Global Research

The parties had been groping (appropriate, given the daily revelations about harassment) for some common ground. There had been discussions about having further discussions, hedging, ducking and weaving. In a dysfunctional relationship, options tend to shrink rather than expand.  And so it turned out in the latest round of Brexit negotiations between the May government and officials of the European Union. 

As much in the manner of marriage revolves around cash and valuables, the issue of the divorce bill was never going to go away. If anything, it was marching towards British diplomats with promising menace. 

The figure on the table induces dizzy wonder: somewhere up to 55 billion euros to be paid in staggered installments over four decades. This was the British offer, and it seemed awfully resonant of surrender. As the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, chirped, “Now’s the time to get the ship off the rocks.” 

Truly, a different tune to the Johnson of July’s bullish colours, who proclaimed with avid enthusiasm in the Commons that the “sums I have seen that [the EU] propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘to go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” The usual Mt. Olympus clap-trap, a sell for those far below, involved getting “a great deal”. Oh, and yes, “there was a time when Britain was not what we then called the common market.” 

That similar tone was struck by Prime Minister Theresa May on invoking Article 50 in March, thereby triggering the Brexit process. In doing so, she claimed that it was time to “make our own decisions and our own laws… to take control of the things that matter most to us.”

Tides have changed, optimism soured and odds lengthened on Britain’s chances for a robust arrangement. The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, after six rounds of uneasy talks with David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was firm with what he saw as mere chatter before serious negotiations: the UK had a fortnight to settle its debts or sabotage any prospect of working through a transitional deal that would ease the concerns of British business.  

While Davis called for “creativity and flexibility on both sides,” Barnier was merely interested in the next stage.

“We are not asking for concessions, nor are we planning to offer any ourselves, we are working on facts.” 

A fait accompli had presented itself. A process “dressed up as a negotiation,” in the words of Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform but really “a story of the British taking time to realise that they have got to accept what the EU demands of them.” This, in other words, is what leaving the EU looks like: total bureaucracy, implied threat, and stifling control. 

Even now, the process, and amount, is problematic. The figure of 45-55 billion euros is a starting point, a grudging acceptance by the May government that the hawks in Brussels must be placated, their bowls filled. Amounts continue to swirl, but this is a starting point that will cause consternation. 

“We’ve said,” claimed transport secretary Chris Grayling, “that we’ll meet our obligations, we’ve said that that needs to be part of a broader agreement – that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”  

Grayling, for all his circular reasoning, felt obliged to provide a few crumbs to press questions, though they supplied minimal nourishment. “Good progress” had been made, though on what he could not say, but, with typical Bull Dog obliviousness, he suggested that “we can move on to trade talks at the European Council.” 

Some of the Tories are distinctly unhappy with these proposals, preferring to pitch the World Trade Organisation terms as a framework for negotiations. But rather than being in the cabinet, they remain, bullets at the ready, on the perimeter. Julian Smith, the new chief whip, may well find his in tray filled with requests from members of the pro-Brexit European Research Group to ease the means by which the payments are to be made. 

The mess is also compounded by a range of other internal disagreements. No one can quite accept that Her Britannic Majesty’s government should be forking out quite that much; nor is there consensus about the nature of how favourable trade terms can be secured. Others want to get out yet somehow still be that lingering member at a dying cocktail party. 

The selling point for irate Brexit-types is the sense that the divorce be genuine, firm, and final. But these types have gone somewhat quiet of late, even as the appropriate flag has been raised.

“When the time came to hoist the white flag,” noted Dan Roberts, “the cabinet’s swashbuckling Brexiters were nowhere to be seen.”

The former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, not being a negotiator or in the cabinet, continues to luxuriate at a splendid, polemical distance. No deal, he claims, need be reached at all, showing his usual firm grasp of the realities. 

“I have always argued that no deal is better than a bad deal. Make no mistake about it, 55bn euros to leave the EU is a very, very bad deal.” 

With shades of a future stab-in-the-back claim, Farage insists that Britain get more. In a sense he is right – the terms seem bruising on the wallet, but they were essentially promised. What irks him more is that the very thing Brexiters thought would not happen – the prizing out of the common market – has real prospects of taking place.

“For a sum of this magnitude to be agreed in return for nothing more than a promise of a decent settlement on trade represents a complete and total sell out.” 

Crestfallen and browbeaten, British negotiators await the next, even more bruising round.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Image by renowned artist Anthony Freda

First published by Global Research on May 7, 2016

While most people want to reduce nuclear and environmental threats, many also believe that neither climate change nor arms proliferation can be reversed through political channels alone.

When we talk about the American Revolution, the stories are often about military clashes or personal acts of courage in dangerous circumstances. This concept of our early history may account for the widespread identification of radical change with violence in the United States.

In reality, America’s revolution, like many political upheavals, was largely a nonviolent liberation movement that spanned more than a decade. Certainly there were armed struggles, but the real transformation came from the building of substitute governments and massive resistance that led to virtual economic self-sufficiency before bullets were fired.

The power of Britain over the colonies was undermined between 1765 and 1776 by nonviolent civilian campaigns such as tax resistance, boycotts, hunger strikes and nonimportation agreements. It was a powerful outpouring of conscience and direct action, similar in many ways to the abolitionist and civil rights movements, and later Gandhi’s crusade to free India.

Today the world is again experiencing a powerful movement of conscience. Countless millions in the Americas, Europe and Asia have joined together in demonstrations, marches, sit-ins and other nonviolent activities to end the threats to global survival. While most people support initiatives to reduce nuclear and environmental threats, many also have a clear sense — call it skepticism or realism — that neither climate change nor arms proliferation can be reversed by the use of traditional political channels alone.

If that’s true, what will it take? Perhaps the same kind of active resistance that has been crucial in other movements for freedom and justice.

In the early 1980s, for example, Americans voted and spoke out overwhelmingly in favor of halting nuclear weapons production and deployment. During this period, Vermonters and others voted to freeze and reduce nuclear arms, cut military aid to repressive regimes like El Salvador, and transfer federal funds from military spending to programs that would create more jobs and meet social needs.

In the face of such sentiments across the country, as the government proceeded with the development of first strike weapons such as the Cruise, Pershing II, Trident II and MX missiles, many moved from the halls of government to the streets. Churches and religious activists in particular were deeply concerned about what they viewed as idolatry of weapons. In the face of such militarism, the message of many religious traditions was similar: obedience to government cannot be absolute, and we must discriminate when human law conflicts with moral right.

When Jesus cleansed the temple during the week of his arrest and crucifixion, he was also conducting a campaign of civil disobedience aimed at the power centers of the established order. His law-breaking was a tool of rebirth and social change. The approach of Jesus is not unlike the modern democratic notion that a “loyal opposition” is obligated to resist unjust laws and policies to protect the integrity of the body politic. In the 20th Century Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated this principle when he broke segregation laws to show that apartheid was incompatible with the Constitution.

Taking inspiration from Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated the power of nonviolent action to undo an unjust government. The “consent of the governed” was removed in India through a long revolt involving tax refusal, boycotts, raids, resignations, parades and seditious speeches. Gandhi’s method confronted violence with civil defiance and love.

“Disobedience without civility, discipline, discrimination and nonviolence,” Gandhi explained, “is certain destruction. Disobedience combined with love is the living water of life.”

These days, with the threat of violence and nuclear escalation ever present, many determined people still turn to nonviolent resistance to prevent the outbreak of “small” wars that could spark a global catastrophe. In Vermont, this tradition goes back decades, to the June morning when dozens of protesters in Burlington blocked the truck entrance to the local General Electric plant, producer of the Vulcan Gatling gun.

For engaging in this sit-down action, the protesters were ready to be arrested. And they were. But they were prepared because they believed that Vermont’s many votes, petitions and rallies hadn’t been really heard. Development of new weapons continued, intervention in Central America intensified, and anti-personnel weapons produced in Burlington were a significant component of this deadly foreign policy.

By blocking the factory gate, those already committed to peace were moving beyond lobbying ad toward tactics of active resistance. For them, obedience in the face of militarism, war and nuclear terror was a denial of conscience. Nonviolent acts resistance still have the power spark a redemptive transformation of society, one that includes well-planned conversion of weapons plants that protects of jobs of workers.

Like the American colonists who developed a new economy before their revolution, we can start the process of peaceful economic conversion by establishing local groups that involve workers, management and the community in planning for alternative, socially useful non-military production. At the same time, we can work for a broader change in priorities by supporting national conversion legislation that includes retraining and income security for those displaced.

Combining such powerful direct actions with practical goals, in this high tech violent world, would be revolutionary in the best sense of the word.

The first draft of this essay appeared in The Burlington Free Press in June 1983, days before a march and civil disobedience to protest local weapons production. Those who participated in the large sit-in at GE, a first in Burlington, were arrested on orders of Mayor Bernie Sanders. At the time, Greg Guma was on the board of the Burlington Peace Coalition and, with Murray Bookchin, co-chaired the Vermont Council for Democracy.

The US has been consciously provoking North Korea to take action, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alleged after Pyongyang’s latest ballistic missile test. Moscow suspects the US wants a pretext to attack North Korea, he said.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. I think everybody who reads the independent media knows that. But those who are strung to CNN and Time Magazine might have understood otherwise. Lies by omission: The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news, nor is America’s “Killing Fields” in Yemen where children are dying as a result of a US enforced blockade on food and medicine.

America’s wars are portrayed by the media as humanitarian endeavors. “The Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine provides a framework  which justifies military action.

Dear Readers: when war is upheld as peacemaking, conceptualization is no longer possible. Once the Lie Becomes the Truth, there is No Moving Backwards. Insanity prevails. The world is turned upside down.

The Western media and politicians, in chorus, have obfuscated the unspoken truth, namely that the US-NATO led war destroys humanity.

On this Thanksgiving Weekend our thoughts are with Native Americans “in recognition of the suffering they have endured since Europeans first began their conquest of indigenous lands over 500 years ago.”

Our thanks to our contributors who are scattered across the globe. To the best of our abilities, Global Research seeks to  report with accuracy, insight and commitment to social justice and a World without war.

There is no such thing as a “Just War” as put forth by the U.S. and its allies with the relentless support of the corporate media.

Without the daily gush of war propaganda, America’s military endeavors would fall flat. The criminal nature of US foreign policy would be fully revealed.

Our objective is to reverse the tide of media disinformation, protect independent thought and uphold “Net Neutrality”. This objective in turn is geared towards ultimately dismantling the propaganda apparatus and the US-NATO military agenda which threatens the future of humanity

No easy task. And that’s why we Need the Support of Our Readers

Michel Chossudovsky, November 25, 2017

We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research with a view to supporting the endeavors of the GR Team.

Click the Donate Button (left)

Global Research shares timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe.

We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

Consider making a donation to Global Research.

*     *     *

Russia-Gate Gone Wild: Congressional Press Office Strips RT’s Capitol Hill Credentials

By Stephen Lendman, November 30, 2017

Things are worse under Trump. Hostile actions against RT America and Sputnik News may be prelude to criminalizing their US operations, forcing them to shut down if things go this far.

Towards China-Gate? Chinese State Media to Register in America as “Foreign Agents”. US Congressional Report

By Associated Press, November 30, 2017

This initiative has far-reaching geopolitical implications. Why now? Will this recommendation, were it be applied, have an impact on US-China bilateral relations?

State Department Condemns* Designation of Media as Foreign Agents

By Moon of Alabama, November 30, 2017

With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.

US Justice Department Forces RT America to Register as “Foreign Agent”

By Trévon Austin, November 10, 2017

The move is a product of the ongoing anti-Russia witch hunt being led by the Democratic Party, together with the US intelligence agencies, aimed at delegitimizing and outlawing domestic political opposition.

Fake News, “Human Rights” and “Free Speech” in the USA: State-Sponsored Intimidation, or When FARA Goes Too Far

By Andrew Korybko, September 14, 2017

The US government is blatantly violating the most basic tenets of its purportedly “sacred” ideology of “human rights” and “free speech” by egregiously overstepping the bounds of FARA to engage in the same type of state-sponsored intimidation that it regularly accuses its geopolitical opponents of for far less.

Hostile US Actions Against RT and Sputnik News

By Stephen Lendman, September 15, 2017

Targeting RT America through its services supplier and Sputnik News violates the letter and spirit of the law, perhaps prelude to censoring, then banning both operations in America.

Support our Daily Newsletter: your donations are crucial to ensuring independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click image above to donate)

The epidemic of chronic disorders among US children, now reported to represent well over 1/3 of fully-vaccinated children in America is likely iatrogenic (ie, physician-caused, prescription drug-induced, vaccine-induced, medical/surgical treatment-caused).

But the corporate medical and pharmaceutical industries both go through all sorts of contortions to deny responsibility for the epidemic, even to the point of lying, black-listing whistleblowers, publishing fraudulent journal articles, smearing the tellers of inconvenient truths, refusing to publish certain authors that have disproved certain doctrinal medical beliefs, etc.

Corporate medicine and Big Pharma have even stooped so low as to regularly hire pestering trolls that try to create doubt (a la Big Tobacco) and falsely debunk unwelcome truths that threaten the profits or reputations of the various Big Businesses associated with Big Medicine.

The Duluth, Minnesota, USA area is somewhat unique among most communities in that it has a totally independent alternative weekly newspaper – the Duluth Reader – that has allowed a number of columnists to publish articles that would never have been published in any of the region’s corporate-controlled newspapers or corporate-controlled television/radio outlets (including PBS, NPR, MPR, WPR).

The following article was written by a physician acquaintance of mine, pediatrician Ken Stoller, whom I met years ago at one of the annual conferences of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. We were members of that watchdog group because we were both suspicious of the pro-psych drug agendas of Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry.

Ken was also once a board-certified member in good standing of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) until that lobbying and trade association group began denying the provably strong connections between the AAP’s and CDC’s over-vaccination agendas (that recommended the intramuscular injections of cocktails of vaccines containing dangerous amounts of the neurotoxic ingredients mercury, aluminum and/or live viruses, starting with a baby’s first aluminum-containing Hepatitis B shot in the newborn nursery at day one (a shot that contained mercury until 2001). Recall that even trace amounts of toxic metals can be very poisonous when injected into muscle tissue.

So I was happy to run across the following YouTube video that was produced by Ken in 2011, probably prior to the newest information about the serious autoimmunity-inducing properties that aluminum adjuvants have on lab animals and humans. (Please google articles by RK Gherardi (Macrophagic Myofasciitis), Yehuda Shoenfeld (Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants [ASIA]), Chris Shaw, Lucija Tomljenovic, Suzanne Humphries, Sherri Tenpenny, and many other world-class experts on immunology and the serious dangers of the AAP’s infant vaccination schedule.)

The transcript of the video is printed further below, but I preface the article with a number of pertinent quotes and recommendations for further research for inquisitive and open-minded readers.

***

“The collective evidence strongly suggests that Thimerosal exposure is associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.” – Jose G Dorea – Jan 2017 (Thimerosal is the neurotoxic mercury preservative that was in many infant, childhood and adult vaccines during the era of the explosive growth in autism spectrum disorders prior to the year 2000, when the AAP pleaded with Big Pharma to stop using Thimerosal in their vaccines because their pediatricians knew it was causing autism.)

“The majority of studies that authorities point to as proof that vaccines do not cause autism have been published in a journal called Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP. As we know, the AAP is a trade union for pediatricians (which derives a majority of its outside contributions – estimated at more than $25 million per year – from the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines). The pediatricians that the AAP represents derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to their pediatric patients” — J.B. Handley

“The most lucrative areas of medicine are the most corrupted by financial (and academic) conflicts of interest. So-called ‘authoritative’ sources of medical information are thoroughly corrupted not only by pharmaceutical industry manipulation but also by government officials and financially conflicted academic gatekeepers of medical science, ’expert’ panels, medical journal editors and the largely corrupted vaccine information base.” – Vera Sharav, MD

“Public trust in professed authoritative sources of information about vaccine safety has evaporated because the ‘authoritative’ government and many non-government organizations have consistently misrepresented the vaccine safety data.” – Vera Sharav, MD

“It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children (from other causes) than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” — Dr. Peter Aaby

“The really sad thing is the number of doctors I’ve spoken to who say to me, ‘Del, I know that vaccines are causing autism, but I won’t say it on camera because the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career just like they did to Andy Wakefield.'” — Del Bigtree, Producer of “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe”

“Physician-editors of medical journals (who often receive money from Big Pharma corporations) make decisions about which research manuscripts to publish, and thus play a major role in shaping medical knowledge and practice…Beyond deciding what gets published in medical journals (thereby shaping published research and widespread clinical practice), journal editors also decide who the peer reviewers are, which ones to use for a particular article, which articles are prioritized within a journal issue, and also determine the need for additional editorials or commentary, which might be pro or con the article’s conclusions.” — Virginia Wong

“Mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury.” When asked about the risk of aluminum, Verstraeten stated: “the results (of toxicity from aluminum adjuvants) were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury.’” – Dr Tom Verstraeten, senior CDC scientist

“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all. I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” –– Dr Bernard Dalbergue (former Merck employee)

“The autism epidemic is real, and excessive vaccinations are the cause.” – Dr Bernie Rimland

“Completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than vaccinated children.” — J. B. Handley, Jr.

“…our current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of ASD, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“ — C A Shaw, PhD

“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvant has adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” – Chris Shaw, PhD

“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant…research clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” — (From Tomljenovic and Shaw’s journal article “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?”.)

To be enlightened about the dangers of America’s over-vaccination mandates, please click on the VAXXED YouTube channel here, and watch the documentary as well as some of the dramatic testimonials of vaccine-injured children.

Also watch a few of the following well-researched documentaries:

1. The Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccines
2. The Truth About Vaccines 
3. Trace Amounts: Autism, Mercury, and the Hidden Truth 
4. The Greater Good
5. Injecting Aluminum: How Toxic are Vaccines?
6. Shots in the Dark: Silence on Vaccines 
7. Bought: Your Health, Now Brought to you by Wall Street (the Hidden Story Behind Vaccines, Big Pharma and your Food): Trailer is here.
8. VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe (The film they don’t want you to see)

Vaccines, Autism, Vaccines, Mercury and the Culpability of the American Academy of Pediatrics

By Kenneth P. Stoller, MD

(The following is the transcript of Dr Stoller’s powerful video, which can be viewed below.

Autism is a behavioral or psychiatric diagnosis with symptoms that include lack of eye contact, an inability to speak or poor social interactions. Unfortunately, the real problem with the vast majority of children diagnosed with Autism is that they were poisoned beyond what their bodies could process at a critical point in their development. For some, the poisoning came from pesticides or volatile organic compounds, but for most it was a soup of toxins and immune system disruptors found in vaccines, including the most deadly non-radioactive element on earth, mercury.

Instead of identifying the root cause of this growing epidemic of neurologically impaired children and then sounding a call to arms, the American Academy of Pediatrics has allowed the myth of better diagnosing as the reason that there is an explosion of Autism. During the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Simpsonwood meeting in the year 2000, it was revealed to the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the pharmaceutical companies that the mercury in the preservative Thimerosal was causing speech delays and learning disabilities in children. Unfortunately, this information was not shared with the public.

The American Academy of Pediatrics knew the bad news about mercury in vaccines was going to become public, so in 1999 they pledged to have Thimerosal eliminated from vaccines. However, ten years after making the pledge to remove mercury from vaccines the only thing the AAP ever did was join in the protest against a fictitious TV show – Eli Stone – because it was critical of mercury being in vaccines.

Mercury, which is the second most toxic substance to man and 500 times more toxic than lead, is still present in most of the flu vaccine, in the preservative Thimerosal. This is a deadly form of organic mercury called ethyl mercury, which is rapidly absorbed into human cells and the brain.

Vaccines with “trace” amounts of Thimerosal are supposed to contain less than 1 microgram of mercury. Another way of saying 1 microgram is 2000 parts per billion. Now, 1 microgram, or 2000 parts per billion, may not sound like a lot, until you understand just how poisonous mercury really is:

2 ppb of mercury is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for drinking water.
20 ppb of mercury will destroy membrane structure of nerves.
If there is 200 ppb of mercury in a liquid, the EPA classifies that as hazardous waste.
In the United States from 1991 to 2001, the multi-dose, Hepatitis B vaccines administered at birth contained 25,000 ppb of mercury.
And there were 50,000 ppb of mercury in the multi-dose DTP and Haemophilus B vaccines, administered 8 times in the 1990’s.
These toxic multi-dose vials continue to be used with the approval and encouragement of the World Health Organization throughout the world.

For years the Infectious Disease division at the CDC said the reason for the dramatic increase in autism is due to “better diagnosing” and “greater awareness.” They have encouraged those like the AAP to create uncertainty by publishing articles that were less than truthful. Instead of being the advocates for children that they pretend to be, the AAP shamefully plays along, perhaps encouraged by vaccine manufacturers who significantly contribute to the AAP’s yearly budget.

I have discussed mercury as being the chief culprit in the poisoning of a generation of children, most of whom are still under the age of 18, but the contents of vaccines are a toxic soup of ingredients that have never been safety tested appropriately. Vaccines are designed to upset the immune system, and ingredients like polysorbate 80, which is known to cause anaphylactic reactions in some people, as well as aluminum, MSG, DNA of aborted human embryos, and viral contaminants we know to cause cancer in animals, are all part of what is injected into infants, babies and children. For example, the mandatory immunization schedule will cause a two month-old child to receive 49 times the FDA safety limit of aluminum.

Many children can handle this toxic soup of ingredients and get through it unscathed. Others may wind up with allergies, ear infections, weakened immune systems or autoimmune conditions. Yet others can’t handle the toxins at all, and instead develop neuro-immune problems that forever impair their nervous systems. These children develop a brain disease called encephalopathy.

If we now have better diagnosis of Autism, then we should see a higher incidence of Autism in older adults. However, there are no studies that have found these previously undiagnosed or misdiagnosed autistic individuals among older Americans. They simply don’t exist, except in very small numbers, and that is because older Americans were not given the great numbers of vaccines that the children of today are being given.

A genetic epidemic cannot exist and therefore the increase of autism has been linked to the increase in an environmental exposure. This is now accepted as the probable cause, so the next logical thing to do is to trace all toxic exposures to their source.

We live in a world ruled by corporate interests and agendas that are not in the best interests of the citizens on this planet.

The federal government has never tested the type of mercury used in vaccines for toxicity. This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, and at worse it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by liars, thieves, cheats, killers, and the junk scientists they employ

How it came to pass that the AAP joined these rogues and became an active participant in this skullduggery is beyond reason, and even beyond greed. They have remained silent as mercury-laden vaccine continues to be exported and used in all third world and second world countries.

We have tolerated the junk science that has covered up the true cause of this epidemic at a considerable cost to the integrity of science, the public, and our very way of life in this country. It is time to bring our collective heads out of the sand about the autism epidemic or we will make it possible for the destruction of a great many.

A question to ask is this: why haven’t pediatricians come forward to demand the end of the use of Thimerosal once and for all, and to advocate for the treatment of these children before it is too late for them to regain functional lives. There is effective treatment for children with autism, and for many of them, if they are treated early enough there is great hope for partial or even full recovery.

Why aren’t pediatricians at the front of the line protesting the amounts of mercury allowed to come out of coal-fired power plants? Why aren’t they leading the charge to stop the use of mercury amalgam dental fillings that are placed in the mouths of young children and pregnant women?

The very federal agencies that should have been sounding the alarm about environmental pollution creating future generations of mentally disabled citizens did less than remain silent because they have become the arms of the very corporations that profit from selling and distributing poison. When you look at who sits on the FDA’s Scientific Advisory Boards, it becomes obvious that the FDA has become a trade arm of Big Pharma. The conflicts of interest are so glaring that every American should question why this has happened.

