS unit, Der LiebstandarteSS-Adolf Hitler Panzergrenadier Division, the elite unit of the Waffen SS, the military formation of the Nazi Party of Germany and fascists from across Europe. It was this unit that was Hitler’s personal bodyguard.

So, is this film an expose of the many war crimes committed by that unit in World War Two? Does it show what they did in Russia, in Italy, in France? No. Instead, it is a portrayal designed to raise our sympathies, to see these criminals as heroes fighting for “home and hearth,” lost souls ultimately betrayed by their leaders, whose crimes are no worse than the crimes of other armies. Vivid battle scenes are connected by sad reflections of the SS men about their lives, their wives, their hopes, their fears. Hitler would have loved every second of it.

But what is the truth about this unit that the Italian director, Alessandro Pepe, now living in the USA, has turned into a group of lovable heroes? What did he erase from history?

The truth begins with the formation of the unit as Hitler’s personal bodyguard in the 1920s. In 1933, on the tenth anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, in which Hitler tried to seize power in a coup that failed, the men of the unit swore a personal oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler and were made into a military formation. On swearing allegiance to Hitler the unit received the name Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, or, personal bodyguard of Hitler. A year later the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, added the initials SS to the name of the unit to make it clear it was not part of the regular army or the still existing SA. Under its commander, Sepp Dietrich, it vaunted itself as a Nazi unit and then, in its first action, declared what it was going to be from then on, an organised gang of thugs and murderers.

On June 30 1934, Hitler ordered the unit to arrest the members of the SA organisation, led by Ernst Rohm, that was vying for power with him in the overall Nazi organisation. The arrests were carried out in Munich and that night men of the unit murdered several leaders of the SA including five generals and a colonel. Others were shot in Berlin. On July 1, 1934 on what is known as the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler ordered the unit to act as a death squad and its men murdered well over a hundred other people connected to the SA.

Having proved that it was willing to commit murder on his behalf, the unit was then expanded in size and became the honour guard at many of Hitler rallies and took part in the seizure of a number of lands Hitler desired, including the Saarland, and Sudetenland. In the invasion of Poland in 1939, the unit became famous for burning whole villages to terrorise the population, for murdering 50 Jews in the town of Blonie, for machine-gunning over 200 men, women and children at Zloczew, and for committing atrocities in a number of other towns.

During the operations in France in May 1940, in the fighting around Dunkirk, the unit murdered 80 prisoners of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment and some French soldiers in a barn at Wormhoudt.

In April 1941 they were the lead German unit in the invasion and occupation of Greece, then were transferred to join other units for the invasion of the USSR, in Operation Barbarossa. According to reports of its staff journalist, the unit murdered 4,000 Soviet prisoners of war on August 18, 1941. During the fighting around and in Kharkov in March 1943 it became notorious for murdering wounded Soviet soldiers found in a military hospital. Several hundred Soviet wounded were killed in that hospital and other prisoners were routinely executed during its operations.

On February 17, 1943 its men burned down the two villages of Yefremovka and Semyonovka, killing 872 men, women and children, with 240 of those burned alive in a church at Yefremovka. The battalion that committed this atrocity was given the name the “Blowtorch Battalion.” During this same period it and its reserve units in Germany rounded up Jews and took their property.

Transferred to Italy in September, 1943 the unit murdered 49 Jewish refugees near Lake Maggiore and killed 34 civilians in the village of Bove. Some victims at the lake were thrown into the water with their hands and feet tied. Then transferred to France in 1944 they murdered French civilians in the villages of Tavaux and Plomion. During the Ardennes fighting near Malmedy, the unit executed 84 American prisoners. They also captured eleven black US soldiers of the 333rd Artillery Battalion in another engagement. When their bodies were found, their fingers had been cut off and legs broken.

This is the unit that Alessandro Pepe wants us to connect with. The film references the Jews being massacred in the death camps, but the stories are dismissed by the men as unbelievable; quite a distortion since we know these men massacred Jews in Russia and Germany. Shooting of prisoners is excused because, well the Americans were worse and the Soviets deserved it. The killing of civilians is never mentioned. Instead we watch as these young men walk through beautiful fields in Ukraine and comment on how war scars the beauty of nature, or in Italy sigh at the beauty of the Tuscan landscape and in France the French countryside, rhapsodising like poets. But in Russia, what do we see? The Red Army soldiers are “Bolshevik scum” and prisoners are savagely beaten to death with rifle butts.

This is a film that makes heroes out of murderers, poets out of Nazis, a film designed to distort history, in fact to erase history and recreate it so that Nazis are lovable and even desirable to have around. Yet, in Germany and Austria it is illegal to use the motto of this unit and to use it to promote Nazism, But that is what Pepe does, what Netflix does.

But how is it possible that such a film could be financed and produced today and then shown on a major network? Because the governments of the NATO countries are composed of people who share the beliefs of the Nazis; anti-communist, anti-worker, anti-Semitic, despite their pretending otherwise so long as Israel does their bidding, sharing the same lust for world domination as Hitler, willing to use the same barbarism to terrorise and dominate the world.

We have seen the savagery of the Nazis, the same propaganda in the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China; the same savagery, the same contempt for law and civilised behaviour. And for the same objectives, to make money by stealing and murdering.

The NATO countries installed and support a regime in Ukraine that is heavily infected with Nazis. Canada has a foreign minister who denies that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator who helped the SS round up Jews in Ukraine. Nazi sympathisers are routinely discovered in Nato army units. Far right parties, fascist parties are gaining influence all over Europe. In Britain, France and the USA, right wing parties have been in control for a long time. And though there are fake expressions of dismay at this, these same governments encourage the rise of the far right by suppressing left parties, pushing people to essentially right wing social democratic parties, putting out false histories of socialism in those countries, and making sure the far right gets lots of media coverage that the left parties are denied. They ban and slander communist parties and their leaders, and all the while foster hatred against foreigners, telling the people that their enemies are the Jews, the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese and to instil fear in the people tell them that ever tighter surveillance and security are needed to protect them from the “enemy,” and if that does not convince them, there is always a bombing or two or a mass shooting to make the point, along with the constant drone of “you are being watched,” repeated over and over again, to try to keep us in line.

Watched is not the right word; more like gloated over, as the far right leaders, masquerading as liberals, watch us drift into despair at our conditions, knowing that people are seeking any answer, but are told not to look to the left, but to look to the far right to find. We see the black shirts in action again in Hong Kong, supported by the black shirts of the right in the west who hold power over us.

The British and Canadian prime ministers stated on the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 that the Soviet Union was the aggressor against Poland when German armies invaded, that Poland was caught between “two tyrannies,” the big lie since the British, French and Americans refused Soviet requests to form an alliance against Hitler since they were encouraging Hitler to attack the Soviet Union. The USSR was forced to protect itself against the fascists, to protect the revolution that raised the workers and peasants of Russia out of poverty into a new life, a struggle so vividly described in Ilya Ehrenburg’s account of the resistance of the Soviet peoples to the Nazi invasion described so well in his novel, The Storm. Yet all across eastern Europe, monuments to the men and women of the Red Army who died fighting the Nazi armies are desecrated or demolished while statues to Nazi thugs are raised. And never are the people told that the Nazis were capitalists on a rampage, that they were and are the face of capitalism with the gloves off. No, there is no monument to the crimes of the capitalists. And so now we have films praising the SS shown to millions of people and not a word said, until now.

We thought the Red Army defeated fascism in 1945. It looks like we going to have fight them again.

*

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

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

9/11 Truth: Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Collapse

September 11th, 2019 by wtc7.net

Of the two principal theories of WTC 7’s collapse — one being global structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage, and the other being controlled demolition — the second is favored by foreknowledge of the collapse. This is particularly true given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires. So unprecedented was the collapse of Building 7 that the government has yet to explain it, in 2007.

That would probably be lost on most responders on the site, who would have the fresh memories of the Twin Towers’ explosions to help them accept the notion that the total of collapse of smoking skyscrapers is a natural and even predictable occurrence.

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least 23 minutes before the event.

Witness Accounts of Foreknowledge

This overview of witness accounts shows that the evacuation of the area surrounding WTC 7 started sometime around 4 PM, and was completed only a few minutes before the 5:20 collapse. The warnings of the collapse, which are recalled in dozens of accounts by emergency responders, show a striking consistency of conviction that the collapse would occur.