Nevertheless, the handwriting is on the wall because the US government has been quietly settling vaccine brain damage cases in the Court of Federal Claims. The recent PACE Environmental Law Review has determined that many of these brain-injured children have autism. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the FDA, and plenty of other medical organizations have adopted the Lies of Big Pharma without caring about the damage that is being done to the world’s children. And that is why I resigned from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

***

Dr. Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his forty-year family practice career. Prior to his retirement, he was a member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; or

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

The fundamental aim of the text below is to deal with the concept and models of global security as one of the crucial topics of global political studies. We have to keep in mind that a term and notion of security usually imply a kind of sense of protection and safety from different possible harms coming from „outside“. Therefore, it can be generally acceptable and understandable that the states want to protect their own territories by expanding great resources in making their territorial safe. Security topics are of very different kind, ranging from the causes of conflict between states to deterioration in the global climate or women’s rights in global politics.

The question of Security Studies as an academic discipline within the scope of Global Politics has been the subject of much debate and one of the most prosperous ways to deal with global security is firstly to analyze different standpoints which are existing within the research discipline. The article, in one word, will try to provide the readers with a basic approaches in the academic field of Security Studies with some necessary personal remarks by the author.

The Conception of a System

The conception of international systems of states is crucial as an explanatory mechanism of both global politics and global security models. However, in order to understand international systems of states firstly the very notion of a system itself has to be clarified and defined. In this context, it can be said that „a system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction“.[1] Any system is necessarily constructed of different members on micro and macro levels which are interacting between themselves from horizontal and vertical perspectives. The member units of a system are of different size, capacity, potentials, wealth, might and therefore of different positions regarding the decision making procedure and especially power.

For the reason that member units of a system are constantly interacting with each other either from horizontal or vertical perspectives, it is quite natural that in the case of a change in one unit the reactions to such change are expected by other units. The most expressed examples are arms race, seeking for balance of power, making political-military blocs with other units or even in the most drastic cases, committing aggression on the member unit. Any system with its member units has a tendency to regulate the relations between them and to try to respond by different means if those relations are changed at the expense of the hegemonic unit(s) of the system. It can exist at the same time two or more systems which are separated from each other by regulating boundaries, but different systems very often collaborate across the boundaries, for instance, in the areas of economy, knowledge or technology exchange as it was the case during the Cold War era (1949−1989). Finally, one system can break down for any reason what means that necessary changes within the system were not achieved in order to save it (for instance, the case of the Warsaw Pact in 1990−1991). Subsequently, instead of the old system a new system can emerge or the member units of the old system can be simply absorbed by another one as it happened, for example, with the majority of the Central and South-East European states after the Cold War.

International Systems of States

It is very difficult to fix the exact date when global system of international relations (IR) and therefore global security models started to work for the very reason that the process of globalization occurred over many centuries.[2] However, the modern European system of IR can be traced back up to the time after the 1648 Westphalian Peace Treaty, while the process of globalization of international systems of inter-states relations started to work from the first half of the 19th century.

International systems of inter-states relations and global security became after the WWII investigated as academic subjects within the framework of World Systems Theory (WST) which recognizes that the states are historically playing the fundamental role in IR and they will do that in the future as well as but the systems of relations of (nation)-states have to be understood and put in the context of global unity rather than conflicts besed on realizations of different national interests. What the theoreticians of WST suggest is that the most meaningful system of global security has to be based on the world system but not on nation-states system. Therefore, they believe that international cooperation and order will replace international conflicts and anarchy. However, behind WST is basically hidden a system of Capitalist World-Economy (CWE) which is advocating ideology of globalization as a new form of the Western global imperialism based on the international division of labor.

Thus, according to CWE, the whole world is divided into three labor and economic zones: the core-states (the Western developed mature economies); the periphery-states (mainly ex-colonies from Africa with still underdeveloped economies); and the semiperiphery-states (mainly East-European ex-socialist states and Middle-East oil-riched states with rising economies and growing infrastructure). The essence of WST/CWE is that a globalization has to function in full benefit of the core-states which are fully exploiting the periphery-states with a semiperifery states as a buffer between core and periphery segments of the world economy which are partially exploited by the core-states (by financial and economic means). In one word, WST/CWE is trying to legitimate existence and functioning of global Western capitalism and its exploitation of the rest of the world by promulgation of globalization ideology.[3] However, the liberal ideology of globalization is advocating in reality the global process of (pervasive) American Westernization from all points of view – from cultural, economic or political to the issues of values, tradition and customs.[4]

Historically, there were three fundamental types of international systems or relations between the states as the crucial actors in global politics even today: 1. Independent; 2. Hegemonic; and 3. Imperial.[5]

The Independent State System (ISS) is composed by the states as political actors and entities in which each of them claim to be independent that means both autonomous and sovereign. The fundamental feature of such state, at least from the very theoretical point of view, is that it has right and possibility to make its own foreign and domestic policies out of any influence or dependence from the outside. The ISS presupposes that the state, territory and its citizens are under full control and governance by the central state authority and that the state borders are inviolable from outside. In other words, any outside actor is not eligible to interfere into domestic affairs of the state which can be governed only by one „legitimate“ authority that is internationally recognized as such. An independent state has to be and autonomous that means (as it ment at the time of the ancient Greeks wherefrom the term comes) that the legitimate state authorities are adopting their own law and organizing the state activities, political and other types of life of the society according to it but not according to the imposed law, rules or values from the outside. States had to be equally treated and understood in regards to their claims to independence, autonomy and sovereignty regardless of the very practical fact that not all of them are of the same power, capabilities and might.[6]

The Hegemonic State System (HSS) is based on an idea of a hegemon and hegemony imposed by a hegemon in IR what means that one or more states (or other actors in politics) dominate the system of IR or/and regional or global politics. A hegemon is fixing the standards, values and the „rules of the game“ and having direct influence on the politics of the system’s members like, for instance, the US in the NATO’s bloc.

There are three possible types of HSS in global politics:

1. Unipolar (or Single) hegemony, when a single state is dominant as it was the case with the US immediatelly after the WWII.
2. Bipolar (or Dual) hegemony, when two dominant states exist in global politics as it was a case during the time of the Cold War (the USA and the USSR).
3. Multipolar (or Collective) hegemony, when several or even many states dominate international relations like during the time after the Vienna Congress in 1815 (Russia, Austria, Great Britain, France and Prussia).

In practice, in any of these three HSS, lesser powerful actors may interact their powers, but they have to get a permit by the hegemon for such action. In HSS, usually domestic affairs of the states are left untouched by the hegemon, while their forreign affairs are strictly under the hegemonic controll.

The third type of IR, the Imperial State System (ImSS), existed from the ancient time (Assyria, Persia, Macedonia, Rome) and has been dominant in Europe, North Africa and Asia in the Middle Ages (the Frankish, Holy Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman or Habsburg empires). The essence of empire as a system is that it is composed of separate societal, ethnic, national, linguistic or/and confessional parts which are associated with regular interaction. However, within such multistructural imperial framework, it is a regular practice that one unit dominates over others by imposing over the rest its own political supremacy. The rest of the framework units have to accept such reality either by force or by interest while a political supremacy by one (ruling) part can be accepted by the others either implicitly or explicitly.[7] However, the question arises what is a difference between the Hegemonic and the Imperial State System as these two systems seems to be very similar if not even the same? Nevertheless, the fundamental difference is that a dominant unit of an empire is much more able to manage other subjects of the state system in comparison to HSS and especially to force them to work for the central authority (tax collection, recruiting people for the imperial army, appointing local political client leaders, etc.). The empires are usually created and enlarged by military conquest, but also they can be militarily destroyed from the outside or disappear due to the inner revolutions followed by civil wars.

Security Dilemma and Global Security Models

Security dilemma is based on an idea that security is a goal for which states struggle and compete between themselves. In principle, the states have to look for their own protection, especially in an „anarchical“ world system in which does not exist any supranational authority (like the UNO or OEBS, for instance)[8] to be capable to impose and/or to ensure regional or global order of IR. In practice, traditionally, the states in order to achieve their security goals were striving for more and more power for the reason to escape the impact of the power and foreign policy of other states especially of the neighbors as the European history clearly shows. However, such practice in turn makes the other states or other actors in IR to feel themselves more insecure and therefore it encourages them to be prepared for the worst scenario (conflict, aggression, war). As any state cannot ever feel entirely secure, the security competition among the states is endless process that is resulting in constant power rising. In other words, the security dilemma provokes a policy to firm security of a (nation)state which has a direct effect of threatening other states or actors in IR and, thereby, provoking power (usually military) counter actions. This endless process is in fact decreasing security for all states especially if we know that in many cases offensive (imperialistic) foreign policy is justified by national arming by „defensive“ weapons (the case of the US, for instance).

Global security as a concept has to be essentially founded on the idea of human (individual and group) security. However, IR in practice are based on the right to self-preservation of the states (i.e., of their political regimes and social elites in power). This idea is born by Englishman Thomas Hobbes (1588−1679) who argued that the right to self-preservation is founded on a natural law, requiring at the same time a social harmony between the citizens and state authority. Therefore, global security has to be founded primarily on the concept of (a nation)state security as the states are a natural form of political associations by the people and still are the fundamental actors in IR. The idea is that, presumably, both individual and civil rights of the citizen would be effectively secured only if the individual consented to the unchecked power of the state ruling elite. Therefore, it can be concluded that a modern philosophy of state totalitarian regimes is de facto born by Th. Hobbes.

Photograph of Battleship Row taken from a Japanese plane at the beginning of the attack. The explosion in the center is a torpedo strike on USS West Virginia. Two attacking Japanese planes can be seen: one over USS Neosho and one over the Naval Yard. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Based on Th. Hobbes’ security philosophy, states will stress the necessity of social collectivisation for the protection of their security interests – it is how the concept of Collective Security (CS) was institutionalised as a mechanism that is used by the states in one bloc not to attack or proclaim the war to other states within the same bloc of coalition.[9] The member states of the same bloc accept the practice to use their collective armed forces and other necessary capabilities in order to help and defend a fellow member state in the case of aggression from outside. Such „defensive“ collective action has to continue until the time when „aggression“ is reversed. The essence of such concept, therefore, is a claim that an „unprovoked“, aggressive attack against any member of an organization is going to be considered as an attack on all member states of that organization. In practice, any really provoked attack of aggression can be easily claimed as „unprovoked“ as it happened, for instance, with the case of Pearl Harbour in 1941 as we know today that the US regime did everything to provoke „unprovoked“ Japanese action on December 7th. Nevertheless, while the concept of CS became the tool to count state aggression, it left very open question of how best to promote the individual or group (minority) security.[10]

It has to be clarified that the very idea of human security is not opposing concern of national (state) security’s requirement that state is in obligation to protect its own citizens from the aggression from the external world, i.e. by a foreign actor. The human security idea argues that the most important focus of security has to be put on individual not on the state, but the state has to protect all its citizens as the protection umbrella from the outside threat. This approach takes an individual-centred view of security that is a basis for national, regional and finally global security. In essence, protection of human (individual and group) rights is giving the main framework for the realization of the concept of human security that advocates „protection against threats to the lives and wellbeing of individuals in areas of basic need including freedom from violence by terrorists, criminals, or police, availability of food and water, a clean environment, energy security, and freedom from poverty and economic exploitation“.[11]

The chief purpose of collective security organization is to provide and maintain peaceful relations within the bloc which is composed of sovereign states but dominated by a hegemon. The concept of CS has declared as a main task to maintain peace between the key actors in IR that practically means the states, but in practice the real purpose of CS system is just to maintain peace and order among the members of the system, however not between the system and the rest of the world. The best example of CS system today is the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which is not of any kind of global security bloc but rather only political-military alliance that is primarily serving the US national interests (global imperialism) across the globe. Nevertheless, the practical implementation of the concept is fluctuating between two models:

1. Traditional and more realistic model of Balance of Power.
2. A new post-Cold War and more utopian model of World Government.

The idea of CS is for sure very attractive for the academics as it seeks to bring about important benefits of a „global government“, but without altering the fundamental essence of the traditional state system of anarchy. The concept of CS from global perspective, therefore, means a „system of international security under which all states agree to take joint action against states that attack“.[12]Anyway, formally, the concept of CS wants to apply a set of legally established mechanisms which are designed to prevent possible aggression by any state against any other state at least without the formal permission by the UNO.[13]

Three Possible Models of Global Security

Different theorists explain in different ways by using different arguments the benefits or disadvantages of one of three possible global security models: Unipolar, Bipolar or Multipolar. Debates are basically going around the arguments which one of these three models is the most stable and above all most peaceful in comparison to all other models.[14]

Those who advocate the Unipolar Security Model (USM) claim that this model gives the most security guarantees as in this case there is simply one power (state) to be in a position of a dominant actor in global politics having a role of a global hegemon or world policemen. It is a belief that world politics can be mostly peaceful if there is a single dominant state that is strong enough to enforce peace as a global hegemon. The hegemon is going to be so powerful that no any other global actor can challenge its superiority in world affairs and IR. This model of global security was adopted by the US administration immediately after the Cold War and mainly was advocated by Zbignew Brzezinski, who was trying to lay down academic foundations of the American hegemonic position in global politics which had primary goal to destabilize, dismember and finally occupy Russia for the sake of free of charge exploitation of her natural resources according to the Kosovo pattern from June 1999 onward. If the US administration succeeds in realization of such goal, the global geopolitical game over the Eurasian Heartland would be finally resolved in the favor of Washington.

The NATO was, is and going to be from the very beginning of its existence (est. 1949) the fundamental instrument of the US policy of global hegemony concept that is known also as Pax Americana. Up today, the NATO remains the most powerful military alliance in the world that was allegedly established “…to provide security for Western Europe, NATO became an unprecedented peacetime alliance with a permanent secretariat and a military headquarters that represents the US commitment to deter Soviet aggression”.[15]However, the very existence of the NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union clearly proves that the ultimate goal of its creation and functioning was not “to deter Soviet aggression” while its (only eastward) enlargement from 1999 onward indicates that in fact Russia was, is and going to be the chief object of the fundamental point of the NATO’s policy of the US expansionism and global hegemony. The 1998−1999 Kosovo War, in which the NATO’s forces became deeply engaged for the first time after its establishment in 1949, marks the beginning of the direct US policy of brutal and open gangsterism (at least) after the Cold War on the global level of IR and world politics.[16]

The USM is necessarily founded on an idea of hegemony in global politics. The word hegemonia comes from the ancient Greek language (as many other words used today by the Western academic world) with authentic means of “leadership”. In IR, a notion of a “hegemon” is used as a synonym for “leader” or “leading state” within the system (bloc) composed by at least two or several states. However, the bloc member countries have to establish and maintain certain relations between themselves what practically means that one of member states became de facto a hegemon within the whole bloc concerning decision making policy and procedure (for example, the USA in the NATO, the USSR in the Warsaw Pact or Germany in the EU). A leadership or hegemony within the system implies certain degree of order, collective organization and above all hierarchy relationships between the members of a system. However, political hegemony in IR does not exist by itself as it is a phenomenon which exists within some interstate system, that is itself the product of specific historical, political, economic, ideological or other circumstances. All hegemonic states within the system enjoy “structural power” which permits the leader to occupy a central leading position in its own created and run system. All other member states are collaborators to the leading role of the hegemon expecting to get a proper reward for their service. On the other hand, a hegemon has to mobilize its own economic, financial, technical, political, human and other resources in order to perform a role of a leader and, therefore, this is why only some (rich) states have a real potential to be hegemons (like the USA in the NATO, for instance).

The USA is today the world’s most powerful and imperialistic single state ever existed in history. Washington is after the WWII using the NATO as a justification of its global hegemonic designs and the American ability and willingness to resume a hegemonic role in the world are of the crucial importance of IR, world order and global security. In principle, majority of studies dealing with hegemony and imperialism point to the British 19^th century empire and the US empire after the WWII as two most successful hegemonic cases in world’s political history.[17] Both of these two empires formally justified their policy of global imperialism within the framework of the concept of USM.

Probably the most important disadvantage of USM is that a unipolar world with a strong global hegemon will all the time tempt either one or several powers to try to challenge the hegemon by different means. This is basically an endless game till the hegemon finally lost its position as such and the system of security became transformed into a new form based on a new security model. That is exactly what happened with the Roman Empire as one of examples of USM.

Nevertheless, in the unipolar system, a hegemon faces few constraints on its policy, determines rules of game in global politics and restricts the autonomous actions by others as it was exactly the case by the US as a “world policemen” at the time of the New World Order in 1990−2008.[18] But on the other side, such hegemonic position and policy of terrorizing the rest of the world (or system) provokes self-defence reactions by others which finally results in the change in the distribution of power among the states (or actors) that can be a cause of war on larger scale of intensity and space. For the matter of comparison, the US hegemonic, Russophobic and barbaric global policy at the time of the post-Cold War New World Order can at the end cause a new world war with Russia (and probably China) as the Peloponnesian War (431−404 BC) was caused by the hegemonic policy of the Athens which provoked the fear and self-defence reaction by Sparta.[19]

The champions of the Bipolar Security Model (BSM), however, believe that a bipolarity of global politics could bring a long-time peace and world security instead of USM. In the case of BSM, the two crucial powers in the world are monitoring each other’s behavior on global arena and therefore removing a big part of the security uncertainty in world politics, international relations and foreign affairs associated with the possibility of the beginning of war between the Great Powers.

A Multipolar Security Model (MSM) looks like as the best option dealing with the prevention of war and protecting global security as a distribution of power is as much as “multi” there are lesser chances for outbreak of the war between the Great Powers. In essence, MSM can moderate hostility among the Great Powers as they are forced to create shifting alliances in which there are no permanent enemies. Nevertheless, for many researchers, MSM is in fact creating a dangerous uncertainty for the very reason as there is a bigger number of the Great Powers or other powerful actors in world politics.

Conclusion

The academic research field of Security Studies is of extreme complexity ranging from the standpoint that these studies should have a narrow military focus as the fundamental security threat to the territorial integrity of states comes during times of conflict to the view that individuals are the final research object of the studies but not the states themselves. Therefore, many academics focus their research on global security basically on human emancipation which is usually understood as achieving wide scope of freedoms – both individual and group.[20] They argue that academic discipline of Security Studies should focus on them but not on the security of the state.

Finally, there are many arguments over what the research and referent object of Security Studies has to be, whether military power is fundamental for state security, who is going to be mainly responsible for providing security or what the studies as academic field have to consider as its research subject matter and focus. The fundamental aim of this article was to present the main route through the (mine)field of Security Studies as an academic research discipline.

Notes

[1] Karen A. Mingst, Essentials of International Relations, Third edition, New York−London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, 81.

[2] On globalization of world politics, see (John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Seventh edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

[3] On world-system, see more in (Alvin Y. So, Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World-System Theories, Newbury Park−London−New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1990; Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, Fifth edition, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007).

[4] Jeffrey Haynes, Peter Hough, Shahin Malik, Lloyd Pettiford, World Politics, New York: Routledge, 2013, 715. In one word, WST conceptualizes global order to be structured into developed, underdeveloped and intermediary states and economic systems.

[5] Paul R. Viotti, Mark V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Security, Economy, Identity, Fourth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersay: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009, 40.

[6] Sovereignty means that one state (or political territory) has its own government (political rulling establishment) which has both full authority over its own claimed administered territory and the rights and possibility of membership of (at least some) the international political community. However, there are many examples of the so-called “quasi-sovereign states” (like Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnistria…). On the issue of „quasi-sovereign states“, see (Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Interchange, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

[7] Martin Wight, Systems of States, Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1977, 6.

[8] Supranational means to be above the sovereign state or “over the nation”.

[9] However, this mechanism is not providing absolute security within the same bloc as the case of Italy and Austria-Hungary showed in 1917.

[10] According to the 1994 Human Development Report (an annual publication of the UNDP), human security is composed by the next seven elements: 1. Economic security or freedom from poverty; 2. Food security or access to food; 3. Health security or access to health care and protection from diseases; 4. Environmental security or protection from environmental pollution; 5. Personal security or physical safety from torture, war, and drug use; 6. Community security or survival of traditional cultures and ethnonational groups; and 7. Political security or protection against political oppression (Martin Griffiths, Terry O’Callaghan, Steven C. Roach, International Relations: The Key Concepts, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008, 147).

[11] Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, 2012, 578.

[12] Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, 2012, 574.

[13] However, this concept lost its moral ground in 1999 when the NATO made an aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days without a resolution by the UNO launching the “illegal war” on a sovereign state (Пјер Пеан, Косово: „Праведни“ рат за стварање мафијашке државе, Београд: Службени гласник, 2013, 95−105 [translation from the French original: Pierre Pean, Sébastien Fontenelle, Kosovo: Une Guerre „Juste“ pour Créer un Etat Mafieux, Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2013]).

[14] Security Studies as an academic discipline belong to a wider subject of International Relations (IR) that is the study of total political relations between different international actors but fundamentally between the sovereign states. The main concern of Security Studiesis the global securuty and its maintainance (Peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, 2008, 2).

[15] Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, 2012, 345.

[16] As a direct result of the NATO’s aggression on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, Kosovo became transformed into the American colony (see more on this issue in: Hannes Hofbauer, Experiment Kosovo: Die Rückkehr des Kolonialismus, Wien: Promedia Druck- und Verlagsges. m.b.h., 2008).

[17] For instance, Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations, Fourth edition, New York: Longman, 2001, 92.

[18] A term New World Order is originally coined by the ex-US President George Bush Senior in 1991as a consequence of the First Gulf War in 1990−1991 when the US administration started its post-Cold War imperialistic policy of a global hegemon hidden behind an idea of globalization of liberal internationalism that was allegedly impossible without the US hegemonic role in world politics. Nevertheless, the concept of New World Order „…was short-hand for US policy preferences and further American imperialism“ (Jeffrey Haynes, Peter Hough, Shahin Malik, Lloyd Pettiford, World Politics, New York: Routledge, 2013, 712). Many academics and politicians have at the beginning hopes that New World Order will bring a better future in IR and global politics but very soon the idea became very criticized and, therefore, the idea lost any rational and moral background.

[19] Михаил Ростовцев, Историја старога света: Грчка и Рим, Нови Сад: Матица српска, 1990, 112−120; Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1999.

[20] Emancipation means, at least by the Westerners, the achievement of independence, i.e., ability to act independently. However, to be emancipated does not automatically mean that the individual is free of all obligations toward others including and those toward the state (military service, taxation…). It means only that the individual is free of those obligations which are considered to be oppressive or inhuman (slavery, serfdom…).

Earlier this week a photo of the alleged ceasefire deal between the US-backed Syrian Democratic forces (SDF) and ISIS appeared online. According to the document, the two sides reached a ceasefire agreement to avoid clashes in eastern Syria, especially in the province of Hasakah. The SDF allegedly agreed to avoid engaging ISIS units, fighting with sides not involved in the agreement – in other words, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

Within the framework of the agreement, the sides would establish a hot line and a military coordination room to maintain the ceasefire and to inform each other about military movement close to the contact line. Civilian and economic traffic would also be open between the SDF-held and ISIS-held areas.

On Tuesday, the SDF media wing released an official statement on the issue and claimed that the circulating document was fake adding that this is a part of the propaganda campaign against the SDF.

Even if this particular document is fake, the SDF is the main side responsible for the fact that people are ready to believe in such reports. The US-led coalition and the SDF have repeatedly insisted that they make no deals with ISIS. Meanwhile, they made deals with ISIS in the cities of Manbij, Tabqah and Raqqah and allegedly made a deal with ISIS-linked tribes in the area of the Omar oil fields.

In the province of Deir Ezzor, the SAA eliminated the entire ISIS-held pocket south of Mayadin and are now deploying units for an advance to clear the ISIS-held area northwest of al-Bukamal.