Premature Announcements on Television Broadcasts

At least two television networks made premature announcements of the collapse of WTC 7. The BBC unequivocally announced the collapse about 23 minutes before the fact, and even featured a New York correspondent speaking of the collapse in past tense with the still-erect skyscraper standing behind her.

CNN anchor Aaron Brown announced that the building “has either collapsed or is collapsing” about an hour before the event. Unlike the BBC correspondent, Brown seemed to be able to read the skyline and see that Building 7 was still standing — perhaps accounting for the muddled announcement.

These premature reports were uncovered in the wake of the publication of URLS of a vast archive of television footage.

The following pages contain partial transcripts of these premature reports.

Vast Archive of Footage

The premature announcements of the collapse of WTC by television networks went unnoticed until researchers discovered a vast archive of television broadcast footage from the day of the attack. On February 22, 2007, a post on 911Blogger.com listed the URLs on Archive.org of 417 mpeg recordings capturing about 60 hours broadcast coverage starting on the morning of 9/11/01 from each of six different television stations. Each of the high-quality recordings covering about 41 minutes of broadcast.

The coverage included the following television stations and time spans:

Unfortunately, Archive.org made the footage archive inaccessible to the public shortly after the BBC foreknowledge story was publicized.

*

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.

Read the Irish Independent article here.

***

Dear Adrian,

I read with dismay your article in Saturdays Independent on the safety of 5G. I think you do a huge disservice to Ireland Inc but in particular to Irish Children and Pregnant Mothers. These people should be warned on the adverse effects of Pulsed Polarised Modulated Microwave Radiation on their health and wellbeing.

The Irish Government has consistently failed to meet its obligations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with Resolution 1815 in (2011), the Phone manufacturers are totally disingenuous, in that they bury the Warnings six deep in their T+C and an Oireachtas Bill No 24 of 2011, The Mobile Phone Radiation Warning Act 2011 which fell because of the government change was never followed up.

As result of this huge vacuum in reliable health and safety information, nobody in authority is telling our children and pregnant mothers about the dangers of their exposure to this ubiquitous sea of Pulsed Polarised Modulated Microwave Radiation.

It is respected technical journalists like you that need to reinforce and amplify these responsible warnings.

When you say the following in today’s article I would think that a huge number of Independent Scientists Worldwide will strongly disagree with your dated assertions.

“According to Ireland’s regulator, this type of radiation only has sufficient energy for “excitation” and can’t “break bonds that hold molecules in cells together”.

This is just 100% Wrong / Incorrect / Scientifically Not Correct / it is also a Disingenuous Lie and shame on Comreg for repeating and perpetuating a misconception of classical physics.

There are two main issues that confound and amplify the widespread misunderstandings that we are facing today. The first is a misassumption of Classical Physics in a Biological System, the famous “Non-Ionizing Radiation Story” and the second is the historical mistake of using a totally inappropriate “Thermal Effects Safety Guidelines” from ICNIRP to the assess safety of the mobile phone microwave radiation.

Physical science tells us that Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) does not possess the energy to damage Chemical Covalent Bonds, so it could not damage DNA and is therefore perfectly safe!

This is part of the official disinformation that industry and regulators buy and sell.

The disinformation comes because Microwave Radiation energy is classified in the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum as a Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) and by definition the energy of this  radiation is not strong enough to ionise a molecule by breaking a covalent chemical bond.

The typical energy of a covalent bond is in the order of 1 electronVolt (1 eV = 1.6 .10-19 Joules). The force required to break a covalent bond is in the order of 1 eV/0.1 nm ~ 1600 pN. (pico Newtons)

The energy in the microwave radiation is well below this level. At 3 GHz it is 1.8*10⁻²⁴Joules.

See this.

So, this is the science that lays out the impossibility of Microwave radiation being able to damage DNA because it is too weak in energy terms to rip the electrons off and break any of the bonds present in DNA.  And this is the “rock-solid classical physics” that the whole disinformation story rests on.

So, most Engineers will spout out this story, almost as religious Dogma and poo-poo the whole idea of Microwaves causing any negative health effects.

The only problem with the story is the horrible fact that microwave radiation at the levels present in mobile phones does in fact damage DNA. Not expected, but sadly true. So, this is the reason why there is so much deliberate confusion, from an Engineering standpoint it is not going to happen, yet in Biology it happens!