In northeastern Hama and southern Aleppo, the SAA has liberated the villages of Abisan, Aziziyah, Ramlah and Rasm Khala and repelled an attack on the village of Rashadiya by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formelry Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda). In total, government forces have liberated 17 villages from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham since the start of the advance west of the Ithriyah-Khanasser-Aleppo highway earlier in November.

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Featured image: Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta with First Lady Margaret at Swearing In on November 28, 2017

A rerun of the national presidential elections in the East African state of Kenya has resulted in a landslide victory by the incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta of the Jubilee Party.

Kenyatta stood for election again after an early September 4-2 Supreme Court ruling which overturned the initial August 8 election mandating that another poll be held within 60 days.

Opposition coalition leader and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga of the National Super Alliance (NASA) boycotted the October 26 poll saying that inadequate reforms had been instituted within the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC). Frequent clashes between NASA supporters and security forces escalated leading up to the second election.

The IBEC had certified the second election on October 30 where Kenyatta won with 98.3 percent of the votes cast. Only 38.4 percent of the electorate turned out on October 26 less than one half of the participation garnered on August 8.

However, the same Supreme Court in which a majority nullified the presidential vote less than two months before, upheld the October 26 election unanimously leading to the inauguration of President Kenyatta on November 28. The court said that two petitions seeking to once again quash the results were thrown out due to a lack of merit.

An article in the Voice of America (VOA) said of the election challenges that:

“The two petitions were filed by a former lawmaker, Harun Mwau, and two human rights defenders, Njonjo Mue and Khalef Khalifa. The petitioners argued the electoral commission committed illegalities by going ahead with the election in spite of opposition leader Raila Odinga pulling out of the race. Benjamin Musyoki, who represents Mwau, argues the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission was supposed to carry out a new nomination process after the annulment of the original August 8 poll.” (Nov. 16)

Kenyatta along with Deputy President William Ruto were sworn in by the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Anne Amadi. The ceremony was presided over by Chief Justice David Maraga.

Over 60,000 people attended the event held at the Moi International Sports Center in Kasarani amid cheers from the crowd. Numerous heads-of-state and other officials from throughout Africa were in attendance including Presidents Paul Kagame (Rwanda), Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Edgar Lungu (Zambia), Ian Khama (Botswana), Salva Kiir Mayardit (South Sudan), Ismaïl Omar Guelleh Muhammed (Djibouti), Ali Bongo Ondimba (Gabon), Hage Geingob (Namibia), Abdullahi Farmajo (Somalia), Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and Guinea’s Prime Minister Mamady Youla.

President Muhammadu Buhari of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was represented at the ceremony by his Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. Former President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete and ex-Prime Minister Edward Lowassa were on hand for the inauguration.

Kenya crowds at Kenyatta inauguration on November 28, 2017

The president expressed his hopes for a united Kenya during the inaugural address, saying:

“I undertake today to be the custodian of the dreams of all Kenyans and to be the keeper of the aspirations of those who voted for me and those who did not. I will be president of all. I will devote my time and energy to build bridges to unite and bring prosperity to all Kenyans.”

Opposition Coalition Pledges to Establish Alternative Government

Meanwhile just several blocks away from the inauguration, supporters of the NASA coalition clashed with police in protest against the second term of Kenyatta. A rally against police brutality in honor of those killed in ongoing unrest was scheduled to take place at Jacaranda grounds in Embakasi East, Nairobi.

A number of people were reportedly killed on November 17 amid the return of Odinga from a ten day visit to the United States. Odinga is seeking assistance from various western states in his bid to destabilize the administration of President Kenyatta.

While in the U.S., Odinga met with top officials at the State Department, leading Senators and members of the House of Representatives which are all dominated by the Republican Party under President Donald Trump. After returning to Kenya he reported that the visit was a success in relationship to his strategy of “resistance” against the current Kenyan government.

Riot police sealed off the area around the Jacaranda grounds on November 28 to prevent a rally at the location prompting responses from NASA supporters. Youth set fire to tires and threw stones at police after they were prevented from marching to the location of the rally.

Although by early morning on November 29 the situation appeared to be calm, the impact of the violence was very much in evidence among residents and small business people of Tena Estate along Manyanja Road. The smell of teargas and broken windows continued to unsettle those who live and shop in the neighborhood.

Eyewitness accounts of the unrest on November 28 were published in the one of the leading newspapers, the Kenya Daily Nation. According to Dorothy Akoth:

“When teargas was thrown at us while Mr. Odinga was speaking, we dispersed but some men were still determined to fight with the policemen. We entered our houses and some people went into business premises located by the roadside. A teargas canister was thrown into the backdoor of my house. And all the gas spread into my house. All my children have been sneezing since yesterday and they have running noses.”

Another businesswoman, Aucillia Okoth, conveyed that:

“I had run to hide in that kiosk because some youths who had raided my shop were looting and they had threatened to even rape me if I did not get out. But when I was hiding, I heard gunshots and then suddenly the whole kiosk was full of people. The police came later and forced us out.”

Moreover, Odinga and his supporters are threatening to declare a parallel state in defiance of the Kenyatta administration. Odinga will be sworn in for this alternative government on December 12 which could potentially continue the already tense situation inside the country.

“I will be sworn in as President of Kenya on Jamhuri Day (December 12) through the people’s assembly, and go to State House. We will meet to discuss the matter and direct on the way forward,” Odinga stressed. “You know me very well, I am not a coward. We are not going to be inaugurated in the same way Kizza Besigye was sworn-in in Uganda. We will be sworn in the same way that Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa was sworn in,” he maintains.

Nonetheless, Odinga’s move of being sworn-in is tantamount to a treasonable offense under Chapter 63 of the Constitution of Kenya. Such a move would be viewed as an attempt to usurp the authority of President Kenyatta.

Role in East African Politics and Regional Economy

Kenya is the largest economy in the East Africa region which has experienced growth rates close to six percent in recent years. However, the World Bank is predicting a slump of 0.5 percent in growth for 2017 due to the persistence of drought which will impact agricultural production.

An inflation rate of 10.3 percent earlier in the year has placed a strain on consumer spending capacity. Other problems related to a lack of loans for small businesses, consumer credit and housing will continue to hamper genuine development.

It is estimated that the country is in need of at least two million new affordable housing units in light of the horrendous overcrowding in Nairobi and other municipalities where people remain in sub-standard dwellings that pose health and environmental dangers. Such social conditions serve as a breeding ground for opposition forces in their attempt to delegitimize the Kenyatta government.

Consequently, the threat by Odinga and his NASA coalition to move forward with disruptive tactics does not bode well for economic and political stability. Kenyatta has reached out to Odinga in an effort to stave off additional unrest.

The eruption of a full-blown civil conflict will only provide an opening for the imperialist states to intervene both politically and militarily. The East Africa region is one of the world’s wealthiest in regard to energy resources and strategic waterways where events in Kenya and neighboring states will be critical in regard to the general well-being of the people of Africa as a whole.

All images in this article are from the author.

Abidjan, Ivory Coast is the scene of the annual European Union-Africa Summit where the centuries-long crises of relations between the two continents has reached a tipping point with the escalation of human trafficking in Libya stemming directly from the Pentagon-NATO destruction of the North African state in 2011.

In this year’s gathering, the fifth of such meetings, the African Union (AU) has gained official recognition as a continental body. In previous summits due to the desire by the EU to exclude certain states, the participation of African governments was based on an invitation-only basis.

However, beginning on November 29, both regional institutions sat down to negotiate new agreements on the migration of Africans from their homelands into Europe where an estimated 1.5 million people have traveled since 2015 only to be largely met with racism and national discrimination by EU member-states. Thousands have died in the Mediterranean due to sub-standard vessels in which people have paid thousands of Euros to travel across the waters to an uncertain future in the historical centers of slavery and colonialism.

Despite the concerns prompted by corporate media exposures of the recrudescence of the Atlantic Slave Trade, the actual causes underlying the contemporary crisis remains hidden through platitudes of concern by the leading EU states such as Germany and France along with their principles allies in Africa whom remains dominated by neo-colonialism. Although most African states gained formal independence decades ago, the economic and consequent political policies of these states are still largely dictated by Western European and North American imperialist governments.

Ironically the host of the EU-AU Summit President Alasane Ouattara of Ivory Coast was himself installed through French imperialist intervention in the early months of 2011. The previous head-of-state, President Laurent Gbagbo, was overthrown at the aegis of paratroopers deployed from Paris.

Gbagbo is now imprisoned in the Netherlands where he awaits trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague over alleged crimes committed in Ivory Coast. His wife, former First Lady Simone Gbagbo, a political figure in her own right, was railroaded through the unjust imperialist-controlled court system in Ivory Coast where she is serving a 20-year prison term absent of any identifiable criminal wrongdoing.

European Union-Africa Summit in Abidjan, Nov. 29, 2017

The ICC has been accused of racism and bias by numerous AU member-states due to its preoccupation with events on the continent while war crimes and genocidal policies carried out by the imperialist states of the West in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, etc. have not even been investigated by the ICC let alone being the subject of sanctions, arrest warrants, indefinite detentions and show trials. Only one African state has been able to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ICC being Burundi which is facing retribution by the West.

Ouattara at the opening of the EU-AU Summit described slavery as a “wretched drama which recalls the worst hours of human history. I would like to appeal to our sense of responsibility to take all urgent measures to put an end to that practice, which belongs to another age.”

Nonetheless, the gathering of these 55 AU and 28 EU nations is not prepared to discuss the development of a new political and economic arrangement that could re-correct the six centuries-long disproportionate control by Europe and its descendants in North America over Africa. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron may present themselves as representatives of a neo-liberal Europe prepared to “integrate” African migrants, the reality is that the legacy of slavery and colonialism is very much a determining factor in the horrors of the second decade of the 21st century where the worse crises of displacement in human history has been spawned by imperialist wars and gross economic exploitation against the peoples of Africa and the Asia-Pacific.

Western Imperialism Destroyed Libya and Must Accept Responsibility for Its War Crimes

Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the former leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya, was targeted by the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, along with their allies in North Africa and the Middle East in February 2011 for removal. Rebels were financed, armed and coordinated to wage a ground war of terrorism to overthrow the government in Tripoli.

Although Libya had given up most of its offensive and defensive weapons in an effort to avoid war with the imperialists during the same time period as the destruction of Iraq in 2003, the Gaddafi forces were able to defeat the counter-revolutionaries chasing them back into their launching base of Benghazi by the second week of March 2011. Not willing to see the triumph of the Libyan military over its agents, the U.S. and other NATO governments went before the United Nations Security Council to pass two resolutions mandating an arms and economic embargo against the Jamahiriya as well as a massive bombing campaign which lasted for seven months.

The counter-revolutionaries fighting the Libyan government were labelled as “freedom fighters” attempting to institute “democracy” inside the country. Tens of thousands of Libyans and other Africans lost their lives in the process while the basic infrastructure of the AU’s most prosperous state was destroyed. These atrocities were committed under the leadership of the first “Black” president of the U.S. Barack Obama, who also escalated the presence of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) on the continent, with Libya being its first full mission.

Similar to the events in Ivory Coast, there were African governments and non-state entities which supported the recolonization of Libya. Today these same states are suffering from destabilization, the continuing impoverishment of their people emanating from the economic dependency on the imperialist nations.

Despite the purported “Arab Spring” seizure of power in Libya, some six years later, the country is one of the most unstable and destitute in Africa. Numerous attempts to configure a compliant neo-colonial dispensation in Libya have failed miserably. In 2017, at least three identifiable sources of putative “authority’ are in existence while militias and criminal gangs roam free throughout the country reigning down havoc upon millions.

The existence of slave marts in Libya is a by-product of imperialist intervention. This situation did not arise spontaneously and is a natural socially evolutionary process emerging from the failure of world capitalism struggling desperately to exert its influence over the majority of humanity.

Contributing to this state of affairs has been the U.S.-NATO wars waged in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Palestine and other geo-political regions. Islamist “terror” groups were created and promoted by the imperialists. They have been utilized for decades by Washington, London and Brussels through formal networks operating in compliant territories such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Africa Must Unite Against Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism

The EU-AU Summit cannot solve the problems of African migration. These difficulties can only be eradicated when Africa unites under an anti-imperialist program designed to rebuild the continent based upon its own economic and political interests.

This was the contribution of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the prime minister and president of the West African state of Ghana which was overthrown as well in 1966 at the aegis of Washington and Wall Street. Later Gaddafi also called for the creation of a United States of Africa in the Nkrumaist mode leaving him open to attack by the same imperialist system.

African migrants trapped in Libya

Recently during his tenure as AU Chairperson in 2015-2016, President Robert Mugabe of the Republic of Zimbabwe urged African nations to unite through the construction of its own trading system, currency, political integration and a military force that is independent of the Pentagon and NATO. Mugabe recently resigned from office under pressure from elements within his own political party, ZANU-PF.

The degree to which imperialism was responsible for this series of events known as “Operation Restore Legacy”, will become clearer as the actual policies of his successors become evident particularly in the arenas of land reform, indigenization, their posture towards U.S. militarism and the continuation of an anti-imperialist, Pan-Africanist and Socialist-oriented domestic and foreign policy.

What remains undisputed is the historic role of Europe in the underdevelopment of the African continent. Therefore only the genuine independence of Africa from this system of exploitation and national oppression can bring about true freedom and liberation to its people.

All images in this article are from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

America’s war on press freedom rages, RT and Sputnik News prime targets, all independent media threatened.

Every outlet and journalist diverging from the official narrative is endangered by a nation wanting truth-telling on vital issues suppressed.

Free and open expression is our most fundamental right. Without it all others are endangered.

Press freedom was targeted on Obama’s watch, including by suppressing information everyone has a right to know, along with aggressively targeting whistleblowers and leakers.

Things are worse under Trump. Hostile actions against RT America and Sputnik News may be prelude to criminalizing their US operations, forcing them to shut down if things go this far.

Congressional action taken yesterday was the latest body blow to media freedom in America. A letter received by RT America said the following:

“The Executive Committee of the Congress Radio & Television Correspondents’ Galleries exercised its authority, as garnered by the rules of House of Senate, to withdraw the news credentials of the RT Network by unanimous vote on November 21, 2017.”

“The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not be issued to any applicant employed ‘by any foreign government or representative thereof.’ “

“Upon its registration as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials” – effective immediately, its credentials ordered to be returned to the Senate Sergeant.

Requiring RT America to register as a foreign agent was a shameful act, wanting its operations compromised – de-accreditation on Capitol Hill the latest example, likely more impediments to its work coming.

RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan responded to the latest outrage, saying:

“To all the self-righteous defenders of ‘freedom of speech’ who oh-so-ardently proclaimed that FARA registration places no restrictions whatsoever on RT’s journalistic work in the US: Withdrawal of congressional credentials speaks much louder than empty platitudes.”

“And to borrow from Orwell, all ‘foreign agents’ are equal, but looks like only RT is denied congressional accreditation on the basis of FARA status, while the likes of NHK and China People’s Daily carry on business as usual, and US officials continue to claim that the forced FARA registration for RT America’s operating company isn’t at all discriminatory.”

Russia’s US ambassador Anatoly Antonov blasted the latest move against RT, saying:

“Most importantly, the thing that the Americans are so proud of today is freedom of the press. This is a direct violation of the main principle of the freedom of press in the United States.”

Antonov commented from San Francisco. The State Department denied him permission to enter Russia’s illegally seized consulate in the city.

Moscow promised tit-for-tat retaliation in response to hostile US actions. Expect an appropriate one following the de-accreditation of RT America on Capitol Hill.

A few days before the Halloween hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, where powerful tech companies would provide testimony about their roles disseminating “fake news” during the 2016 election, Twitter announced it would no longer accept advertising from the Russian government-sponsored broadcast channel Russia Today (RT), or the state-owned Sputnik.

In a Twitter PublicPolicy blog post (10/26/17), the company said it would “off-board advertising from all accounts” owned by RT and Sputnik. The decision was based on its own assessment of the 2016 US election “and the US intelligence community’s conclusion that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government.” As substantiation, Twitter merely provided a link to the January 6, 2017, intelligence report (ODNI).

BuzzFeed (11/1/17) reported that Twitter based its decision on the intelligence report that called RT “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet,” also providing a link to the report without a word about its documentation or quality. Most reporting did the same, including the New York Times (10/26/17), which said Twitter’s decision “was informed by specific findings of the United States intelligence community, made public in January.”

A lonely voice critical of the Twitter ban was the Electronic Frontier Foundation (10/27/17), which warned the action was a threat to free expression, both in the US and globally.

At the time the report was published, Vox (1/6/17) repeated many of the “intelligence” assertions, including the Kremlin propaganda charge. Vox told readers that “RT is way more important than we think,” saying the report contained “striking observations” about RT’s reach, message and proximity to the Russian government. For example, staff at RT’s bureaus are not just close, but “very, very close to the Kremlin.” One network head was from Russia’s “diplomatic service,” and “London’s RTbureau is managed by the daughter” of a former Mikhail Gorbachev speechwriter.

It appeared that neither Vox nor those who penned the “intelligence report” remembered that under Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, glasnost (meaning openness) and a liberal press flourished in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s face appeared on the cover of Time magazine (1/1/90) when it declared him the Man of the Decade, and later that year (6/4/90) the magazine quoted him as saying, “I detest lies.”

Taking a closer look at the seven pages of claims against RT (a full one-third of the total intelligence report on Russian interference) that led to Twitter’s decision, some journalists might have concluded that RT provided substantive news to the American public in 2012, and later during the election. They might also have noticed that the report makes shoddy, misleading arguments, embarrassing mistakes (such as confusing European and US date notations), unsubstantiated claims, and lacked any grounding in the foundations of journalism in a democracy. As Robert Parry (Truthdig, 7/31/17) pointed out, US government accusations against RT

have related more to it covering topics that may make the establishment look bad—such as the Occupy Wall Street protests, fracking for natural gas, and the opinions of third-party presidential candidates—than publishing false stories.

The US intelligence officials apparently do not like RT reporting about the abuses of the American Security apparatus. They complain that RT‘s reports often characterize the United States as a “surveillance state” and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality and drone use (RT, 10/24/12, 10/28/12, 11/1–10/12).

RT is also condemned for reporting on Occupy Wall Street: It “created a Facebook app to connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via social media. In addition, RT featured its own hosts in Occupy rallies.” Airing material far outside acceptable discourse in mainstream commercial media, RT also “focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed and the US national debt.”

Repeated are familiar charges that Russians bolstered Donald Trump’s campaign and diminished Hillary Clinton’s. Claims that RT harmed Clinton point to broadcasts that include debates with third-party candidates like Jill Stein. Indeed, Ed Herman (7/8/17/) argued that no case was made by the ODNI report and that RT’s content was rather the “ongoing expression of opinion and news judgments.”

This intelligence report may go down as one of the shoddiest pieces of media criticism ever penned, and also the least scrutinized. (FAIR’s Adam Johnson was one of the few to take a close look at it—1/10/17.)

Ironically, RT’s own own reporting of the “intelligence” marshaled against it is a masterful illustration of decoding skills no longer very evident in the US commercial media. RT’s January 7 broadcast with Kevin Owen spent almost 15 minutes on the US report, concluding that the “final assessment neither implies that there’s any evidence,” nor proves that there are any facts.

RT’s Fracking Programming

Complaints about RT’s coverage of fracking were given a prominent position in the ODNI report: “RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health,” it stated. It went on to claim:

This is likely reflective of the Russian government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.

Vox repeated intelligence claims about the alleged motivations for RT’s fracking coverage, but failed to say that stories contained health and environmental impacts of fracking.

Screengrab from RT featured in the ODNI report.

Those in Congress representing the interest of the extractive industries have seized on this charge, equating anti-fracking coverage with “divisive messages” such as hate speech. The Washington Times (9/26/17) reported on a congressional probe into Russian “fracking-related social media ads.” The committee rallied against

divisive social and political messages conveyed through social media [that] have negatively affected certain energy sectors, which can depress research and development in the fossil-fuel sector and the expanding potential for natural gas.

Under pressure to block “fake news,” Twitter banned RT ads, and Google announced that it would “de-rank” stories from RT (and Sputnik as well), placing them lower in search results. But while RT is sponsored by the Russian government, it is still a legitimate international news agency, as are the UK’s BBC News at Ten, Qatar-owned Al Jazeera, and 20 Heures, produced by France 2’s broadcasting service. It offers critical, alternative perspectives unavailable on other channels. It is also clearly labeled, not hidden like a bot or a fabricated Facebook page, allowing the public knowledge of its origination and perspective.

RT’s reporting bears striking similarities to alternative and independent media content, and that is why letting the charges against RT stand unexamined is so dangerous. The actions being taken by tech giants to battle fake news are currently having devastating effects on alternative media and freedom of speech, while leaving the worst hate speech and junk news spinning across the internet by right-wing trolls.

‘Professional’ vs ‘Junk’ News

The way fake news is being defined in this battle is an attack on alternative journalism itself. CNN reported (10/26/17) on a study by Oxford University’s Internet Institute on “‘Junk News’ and 2016 Election,” finding that only 20 percent of sampled tweets contained links to “professional” news. (Together with “professional political news,” they comprise 30 percent of tweets.)  The anchor says, “You mean real news, like CNN,” to a nod of approval. Much of the rest of  Twitter content is lumped together as ill-defined “junk,” shown on a graph as “polarizing or conspiratorial: Inclu. Wikileaks and Russia”; no mention is made of the racist, hateful or misogynist content of white supremacist trolls.

Such classifications emerge from naïve technology researchers seemingly unaware that junk news and propaganda are deeply embedded within professional news brands: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, global warming is not anthropogenic and tax cuts for the rich will benefit the middle class. (Media critic Edward Herman penned a long history of the New York Times‘ fake news about Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, that dates back as  as the 1917 revolution itself—Dissident Voice, 7/8/17.)

Yet in the battle against fake news, much of the best, most accurate independent reporting is disappearing from Google searches. The World Socialist Web Site (8/2/17) reported that Google’s new search protocol is restricting access to leading independent, left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights websites. The estimated declines in traffic generated by Google searches for news sites are striking:

• WSWS.org fell by 67 percent.
• AlterNet.org fell by 63 percent.
• ConsortiumNews.com fell by 47 percent.
• SocialistWorker.org fell by 47 percent.
• MediaMatters.org fell by 42 percent.
• CommonDreams.org fell by 37 percent.
• DemocracyNow.org fell by 36 percent.
• Truth-out.org fell by 25 percent.
• CounterPunch.org fell by 21 percent.
• TheIntercept.com fell by 19 percent.

Truthdig noted back on July 31 that

Google’s strategy is to downgrade search results for targeted websites based on a supposed desire to limit reader access to “low-quality” information, but the targets reportedly include some of the highest-quality alternative news sites on the internet.

AlterNet (9/25/17) told its readers, “We are getting slammed by Google’s new algorithm intended to fight ‘fake news,’”   referring to Google as an “inaccessible behemoth, with a complete lack of transparency.” Executive editor Don Hazen wrote, “It appears that Google has pushed popular, high-traffic progressive websites to the margins and embraced corporate media.”

AlterNet‘s graph of its website’s traffic after Google instituted its new algorithm.

As we enter a brave new world where artificial intelligence is deployed in calculations and algorithms purportedly targeting fake news, the winners are establishment and commercial media. This may be the reason for so little discussion, other than a few laudatory features praising the new technology. The New York Times (5/1/17) gushed about researchers harnessing digital technology to fact-checking programs in a hunt for fake news as  “a positive way of moving artificial intelligence forward while improving the political debate.” Tech giants, we are told, are partnering with computer scientists and start-ups to develop sophisticated algorithms computing “reams of online data to quickly — and automatically — spot fake news faster than traditional fact-checking groups can.”