This short reference summarises the science that attests to the reality that the biologists are correct. It is known as the 2004 EU Reflex Study and the following link gives a summary.

See this.

If you read the last paragraph of the article you will see the skulduggery the industry resorted to try to discredit this work.

This is the study that showed 24 hours of mobile phone radiation did the same amount of DNA damage as 60 CT Scans in or 250 years of The Earth’s background radiation.  

How many people would voluntarily submit to 60 CT scans in 24 hours?

Science is getting better as time goes by and there are thousands of studies that back up the fact that NIR effects our biology and can in fact damage DNA. One theory of how this may happen is that NIR in living systems can create “Free Radicals” which in turn can damage DNA. But even if there is some debate as to the nature of the mechanisms that can cause the damage to occur, there is absolutely no debate that DNA damage does take place.

See this and this.

But Adrian don’t take my word for this, you have a simple choice, listen to compromised regulators in Comreg dishing out 30-year-old myths about Non-Ionising Radiation or just Google and see they don’t make any sense.

Try to Google (“Microwave Radiation” “DNA Damage”) you may see that there are approx. 53,300 hits on Google.  Now that’s not bad for something that can’t happen!

And guess what there is even a field of Science called Bio-electromagnetics dedicated to this type of research with many tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles from Scientists all over the world that all working on something COMREG says can’t happen.

However even with science on the side of the Biologists, being right is not enough to upset the whole NIR house of cards story that is supported by a multi trillion-euro global business.

Thermal Based Standards Irish (cut and paste) ICNIRP guidelines are not a measure of the damage the radiation may be doing to our bodies they are simply a measure of the amount of heat absorbed by a body. The ICNIRP thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.

Microwave Radiation Affects our Biology, it has an effect which varies between people but it does have deleterious effects on all life forms.

There are many well documented Bio-effects on our health and well-being, related to mobile phone and wireless technology. Bioeffects are clearly established and occur even at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation.

Just look at these two web sites which are up to date (2019) with the latest information on these Bioeffects.

See this and this.

  • Evidence for fertility and reproduction effects: Human sperm and DNA damaged
  • Foetal and Neonatal effects of EMF
  • EMF is a plausible biological mechanism for autism (ASD)
  • The opening up of the Blood Brain Barrier
  • Epidemiology studies consistently show elevations in risk of Brain Cancers
  • Evidence for Genetic Effects.
  • Evidence for Childhood Cancers (Leukaemia)
  • Significant disruption of our Voltage Gated Calcium Channels (VGCC)
  • Decreased Melatonin levels, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s

If you want to learn more about the 8 Bioeffects caused by exposure to RF please read Prof Martin Pall’s 91-page review article (or even just read the two-page summary) here.

The work that Martin Pall has highlighted on VGCC’s and the very simple lab experiments showing direct effect of RF on live cells in a flask with an electrode measuring the reactive nitrogen species when exposed to RF are so clear, RF at the levels present in mobile phones rapidly releases oxidative species.

Every living entity is different and will react differently to external and internal EMF stimuli.

We know that RF has biological effects what we don’t know well enough are the consequences for living creatures.

I have tried to convey to you the complexity of the effects of EMF’s on living creatures, we are only beginning to see a little of what goes on at the molecular and cellular levels.

With respect your reporting on 5G is incomplete.

At present the five Irish operations have purchased spectrum only in the 600 MHz to 3.6 GHz frequencies. These are similar type of frequencies being used in LTE 4G. One of the big worries for people is that the use of higher frequencies which are planned for future 5G installations (already in the US) have had no safety testing according to the US Telecom’s trade organisation CTIA.

Couple that with the evisceration of the Irish planning laws (S.I. No. 31 of 2018) which means that Telecom Operators can decide when and where the thousands of mini-cell antennae are placed not the local planners.

Your 5G hype tells us ….Aside from speed, 5G is being touted as infrastructure that may be necessary for new types of emergency healthcare and, eventually, autonomous vehicles. This is partly due to its instantaneous connection capability, otherwise referred to as ‘low latency’.

What you don’t tell us is that there is nothing wireless can do that fibre cannot do in terms of speed or low latency.

You also fail to mention that “Wireless broadband” is more profitable for the operators. So instead of supplying safe wired / fibre broadband to all our citizens, we hear from you that their profits are more important than citizens health.