The lack of transparency about the design of algorithms now extends to other players with open censorship in mind. A group of anonymous “researchers” on the website PropOrNot have created what Robert Parry of Consortium News(11/27/16) refers to as a blacklist. Consortium News was included among some 200 Internet sites spreading what PropOrNot deems “Russian propaganda.” Parry noted that the Washington Post (11/24/17) validated the authors of PropOrNot as sophisticated experts who “tracked” the Russian propaganda operation. The Post’s Craig Timberg  described the nameless players of PropOrNot simply as “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”

FAIR (11/24/16) shows that despite respected media critics taking the report to task, the Post’s spurious claims were cemented as conventional wisdom across much of the media. Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org, another independent news site that made the list, told FAIR (12/8/16), “The morning after the Post published its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats.”

By contrast, commercial digital technologies continue to augment the reach of alt-right views. Recently ProPublica (8/19/17) surveyed the most visited websites of extremist groups identified by either the SPLC or the Anti-Defamation League. Researchers found that

more than half of them—39 out of 69—made money from ads, donations or other revenue streams facilitated by technology companies. At least 10 tech companies played a role directly or indirectly in supporting these sites.

The Islamaphobic Jihad Watch is an example of one the numerous sites that “monetize their extremist views through relationships with technology companies.”

And AlterNet (11/8/17) reported that “Google is continuing to allow the monetization of fake news via its advertising network AdSense,” and boosted numerous fake news stories after the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church massacre.

Twitter still has a white supremacy problem. The Root (11/9/17) reported that Twitter gave its coveted “verified” status, denoted by a blue checkmark, to Jason Kessler, the organizer of the white supremacist Charlottesville rally that resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer and the brutal beating of DeAndre Harris at the hand of white supremacists. A blue checkmark from Twitter verifies the users’ tweets and profiles, and they are more likely to appear in searches, allowing messages to be spread faster and reach more people. By verifying Kessler’s account, Twitter is directly enabling white supremacy.

The Fundamental Problem

The expanding universe of lies, propaganda and fake news proliferating across the internet is a consequence of the monetized technologies that drive profits for the powerful tech industry. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not neutral platforms. They are deliberately designed to actively harvest human attention and sell it to advertisers, an immensely profitable enterprise. As a consequence, digital technologies blur the lines between paid ads, boosted posts and organic content on platforms such as Facebook, where ads and newsfeeds alike go viral. This is a design choice that came about because in-feed placement increased the engagement on the ads, and thus Facebook’s revenue. The business model is built into the technology. Writing in Politico (11/1/17), Renee Diresta and Tristan Harris note:

The self-serve ease and affordability of Facebook’s ads tool, and the fact that the platform can turn content viral quickly, is why advertisers and manipulators alike love it.

Twitter is a high-speed tool for breaking news, and for citizen journalists who need to reach the public and share information. On the other hand, refusing to alter its commercial design, the platform has failed to acknowledge and police the anonymous, automated army of bots. This leads to hashtags spreading vile anti-immigrant content, racism and misogyny as quickly as news and information.

Disentangling the hot-button, attention-grabbing stories that go viral from the advertising that supports that content would lower profit margins. Instead, companies are devising artificial intelligence and algorithms that purportedly detect fake news. In doing so, they are leading the charge to eliminate independent and alternative views under the guise of Kremlin propaganda, which started last January with charges against RT in the ODNI report.

Guardian (11/21/17) 

Even in the face of Google’s testimony at the Halloween Hearings that the company’s own internal review found that RT broke none of Google’s rules or protocols, the Guardian (11/21/17) reported that Google searches would employ algorithms to de-rank the “state-run Russian news agencies, including Russia Today and Sputnik, which are accused of spreading propaganda by US intelligence agencies.” The Guardian went on to confuse RT with twitter trolls:

At least 80 times, news sites, including the Telegraph, Metro and BuzzFeed, embedded or quoted tweets known to have been written by a notorious state-backed “troll army” based in St Petersburg.

Mainstream media continually equate RT with such troll armies, while downplaying the role of alt-right hate groups in the promulgation of fake news. Also outside of the Russiagate purview is the degree to which fake news content was amplified on the Internet by the Trump campaign and his supporters. The Nation (11/16/17) pointed out that as Russiagate reaches panic levels, freedom of speech is under fire:

Congress, led by Democrats, is also eyeing [RT], along with any other information source that could be deemed “Russian-linked.” At recent congressional hearings on how Russia allegedly used its platforms to influence the 2016 campaign, lawmakers denounced Facebook, Twitterand Google for failing to thwart…“a deliberate and multifaceted manipulation of the American people by agents of a hostile foreign power.”

In response, Twitter has

informed lawmakers that its new criteria for identifying a Russian-linked account now includes merely having a user name with Cyrillic characters or tweeting frequently in the Russian language.

The latest escalation of Russiagate is an open attack on whistleblowers and independent media. On November 27, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena demanding that satirist and journalist Randy Credico provide testimony to the committee. In an earlier letter, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, demanded Credico’s “voluntary” cooperation with the panel’s “bipartisan investigation into Russian active measures directed at the 2016 US election.” Credico declined Schiff’s invitation and the sweeping demand for

the preservation and production of all documents, records, electronically-stored information, recordings, data and tangible things, including but not limited to graphs, charts, photographs, images and other documents, regardless of form other than those widely available (e.g. newspaper articles) related to the committee’s investigation, your interview and any ancillary matters.

Credico, who compared the action to the witchhunts of the McCarthy era, told Consortium News (11/28/17) that the committee probably wants access to the Pacifica Radioprogram, “my 14-part series on Assange, ‘Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom,’ which includes WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, his mom, and some of the most significant US government intelligence agency whistle blowers in modern history.”

With the spotlight on a “hostile foreign power,” tech companies are allowed to leave intact the commercial digital technologies that spin the weaponized hate of white supremacists and misinformation across the internet.

On November 13, RT was forced to register as a “foreign agent,” under a 1938 law enacted to counter Nazi propaganda. As The Nation (11/16/17) points out, the Justice Department demand was unusual:

Although hundreds of foreign entities are registered under FARA, international media outlets are almost entirely exempt, and none have registered in over a decade.

The Washington director for PEN America, Gabe Rottman, expressed concern that the DoJ action could lead to “retaliation against US-supported outlets such as Voice of America or public broadcasters like the BBC.”

As predicted, by November 19, the Russian Justice Ministry put nine US government-funded news agencies on notice that they would probably be designated “foreign agents.” The Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and seven separate regional outlets active in Russia could be affected under the new legislation designed specifically as retaliation for US actions against RT. (VOA reported its Russian counterpart’s blacklisting as a matter of fact—“Russia’s RT Registers as Foreign Agent in US,”  11/13/17—though when the tables were turned, the term was suddenly discovered to require scare quotes: “9 US-Funded News Outlets Could Be Forced to Register as ‘Foreign Agents,’” 11/19/17.)

In a prophetic and equally ironic comparison, media critic Edward Herman (7/8/17) noted back in July, “All the logic and proofs of a Russian ‘influence campaign’ could be applied with at least equal force to US media and Radio Free Europe’s treatment of any Russian election.” And, he added, “Of course the US intervention in the 1996 Russian election was overt, direct and went far beyond any ‘influence campaign.’”

The consequences of allowing unsubstantiated accusations against RT to stand unchallenged are helping distort the debate about fake news. In doing so, they allow open calls for censorship and algorithms that close down critical and independent views. This, together with the many other serious and numerous challenges to freedom of expression at the moment, should worry those who value life in an open society, and freedom of speech across the globe.

Robin Andersen teaches media studies at Fordham University. (Follow her @MediaPhiled).

Featured image is from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment affirms “(t)he 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.”

The law is clear, yet consistently breached by the CIA, NSA, FBI and other US intelligence agencies, spying on American citizens and residents extrajudicially, the nation transformed into a Big Brother society.

It’s longstanding practice, especially post-9/11, unacceptable yet ongoing, violating Fourth Amendment rights and other fundamental freedoms.

In Miller v. United States (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that

“(t)he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third-party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if it is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third-party will not be betrayed.”

The Court added that information revealed to another source “takes the risk (of being) conveyed” to someone else.

In Smith v. Maryland (1979), the High Court extended the so-called third party doctrine to telephone communications.

It said in “expos(ing) that information” to phone company equipment, individuals “assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers dialed.”

In US v. Jones (2012), Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged the need to update Fourth Amendment protections, saying:

“People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers, the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers, and the books, groceries and medications they purchase from online retailers.”

“I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, dis-entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.”

In United States v. US District Court (the so-called Keith case) (1972), a unanimous Supreme Court ruling upheld Fourth Amendment protections in cases involving domestic surveillance, targeting an alleged threat.

Carpenter v. United States is the latest Fourth Amendment case before the Supreme Court, arguments heard on Wednesday.

It involves the warrantless accessing of an individual’s cell phone records. In June, the High Court accepted Carpenter’s petition for writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case.

Modern technology greatly facilitates telecommunications and digital spying. In Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

In 2011, without a probable cause warrant, the federal government obtained months of cell phone location records for suspects in a Detroit criminal investigation, including Timothy Carpenter’s.

They showed he made calls within a two-mile radius of four robberies. He was arrested, charged and convicted on multiple counts of aiding and abetting robbery, sentenced by Eastern Michigan US District Court Judge Sean Cox to over 116 years in federal prison.

On appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a split three-judge panel upheld his conviction in April 2016.

An amicus brief was filed on his behalf by the ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, the Brennan Center, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Cato Institute, Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Verizon.

The ACLU represents Carpenter in his Supreme Court appeal. It argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining location records from his wireless carrier without a warrant.

In his case, an average of 101 daily were obtained over the course of four months. According to ACLU attorney representing Carpenter Nathan Wessler, “(t)his is exactly the kind of private information the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect,” adding:

“The government’s argument, based on rulings from the analog era, would free it to get comprehensive records of what websites we view, what Google searches we enter, and even our voice commands to smart devices – without constitutional limit.”

“(P)eople have the right to expect that their everyday movements and thoughts will not be freely available to the government without a warrant.”

High Court Justices will decide Carpenter’s fate when they rule. At a time when most Americans communicate digitally and/or by cell phones, America’s Supremes need to update what protections they deserve.

No one should be abused, mistreated or punished for using today’s modern technologies. Yet it’s happening to countless numbers of Americans.

Without our knowledge, consent, or just cause, we’re spied on by a government hostile to our rights and interests – reading our emails, monitoring our phone calls, accessing our financial and medical records, violating our constitutional rights.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Nine Security Council sessions in a single year on one issue against one country may be a record number. It’s surely an example of unprecedented counterproductiveness.

Instead of pushing North Korea to suspend its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, they encouraged the country to accelerate their development, hostile rhetoric from Washington, Tokyo and elsewhere providing an a greater urgency to do it.

The DPRK genuinely fears possible US aggression, knowing these weapons are its most important deterrent. Given the ominous threat from the Trump administration, it would be madness to give them up, leaving the country defenseless.

During Wednesday’s Security Council session, US envoy Nikki Haley embarrassed herself as usual, again proving how unqualified she is for the job, a laughingstock on sensitive issues, a geopolitical know-nothing pretending otherwise – raging out-of-control whenever commenting on nations Washington opposes.

She reckless accused North Korea of “nuclear aggression,” called its military “its war machine,” while urging total isolation of the country, cutting off all trade, claiming a nonexistent DPRK threat.

Throughout its entire post-WW II history, it never attacked another country, something America does repeatedly, currently waging naked aggression in multiple theaters, along with hostile covert activities in numerous others.

No nation in world history poses a greater threat to humanity’s survival than America. North Korea’s leadership supports peace and stability, not war.

It wants normalized relations with all countries, a peace treaty ending the 1950s war, dialogue with Washington on contentious issues, along with an end to its threatened aggression.

If no threat to its security existed, it never would have sought nuclear weapons and ICBM capabilities.

Washington’s longstanding hostility toward the country forced it to prioritize defense, creating as formidable a deterrent as possible – clearly not for offense based on its historical record.

Haley showed why it’s necessary. “Make no mistake,” she roared, saying “if war comes, (the country) will be utterly destroyed” – what greater incentive for its leadership to continue advancing its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

During yesterday’s Security Council session, China and Russia accused Washington of encouraging DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile development.

Both countries support dialogue and a double freeze of North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile tests, along with suspending provocative US military exercises with South Korea and Japan.

Yesterday, China’s UN envoy Wu Haitao called it a “suspension-for-suspension” proposal, adding:

“When the parties adopted a tough stance and misjudged each other, the chances for peace passed by.”

Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya said

“(o)ver the past two and a half months, the United States and its allies seem to have tried the patience of Pyongyang with its activities including its unplanned and undeclared military manoeuvers and recently introducing unilateral sanctions.”

“Against the backdrop of the calm and quiet by Pyongyang of these hostile moves against (its country) forces us to think about the sincerity of the statements by Washington about its preference for peaceful means for resolving the crisis.”

Trump urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to halt all oil shipments to the DPRK. Beijing rejects anything intensifying crisis conditions, including measures to crush North Korea’s economy, likely creating a refugee crisis on its border.

On November 30, China’s Global Times (GT) accused the Trump administration of counterproductive actions against North Korea – calling US policy on the country “an abysmal failure,” adding:

“When Washington first took the initiative to negotiate, they ignored Pyongyang security demands, essentially blowing an opportunity urging them to discontinue their nuclear weapons program.”

“And right now, the Trump administration actually believes it can influence Pyongyang’s weapons program by applying greater pressure on the country.”

“And as if that wasn’t enough, Washington is counting on China to support a new round of Trump administration pressure tactics.”

“It is time the US realized that increasing and tightening sanctions already in place will not have the desired effect. Since yesterday, Pyongyang has never been this confident.”

“Condemnations from the UN Security Council and the new sanctions that may follow will solve nothing.”

China supports enforcement of Security Council resolutions. It refuses to go beyond them to please Washington.

It won’t adopt counterproductive policies. It continues urging dialogue, ending Korean peninsula brinksmanship – above all avoiding war.

“The only choice today’s international community has is to solve (the North Korean) issue carefully and with great patience,” GT stressed.

Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor “investigating” a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is anything but orchestrated fake news.  As William Binney and other top experts have said, if there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it.  No investigation would be necessary.  So where is the evidence?

It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated while a real scandal is not.  The fake scandal is Trump’s Russiagate.  The real scandal is Hillary Clinton’s uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous evidence for Hillary’s scandal lies in plain view.  

Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true charges against Hillary not being investigated?  The answer is that Hillary with her hostility toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the “New Hitler” is not a threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump’s aim of normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the “enemy” it requires to justify its massive budget and power.

Why hasn’t President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary?  Is the answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him?  Why hasn’t the Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own?  Is the answer that Trump’s government is allied with his enemies?

How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States?  Why doesn’t Trump have Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United States?

Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income?  Why instead is Congress harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee’s investigation into “Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?”  There were no such active measures, but the uranium sale was real.

Why havent the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can’t make a pass at a woman?

Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.

The failure of the US and European media is extreme.  

The presstitutes never investigate real events.  The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories.  They never tie together loose ends.  They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public’s head.

Consider, for example, the Obama regime’s claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his “compound” in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base.  The official story had to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs’ helmets had to be abandoned.  There was no reason to withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to have watched the killing became a “miscommunication.”  The staged photo of the top government officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.   

The entire story never made any sense:  Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife, was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the terrorist mastermind from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American superpower?  

Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama’s body dumped in the ocean.  In other words, why was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?

Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier?  Why was no media interested that the ship’s crew wrote home that no such burial took place?

Why was there no presstitute interest in the fact that the SEAL unit from which the SEALs on the alleged raid on bin Laden’s compound were drawn was loaded against regulations in one Vietnam era helicopter and shot down in Afghanistan, with all lives lost? Why was there no presstitute interest in the parents of the SEALs complaints about inappropriate procedures that cost their sons’ lives and about fears expressed to them by sons that something was wrong and they felt endangered? See this and this.

Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out, because the members were asking one another, “who was on that raid?”  “Were you on the bin Laden raid?” When in fact no one was on the raid.

Why wasn’t Congress interested?

Why was the live Pakistani TV interview with an eye witness of the alleged raid on bin Laden’s compound not reported in the US media?  The witness contradicted every aspect of the official story.  And this was immediately after the event.  There was no time for anyone to concoct an elaborate counter-story or motive to do so.  Here is the interview and here is a verified translation that confirms the accuracy of the English subscripts.

Osama bin Laden had been dead for a decade prior to the false claim that Navy SEALs murdered him in Pakistan in May 2011.  Here are the obituaries from December 2001 and this one from Fox News.

Here is bin Laden’s last confirmed interview.  He says he had nothing to do with 9/11.  Why would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating “the world’s only superpower” fail to boost his movement by claiming credit?  

See also this, this, this, this and this.

Think about this.  The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public’s consciousness.

And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and the presstitutes that are turned by repetition into truth.  Washington’s self-serving control over explanations has removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.

So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news? 

Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?

This article was originally published by Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Several years ago in Cameroon, a country in West Africa, a Western Black Rhinoceros was killed. It was the last of its kind on Earth.

Hence, the Western Black Rhinoceros, the largest subspecies of rhinoceros which had lived for millions of years and was the second largest land mammal on Earth, no longer exists.

But while you have probably heard of the Western Black Rhinoceros, and may even have known of its extinction, did you know that on the same day that it became extinct, another 200 species of life on Earth also became extinct?

This is because the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history is now accelerating at an unprecedented rate with 200 species of plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles being driven to extinction on a daily basis.And the odds are high that you have never even heard of any of them. For example, have you heard of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle, recently declared extinct? See ‘Christmas Island Pipistrelle declared extinct by IUCN’.

Apart from the 200 species extinctions each day however, and just to emphasize the catastrophic extent of this crisis, myriad local populations of many species are driven to extinction daily and millions of individual lifeforms are also killed. See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’.

For a taste of the vast literature on this subject touching only on impacts in relation to insects, see ‘Death and Extinction of the Bees’, ‘Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown’ and ‘“Decimated”: Germany’s birds disappear as insect abundance plummets 76%’.

Is anything being done to end this omnicide (the destruction of all life)?

Not really, although there is plenty of rhetoric and limited action in some contexts as all bar a few committed individuals and organizations ignore this onslaught while even fewer take action that addresses the underlying cause and/or fundamental drivers of this killing. Unfortunately, most effort is still wasted on lobbying elites.

For example, in the latest example of the foolishness of lobbying elites to take action in our struggle to defend Earth’s biosphere, the European Union has again just renewed Monsanto’s licence to keep poisoning (and otherwise destroying) our world – see ‘German vote swings EU decision on 5-year glyphosate renewal’ – despite the already overwhelming evidence of the catastrophic consequences of doing so. See, for example, ‘Killing Us Softly – Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide?’ and ‘GM Food Crops Illegally Growing in India: The Criminal Plan to Change the Genetic Core of the Nation’s Food System’.

Of course, massive poisoning of the biosphere is only one way to destroy it and while elites and their agents drive most of this destruction they nevertheless often rely on our complicity. To itemize just a few of these many techniques for destroying our biosphere in most of which we are complicit, consider the following. We destroy rainforests – see ‘Cycles of Wealth in Brazil’s Amazon: Gold, Lumber, Cattle and Now, Energy’ – we contaminate and privatize the fresh water – see ‘Groundwater drunk by BILLIONS of people may be contaminated by radioactive material spread across the world by nuclear testing in the 1950s’ and ‘Nestlé CEO Denies That Water is an Essential Human Right’– we overfish and pollute the oceans – see ‘New UN report finds marine debris harming more than 800 species, costing countries millions’– we eat meat despite the devastating impact of animal agriculture on Earth’s biosphere – see ‘The True Environmental Cost of Eating Meat’– we destroy the soil – see ‘Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues’ – and we use our cars and air travel (along with our meat-eating) as key weapons in our destruction of Earth’s atmosphere and climate with atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide levels all breaking new records in 2016. See ‘Greenhouse Gas Bulletin’.

But if you think that is bad enough, did you know about the out-of-control methane releases into the atmosphere that we have triggered – see ‘7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’ and ‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’– and did you know that scientists at the University of Leicester warn that we are destroying the Earth’s oxygen? See ‘Global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth, research shows’ and ‘The Extinction Event Gains Momentum’.

Radioactive Debris from Fukushima approaching North America’s western coast (Source: RT)

In addition, relying on our ignorance and our complicity, eliteskill vast areas of Earth’s biosphere through war and other military violence (without even considering the unique, and possibly life-ending, devastation if the recently and repeatedly threatened nuclear war eventuates) – see, for example, the Toxic Remnants of War Project and the film ‘Scarred Lands & Wounded Lives’ – subject it to uncontrolled releases of radioactive contamination – see ‘Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean – And It’s Going To Get Worse’– and use geoengineering to wage war on its climate, environment and ultimately ourselves. See, for example, ‘Engineered Climate Cataclysm: Hurricane Harvey’, ‘Planetary Weapons and Military Weather Modification: Chemtrails, Atmospheric Geoengineering and Environmental Warfare’, ‘Chemtrails: Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War’ and ‘The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use’.

Of course, all of this is done at immediate cost to human beings, particularly indigenous peoples – see, for example, ‘Five ways climate change harms indigenous people’–  and those who are in the worst position to resist – see ‘Global Poverty: How the Rich Eat the Poor and the World: The Big Lies’ – but elites know they can ignore our lobbying and occasional, tokenistic and disorganized protests while relying on the fear and powerlessness of most of us to ensure that we do nothing strategic to fight back.

And given the unrelenting criminal onslaught of the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane’  – directed against Earth’s biosphere, together with the elite’s many sycophantic academic, bureaucratic, business, legal, media, military, political and scientific servants who deny science and threaten human survival in the interests of short-term personal privilege, corporate profit and social control, it is long past time when those of us who are genuinely concerned should be developing and implementing a strategy that recognises the elite and its many agents as opponents to be resisted with a careful and powerful strategy.

So, in essence, the problem is this: Human beings are destroying the biosphere and driving countless lifeforms, including ourselves, to extinction. And there is little strategic resistance to this onslaught.

There is, of course, an explanation for this and this explanation needs to be understood if we are to implement a strategy to successfully halt our omnicidal assault on Earth’s biosphere in time to save ourselves and as many other species as possible in a viable ecological setting.

This is because if you want to solve a problem or resolve a conflict, then it is imperative to know and act on the truth. Otherwise you are simply acting on a delusion and whatever you do can have no desirable outcome for yourself, others, the Earth or its multitude of creatures. Of course, most people are content to live in delusion: it averts the need to courageously, intelligently and conscientiously analyse what is truly happening and respond to it powerfully. In short: it makes life ‘easier’ (that is, less frightening) even if problems keep recurring and conflicts are suppressed, to flare up periodically, rather than resolved.

And, of course, this is how elites want it. They do not want powerful individuals or organizations interfering with their scheme to (now rapidly) consolidate their militarized control over the world’s populations and resources.

This is why, for example, elites love ‘democracy’: it ensures disempowerment of the population. How so? you might ask. The fundamental flaw of democracy is that people have been deceived into surrendering their personal power to act responsibly – in relation to the important social, political, economic, environment and climate issues of the day – to elected ‘representatives’ in government who then fearfully represent the elites who actually control them (whether through financial incentives, electoral support or other means), assuming they aren’t members of the elite themselves and simply represent elite priorities out of shared interest (as does Donald Trump).