When 5G is fully rolled out there will be hundreds of thousands of antennae in our homes, streets, factories, offices, schools and hospitals it will be impossible to escape this Untested 5G Weaponised Radiation.

The 5G hype is: It will deliver 1000 times the download speed (full length movie in 1 to 2 seconds), 1000 times the data transfer, thanks to using the Higher Energy 5G Frequency spectrum (Millimetre Waves).

Now take a moment and think about it !  Will the electricity usage be 1000 time higher ? Or even just 100 times higher or even just 10 times higher ? No-body in authority really knows at this moment.

5G promises 1000-time faster speeds because of the higher frequencies (higher energy). Unfortunately, this will come at a high cost in electrical energy usage and the corresponding Carbon Footprint.

See this.

Questions need to be asked on who is driving this 5G madness, who stands to benefit and who stands to lose. The people of Ireland will definitely be the biggest losers, more EU fines, increasing Carbon Footprint meaning severe reductions in other vital areas that really need to use the carbon.

Paraphrasing what Susan Pockett says about New Zealand, can easily be extended into the Irish context. See this.

Our DCCAE and Comreg are not presently credible sources of information. On the contrary, these government department appears to be firmly and unshakably committed to the ICNIRP thermal-only dogma, exactly because that dogma allows unbridled expansion of the wireless and telecommunications industries.

  • It is time to stop believing ICNIRP spin. Tissue heating is not the only biological effect of radiofrequency radiation. The ICNIRP thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.
  • Like tobacco smoke, low intensity radiofrequency radiation has multiple harmful effects on human health. Unlike second-hand smoke, second-hand radiation is fast becoming inescapable. The present situation is thus worse than the Big Tobacco story.
  • Elected politicians should stop accepting biased reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking seriously the health and safety of their constituents; or at least of their own children and grandchildren.
  • The unchecked expansion of Big Wireless permitted by ICNIRP’s thermal-only guidelines is actively harmful to all biological inhabitants of planet Earth. Further expansion to 5G technology will inevitably involve yet more radiation exposure. The fact that this exposure will not breach the ludicrously high ICNIRP-based standard is no defence at all.

The people of Ireland deserve to hear the truth about 5G from our information sources such as the Press / TV / Web and not modulated hype and 30-year-old misinformation.

Thank you,

David Sullivan

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on People Should be Warned of the Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Phone Microwave Radiation Technology
  • Tags:

French President Emmanuel Macron failed to promote successfully his Iranian initiative with the US administration despite the initial blessing of his US counterpart. This failure led Iran to make a third gradual withdrawal from its JCPOA nuclear deal commitment, raising two main issues. Iran has become a regional power to be reckoned with, so we can now scrap from reactions to its policies the words “submit,” or “bow to the international community”. Moreover, since Europe is apparently no longer in a position to fulfil its commitments, Iran will now be headed towards a total pull-out following further gradual withdrawal steps. Just before the US elections due in November 2020, Iran is expected to become a nuclear country with the full capability of producing uranium enriched to more than 20% uranium-235, weapons-usable and therefore in a position to manufacture dozens of nuclear bombs (for which uranium must be enriched to about 90%). However, this does not necessarily mean that this is Iran’s ultimate objective.

Industry data shows that half of the effort goes into enriching from 0.7% to 4%. If Iran reaches the level of 20%, the journey towards 90% is almost done. A few thousand centrifuges are needed to reach 20% enrichment while a few hundred are enough to cross from 20% to the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb. When Iran announces it is reaching a level which is considered critical by the west, there is the possibility that Israel might act militarily against Iran’s capability as it did in Iraq in 1981, in Syria in 2009, and in assassinating nuclear scientists. If this happens, the Middle East will be exposed to a mega earthquake whose outcome is unpredictable. But if Israel and the US are not in a position to react against Iran’s total withdrawal from the JCPOA (nuclear deal), Iran will no longer accept a return to the 2015 deal. Its position will become much stronger and any deal would be difficult to reach.

Sources within the decision-making circle have said

“Iran will become a state with full nuclear capability. It is also aiming for self-sufficiency and is planning to move away from counting solely on its oil exports for its annual budget. It is starting to generate and manufacture in many sectors and it will certainly increase its missile development and production. Missile technology has proved to be the most efficient and cheapest deterrent weapon for Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Yemen”.