And because we delegate responsibility to those powerless politicians who fearfully (or out of shared interest) act in response to elite bidding, the best scientific information in relation to the state of the Earth is simply ignored or rejected while conservative ‘scientific warnings’ advocating ‘strategies’ that must fail are widely circulated. See, for example, ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’.

So this widespread failure to respond thoughtfully and powerfully is a fundamental reason that we are killing the biosphere and destroying life on Earth. Too few humans are willing to accept personal responsibility to understand why the violence is occurring and to participate in a carefully designed strategy to avert our own extinction, let alone save countless other species from premature entry into the fossil record. It is easier to leave responsibility to others. See ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”’.

And, clearly, time is running out, unless you are gullible enough to believe the elite-sponsored delusion that promotes inaction, and maximizes corporate profits in the meantime, because we are supposed to have until ‘the end of the century’. Far from it, however. As some courageous scientists, invariably denied access to mainstream news outlets, explain it: near-term human extinction is now the most likely outcome.

One of these scientists is Professor Guy McPherson who offers compelling evidence that human beings will be extinct by 2030. For a summary of the evidence of this, which emphasizes the usually neglected synergistic impacts of many of these destructive trends (some of which are noted above) and cites many references, listen to the lecture by Professor McPherson on ‘Climate Collapse and Near Term Human Extinction’.

Why 2030? Because, according to McPherson, the ‘perfect storm’ of environmental assaults that we are now inflicting on the Earth, including the 28 self-reinforcing climate feedback loops that have already been triggered, is so far beyond the Earth’s capacity to absorb, that there will be an ongoing succession of terminal breakdowns of key ecological systems and processes – that is, habitat loss – over the next decade that it will precipitate the demise of homo sapiens sapiens.

Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May Increase CO2 Emission

In relation to the climate alone, another scientist, Professor Kevin Anderson, who is Deputy Director of the UK’s premier climate modelling institution, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has warned that emissions are now out of control and we are heading for a world that is 6 degrees hotter; he pointed out that even the International Energy Agency, and conservative organisations like it, are warning that we are on track for a 4 degree increase (on the pre-industrial level) by 2040. He also accused too many climate scientists of keeping quiet about the unrealistic assessments put out by governments. See ‘What They Won’t Tell You About Climate Catastrophe’.

So be wary of putting any credence on ‘official’ explanations, targets and ‘action-plans’ in relation to the climate that are approved by large gatherings, whether governmental or scientific. Few people have the courage to tell the truth when it guarantees unpopularity and can readily manifest as career-extinction and social and scientific marginalization.

As an aside, it is perhaps worth mentioning that most people have long forgotten that a decade ago (when the global temperature was .8 degrees above the pre-industrial level) it had been suggested that a decrease in global temperature to not more than .5 degrees above the pre-industrial level was actually necessary to achieve a safe climate, with the Arctic intact (although there was no clear feasible method for humans to reduce the global temperature to this level with any speed). Sadly we have made little progress in the past decade apart from to keep raising the ‘acceptable’ limit (whether to 2 degrees or ‘only’ 1.5). Most humans love to delude themselves to avoid dealing with the truth.

Hence, for those of us committed to responding powerfully to this crisis, the fundamental question is this: Why, precisely, are human beings destroying life on Earth? Without an accurate answer to this question, any strategy to address this crisis must be based on either guesswork or ideology.

So let us briefly consider some possible answers to this question.

Some people argue that it is genetic: human beings are innately violent and, hence, destructive behaviors towards themselves, others and the Earth are ‘built-in’ to the human organism; for that reason, violence cannot be prevented or controlled and humans must endlessly destroy.

However, any argument that human beings are genetically-predisposed to inflict violence is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence of human cooperation throughout the millennia and there are endless examples, ranging from the interpersonal to the international, of humans cooperating to resolve conflict without violence, even when these conflicts involve complex issues and powerful vested interests. There are also plentiful examples of humans, particularly indigenous communities, living in harmony with, rather than destroying, nature.

Other analysts argue that human violence and destructiveness are manifestations of political, economic and/or social structures – such as patriarchy, capitalism and the state, depending on the perspective – and while I agree that (massive) structural violence actually occurs, I do not believe that these structures, by themselves, constitute an adequate explanation of the cause of violence.

This is simply because any structural explanation cannot account for violence in all contexts (including the violence that led to creation of the structure in the first place) or explain why it doesn’t happen in some contexts where a particular perspective indicates that it should.

So is there another plausible explanation for human violence? And can we do anything about it? Let me offer an explanation and a way forward that also takes advantage of the insights of those traditions that have critiqued structural violence in its many forms.

I have been researching why human beings are violent since 1966 and the evidence has convinced me that the origin of all human violence is the violence inflicted by adults on children under the guise of what sociologists call ‘socialization’. This violence takes many forms – what I call ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence – and it creates enormously damaged individuals who then personally inflict violence on themselves, those around them (including their own children) and the Earth, while creating, participating in, defending and/or benefiting from structures of violence and exploitation. For a full explanation of this point, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Hence, in my view, the evidence is overwhelming that if we want to end human violence, whether inflicted on ourselves, others or the Earth, then the central feature of our strategy must be to end adult violence against children. See ‘My Promise to Children’. I claim that this must be ‘the central feature of our strategy’ for the simple reason that each damaged child grows up to become a willing and active perpetrator of violence when, if they were not so damaged, they would be powerful agents of peace, justice and sustainability committed to resisting violence and exploitation in all contexts until it is eliminated.

This profound evolutionary inheritance – to be an individual of integrity who consciously chooses and lives out their own unique, powerful and nonviolent life path – has been denied to virtually all of us because humans endlessly terrorize their children into mindless obedience and social conformity, leaving them powerless to access and live out their conscience.

And this makes it very easy for elites: By then using a combination of our existing fear, indoctrination (via the education system, corporate media and religion) and intimidation (via the police, legal and prison systems), sometimes sweetened with a few toys and trinkets, national elites maintain social control and maximize corporate profits by coercing the rest of us to waste our lives doing meaningless work, in denial of our Selfhood, in the corporate-controlled economy.

As I implied above, however, we need not be content with just working to end violence against children. We can also work to end all other manifestations of violence – including violence against women, indigenous peoples, people of color, Islamic and working class people, and violence against the Earth – but recognize that if we tackle this violence without simultaneously tackling violence at its source, we fundamentally undermine our effort to tackle these other manifestations of violence too.

Moreover, tackling structural violence (such as capitalism) by using direct violence cannot work either. Because violence always feeds off fear it will always proliferate and re-manifest, whether as direct, structural, cultural or ecological violence, however beneficial any short-term outcome may appear.

Importantly then, apart from understanding and addressing the fundamental cause of this crisis, we must implement a comprehensive strategy that takes into account and addresses each and every component of it. There is no point working to achieve a single objective that might address one problem no matter how important that particular problem might be. The crisis is too far advanced to settle for piecemeal action.

Hence, if you wish to tackle all of this violence simultaneously, you might consider joining those participating in the comprehensive strategy simply explained in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. If you wish to tackle violence in a particular context, direct, structural or otherwise, consider using the strategic approach outlined in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

And if you would like to publicly commit yourself to participate in the effort to end all human violence, you can do so by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Killing the biosphere is the most effective way to destroy life on Earth because it destroys the ecological foundation – the vast array of incredibly diverse and interrelated habitats – on which organisms depend for their survival. And we are now very good at this killing which is why averting human extinction is already going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Hence, unless and until you make a conscious personal decision to participate strategically in the struggle to save life on Earth, you will be one of those individuals who kills the biosphere as a byproduct of living without awareness and commitment: A person who simply over-consumes their way to extinction.

So next time you ponder the fate of humanity, which is inextricably tied to the fate of the Earth, it might be worth considering the unparalleled beauty of what Earth has generated. See, for example, ‘Two White Giraffes Seen in Kenyan Conservation Area’.

And as you do this, ask yourself how hard you are willing to fight to save life on Earth.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

The best solutions to difficult problems are simple. The Columbus Egg. The Gordian Knot. The Procrustean Bed. So many people strained their fingers trying to untangle the messy knot, until Alexander came and slashed it open with one fine stroke of his mighty sword. Wise men vainly tried to make an egg stand upright on its end on the table, until Columbus smashed one end. Procrustes solved the problem of the great diversity of population height-wise, by chopping off the legs of the tall and stretching the legs of the short.

Now the glorious if a tad too long name of the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (or MBS) should join the list of the great solution-makers. He faced the problem of having a broke country, an empty treasury, and a lot of very rich citizens with full coffers.

Trump faces a similar problem; in the US, the top dogs have the whole hog, while the state is in multi-trillion debt. Just three well-to-do gentlemen—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg—have as much in their coffers as all the ordinary folk. The annual deficit is about $400 billion; the Rockefellers would not even notice if this paltry sum went amiss from their holdings, estimated at well over a trillion dollars, that is twelve zeroes after the first digit.

The Greeks have it even worse: they are in debt, biting the bullet of austerity, while the moneys the Greek state borrowed has lined the pockets of the rich.

The problem is universal. Everywhere, from the UK to Russia and from Brazil to Greece it’s the same: the state coffers are empty, politicians prescribe austerity for the people, while a few rich guys enjoy the fast growth of their untaxed capital.

Now, we know that, but what will you do about it, smart guy? Will you bite your moustache? Will you complain, in sotto voce or loudly, or just drink some cold beer to forget of this unhealthy fact of life? You know that you are not allowed to tax the rich people, you can’t stop them moving their capital offshore, you should not even utter such hateful words as it may be found anti-Semitic. It happened to Trump: when he attacked bankers in his election campaign, he was immediately called an ‘anti-Semite’.

Crown Prince MBS found a solution. He rounded up hundreds of the wealthiest people in his Kingdom, placed them in the posh five-star hotel Ritz Carlton in his capital Riyadh, and told them to cough up the dough. When they laughed at his face, he called for torturers to begin, Mafia-style, his extortion racket.

Screen grab from The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail, in an exclusive report, tells us that

“the Saudi princes and billionaire businessmen arrested in a power grab earlier this month are being strung up by their feet and beaten by American private security contractors. The arrests have been followed by ‘interrogations’ which a source said were being carried out by ‘American mercenaries’. ‘They are beating them, torturing them, slapping them, insulting them. They want to break them down,’ the source told DailyMail.com.

(‘Blackwater’ has been named as the firm involved, and the claim of its presence in Saudi Arabia has also been made on Arabic social media, and by Lebanon’s president. The firm’s successor, Academi, strongly denies even being in Saudi Arabia and says it does not engage in torture.)

The torture in the glamorous hotel had been reported by one of best old-hand journalists in the Middle East, David Hearst. Several detainees were taken to hospital with torture injuries, he writes.

There is a vast difference between ‘incredible’ and ‘impossible’, and the princes of Saudi Arabia learned by their own experience that though it is incredible that these worthies, pillars of society, owners of great hotels in London and film companies in Hollywood would be tortured, it was by no means impossible.

Prince Al-Walid bin al-Talal

The wealthiest Arab of all, Prince Al-Walid bin al-Talal, a billionaire 18 times over, an “important partner” to Bill Gates, co-owner of 21st Century Fox and Twitter, of Paris’ Hotel George V and London’s Savoy Hotel, inter alia, had been hung upside down, Mussolini-style.

Hundreds of other princes and gentlemen were tortured, too, until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten assets, 70% of all they have. As I write, and as you read these lines, the torture goes on, and so far MBS has already milked his victims of hundreds of billions $$ worth of cash and assets.

“An Extortion racket”, you’ll exclaim. Perhaps MBS watched The Godfather in his impressionable youth and was impressed by efficiency of their methods. However, he has solved, or rather is in the process of solving, the problem of solvency.

Perhaps this is the method to be advised to Trump and Putin, as well as to other leaders? If the neoliberal dogma forbids taxing, if the offshore are sacred, what remains for a diligent leader but a plush five-star hotel and a band of experienced torturers?

But surely, the torturer will be condemned and ostracised by human rights’ defenders! Not at all. Not a single voice, neither from liberal left nor from authoritarian right objected to this amazing deed of mass torture and extortion. While the co-owner of Twitter has been subjected to daily beatings, the prime voice of liberal conscience, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, eulogised MBS as the bearer of progress. In an article as panegyric as they come, titled Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, at Last and subtitled “The crown prince has big plans for his society”.

Tom Friedman does not use the word “extortion”, saying that [MBS’s]

“government arrested scores of Saudi princes and businessmen on charges of corruption and threw them into a makeshift gilded jail — the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton — until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains.”

No condemnation at all! Can you imagine what he would say if Putin were to arrest his oligarchs “until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains”?

I believe one line in Friedman’s eulogy, saying that the Saudis are content with the extortion act: “the mood among Saudis I spoke with was: “Just turn them all upside down, shake the money out of their pockets and don’t stop shaking them until it’s all out!” Moreover, I am sure the Americans would applaud if their billionaires were to get the MBS treatment. The Russians were mighty pleased when Putin locked up the oligarch Khodorkovsky, and complained that he was the only one to be jailed. They would love to see the whole lot of oligarchs who plundered Russia through manifestly fraudulent, staged auctions under American advisers in Yeltsin’s days, to be shaken “until it’s all out”.

Not only the media is supportive of the extortion scheme. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC:

“I think that the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman] is doing a great job at transforming the country.”

President Trump blessed MBS along similar lines. Not a word of condemnation came out of President Putin, either. Even Al Jazeera, though reporting the extortion in a matter-of-fact way, didn’t make too much out of it.

There is a veritable conspiracy around the MBS actions, a conspiracy embracing the media and governments. He kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister, placed him under arrest, took away his telephone and watch, forced him to read on TV a resignation letter composed by MBS people, – and the response of the world has been subdued. He bombed Yemen, causing hundreds of thousands to die of cholera and famine, and the world does not give a damn. Do you remember the response when the Russians bombed Aleppo? None of this indignation accompanies MBS’s war on Yemen.

But the blanket of silence covering the Extortion Racket beats all. Usually, the global media mainstream system propagates and amplifies the news in a game of rebounding agencies that indirectly end up also to maximize headline sales, wrote the Italian journalist Claudio Resta. But in this case, the important and spectacular news made no headlines. In our Society of the Spectacle, failing to exploit the “spectacular” is a waste of the most valuable resource for the media.

The potential for a great spectacle is all here. The arrest of dignitaries and princes of blood, including the famous Al-Walid bin al-Talal, well-known investor and Bakr bin Laden, brother of the most notorious Osama would normally feed the media for days. Add to it the marvelous setting of the glorious hotel on the verge of the desert. Make it even more dramatic by open rocket fire on the escaping helicopter of Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, killing him and the other dignitaries who tried to flee.

Such a story, so brilliant and spectacular, with the colour and costume of a Middle Eastern monarchy, could sell newspapers for a week at least. But it was followed by deafening silence.

The same media that overwhelms us with the flood of details and opinions in a case of human rights violations in Russia or China in this case shows off an Olympic indifference to the fate of the princes and billionaires, unjustly and arbitrarily arrested and tortured in a country of no constitution or Habeas Corpus. The United Nations joins in the conspiracy of silence.

This is probably the most unusual aspect of the story, reminiscent of The Dog that Didn’t Bark by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In that Sherlock Holmes story, a dog did not bark during the night when a race horse was removed from a stable, and that indicated that the thief was the dog’s master.

In the case of MBS, the media dog keeps silent. It means that its mighty mega-owner, whom I called The Masters of Discourse, allowed and authorised the racket. We witness a unique media event, bordering with revelation. How could it be that a prince of a third-league state would be allowed the licence to kidnap prime-ministers, kill princes by ground-to-air missiles, keep and torture great businessmen and dignitaries with impunity and the media would keep mum?

Is it fear of the robber barons that the example of MBS extorting billions from his super-rich will be picked up and acted upon in their own lands? Perhaps.

Or, is it more likely that The Axis of Goodness: Trump, Netanyahu and MBS, and the force behind them, that decided to free the hands of the strong-willed prince, who promised to surrender Jerusalem and present Palestine to the Jews in perpetuity? This was the offer of the old Saudis, who became the lords of Arabia because of their willingness to satisfy Jewish desires. For there were equally, or even more prominent Arabian lords and dynasties, with a better claim to rule the peninsula. The Saudis were the only ones ready to give up Palestine. And they were treacherous enough, as they already betrayed their Ottoman masters during the Arab Revolt of Colonel Lawrence.

The so-called Trump Peace Plan, discussed and charted by Jared Kushner and MBS, contains the surrender of Palestine, giving up on the Right of Return of the 1948 refugees, giving up Palestinian sovereignty, giving up Jerusalem. Palestinians will pay, and the Jews and the Saudis will share the spoils.

MBS has to suborn Mahmoud Abbas and the PNA, not an impossible task. Abbas has no mandate, and he rules by Israel’s permission. But he also has to suborn Hamas, otherwise Gaza will remain a thorn in the flesh. This is the reason for the reconciliation efforts between Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas and Fatah managed by Egypt. These efforts meanwhile are not spectacularly successful.

Hamas agreed to reconciliation hoping to improve life of much-suffering Gaza residents. Fatah was supposed to lift sanctions, to allow electricity to pour in, and people to enter and leave via the Rafah checkpoint. However, the sanctions remain in place, life is miserable as it ever was, and now the PNA demand reinstalling thousands of its people fired in 2007. It would lead to firing thousands of Hamas appointees. And worse, the PNA calls for disarmament of Hamas military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. This is plainly impossible.

Instead of lifting sanctions, the PNA demands surrender, and blames Iran for Hamas intransigence. Azzam al-Ahmad, the head of Fatah’s delegation for Palestinian reconciliation, said Iran is the “number one sponsor” of division between Palestinian factions. He said that on the Saudi TV channel al-Arabiya.

Iran is the main (if not the only) hindrance on the way of the Kushner-MBS plan. This partly explains the Saudi fury.

Iran’s “supreme leader is the new Hitler of the Middle East,” said MBS to Tom Friedman. – “But we learned from Europe that appeasement doesn’t work. We don’t want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East.”

MBS pinched these words from a Netanyahu UN speech, but he refrained of referring to the source.

Iran blocks MBS’s plan to sell Palestine down the river, it blocks MBS’s war on Yemen, it blocks the takeover of Syria. Really, a new Hitler! But what about the Russians, Iran’s allies in the Syrian war?

The Russians decided to keep out of these events. During the historical recent visit of King Salman and his son MBS to Moscow, apparently the guests explained their ideas to their host. They promised to keep price of oil up, and this is important for Russia. When Saudi Arabia dropped the price of oil in 1980s, the USSR collapsed. Now, with high oil price, Putin has decided to pay 10,000 roubles, ($150) per month to each family upon birth of their first child. Apparently, the Saudis agreed to the Russian presence in Syria, too.

Putin is a man of reason; he is satisfied with half a loaf, he is not overreaching. He learned the lesson of the Iliad, of the Greek and Trojan Princes who could have had almost all they wished, – Greeks could have had Helen and a rich ransom, the Trojans could have allowed the Greeks to escape, – but they reached for more, for total destruction of their enemy, and eventually they lost all. Simone Weil wrote:

“The tempered use of force, indispensable to the escape from its [force’s] machinery, would demand superhuman virtue, as rare as steadfast dignity in weakness.”

This is Putin, in both his tempered use of force and in his steadfast dignity in weakness.

However, while Russian policies differ from Western ones, the Russian media was incorporated into the Masters of Discourse’s domain many years ago. Putin succeeded in partially releasing some TV channels from their clutches, but in general the Russian media follows the same guidelines as the Western media. An anti-Zionist article, a critique of Jewish rule in Palestine has as little (or less) chance to appear in Izvestia, as in the NY Times. An honest coverage of Gaza blockade is equally impossible on the CNN and on Russia 1^st Channel and the RT.

Now, the critique and discussion of the KSA events in Russia has been blocked. The same people who block discussion of Israel/Palestine now block the discussion of the KSA crisis.

Thus, Iran and war-weakened Syria are all that stand on the way of a decisive Jewish victory in the Middle East. If a hundred years ago, the Jews pushed the unwilling US into WWI as a payoff for the Balfour Declaration, probably now they can repeat it to railroad the Kushner-MBS peace plan over Palestinian heads. For over this hundred years, the Jewish positions in mind control have only improved, via Facebook and Google.

Their plans are likely to misfire, as all MBS plans did. There was nothing he yet succeeded in achieving, from pressuring Qatar to vanquishing Yemen. A lot of blood and a lot of money will flow, adding to miseries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The only satisfaction is that now you know who owns the dog that did not bark.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

The United States Air Force’s 59th Medical Wing’s molecular biology branch recently was revealed to have been collecting specifically Russian RNA and synovial (connective) tissue samples, prompting fears in Russia of a possible US directed ethnic-specific bioweapons program.

TeleSUR’s article, “‘Ethnic Bomb’ Feared as US Air Force Confirms Collection of Russian DNA,” would report:

Russia has raised its concerns over attempts by the U.S. military to collect DNA samples from Russian nationals, noting the potential use of such biological samples for the purpose of creating new genetic warfare weaponry.

The U.S. Air Force has sought to calm the Kremlin’s concerns, noting that the samples would only be used for so-called “research” purposes rather than for bioterrorism.

Addressing Russian reports, U.S. Air Education and Training Command spokesperson Captain Beau Downey said that his center randomly selected the Russian people as a source of genetic material in its ongoing research of the musculoskeletal system.

The report would also state that:

However, the usage of Russian tissue samples in the USAF study fed the long-brewing suspicion that the Pentagon is continuing in its hopes to develop an alleged “biological weapon” targeting specifically Russians.

Russian President Vladimir Putin would be quoted as stating:

Do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. 

And while the US military attempted to brush off the notion that any sort of ethnic-specific bioweapon was being researched, the notion of such a weapon is not far fetched at all.

US policy papers have included them in America’s overall long-term geopolitical and military planning for nearly two decades, and the US Air Force itself has produced papers regarding the various combinations such weapons could manifest themselves as.

There is also the disturbing history of Western-aligned nations having pursued ethnic-specific bioweapons in the past, including the Apartheid regime in South Africa which sought to use its national vaccination program as cover to covertly sterilize its black population.

US Policy Papers Have Discussed Ethnic-Specific Bioweapons  

In the Neo-Conservative Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) 2000 report titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (.pdf) it states (emphasis added):

The proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make it much easier to project military power around the globe. Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “non-lethal,” biological – will be more widely available. (p.71 of .pdf) 

It also stated:

Although it may take several decade for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. (p.72 of .pdf)

And finally:

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. (p.72 of .pdf)

More recently – in 2010 – the US Air Force in a counterproliferation paper titled, “Biotechnology: Genetically Engineered Pathogens” (PDF),  would list multiple ways such weapons could be deployed (emphasis added):

The JASON group, composed of academic scientists, served as technical advisers to the U. S. government. Their study generated six broad classes of genetically engineered pathogens that could pose serious threats to society. These include but are not limited to binary biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, host-swapping diseases, and designer diseases. 

The paper discusses the possibility of a “disease that could wipe out the whole population or a certain ethnic group.” While the paper claims its purpose is to study such weapons as a means of developing defenses against them, America’s history as a global military aggressor and the sole nation on Earth to have ever wielded nuclear weapons against another nation-state suggests a high likelihood that if such weapons can be produced, the US has already stockpiled them – if not already deployed them.

South Africa’s Project Coast Then and Biotech Now 

The notion of the West using such weapons already has an alarming precedent. Regarding South Africa’s Apartheid regime – the United Nations’ report titled Project Coast: Apartheid’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme would explain (emphasis added):

There was some interaction between Roodeplaat Research Laboratories (RRL) and Delta G [biological and chemical weapon laboratories respectively], with Delta G taking on some of RRL’s biochemistry projects and RRL doing animal testing of some Delta G products. One example of this interaction involved anti-fertility work. According to documents from RRL [Roodeplaat Research Laboratories], the facility had a number of registered projects aimed at developing an anti-fertility vaccine. This was a personal project of the first managing director of RRL, Dr Daniel Goosen. Goosen, who had done research into embryo transplants, told the TRC that he and Basson had discussed the possibility of developing an anti-fertility vaccine which could be selectively administered—without the knowledge of the recipient. The intention, he said, was to administer it to black South African women without their knowledge.