Iran has been following a “strategy of patience” since US President Donald Trump unlawfully revoked the nuclear deal. Tehran allowed Europe, for an entire year, to think about a way to tempt Iran to stay within the nuclear deal on the basis of 4 (France, Russia, China, UK) + 1 (Germany), excluding the US. After that long waiting period, Iran has taken the initiative into its own hands and is gradually pulling out of the deal. It seems Trump did not learn from President Obama who signed the deal, convinced that US sanctions would be ineffective.

But Iran is not missing an opportunity worth trying to make its case. At the G7 in France, Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif cut short his visit to Beijing to meet European leaders and ministers at the request of President Macron. It was hinted that there were chances for Iran to sell its oil and that Macron had managed to break through the US-Iran tension.

Iran President Hassan Rouhani thought there was a real opportunity to smooth over tensions and that Trump, according to the source in Tehran, was ready to ease the sanctions in exchange for a meeting and the beginning of discussion. This is why Rouhani overtly stated his readiness to meet any person if that helped. But Zarif was surprised to learn that Macron didn’t fulfil his promises- because Trump had changed his mind. The initiative was stillborn and all are back at square one.

Macron understood that the problem doesn’t lie with the US President but in his consigliere Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his neo-con team Pompeo-Bolton. The meeting between the French Minister of Armed Forces Florence Parly and the Pentagon Chief Mark Esper was an attempt to convince the US Secretary of Defence to distance himself from the Pompeo-Bolton team before the situation gets out of control and Iran became unstoppable.

“Trump rejected the French idea to offer Iran a line of credit of 15 billions of Euros (not Dollars). This credit is part of Iran’s acquired right since it has agreed with Europe to sell 700,000 barrels of oil daily as part of a signed deal. Following the US sanctions on any country or company buying Iranian oil, Europe refrained from honouring the agreement. Vice Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi calculated the amount at stake of 15 billion euros with European representatives. The agreement was that Iran would sell oil to Europe for this amount in the future, and that Iran could buy any product, not limited to food and medicine which were originally excluded from the US sanctions. Iran, according to the deal with European partners, would have had the right to take the money in cash and transfer it to any other country, including Iran”, said the source.

All this has been thrown to the winds. The result is simple: Iran will continue its nuclear programme but will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor development. It is relying on the nuclear deal articles 26 and 36 to partially withdraw, a deal that was not signed based on trust, but on respect for law. This is the reason why Iran announced its third withdrawal step, increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium and replacing its IR-1 and IR-2m with IR-6 centrifuges (supposed to happen in 2026, as stated in paragraph 39).

Europe has used all its resources to persuade Iran from taking withdrawal steps, but to no avail. Iran has moved from a “patience strategy” to an “aggressive strategy” and will no longer accept a soft approach. It has undergone sanctions since 1979 and though it has learned to live with them, its patience is exhausted.

The US has nothing to offer to Iran but further sanctions and additional pressure on Europe, so the old continent follows its withdrawal path. The US administration planned to form various coalitions, including an Arab NATO, but failed so far to pull off any such alliance. US officials believed the Iranian regime would fall in months and that the population would turn against their leaders. Nothing of the sort happened. On the contrary: Trump and his neo-cons brought Iranian pragmatists and hardliners together for the same cause. The US destroyed the possibility of any moderate argument with people like Rouhani and Zarif, and showed that it was too untrustworthy for any reliable deal or agreement.

Iran is feeling stronger: it has downed a US drone, sabotaged several tankers and confiscated a British-flagged tanker despite the presence of the Royal Navy nearby. It has shown its readiness for war without pushing for it. Iran knows its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine will be united as one in the case of war. The Iranian officials did not use revolutionary or sectarian slogans to face down US sanctions but instead managed to create national solidarity behind its firm policy of confrontation with the US. Washington, largely responsible for the status quo in the Gulf, failed to weaken Iran’s resolve and has so far been unsuccessful in undermining the Iranian economy. It is putting about the idea that its “suffocation policy” has been successful, but Iran is not giving the submission signals the US administration wants and needs, to justify the tension it has created in the Middle East and the Gulf.