At the time, the technology appears not to have been sufficiently mature enough to realize the Apartheid regime’s ambitions. However, the technology not only exists today, there are examples of it being used to spectacular effect – so far for good – but could just as easily be used for bad.

The above mentioned US Air Force paper would go into detail regarding each weapon it listed, including one called gene therapy:

Gene therapy might just be the silver bullet for the treatment of human genetic diseases. This process involves replacing a bad gene with a good gene to normalize the condition of the recipient. Transfer of the “healthy” gene requires a vector to reach its target. Vectors commonly used are “viruses that have been genetically altered to carry normal human DNA” such as “retroviruses, adenoviruses, adeno-associated viruses, and herpes simplex viruses.”

Gene therapy has already been used during clinical trials to permanently cure everything from blood cancers to rare genetic disorders. The New York Times, in an article titled, “Gene Therapy Creates Replacement Skin to Save a Dying Boy,” would report on one of the latest breakthroughs using the technology, stating:

Doctors in Europe used gene therapy to grow sheets of healthy skin that saved the life of a boy with a genetic disease that had destroyed most of his skin, the team reported on Wednesday in the journal Nature. This was not the first use of the treatment, which adds gene therapy to a technique developed to grow skin grafts for burn victims. But it was by far the most body surface ever covered in a patient with a genetic disorder: nine square feet.

One could imagine a malicious weapon used in reverse to knock out the genes that maintain healthy skin, causing a victim’s skin to blister and fall off.

In utilizing gene therapy as a weapon, the US Air Force report would note:

Gene therapy is expected to gain in popularity. It will continue to be improved upon and could unquestionably be chosen as a bioweapon. The rapid growth in biotechnology could trigger more opportunities to find new ways to fight diseases or create new ones. Nations who are equipped to handle biotechnology are likely to consider gene therapy a viable bioweapon. Groups or individuals without the resources or funding will find it difficult to produce this bioweapon.

Regarding “stealth viruses,” a variation of the weaponized gene therapy technique, the report states:

The basic concept of this potential bioweapon is to “produce a tightly regulated, cryptic viral infection that can enter and spread in human cells using vectors” (similar to the gene therapy) and then stay dormant for a period of time until triggered by an internal or external signal. The signal then could stimulate the virus to cause severe damage to the system. Stealth viruses could also be tailored to secretly infect a targeted population for an extended period using the threat of activation to blackmail the target.

With gene therapies already approved for sale in the European Union and the United States, and with more on the way, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that covert, weaponized gene therapies are also either already developed and waiting, or already deployed as “stealth viruses.”

Developing and Deploying

The US maintains a global network of military medical laboratories and research centers.

In addition to the 59th Medical Wing involved in collecting Russian genetic material, the US covers the entire Southeast Asian region from Bangkok, Thailand with its Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFIRMS).

While it publicly claims it exists to, “to conduct state of the art medical research and disease surveillance to develop and evaluate medical products, vaccines, and diagnostics to protect DOD personnel from infectious disease threats,” its personnel, equipment, and research could easily be used for dual purposes in creating any of the above stated, so-far “theoretical” ethnic-specific bioweapons.
The US Embassy in Thailand website states that AFIRMS is the largest of a global network of military medical laboratories, claiming:

AFRIMS is the largest of a global network of US Defense Department Overseas Medical Research Laboratories—with sister laboratories in Peru, Kenya, Egypt, and the Republics of Georgia and Singapore. USAMD-AFRIMS has nearly 460 staff members (predominantly Thai and US) and an annual research budget of approximately $30-35 million.

With labs in South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia – and through the use of subcontractors – the US military has access to a variety of genetic materials and facilities to conduct research and develop all of the weapons its own policy papers have described.

Through US State Department-funded programs, the US could easily create “vaccine” campaigns and “clinics” to deliver the above described bioweapons in a variety of ways.

Fighting in the Dark and Shedding Some Light 

The US Air Force’s paper would also point out:

Biological warfare attacks may resemble a natural disease outbreak phenomenon and it would be very difficult to trace back to the source, thereby discounting the perpetrator’s actions.

And indeed, nations without the ability to independently sequence, detect, and react to ethnic-specific genetic bioweapons could already have been targeted, or could be targeted at any moment without any means of even knowing, let alone reacting.

On the other hand, nations with not only a well-developed biotech industry, but also with military labs focused on both detecting and launching biological warfare with such weapons – it would be like fighting a war against a blindfolded enemy.

To remove the blindfold, governments and military institutions around the world, as well as communities and local institutions, would need to develop and have access to a quick and efficient means to sequence DNA, spot abnormalities, and develop possible corrective gene therapies to repair or “patch” malicious weaponized DNA introduced into a population.

Biological warfare surveillance would need to be done not only across a nation’s population, but also across its food and water supply as well as its livestock, wildlife, and insect populations. Genetically modified crops have been designed to target and turn off genes in insects and could just as easily be used to target human genes.

In Science Daily’s article, “Crops that kill pests by shutting off their genes,” it states:

Plants are among many eukaryotes that can ‘turn off’ one or more of their genes by using a process called RNA interference to block protein translation. Researchers are now weaponizing this by engineering crops to produce specific RNA fragments that, upon ingestion by insects, initiate RNA interference to shut down a target gene essential for life or reproduction, killing or sterilizing the insects.

Studies are still ongoing to determine what harm genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – in their current state – are doing to human health. Spotting and reacting to subtle, weaponized GMOs will be even harder.

The use of genetically engineered mosquitoes to deliver “vaccines” presents another possible vector for weaponized biotech. The increasingly “global” nature of many vaccination programs is also a looming danger – particularly since these programs are directed by primarily Western powers – many of whom protected, cooperated with, and even aided and abetted the South African Apartheid regime, including with its various weapons programs.

Biotech is not merely a matter of economics. It is a matter of national security. Allowing foreign corporations representing compromised or nebulous foreign interests to produce vaccines for human or veterinary uses or to alter the genomes of a nation’s agricultural crops for whatever perceived benefits cannot outweigh the possible and actualized threats.

In a world where warfare extends into cyber and genetic space, nations that lack independent human healthcare systems capable of producing their own vaccines or managing their own biodiversity find themselves as defenseless as nations without armies, navies, or air forces. However impressive a nation’s conventional military capabilities are, lacking proper planning and defenses regarding this new and expanding biotech threat mitigates all possible advantages and maximizes this fatal weakness.

If genetics is a form of living information, then concepts familiar to IT security experts may prove useful in explaining how to safeguard against malicious “code” introduced into our living systems. The ability to “scan” our DNA and spot malicious code, to remove or patch it, and to develop safeguards against it, including “backing up” individual genomes biologically and digitally will not entirely prevent biological weapons from creating damage, but will mitigate their impact – transforming a possible extermination of an entire ethnicity or race to a containable, relatively minor outbreak.

Unlike nuclear weapons, research and development of these biotech tools is accessible to virtually any national government and even to many private institutions. Integrating biotech into a nation’s national security planning and implementation is no longer optional or speculative. If the tools to manipulate and target genes for good already exist, then the tools to abuse them also exist.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the author.

Amid surging stock markets and warnings of a new financial bubble, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen made her final appearance before Congress on Wednesday.

In her testimony, Yellen sought to talk down fears that stock markets are massively overvalued, saying that while asset prices “are high by historical standards,” the risks “remain contained.”

But she combined these assurances with warnings about the federal debt and social inequality, noting that productivity, economic growth and wages remain depressed. Responding to a question about the impact of the Trump administration’s planned tax cuts, Yellen declared,

“I would simply say that I am very worried about the sustainability of the US debt trajectory,” adding that it “should be a very significant concern.”

All three major US stock indexes have recorded over 50 record highs this year, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has soared to more than 3.5 times its value since its post-crisis low point in March of 2009. The massive amounts of money sloshing around the financial system have driven speculation in obscure financial assets, including crypto-currencies such as bitcoin, which has risen to $11,000, an eleven-fold increase this year alone.

The US Federal Reserve, over which Yellen has presided for the past four years, has been central to the spectacular rise in the stock market and growth of social inequality over the past three decades.

A key turning point came in October of 1987 when the Fed, under the chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, responded to the stock market crash of October 19—the largest one-day fall in history—by opening the financial spigots to supply cheap money to the banks and financial markets.

A new policy, rooted in the mounting contradictions of US capitalism, was initiated. Henceforth, the response of the Fed to the bursting of one financial bubble would be the supply of ultra-cheap money to finance the next one.

The crash of 1987 was followed by a surge in markets through the mid-1990s, leading even Greenspan to comment in 1996 that Wall Street was gripped by “irrational exuberance.” But the financial orgy continued, leading to the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98, the devaluation of the Russian ruble and the collapse of the US investment firm Long Term Capital Management in 1998. LTCM had to be bailed out by the New York Federal Reserve to prevent it from bringing down the entire financial system.

Once again the response was to turn on the financial taps, which led to the dot.com bubble of 2000–2001. When that burst, a new vehicle for speculation was developed via the sub-prime mortgage market and the creation of a plethora of new financial instruments, such as complex derivatives and collateralised debt obligations.

The implosion of that financial house of cards in 2008-2009 did not lead to measures to address the contradictions that had produced it, but rather to measures to further fuel financial speculation. This was the essential content of the program of quantitative easing, initiated by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and continued under Yellen, in which the Fed reduced interest rates to historically record lows and pumped trillions of dollars into US and global financial markets.

The consequence has been an explosion of asset values combined with the destruction of the social conditions of the working class and the growth of social inequality to historically unprecedented levels. Three billionaires in the US now hold as much wealth as the bottom half of American population combined.

There is a causal connection between these two developments. While financial speculation appears to create money out of money, in the final analysis it represents a claim on real wealth extracted in the form of surplus value from the working class. Consequently, in order to meet its insatiable demands, finance capital demands that the wage and social payments to the broad mass of the working population—a deduction from the wealth it can appropriate—be driven ever lower.

This process is being sharply accelerated under the Trump administration through its sweeping tax cut for the rich at the expense of the majority of the population.

Yellen is being replaced by current Fed Governor Jerome Powell, who combines Yellen’s support for easy money with support for the dismantling of the modest restraints on Wall Street swindling imposed in the aftermath of the September 2008 crash.

The relentless objective logic of financial parasitism, which increasingly dominates not only the US, but the entire world capitalist economy, can be seen in the present round of tax cuts. The most vociferous proponents of the tax cut plan, rather than being concerned over its implications for US government debt, welcome its effects because any budget crisis will fuel the drive for further social spending cuts.

Yellen speaks for factions of the ruling elite that are most conscious of the danger of the orgy of enrichment leading to an intensification of class struggle.

In her remarks to Congress she made an elliptical reference to this danger for the ruling class, pointing to “disturbing” trends in income inequality. However, there is nothing in what Yellen or any other representative of the ruling class proposes that can prevent it, because the accumulation of fabulous wealth at one pole and the accumulation of poverty, misery and degradation at the other is not at its root the outcome of policy decisions that can now somehow be reversed. Rather, it is the malignant outgrowth of a socio-economic order in terminal crisis.

The way out of this crisis is not through a futile attempt to reform the profit system, but the struggle by the working class to overthrow it.

Workers face the task of fighting for political power in order to seize the commanding heights of the economy—the major corporations and the financial system—and place them under public ownership and democratic control in order to utilise the vast wealth the working class itself has created to meet social needs.

Featured image is from MarketWatch.

What, if anything, is constraining the Trump Justice Department in its dangerous war on leakers, whistleblowers, and journalists? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Freedom of the Press Foundation, where I’m executive director, are teaming up to find out.

On Wednesday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department and several intelligence agencies, demanding records revealing how the government collects information on journalists and targets them with surveillance.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said criminal investigations into the sources of journalists are up 800 percent. He’s vowed to“revisit” the Justice Department’s media guidelines that restrict how the US government can conduct surveillance on reporters. President Trump reportedly told ex-FBI director James Comey to “jail” journalists. And so far, Sessions has refused to rule out imprisoning reporters for doing their jobs.

Given these developments,

“it is urgent that the government disclose records clarifying the precise limitations placed on its surveillance powers to protect the freedoms of speech, association, and the press,” our lawsuit states. “The public has a right to know those limitations and to know whether the government is in fact complying with them.”

So, we’ve demanded that the Justice Department—along with the FBI, DNI, NSA, and CIA—hand over any “documents concerning limitations imposed upon any of the government’s investigative authorities by the First Amendment and documents concerning limitations on the government’s investigative activities to obtain or use records or information of or about members of the news media.”

This information could not be more more crucial for the public’s understanding, given how so many Justice Department leak investigations tread on First Amendment interests. In 2013, after a significant public backlash against the Obama Justice Department’s surveillance of journalists, the Justice Department unveiled new “media guidelines” that supposedly restrict the government from surveilling reporters in all but extreme cases.

It was seemingly a win for press freedom, but quietly, Obama’s Justice Department exempted its use of National Security Letters—secret surveillance demands from the FBI for information like call records that do not require a judge’s sign off—from its media guidelines, essentially allowing the government to avoid the media guidelines altogether if it conducted investigations under the guise of “national security” (which, in practice, would encapsulate virtually all leak investigations anyways).

Instead of the normal media guidelines, the FBI apparently had separate—and secret—rules for using National Security Letters to target journalists. Two years ago, Freedom of the Press Foundation attempted to force the Justice Department to release these secret rules as well. While we weren’t successful then, The Intercept published a leaked document from the FBI showing the 2013 version of these secret rules, and how they could be used to completely circumvent the media guidelines.

It was an important story, yet the government refused in court to even acknowledge the leaked document, and we still have no idea what the current rules are or how they are being interpreted and used.

National Security Letters and similar tools are now available to the Trump administration as it ramps up Obama’s already historic level of leak prosecutions. Perhaps worse, the Trump administration has also hinted it wants to change the media guidelines themselves. We still have no information about what it plans on doing—or even if it is following the current rules.

Our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit aims to change that. There’s no reason for the Justice Department or other intelligence agencies to keep secret any rules or potential restrictions they internally have to prevent abuses of the First Amendment. And the only way any of these rules and restrictions can be enforced is if the public has access to them.

Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, a non-profit organization that supports and defends journalism dedicated to transparency and accountability. He is also a twice-weekly columnist for the Guardian, where he writes about privacy, national security, and the media.

The Russia-Gate “Foreign Agent” campaign directed against RT America and Sputnik has now been extended to Moscow’s closest ally, The People’s Republic of China: 

“The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that Beijing has rapidly expanded its overseas media presence to promote a positive view of the rising Asian nation and the ruling Communist Party, even as it has tightened its control over media and online content at home and increased restrictions on foreign journalists in China” (South China Morning Post, November 30, 2017)

Will China’s State media be categorized as a “Foreign Agent”?

According to AP, quoting “Congressional advisers”:

All staff of Chinese state-run media outlets in the United States should be required to register with the government as foreign agents as they may be supporting Chinese intelligence gathering and “information warfare”” 

The bipartisan commission recommends that Congress strengthen the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires registration by people or companies disseminating information in the US on behalf of foreign governments, political parties and other “foreign principals”. The law is applied to foreign lobbying efforts, but the Justice Department has also required registration by media outlets funded by foreign governments. Associated Press report in SCMP. November 30, 2017

Featured image is from South China Morning Post.

This morning in Hebron, Palestinian children will walk to school, as they do every morning, via a series of checkpoints, watched by heavily armed Israeli soldiers.

In East Jerusalem, several hundred teachers will attempt to do the same, but many will be held at checkpoints for several hours, and some will not make it to school in time to teach.

In the northern West Bank governorate of Nablus, shepherds will herd their livestock under the continual threat of violence from Israeli settlers and soldiers on land that belongs to them, but which they are denied from building on, forcing them to live in caves.

In the Naqab desert, Bedouin residents of Umm al-Hiran will wake up again to the reality of life in one of more than 40 Palestinian villages in the Naqab that the state of Israel refuses to recognise, cut off from all basic services and facing the ongoing threat of demolition to be replaced by a village that will be for Jewish citizens only.

In Gaza, with almost no electricity or clean water supply, many families whose homes were never rebuilt following Israel’s 2014 offensive will take shelter from the bitter winter in temporary, makeshift homes.

And in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, Palestinian refugees will wake up to life in a cramped refugee camp with limited facilities, many still holding among their possessions the keys to the homes from which they and their families were expelled in 1948.

In 2005, on behalf of all of these Palestinian communities, a coalition of 170 Palestinian civil society organisations launched a call for the world to show support and solidarity by implementing a campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) until Israel ends its occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza; recognises the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality under the law; and recognises the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

BDS is now a vibrant global movement made up of trade unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements across the world.

The call for BDS was launched because of the reality that the international community, including the British government, has consistently failed to take action to meaningfully hold Israel to account despite passing resolutions and issuing statements condemning Israel’s violations of international law.

Instead of holding Israel to account, many governments provide Israel with political, diplomatic, military and financial support. When those in power refuse to act to stop this injustice, what is needed is a global citizens’ response.

Israel has identified the growing strength of the BDS movement as a major strategic threat and has launched a global effort to suppress BDS activity.

Alongside the introduction of draconian laws at home, curtailing the activities of human rights activists supporting the campaign, it has worked with allies abroad to see through the introduction of laws suppressing protest.

The British government introduced regulations last November that sought to curtail the right of local government pension funds to divest from companies complicit in the occupation. PSC successfully challenged these regulations, winning a judicial review in June of this year which ruled them unlawful.

Alongside this use of “lawfare” has been the propounding of a narrative that seeks to reframe support for BDS as an act that is divisive, hostile and bigoted. Two key arguments are routinely used to support this narrative.

The first is to deny the legitimacy of any analogy between South African apartheid and Israeli apartheid. Israel, we are told, is a beacon of justice and equality due to the fact that Palestinian citizens can vote, hold seats in the Knesset, and sit in the judiciary.

In reality Adalah, the Israeli legal rights centre, has identified over 65 laws that specifically discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up 20 per cent of the population.

One such law is the Acceptance to Communities Law that legitimises Jewish towns in Israel of a certain size in excluding Palestinians from residing within them. Forty-three percent of Israeli towns have residential admission committees that filter out applicants on the grounds of “incompatibility with the social and cultural fabric.”

These committees are, in the words of Human Rights Watch, “used to exclude Arabs from living in rural Jewish communities.”

The second line of argument is that BDS targets the Israeli state and that the problem is not the state itself, but Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Rather than supporting BDS, we are told we should be supporting progressive forces such as the Israeli Labour Party which opposes Israel’s illegitimate policies towards the Palestinians.

This line of argument ignores the reality of how the Israeli Labour Party has followed the rightward drift in the Israeli political mainstream in positioning for votes.

It also ignores the reality that the Israeli Labour Party has been more than a willing accomplice in Israel’s settlement programme. Former Israeli premier Ehud Barak complained only last month that the state ceremony celebrating 50 years of the occupation of the West Bank did not give enough credit to Labour governments who “consolidated and led the settlement enterprise for a decade.”

So on this international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people, our message is one of respect for the call made by the Palestinians themselves.

We respect the Palestinian call for BDS because we believe that to do otherwise, to continue to provide cultural, economic and political support for Israel’s system of apartheid is to be complicit.

BDS is not a hostile action towards a people, but is one of non-co-operation with a system which is profoundly unjust and immoral.

The conflict between Palestine and Israel, to which we all seek an end, is one rooted in the unjust domination of one people over another, a domination supported by claims of ethnic, cultural or religious entitlement. This is where the analogy with South African apartheid holds true.

As the South African theologian Desmond Tutu said:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

UPDATED below
—

Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park.

It remarked that “legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as ‘foreign agents’ … presents yet another threat to free media”.  It noted that “freedom of expression—including speech and media … is a universal human rights obligation“. 

The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a ‘foreign agent’ under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.

But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT. The State Department reacted to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT. The new Russian law is a mirror to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as ‘foreign agents’. (The EU poodles followed the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)

With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.

The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama  administration. He and other ‘intelligence’ people found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.

Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT.

The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian move.

Here is timeline of the relevant events:

Clapper calls for U.S. Information Agency ‘on steroids’ to counter Russian propaganda – Washington Times, Jan 5 2017

“We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we’re doing right now,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
…
“[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights,” he said. “Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it,” via the state-owned news network.

Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking – Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 – Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center

RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties.
…
RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against “the ruling class” and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
…
RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a “surveillance state” and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use.
…
RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt.
…
RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging “information wars” against the Syrian Government.

Cicilline Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Close Russia Today Loophole – Congress, June 7 2017

U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC), and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year’s presidential election.

Justice Dept Asks Russia’s RT to Register as Foreign Agent – Newsmax, September 13 2017

RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing foreign political interests.
…
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT might be a way around that stipulation.

Russia to amend law to classify U.S. media ‘foreign agents’ – Reuters, Nov 10 2017

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia’s parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared “foreign agents” and obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
…
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station RT register in the United States as a “foreign agent”, something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.

Russia’s RT America registers as ‘foreign agent’ in U.S. – Reuters, Nov 13 2017

MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice as a “foreign agent” in the United States, the outlet’s editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in the day.

Russia warns U.S. media of possible foreign agent status – AP, Nov 16 2017

MOSCOW – Russia’s Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.The bill, endorsed by Russia’s lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.

Russian president Putin signs foreign agent media law to match U.S. action – USA Today, Nov 25 2017

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television.

EU Criticizes Russia’s ‘Foreign Agents’ Media Law – RFLRF, Nov 26 2017

BRUSSELS — The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia’s government to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as “foreign agents” and impose sanctions against them.
…
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in a November 26 statement that the “legislation goes against Russia’s human rights obligations and commitments.”

Russia’s Restrictive Media-Focused Legislation – U.S. State Department – Nov 28 2017

New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as “foreign agents” and to monitor or block certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression—including speech and media which a government may find inconvenient—is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.

With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense. See here for a corrected version:

Unfortunately the State Department’s spokesperson added some verbose lamenting about one specific country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.

—
UPDATE – Nov 30 0:50am

As consequence of the FARA designation of RT‘s U.S. production company RT is now losing access to the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely to lose those too.

Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as ‘foreign agent’. It also wants all staff of XINHUA to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with their XINHUA gigs.

Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the United States in late August of this year, killing at least 90 people and devastating much of the region around Houston, Texas. Three months later, tens of thousands of people are homeless, home construction has hardly begun and the long-term health consequences of the disaster have yet to be tallied.

By some measures, Harvey is the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States, with estimated costs of nearly $200 billion, including flood damage to more than 300,000 homes. It was followed in September by Hurricane Irma, which struck the Caribbean and Florida, and Hurricane Maria, which destroyed much of the infrastructure and housing stock on the US island territory of Puerto Rico.

Each of these storms, fueled by higher temperatures caused by global warming, has exposed the criminal negligence of the American ruling class. Inadequate or nonexistent evacuation procedures and emergency shelters led to the deaths of some 250 people, according to official figures (the number of deaths in Puerto Rico is far higher than reported). Many more have had their lives upended, forcing them to fend for themselves after their homes were destroyed.

The American media and its talking heads have quickly moved on from any examination of the impact of Harvey, in keeping with the media’s response to every disaster that hits the United States. In one of the few recent articles documenting the ongoing catastrophe, the Houston Chronicle reported that three months after landfall, “more than 47,000 flood victims are living in hotels and motels across Southeast Texas and beyond, a testament to the glacial pace of housing recovery.”