Iran is handling its policy towards the US and Europe in the same way Iranians weave carpets. It takes several years to finish an artisanal carpet and many more years to sell it. The nuclear deal needed several years of preparation but even more time for establishing acceptance and the bona fides of the signatories. Trump’s simple-minded decision destroyed all that work. The US and Europe have lost the initiative. Europe is not politically in any position to stand against the US sanctions, nor does it have sufficient tools or standing to offer Iran and thus force it to the negotiating table.

Iran is becoming stronger and much more difficult to tame than in the past. It is imposing itself as a regional power and a challenge to the west. It has advanced nuclear technology and capabilities, a self-sufficient armament programme and it is strengthening its allies in the Middle East.

It is difficult to foresee any negotiation between Iran and the West before November 2020, the date of the US elections. Iran is no longer willing to accept in 2019 what it signed in 2015; Trump is responsible for the new scenario. Destroying the nuclear deal now redounds to the benefit of Iran. There will be a time when the US administration, due to the realisation of its ignorance in Iranian affairs, will feel regret, and will ask to return to the negotiating table- perhaps after Trump? But conditions will definitely no longer be the same and it may very well come too late to see Iran accepting what it signed for in 2015.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

After 18 years, there is a possibility that the Pentagon is finally going to permit a “trial” of five men who are accused of conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks. If so, the proceedings will prove what a charade the Pentagon’s entire “judicial system” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been and continues to be. In fact, the trial, if it is even permitted to take place, will serve as a mirror for how “trials” are conducted in communist China or, for matter, in communist Cuba.

Let’s review how the Pentagon’s “judicial” system got established in the first place. After the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon decided to establish a prison, torture center, and “judicial” system for accused terrorists that it would be capturing and kidnapping around the world. It decided to locate this center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Why Cuba rather than somewhere in the United States? The Pentagon wanted to make certain that it would have omnipotent power to run its center any way it wanted, without having to bother with the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights. It also didn’t want any interference with its operation from the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. In other words, the Pentagon wanted a Constitution-free zone in which to operate its prison, torture center, and “judicial” system.

Ultimately, much to the Pentagon’s chagrin, the Supreme Court ruled that it did have ultimate jurisdiction over the Guantanamo operations. However, while the federal judiciary has accepted some petitions for writ of habeas corpus from Guantanamo inmates, overall it has followed its longtime policy of deference to the national-security establishment when it comes to matters of “national security.”

What the Supreme Court should have done from the very beginning was to order a complete shutdown of the Pentagon’s prison, torture center, and “judicial” system at Guantanamo Bay. There is a simple reason for that: the Constitution, which is the higher law that controls the actions of federal officials, including the Pentagon, does not authorize the Pentagon to operate such a center.

It is critically important to keep in mind that terrorism is not an act of war. Instead, it is a federal criminal offense. That is why there are terrorism trials in federal courts in New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and elsewhere. Terrorism is listed among federal crimes in the U.S. Code. In fact, the Pentagon’s upcoming “trial” in Cuba is itself an acknowledgement that terrorism is, in fact, a criminal offense, one that here is being prosecuted by the Pentagon in Cuba rather than by the U.S. Justice Department in federal district court here in the United States.

Two different systems

It is also critically important to recognize that the Constitution does not provide for two separate judicial systems to try criminal cases, one run by the military and the other run by the federal courts. The Constitution provides for only one judicial system for all criminal offenses, including terrorism cases.

It is also critically important to recognize that the principles being followed in both systems — the federal court system and the military system — are as different as night and day.

In the federal court system, people who are accused of terrorism or any other crimes are presumed innocent. Judges and law-enforcement personnel are prohibited from torturing people or inflicting other “cruel and unusual” punishments on them. An accused has the right to remain silent — i.e., no forced confessions. Communications between attorney and client are confidential. The accused has the right to confront his accusers — i.e., hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Trials can be by jury, where ordinary citizens, not a judge, decide the facts of the case and the guilt or innocence of the accused. Trials must be speedy — i.e., no 18-year delay, as there has been in the Pentagon’s system.

Things are the exact opposite in the Pentagon’s system, which is precisely why it established its system in Cuba rather than the United States. Remember: the Pentagon’s goal is establishing its center in Cuba was to avoid the principles of the Constitution and the interference of the Supreme Court.