These, the Chronicle states, “are the lucky ones.” The newspaper continues: “Tens of thousands more have cobbled together their own temporary arrangements, living with relatives, in tents or on mattresses in barely habitable homes.”

The meager government assistance made available to the tens of thousands without flood insurance in Texas is largely in the form of temporary subsidies for accommodation in motels through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Those impacted must undergo a torturous application process for aid. According to the Chronicle, only about 9,500 families have qualified for additional housing assistance through FEMA beyond the temporary subsidies. Of these, “just one had been able to move back into a home repaired through FEMA’s program, and 223 were living in a trailer or mobile home.” The article adds that “no one has moved into a trailer, secured an apartment or seen repair work begin through the state’s interim housing programs.”

An investigation carried out by local TV station KHOU found that 22,208 students in the Houston area are considered homeless, with some districts reporting a homeless rate as high as 10 percent. It quoted child advocate Dr. Bob Sanborn: “This is something that could indeed affect this whole generation,” the “Harvey generation.”

Other consequences are harder to calculate. One report by National Public Radio noted that there are 25,000 people in the Houston area living with HIV and AIDS, and many had to go weeks without medication. “The hurricane closed pharmacies and clinics for a week—or longer. Floodwaters ruined drugs. People who fled to other states couldn’t get their prescriptions filled for HIV medicine.”

Then there is the environmental impact. The flooded waters were filled with E. coli, lead, arsenic and other toxins, impacting those living and working in the region.

Much of the construction in the Houston area is being performed by day laborers, mainly undocumented immigrants who live in constant fear of deportation, intensified by the policies of the Trump administration. They work without any legal protection, often in hazardous conditions.

The Associated Press reports that the National Day Laborer Organizing Network recently interviewed day workers in Houston and found that “most are routinely exposed to mold and contamination… About a quarter of the more than 350 workers surveyed said they had been denied wages promised for cleanup work after Harvey, sometimes by employers who abandoned them at work sites after they had completed a job.”

Similar conditions prevail in the other regions devastated by hurricanes this season. More than 40,000 people have applied for emergency food stamps in Florida, many waiting in long lines for the most meager assistance. The entire housing stock on the Caribbean island of Barbuda was wiped out, with investors and speculators swooping in to seize land.

Half of Puerto Rico remains without power more than two months after Hurricane Maria. Hundreds of thousands are still without clean water. The island has experienced what can only be described as a mass refugee crisis, with tens of thousands fleeing to the United States for housing and employment. The government is using the disaster as an opportunity to shut down or privatize schools and lay off teachers, as happened after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005.

Natural disasters expose the realty of social life. The United States is characterized by levels of social inequality that are without precedent. Three billionaires own as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. Last week, Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, increased his wealth to over $100 billion—three times the amount of aid approved by the US Congress for hurricane relief last month.

For the past four decades, the ruling elite, under Democrats and Republicans alike, has engaged in a single-minded policy of wealth redistribution, channeling resources from social programs and infrastructure to the balance sheets of corporations and the bank accounts of the rich. The consequences are innumerable, from the opioid crisis ravaging much of the country, to declining life expectancy, poverty-level wages and soaring debt for the majority of the population.

The main domestic priority of the ruling class is to pass a massive tax cut for the corporations and the wealthy, currently being fast-tracked through Congress. While the Republicans are spearheading this looting operation, they do so with the complicity of the entire political establishment.

The conditions in Houston exemplify the social reality that the Democrats and the media are attempting to bury by polluting public consciousness with the campaign over allegations of sexual harassment and the neo-McCarthyite hysteria over claims that Russia is “sowing divisions” within the United States. They hope to suppress opposition through a regime of Internet censorship.

Facts, however, are stubborn things. The devastation wrought by Harvey will have its impact in other ways, feeding into a growing mood of anger and opposition that has revolutionary implications.

“Once a submariner, always a submariner.” Douglas Renken, Canadian submariner, CBC, Nov 26, 2017

A certain type of grief and moroseness accompanies deaths at sea. Not being naturally adapted to living in water, humankind has braved the aqueous environment, seeking to conquer it and tame its residents. At sea, the great battles of mythology are waged, its stories echoed in literary canons. Captain Ahab will pursue with fanatical fury Moby-Dick. Between sea and humanity, there will be a reckoning.

The vanishing act of the Argentine diesel-electric submarine ARA San Juan with its 44 crew would have sent a shudder of communal feeling through the navies of the world. The fate of the Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine Kursk in 2000 and its 118 sailors, along with the bungles, the habitual secrecy and the cruelties of the aftermath, supplied an unwanted parallel.

The international commitment to identifying the missing sub was instant and genuine. Teams were assembled; crews deployed. Thirty ships and planes operated by 4,000 personnel from 13 countries have found their way into the mission to discover the whereabouts of the San Juan.

The Russians duly sent an Antonov An-128 cargo aircraft which arrived in Argentina on Friday, equipped with an unmanned submersible known as the Pantera Plus, capable of conducting sonar scans to depths of 1,000 metres. In addition to the Pantera Plus are deep sea divers and a diving doctor.

The US Navy’s Undersea Rescue Command has deployed a ship from Comodoro Rivadavia at Chubut’s port in the hope that its remotely operated mini-sub will be available to rescue any survivors.

The tale is unfolding as one between contesting truths and unresolved questions. The agony is dragged out. The odds keep being stacked. Supporters outside the Mar de Plata Naval Base sport placards of desperation in the face of crushing enormity:

“We are with you, brave ones of the ARA San Juan.” 

Daily reports suggest the prospect of faintest survival – even after days, tinctures of hope are held out for sailors. Despite only having a week’s supply of air, the Navy publicity machine is intent on keeping spirits up. The prospect of culpability is also lurking.

Weather challenges in identifying the missing submarine are announced with regularity. This is humanity versus nature, human-made endeavour frustrated by the elements of a broody Mother Nature.

“The bad weather conditions really are adverse,” claimed navy spokesman Enrique Balbi to a news conference.

This is far from all. The authorities reported a sound (US sources deemed it a “hydro-acoustic anomaly”) near the last recorded position of the San Juan on November 15 itself, suggesting that the submarine might well have suffered implosion. The source of this account came from the Vienna-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), which detected an “abnormal, singular, short, violent, non-nuclear event” in the South Atlantic.

This very fact piqued the curiosity of those wondering, notably among the relatives of the crew members, whether the San Juan was up to scratch in the safety department. Tragic negligence, an often fatal human trait in matters of military equipment, was suggested.

The account was also laced with unwanted, agonising suspense. The submarine had surfaced momentarily on returning from a standard mission to Ushuaia Naval Base to report a “short circuit” of its batteries occasioned by the entry of water into its snorkel. The questions began accumulating with grief and menace: Was the San Juan equipped with torpedoes? Was it fit for service, having been commissioned in 1985 and refitted in 2014?

As with any institutional response to tragedy, bureaucrats, even in the navy, must assume that procedures were followed. Rarely is a confession ever made at first instance that this was not done.

“The submarine doesn’t sail,” claimed Babi, if its entire operating system is not checked.  “If it set off… it was because it was in a condition to do so.”

The power of presumption.

Despite the unfolding calamity, Balbi maintains a posture of mild confidence moderated by fatalism, one he describes as “a stage of hope and hopelessness” – the worst of emotional twilight zones.

“We’ve been searching for 11 days but that does not remove the chance that they could still be alive in an extreme survival situation.”

In this state, the Navy remains committed to identifying the “firm evidence” necessary in detecting the San Juan.

Most terrifyingly of all, and most crushingly, is the numbing uncertainty, the impairing contingency. Relatives are divided between what might be a premature acceptance of death, and the sliver of a chance for miraculous survival. This piece of machinery, which risks, if it already has not become so, assuming the form of a 65-metre long mausoleum in the sea, may well entomb its residents for years to come.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Sky News.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

On November 28, speaking at a Washington DC Forum on the nuclear threat in 2017 and global efforts to reduce the likelihood of their use, John Kerry said Israel, the Saudis and Egypt pushed the Obama administration to bomb Iran before the JCPOA nuclear deal was concluded.

Netanyahu was “genuinely agitating toward action,” Kerry stressed, hardly a surprise.

Iran is a sovereign independent state Washington doesn’t control, wanting its government replaced by a pro-Western one.

The Islamic Republic is Israel’s main regional rival, wanting it neutralized to advance its hegemonic ambitions – part of its longstanding plan (along with America) to redraw the Middle East map, including balkanizing its countries for easier control.

In 1982, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs senior advisor Oded Yinon published a document titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”

It said for Israel to survive, it must dominate the region and become a world power.

Achieving its objective requires dividing Arab nations into small states – balkanizing them along ethnic and sectarian lines, controlling them as Israeli satellites.

The idea was modeled after the Ottoman Empire’s millet system under which local authorities governed confessional communities with separate ethnic identities.

Israel’s strategy involves preemptive wars against targeted countries, weakening, fragmenting, dividing and reconfiguring them under its control, US involvement vital for success, Israel unable to go it alone.

Israel Shahak (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The late Israel Shahak (1933 – 2001) explained

“(t)he plan follow(ed) faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890 – 1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe.”

Yinon said

“(t)he existence, prosperity and steadfastness of (Israel) depend(s) upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.”

“All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflicts even more than those of the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, and Western Sahara).”

All the Gulf states are “built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil.” Jordan is Palestine, he said, Amman the same as Ramallah.

Regional “degeneration” must be exploited to serve Israeli interests. “(I)mmense opportunities for transforming the (region), and this we must do (to) survive as a state.”

Israel today operates by the same ideology Yinon advocated. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was eliminated as a regional rival.

Syria was supposed to be next. Russia’s intervention foiled Israel’s objective together with Washington’s. Regime change still remains their aim, the same one for Iran.

Israel is a regional menace, committed to eliminating Iranian sovereign independence and Hezbollah’s military capability.

It seeks US support in advancing its hegemonic objectives. It’s unclear if Trump will go along, despite his extreme hostility toward the Islamic Republic.

Had Hillary triumphed last November, war on Russia and Iran might have followed. During her 2008 presidential campaign, she urged “massive retaliation” if Iran attacked Israel, saying:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries. It threatens none now – not Israel or any others.

Yet war to eliminate its sovereignty remains an ominous possibility, why it’s military strength is essential – for defense, not offense.

“We have been dreaming about this visit for a long time,” said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir as he was being greeted by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Nov.23 at the Black Sea resort of Sochi. “We are thankful to Russia for its position on the international arena, including Russia’s position in the protection of Sudan,” he added. This is the first time the Sudanese leader visited Russia – the country he pins great hopes on.

The agenda included economic and military cooperation. The Sudanese leader said he had discussed modernization of the Sudanese military with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu before meeting President Putin.

“We agreed with the defense minister that Russia will offer assistance to that,” he informed.

The sides agreed to increase the size of defense attaché staffs.

Omar al-Bashir asked the Russian president for “protection from the aggressive acts of the United States.” He expressed concern over the situation in the Red Sea, where he sees the US military presence as a problem, saying

“we would like to discuss the issue from the point of view of the use of bases in the Red Sea.”

The Sudanese leader believes that the conflict in Syria is the result of US interference. The country would be lost if Russia did not lend a helping hand. The success in Syria boosts the Moscow’s reputation and makes other developing countries seek its friendship and cooperation.

According to President al-Bashir, Sudan could serve as a gateway to Africa for Russia. Khartoum is looking forward to cooperation with Moscow in oil exploration, transport and agriculture. In 2015, Russian company Siberian for Mining found large gold deposits in Sudan with only explored reserves standing at 46,000 tons and signed the biggest investment deal in the country’s history. Large gold deposits were discovered in two provinces – the Red Sea and the River Nile. The market value of the gold amounts to US $298 billion.

Al-Bashir, who rose to power in 1989, is on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) wanted list for allegedly committing crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. ICC prosecutors issued two warrants for al-Bashir’s arrest, in 2009 and 2010. The Russian government recognizes al-Bashir as the legitimate president of the country. In 2016, Moscow formally pulled out from the ICC. The reason was the failure of the ICC “to… become a truly independent and respected body of international justice”. According to Moscow, the judicial body is ineffective and one-sided. Some provisions of the Rome Statute contradict Russia’s constitution, including the mandatory transfer of investigated persons to the ICC, the right to sue heads of state and government figures, and non-compliance with the principle that no one should be held accountable twice for the same crime (“ne bis in idem”).

The Russia-Sudan summit is demonstration of Moscow’s growing impact in Africa. Russia has more than 40 full-fledged diplomatic representations on the continent and has fixed special trade missions to help facilitate trade and investment in a number of African countries. Russia has a special relationship with South Africa. Both countries cooperate within the framework of BRICS. Egypt, a traditional US ally, has shifted sides and allied with Russia since President Sisi took power. Russia’s relations with the countries of the continent are deepening. This is facilitated by negotiations at the highest level. Relations develop with leading regional associations, including the African Union.

The last couple of years have seen a rise in Russia–Africa trade, with aggregate turnover reaching $14.5 billion in 2016, up by $3.4 billion year-on-year. The bulk of it ($10.1 billion) was done by four countries, including Egypt ($4.16 billion), Algeria ($3.98 billion), Morocco ($ 1.29 billion) and South Africa ($718 million).

28 out of 55 African nations boast growing trade with Russia, with Ethiopia, Cameroon, Angola, Sudan and Zimbabwe leading the trend. According to the Eurasian Economic Commission, Africa was the only region to have expanded its trade turnover with Russia in 2016 (unlike the EU, MERCOSUR, APEC, and others).

Nuclear power development options in Africa are now a hot topic, with relevant agreements already signed with Sudan, Zambia, Morocco, South Africa and other countries. Africa is a promising market for Russian grain and agricultural machinery, with the country’s wheat exports heading to Morocco, South Africa, Libya, Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria and Egypt. Sudan, Congo and Senegal have recently indicated interest in pursuing joint oil and gas projects. Russian business holds a leading position in mineral exploration (bauxite, gold, and copper, and cobalt, and diamonds, and many more). Russian diamond-mining company ALROSA is active in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Namibia, and Angola (where it reportedly controls 60% of all extracted diamonds). An agreement with the African partners on economic and trade cooperation in order to avoid double taxation and protection of intellectual property is on the agenda.

Russia is a major supplier of arms to both North and sub-Saharan Africa. Russia continues to gain ground in North Africa, boosting its military exports to Algeria and Egypt while strengthening economic ties with Morocco and Tunisia. Russian arms are an increasingly popular alternative to US weaponry. Moscow’s historically strong arms trade with African countries has been growing in recent years, despite tough competition. Russia ranks first in arms imports to sub-Saharan Africa accounting for 30% of all supplies. Missiles, artillery, small arms, and aircraft are key Russia’s export items to Africa, with helicopters taking an increasingly important share.

There is something more to promote the Russia-Africa rapprochement. They have a common interest in the formation of a just and democratic world order, based on collective approach to the resolution of international problems and the superiority of international law. Both Russia and Africa, reject the unipolar model, the attempts of one country or a limited number of countries to impose their will on the rest of the world. Sudan is a good example of an African country getting closer to Russia in response to the pressure from the West. It seeks new partners to counter the diktat of the United States. Developing ties with Moscow offers such an opportunity.

Featured image is from the author.

Once again, the Arab League woke up from its deep slumber on November 19^th 2017. The League was in a deep paralyzing sleep despite the urgent need for its duties to deal and to solve the issues inflicting the Arab World such as the threat of terrorist groups, the Israeli brute oppression of Palestinian Arabs and the usurping of their farm land to build Israeli colonies, the starving siege against Gaza Strip Palestinians, the Saudi/Qatari conflict, and the Saudi aggression against Yemen; all are urgent crises within the Arab World in need of resolutions.

This urgent sudden new breath of life into the League was the result of a Saudi demand. The Saudis were struck with fear by a ballistic missile hitting the Saudi capital; Riyadh. The missile, expected to be the first of many to come, was fired by Houthi Yemeni forces as an expected self-defense reaction to the Saudi three years destructive bombardment of their country.

According to this Saudi request, the Arab Foreign Ministers in the League had totally ignored all the political and humanitarian problems spread all over the Arab World and had focused only on what they claimed to be an Iranian interference in the internal Arab affairs.

As accustomed by all the past meetings where the Arab League did not produce any real workable resolution to any problem, this meeting as well produced only a declaration openly condemning Iran and Hezbollah for what they claimed as the Iranian interference and threat to the Arab national security, demanding that Iran reconsider its foreign policies within the region, and threatening to resort to the United Nations.

Since its founding, the Arab League had never produced a decision that met the aspiration of the Arab World to resolve any issue in its issues. On the contrary, its decisions and declarations were always random and empty of real substance and unable to resolve any problem. Many of its decisions came out as obstacles to any possible solution to many of the Arab crisis starting with the Palestinian cause up to this very minute.

Rather than uniting the Arab World and to resolve its internal conflicts, the decisions of the Arab League were divisive, encouraged the aggression of some Arab countries against others, and punished other countries by revoking their membership in the League. Just to mention few examples, in 1990 when South and North Yemen united into Republic of Yemen with a unified parliament, the Arab League revoked its membership. The League had also revoked the membership of the Libyan Jamahiriya (republic) in 2011 demanding the government to secure peace when the American/Qatari armed terrorists spread havoc in the country under the guise of the Arab Spring. In the same year the League also revoked Syrian membership. Syria was one of the founding members of the League in 1945.

Many of the League’s decisions had devastating impact on the future of some Arab countries. These decisions gave false legality to some Arab leaders to wage wars against other Arab countries. Such decisions had isolated Syria and facilitated the seven-years terrorist war against the Syrian government that was faced with the most brutal terrorist attacks, yet it had defeated terror and stopped it from spreading into the region. Other decisions had also devastated Libya and turned it into a failing state impregnated with many terrorist groups. The League had also blessed what is called the Saudi coalition and its devastating war against Yemen murdering and starving besieged women and children.

Similar to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia and its mercenary coalition have waged war against Yemen since March 2016, and has murdered thousands of women and children and made other thousands refugees in their own country. This Saudi coalition is imposing a siege by land, air and sea causing humanitarian crisis with food and medical shortages.

Those gathered Arab foreign ministers should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the foreign -non-Arab- humanitarian organizations, who are exerting great efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people and to lift the siege against them. Those Arab foreign ministers did not even spell one word about the Yemeni suffering and did not offer any mediation or any resolution to end this war and to resolve this conflict.

What these ministers are not aware of, or maybe they are trying to ignore, the fact that all the intra-Arab crises and wars are mere series in the Zionist Great Israel Project extending from Nile to Euphrates. This Zionist Project aims basically to divide the Arab World into small weak statelets and emptying the region from its local indigenous residents either through brutal genocides or ethnic cleansing and eviction to other countries.

Israel and the USA, and alas, with the full partnership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, as many evidences had proved, had created, armed, and financed terrorist groups (ISIS and its offshoots) into the terrorist Islamic Khalifate project to execute this Zionist project.

As the Arab League did not convene to defend the Palestinian Cause and to break the siege against the Gaza Strip, it did not convene either to form a united Arab military force to fight and defeat ISIS terrorist groups, who destroyed Syria, Iraq and threatened Lebanon, and who had slain their Arab brothers, raped their women and children, and sold them cheap in open slave markets. The League did not also convene when the Yemeni cities and civil infrastructures and civilians were continuously bombarded, starved, and died due to preventable diseases because of inhumane siege and lack of medical services.

When the terrorist Islamic Caliphate project failed and the Syrian, Iraqi, Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran and Russia were successful in defeating these terrorists and protected the whole region from the spread of terror, the Saudi-bribed Arab foreign ministers gathered in the League, instead of expressing gratitude, hastened to accuse Iran of threatening the regional security, and Hezbollah of terrorism. The governments of these ministers did not move one finger go fight ISIS but provided them with weapons, money and training facilities in their countries.

The Arab League was founded to unite and to strengthen the many Arab countries politically, economically and militarily to face foreign colonization, to free Palestine and to protect the region from the Zionist Greater Israel Project. Yet, alas, the League was turned into a stumbling block against any unifying regional economic project after its decisions were highjacked and controlled by the “Zionized” Saudi oil money. Instead of spending the trillions of oil money to strengthen the regional economy the Saudi family had spent, and still spending, trillions of dollars buying many tons of weapons from Britain, France and the US (the traditional foes of the Middle East) strengthening foreign economies, and using these weapons either to fight their Arab brothers or to store them in the desert until they rust and become obsolete.

Many Arab politicians and factions within the resistance axis rejected the League’s declaration and considered its accusation of alleged Iranian interference and violation of the regional security, and the accusation of Hezbollah of terrorism and of highjacking Lebanese foreign policy, an aggressive declaration against the whole Arab World. This declaration clearly exhibits the Saudi hegemony over the decisions and policies of the Arab League, that has become subservient to the demands of the Zionist World Order, who considers Iran and Hezbollah a real obstacle against the accomplishment of the Zionist Project.

Hezbollah is an integral core part of the Lebanese population. It is the only Arab force that inflicted defeats against the alleged undefeated Israeli army. Hezbollah was able to regain Lebanese sovereignty and independence when it kicked in 2000 the Israeli forces dragging their tails out of Lebanon. It also defeated and stopped the 2006 Israeli invasion attempt of south Lebanon destroying its many tanks and sending its rockets into the major Israeli towns. It is now serving as a strong military deterrent against any possible future further Israeli attack against Lebanon.

Hezbollah has been the only Arab force, who joined the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS until victory was achieved, while the rest of Arab armies slept cowardly in their own safe bunkers, while their Arab leaders offered training facilities and arms to the terrorist groups. Hezbollah had protected Lebanon first, Syria second, and the rest of the region third from ISIS when its leaders wisely discarded the self-defeating neutrality policy and rose to help and to rescue their Arab brothers and to protect the national security. Instead of offering thanks the Arab League joined the American Administration in calling Hezbollah a terrorist group.

Hezbollah’s victories against ISIS and deterrent against Israeli aggression, and the victories of the Syrian and Iraqi forces in defeating ISIS preserving the security of their countries and the security of the whole region would not have been accomplished without the help and the support of Iran, who provided its own intelligence and necessary military advice to defeat ISIS. We should also mention the role Russia had contributed in saving the region from ISIS and its offshoots.

Despite all this success the Arab League Secretariat; Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had the audacity to boldly accuse Iran of meddling in the Arab internal affairs and to declare what could be translated as “the missiles the Houthi Yemeni use to target Saudi Arabia are Iranian made …. Providing such missiles to the Houthis Iran is sending a message that ALL Arab capitals are within the Iranian firing range”he claimed.

Saudi Arabia is seeking to instigate political chaos in the region as a first step towards waging war against Iran with the help of Arab Gulf States and paid mercenary forces, under the protection of American military bases in the Gulf, to execute another phase in the Zionist Project aiming to control the strategic Red Sea entrances.

According to an agreement with Egypt, Saudi Arabia acquired the ownership of the Tiran and Sanafir Islands at the northern entrance of the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aqaba. As a result of its aggression against Yemen the Saudis are aiming to acquire control of the strategic Perim Island at the tip of the Bab al-Mandab Strait to control the southern exit of the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden leading to the Indian Ocean. This also includes the usurpation of Yemeni rich oil and natural resources.

The long term real and covert goal of all these Zionized Saudi games is the liquidation and termination of the Palestinian cause; the core existential cause of the Arab World, and the destruction of the Arab resistance axis and to normalize Arab Israeli relations in what has been dubbed the American “deal of the century”. This deal is a planned temporary short-term new phase in the Zionist Project whose goals are first to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the mandate of Jordan and Egypt, and second to normalize Israeli Arab relationship that include what is called “moderate” Arab regimes; gulf States, Jordan and Egypt, as a first step to form an Arab/Israeli military alliance to oppose the “Iranian threat”.