Why would the military want to avoid the principles of the Constitution, especially given that military personnel take oaths to support and defend the Constitution? The answer lies in the conservative military mindset that has long held that the Bill of Rights consists of constitutional “technicalities” that permit guilty people to go free. By establishing an independent prison, torture center, and “judicial” system at Gitmo, the Pentagon was going to show the American people and the world what a “real” judicial system should look like, one where “the guilty” got what was coming to them and where there was no possibility of an acquittal by some ignorant jury.

Thus, under the Pentagon’s system, the accused are presumed guilty. They are subject to being brutally tortured, not only to secure information but also confessions. Forced confessions are admissible at trial. There is no right of trial by jury. A tribunal of military personnel, all of whom are answerable to the President, decide the facts in the case and the guilt or innocence of the accused. Communications between attorney and client are secretly monitored. Hearsay evidence is admissible. Trials can be delayed indefinitely. The outcome of the “trial” is not in doubt.

There is something else that is of critical importance to recognize: When an accused terrorist is taken into custody, U.S. officials have the discretionary authority to decide into which system to send him. They can select the federal court system, which protects the rights of the accused through the Bill of Rights and where he could possibly win an acquittal. Or they can send him into the military system, where no such rights exist and where the outcome is preordained. There is no way that that type of discretionary and dual system of justice can possibly be reconciled with “the rule of law,” which requires everyone in similar circumstances to be treated in the same manner. There is also no way to reconcile such a dual, competing system with the U.S. Constitution. Finally, there is no way to reconcile such a system with any reasonable definition of the term “justice.”

The Pentagon’s upcoming “trial” at Gitmo won’t be a trial at all. It will be a kangaroo proceeding, one that is no different from those in totalitarian regimes. Along with the Pentagon’s prison and torture center in Cuba, its upcoming kangaroo proceeding will only bring more shame and ignominy to our country.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

Brexit Threatens UK Food Regulations

September 11th, 2019 by Brendan Montague

The UK public faces the prospect of watered-down food regulations after Brexit with Parliament having little say, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UK TPO) is warning.

New analysis by legal experts at the University of Sussex-based UK TPO warns that stringent regulation, which currently restricts some of the more controversial US food produce from UK supermarket shelves, could be stripped away with minimal Parliamentary scrutiny through Statutory Instruments (SIs).

The EU Withdrawal Act 2018 allowed the creation of over 10,000 pages of new legislation to retain EU rules, including on food safety.

Risk

Some of these provide extensive scope for ministers to make future changes to food safety legislation, notably potentially significant concessions to the US over GM crops and pesticides, in the pursuit of a headline-grabbing trade deal, without the level of scrutiny that primary legislation would provide.

The use of SIs would give a UK prime minister determined to overcome opposition to loosening UK food safety legislation a relatively clear path to ratifying a US-UK FTA – particularly as the UK Parliament has a much weaker influence on treaty negotiation in comparison to both the US or EU.

Such a move could prove extremely unpopular with the UK public, 82 per cent of the UK public favour retaining high food standards over a US trade agreement, and could damage future food trade with the EU, which accounts for around 70 per cent of UK food exports.

This risk is most applicable in the event of no deal or in a scenario of a basic free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. Parliament would have only limited means of opposition through blocking ratification of an FTA or specific SIs.

Revoke

Dr Emily Lydgate, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law at the University of Sussex and Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said:

“In the event of no deal, or a basic EU-UK Free Trade Agreement, the UK Government will be under pressure to make a success of Brexit through new trade agreements.

“The concern is that ministers have extensive scope to make significant food safety concessions in order to reach an agreement with the US potentially in the face of opposition from consumers or food producers who would worry about losing access to the EU market.

“The US has long complained about the EU’s hazard-based approach to banning some pesticides categorically, rather than permitting their residues, and also over the lengthy EU process for approving new genetically modified crops, which the US Trade Representative (USTR) estimates costs US agriculture $2 billion/year.”

Chloe Anthony, a LLM student at the University of Sussex, said:

“The real risk is that there are SIs giving ministers a lot of power on controversial policy areas which the US will be pushing very hard to reform.

“Through SIs, UK ministers have the ability to amend, revoke and make regulations on how active ingredients in pesticides are authorised, the maximum residue levels permitted in food and to the GMO application and authorisation process.”

*

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.

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.