In the first step Egypt will be granted control over the Gaza Strip, Jordan will extend its mandate over parts of the West Bank, while Israel would maintain all its illegal colonies and grant Palestinians under its control some type of Israeli residency. To accomplish this the PA president; Mahmud Abbas, was summoned to Saudi Arabia where Mohammad bin Salman applied financial stick-or-carrot pressure on him to accept the deal. American president Trump had also hinted that his administration might close the PLO office in Washington if Abbas does not sit again at the negotiating table with Israel.

Delusional are those who expect Palestinians, who had been struggling against the Zionist Project for the last hundred years, would accept such a peace treaty, or that the Islamic and Arab World would accept the stupid concept that the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than the terrorist Jewish Israel is the main threat to the Middle Eastern region especially after the fact that the Islamic Republic had contributed greatly to save the region from terrorist ISIS that had been created and armed by Israel.

It is true that there might be some slight differences between the Islamic Republic and some Arabic Gulf states. Yet these differences had been artificially created by some Arab leaders with the encouragement of the American administration. Such differences could be easily resolved through peaceful negotiations. The conflict between the Arabs as a whole nation, plus the Islamic Republic, with Israel and it colonial project in the region is an existential conflict in its core and is posing a threat to the countries of the whole region without any exception.

The American administration and Israel with some of their puppet Arab leaders are no longer the main players determining the fate of the Middle Eastern region. The Zionist Greater Israel Project could no longer be easily implemented as they had planned in the past. The Arab resistance axis (Palestinian factions, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, Yemen, and some south African Arab countries) against the Zionist Project has grown, and gained more political and military experience, and had achieved support from main global powers (Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China to a certain extent) that equals or might be stronger than World Zionist Organization and its stooges of NATO and American administration.

Finally, we should extend our sincere thanks to Saudi crown prince; Mohammad bin Salman, who had turned the Saudi regime upside down and declared without any doubt the kingdom’s betrayal to the Arab core existential cause; the Palestinian cause, an action that would, definitely, awaken many of the entranced Arab nations. And as the saying goes: “some good may come out of evil acts.”

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab American from a Palestinian descent. His family was evicted from Haifa, Palestine, after the 1948 Nakba when the Zionists stole his family’s property. Then the family was evicted again from the West Bank during the 1967 Naksah, after the Zionist, again, occupied the rest of Palestine.

Featured image is from the author.

A few weeks ago, at 3:30 in the morning, the Manitoba government froze public transit funding to Winnipeg, equivalent to a $10-million cut. It was a quiet affair. The bill that it was contained in wasn’t ever brought to committee, meaning the public weren’t able to formally comment on it. But we’ve already started to see the brutal consequences: soon after, Winnipeg Mayor Brian Bowman announced that the city will have to cut 59 routes, fire 120 bus drivers and increase fares by a considerable 25 cents.

Let’s be perfectly clear. This is class warfare.

The basic ability for people to get from one place to another – whether for work, family or leisure – has been totally gutted in recent decades. We’re now almost entirely reliant on the neoliberalized ‘solutions’ of privatized cars and airplanes, marked by rabid union-busting in the workplaces, the emitting of massive amounts of greenhouse gases and considerable financial costs to people who have no other reasonable option available to get around.

And it’s a vicious reminder of why the Left must focus on transportation as a key part in its struggle against rising austerity, inequality and climate change.

Social Inequalities and the Neglect of Public Transit

Car culture tends to be understood as a manifestation of desires for freedom and control. What’s often left out of such readings is who car culture denies freedom and control to. Here’s a quick and incomplete list: people with disabilities or other mobility issues, family and friends of incarcerated people in institutions outside city limits, elderly folks who rely on wheelchairs or walkers, or poor people without the means to afford car costs.

In turn, that disproportionately impacts Black, Indigenous and people of colour as well as trans, two spirit and non-binary people – who all far disproportionately experience poverty and other forms of oppression that make expensive transportation options considerably less accessible.

That actively denies people access to safe, affordable and efficient movement, itself undermining opportunities for jobs, relationships and leisure.

Even those who have access to such modes have to deal with the serious downsides: the psychological strain of rush hour and road rage, the financial costs of gasoline, maintenance, user fees and insurance, the risk of injury, air pollution and death due to collisions.

Associated with the issue is that many high-level solutions to climate change often prioritize growing technologies like electric vehicles, biofuel-powered airplanes and driverless trucks. Elon Musk is especially venerated as a saviour on this front – despite horrific labour practices, allegations of racism and underwhelming production numbers orbiting companies like Tesla.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector will certainly reduce in coming years due to such technologies. But such a transition won’t do anything to increase access for aforementioned people, and will actually financially punish them as carbon pricing will reward those rich enough to afford new electric cars (leaving old gasoline-intensive cars for poorer folks to purchase due to lack of transit access and pay more at the pumps). Nor would it challenge the rampant profiteering by the likes of Musk, who seek to capitalize on markets and maintain inequality.

That is, unless the Left starts mobilizing around transportation as an incontestable public good that requires massive funding.

Massive Opportunity for Investments in Rail and Transit Infrastructure

It’s really not that hard of a sell to make. The language of “individual rights” is frequently exploited to defend right-wing ideals of property, wealth and colonialism. So let’s sensibly leave that aside. Instead, it may be helpful to approach the crisis from the position of creating a low-carbon, technologically advanced and economically just society, rooted by extensive transportation networks that prioritize accessibility and affordability for all.

Unions, co-ops, electoral parties and other leftist organizations can agitate for many things on this front.

On the sheer infrastructure side of things, that could include dedicated tracks for VIA Rail, allowing for electrified passenger rail to become an actual option for regular people as opposed to a tourist-oriented service that has to bow to the whims of freight rail companies like CP and CN. Or, build the long awaited Calgary-Edmonton and Windsor-Quebec City high-speed rail lines, setting the example for what’s possible across the country with greater investments.

Zooming in to the city or regional level, we could be talking about a coordinated combo of subways, light-rail transit, streetcars and dedicated bus lanes. These are not far-out ideas, but regular practice in places like China, Japan and much of Europe. Every layer of transportation adds flexibility and accessibility to the network.

Such systems would greatly undermine the need for commercial airplane: terrific news for climate change given the fierce resistance by airlines to carbon pricing and inevitable inability for fuel switching (unless you’re a true techno-utopian).

Infrastructure Investments Must Also Be Accompanied With Service Access

But it’s not enough just to build public transit infrastructure. In fact, politicians are very good at announcing considerable investments in transport infrastructure ahead of electoral season due to the sheer visibility of such spending.

Transit services actually have to be made accessible for the most oppressed peoples. At root, that means free or heavily discounted fares. There’s no way around it. Surprisingly, Calgary just set an example of what this can look like, offering a monthly transit pass for $5.05 to people making $12,500 or under. But that should be the baseline. As leftists, we must aim higher. In the era of catastrophic climate change, every municipality should be urgently transitioning residents to transit-oriented living.

As well, most assaults on transit drivers are due to fare disputes. Transit unions can and should be all over this.

Hugely increased ridership due to lowered fares would likely result in a considerable uptick in demand for more service, greatly boosting the case for a much larger and unionized staff of drivers, maintenance workers, cleaners and administrators. It’ll also surely result in a push for new transit lines, perhaps even helping to boost the profile of politicians.

A massive cultural shift would obviously have to take place. But most people are literally living paycheque-to-paycheque. Make a radical enough shift in costs and a critical mass will form.

Funding: Tax Havens, Military, Prisons, Roads

The obvious question is how it will be funded. It’s a depressingly predictable question from self-described leftists. In recent years, we’ve seen many progressives, especially the federal and provincial NDP, succumb to deficit and pocketbook politics, appealing to right-wing economic arguments to boost their supposed political viability. Leftists shouldn’t oppose projects because of costs, but because they’re unjust.

As recent revelations about the Paradise Papers have reminded us, there’s a simply enormous amount of wealth being hidden by extremely rich individuals and corporations in offshore tax havens.

Income tax rates are already stunningly low for the rich – to say nothing of deductions and subsidies like the capital gains tax rate – and recovering the estimated $10-billion to $15-billion in tax havens seems like a no-brainer item for leftists to push for. There’s also incredible money being invested in military, policing and incarceration that should immediately be diverted for other purposes.

Then there’s the actual savings from transitioning to a public system.

Each Canadian currently pays, on average, $437/month on car costs. Even with a very conservative estimation, that calculates to around $100-billion in additional funding for transit every single year. That’s to say nothing of enormous investments in roads and healthcare associated with injuries and pollution.

All of this could be diverted into public transportation, as well as other critical areas like housing, food and electricity generation. That pressure must come from the left, and result in truly public and participatory processes.

Otherwise, the likes of Elon Musk will rule the remainder of humanity’s short tenure on Earth. And that will be anything but just, sustainable or democratic.

James Wilt is a freelance journalist based in Winnipeg. He holds a journalism degree from Mount Royal University in Calgary, and contributes to DeSmog Canada, VICE, CBC Calgary, Alberta Oil, Fast Forward Weekly, Geez and Canadian Dimension magazine, where this article first appeared.

Featured image is from Socialist Project.

In 2016, the last time accurate statistics were given, there were over 43 million housing units in America occupied by renters, up from 38 million in 2010.

One would surmise that the great housing bubble burst of 2008-09 pushed millions of Americans out of their own homes and into rental units. Obviously, when you have 38 or 43 million residential rental units, the absentee landlord owns most of those units of housing.

The old days of the two family home with the landlord living there and renting the other unit to help with the mortgage etc. are few and far between. Nowadays most rental units are corporate owned and run, with a smaller number owned by individual so called entrepreneurs … ALL looking to make a buck off of the sweat of another.

Having spent almost 2/3 of my baby boomer’s life living under the auspices of landlords, whether corporate or individual owned, it sucks! Why? Well, first off, with NO exceptions, the Land Lord (term taken right out of feudalism) always wishes to pay out as little money as they can get away with for the proper upkeep of the unit…period! I have lived in 9 different rental units spanning 45 years. In every instance the Land Lord had to be coerced to do the right thing. In 1968, after our family lived in three different rental units owned by Land Lords, we finally moved into an apartment building owned by one of the largest corporate Land Lords in NYC. It was a horror show! The building was never maintained properly, with building superintendents that came and went like the weather.

Then I got married, and my first wife and I moved into an absentee Land Lord owned two family home, with us in the basement apartment. Our Land Lord, a guy who did not even live in our state, did as little as possible to keep the place up to snuff. After a year there we had a baby, and could not save enough to buy a home, so we were forced to remain. One day, when my wife was giving our young son a bath, she screamed! There was this giant bug , followed by another one, crawling around the drain. I got rid of them and called the Land Lord. He said he would try to come by in a day or two, and he had some chemical that would do the trick. I asked him the name of it, and wrote it down. The next day I did some research and found that the chemical was cancer causing and outlawed in NY State. I called the Land Lord up and he laughed. “Well, it’s legal in New Jersey, so don’t worry about it kid.” Well, I told him that if he even showed up at our place with it, I would report him to the board of health etc.

My wife and I divorced a few years later and I moved into an upstairs attic apartment on Long Island to be nearer to my new business. The Land Lord was this sweet old widow, who had some rules I did not appreciate. Number one, I was not allowed to have any ‘ female guests’ overnight. Yeah, right!

The other thing was that if I put in a window A/C unit, I could not keep it there after the summer was over. She felt that it would cause a draft. What really pissed me off ( and I loved the apartment and the street I lived on) was that she controlled the thermostat , which was in her living room. Factor in that the radiators in the apartment were old and the pipes needed to be overhauled… meaning that the steam did not travel up to my place that well… meaning that I had to keep nagging her to raise the thermostat on bitter cold days.

What added fuel to the fire ( no pun intended ) was when she would go away for February to Florida, she would not allow me into her apartment. I had to get the old man next door, who she trusted to watch the place for her, to continually come by and raise the thermostat. On some bitter cold February nights, when it was too late to go and bother the old guy, I had to resort to turning on the oven to heat up my kitchen/ living room.

After 10 years of living in the aforementioned apartment, the old lady passed away and her family sold the house… meaning the new Land Lord wanted my apartment and me out. I had just met my future wife and we needed a bigger place for her, her five year old daughter and me.

We found an apartment in a nearby neighborhood owned by an absentee Land Lord who owned 19 homes in the area. The one we rented was the upstairs apartment in an old house. It was about 800 square feet and was advertised as a ‘ three bedroom’. Imagine that! Well, the rooms were so tiny that my future stepdaughter’s room would barely fit her bed… so much so that the door could not be closed. The kitchen had a refrigerator that I joked about saying that it had arthritis! The bathroom had a tub that needed the wall tiles to be replaced, and the stairway had NO banister. My 80 year old parents could not visit us for that reason. Why did we stay there? Well, in 1992 on Long Island it was lots of demand with not enough supply… unless you had the fortune to spend on a better  unit.

We moved to Indianapolis in ’95 because of two reasons: A) we could not afford to purchase a decent home on Long Island and B) my son wanted to come live with us and finish college at Purdue University in Indianapolis ( IUPUI ). When we arrived in Indy we figured we should rent until we got acclimated.

The newspaper ads were for mostly corporate owned and operated rental housing. We visited a few and found a good deal in a nice area of town. The model apartment really turned us on, and they had two beautiful racquetball courts and a gym there as well. We moved in and found out what corporate Land Lords were all about. From the outside of the buildings the fresh paint and appearance was fantastic.

The apartment looked so modern, with beautiful wall to wall clean carpeting. After being there for a few weeks, the hammer came down on us! One evening as my ( now ) wife was at the kitchen sink, the whole faucet just flew off her hands and the water spouted all about! We called the main office and had to wait for the handyman to show up… it took a day or two. Then, after the guys came and replaced the faucet, a storm hit Indy. We were sitting in the living room watching television when suddenly the rain just came down from the ceiling like a monsoon! I mean, the ceiling looked like it was made of paper mache as the water poured onto our carpet.

It did the same thing in our master bedroom, just flooding down. We had to use about five or six pots to catch the water! It took the office another two days to get the guys in to patch up the ceilings. I quickly called the corporate office in Chicago ( talk about absentee Land Lord!) and got them to let me out of our one year lease… after of course I had to threaten them with every government agency I could think of!

There is a better solution to the residential rental dilemma. What should be done is for the local community to buy absentee Land Lord properties using eminent domain. Then, the new community owned rental properties should charge a fair rate to the tenants, and here is the kicker: The tenants could have let us say a % of their rent be kept in escrow to be used towards a future down payment on the purchase of that apartment or home. If we had community run nonprofit mortgage banking, charging only overhead for mortgage rates, that would be golden. Until that day ever comes however, the local community could make a deal with local mortgage banks to at least charge better and lower rates for these tenants.. once they are vetted as to being financially able to handle the ownership.

Or, at least have the local community get subsidized by Uncle Sam to actually hold that paper itself, circumventing the private bankers. Either way, there could be a rider thrown in whereupon the new tenant now owner would have to live in the said unit for a few years before being able to sell. AND, NO rentals allowed on these units… forever!!

Finally, imagine if you would be in a society that had fewer Absentee Land Lords and millions of folks finally owning their own place of residence. The neighborhood would have folks who take better care of where they live… period!

As an anecdote to prove my point: When we rented on Long Island from that guy who owned 19 such units, two incidents stick out in my memory.

He had a yard where we could park our cars, but NOT use the garage. The yard had pear trees that harvested each fall. The pears would fall off the trees and lay in the yard. Our cars would run over them from time to time.

The Land Lord called me and said ” Why don’t you clean up the yard? ” I answered him ” Well, if you either give me a break on my rent and let me use the garage that you keep locked, I would be happy to.”  He wouldn’t.

Then, after a big snowstorm with one foot of snow, I called him up. ” You need to shovel the steps and the walk before someone gets hurt.” He once again told me that I should do that. ” Well, if you give me a break on my rent, or loan me your snow blower I will. If not, code enforcement is going to hear about this, in addition to you facing a lawsuit if one of us falls and gets hurt.” He sent his son over within the hour with a blower and the area was cleaned up.

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust. Philip can be reached at [email protected] 

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

According to Pyongyang’s KCNA news agency, “(t)he ICBM Hwasong-15 type weaponry system (test-fired Tuesday) is an intercontinental ballistic rocket tipped with super-large heavy warhead which is capable of striking the whole mainland of the US.”

The ballistic missile tested exceeds the capability of previous ones. A DPRK statement said it’s to defend the country against “US imperialists’ nuclear blackmail policy and nuclear threat.”

Its military hasn’t yet demonstrated re-entry technology capability – the ability of an object in space to reenter the earth’s atmosphere without incinerating.

Experts believe the DPRK is close to this expertise. It’s also unknown if it’s able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead enough for mounting on a ballistic missile.

Reportedly, the missile test-fired Tuesday traveled nearly 1,000 km, reaching an altitude of 4,475 km, potentially able to reach US cities. The international space station orbit at 250 miles above earth.

Defense Secretary Mattis said the missile was “higher…than any previous shot they have taken,” claiming it could strike “anywhere in the world.”

Trump responded tersely, saying we’ll “take care of it. It is a situation that we will handle.” Separately, he tweeted:

“After North Korea missile launch, it’s more important than ever to fund our gov’t & military!”

America’s only threats are invented ones. If it waged world peace instead of endless wars, it’s out-of-control military spending couldn’t be justified.

Washington, South Korea and Japan called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting in response to the DPRK test.

According to Union of Concerned Scientists’ co-director of its Global Security Program David Wright, a space weapons expert, if Tuesday’s missile launch flew on a standard trajectory instead of a lofted angle, its range would exceed 8,000 miles.

“Such a missile would have more than enough range to reach Washington DC, and in fact any part of the continental United States,” Wright explained.

North Korea vowed to continue developing its nuclear and ballistic capabilities because of threatened US aggression – these weapons considered its most effective deterrent.

During Trump’s Asia visit, a DPRK statement said

“(a)s long as the US and its puppets engage in hostile acts and invasive attempts against us, and as long as imperialism, the root of evil and injustice, is left on Earth, we will further build up our nuclear power.”

Reckless US brinksmanship on the Korean peninsula, ruling out diplomacy, risks unthinkable regional nuclear war.

Pyongyang’s response to threats by Trump, other US officials and regional ones is greater determination to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile expertise.

The only way to defuse tensions and avoid catastrophic war is through diplomatic outreach by Washington – an option Trump and hawkish administration generals reject.

The Korean peninsula remains a hugely dangerous tinderbox. Nuclear war remains an ominous possibility, a likely uncontrollable firestorm if launched.

“All that is a lie. This is a NATO-style trial.”

The defiant words of General Mladic to the judges of the NATO controlled ad hoc war crimes tribunal for Yugoslavia rang out loud and clear the day they pretended to convict him. He could have added ‘but history will absolve me” and a lot more but he was thrown out of the room by the chief judge, Orie, in his condescending style, as if he was dealing to a truant schoolboy, instead of a man falsely accused of crimes he did not commit.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, echoed the general’s words on November 23,

“We have again to state that the guilty verdict, delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia against Mladic, is the continuation of the politicized and biased line, which has initially dominated the ICTY’s work.”

Both General Mladic and the Russian government are correct. The document called a “judgment” proves it for it reads like a propaganda tract instead of a court judgment. In just over 2500 pages the trio of “judges” recite the prosecution version of events nonstop, from the first paragraph to the last. The defence is mentioned only in passing.

The ICTY rejects claims that it is a biased court, a NATO court but they proved it with the very first witnesses they called to set the stage for what was to follow. A man named Richard Butler was called to testify on general military matters and the political structure in Bosnia and the Republic Srpksa. He was introduced as a “military analyst” which he is, but not an independent one. No, at the time of his testimony he was a member of the United States National Security Agency, seconded to the ICTY as a staffer. So, the first witness against General Mladic was biased on two counts. He worked for the American intelligence services that supported the enemies of General Mladic and Yugoslavia, and he was part of the prosecution staff. It is as if the NSA and the prosecutor had, at the same time, stepped into the box to testify against the accused. Butler’s testimony plays a large role in the trial; the same role he played in the trial of General Krstic.

Another military analyst expert then appears, Reynaud Theunens, also working on the staff of the prosecution. Experts in criminal trials are supposed to be completely neutral. But not only was he acting on behalf of the prosecutor, he was at the same time a Belgian Army intelligence officer. So there we have it right at the opening of the trial. The stage is set; NATO is in charge of the case.

NATO officers work inside the tribunal. It is a NATO tribunal in UN disguise. Accordingly, throughout the judgment NATO crimes, and the crimes of the opposing Bosnian forces are never referred to. The context is deliberately constricted to give a very narrow and distorted picture of events.

The judgment continues with detailed recitations of prosecution witness testimony. Defence witnesses, on the few occasions they are referred to, never have their testimony set out in like detail. One line is devoted to a witness and all of them are dismissed as biased if their testimony is at odds with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

And of what does the prosecution evidence consist?

It consists of some oral testimony of NATO military officers involved in events and who were working in the UN forces against General Mladic and his forces, the testimony of opposing Bosnian Army soldiers or their families, and witness statements and “adjudicated facts,” that is “facts” held to be so by another set of judges in another case no matter whether true or false. A number of times, the judges state something to the effect that, “the defence claims X did not happen and relied on certain evidence to support that claim. Where this evidence conflicts with the adjudicated facts we reject it.”

There are many instances of reliance on hearsay. Time and again, a paragraph in the judgment begins with the words, “The witness was told…” Thanks to corrupt jurists like Canadian former prosecutor Louise Arbour, the use of hearsay, even double hearsay was allowed in as evidence in these trials when it is forbidden in the rest of the world because hearsay testimony cannot be verified or checked for reliability and accuracy.

I was not able to observe much of the trial and only by video from time to time so, I am not able to comment on all the factual findings of the trial judges set on in their long judgment in which they condemn General Mladic and his government in page after tedious page. Those who are aware of the real history of events will realize that every paragraph of condemnation is neither more nor less than the same NATO propaganda put out during the conflict but made to look like a judgment.

For it is not a judgment. A true judgment in a criminal trial should contain the evidence presented by the prosecution, the evidence presented by the defence, and the arguments of both sides about the evidence. It must contain references to witness testimony both as witnesses testified in chief and in cross-examination. Then there must be a reasoned decision by the judges on the merits of each party’s case and their reasoned conclusions. But you will be hard pressed to find a trace of any of the defence evidence in this document. I could find none except for a few references in a hand full of paragraphs and some footnotes in both of which testimony of a defence witness was briefly referred to in order to dismiss it and to dismiss it because it did not support the prosecution version of events.

Even more shocking is that there is little reference to verbal testimony, that is, witness testimony. Instead there are references to “experts” connected to the CIA or State Department, or other NATO intelligence agencies who set out their version of history, which the judges accept without question. There is no reference to any defence experts.

Consequently, there are no reasoned conclusions from the judges as to why they decided to accept the prosecution evidence but not the defence evidence. From reading this one would think no defence was presented, other than a token one. That is not a judgment.

But there is something even more troubling about this “judgment.” It is not possible to make out if many of the witnesses referred to testified in person because there are few references to actual testimony. Instead there are countless references to documents of various kinds and “witness statements.”

This is an important factor in these trials because the witness statements referred to are statements made, or are alleged to have been made by alleged witnesses to investigators and lawyers working for the prosecution. We know from other trials that in fact these statements are often drafted by prosecution lawyers as well as investigators, and then presented to the “witnesses” to learn by rote. We know also that the “witnesses” often came to the attention of the prosecution by routes that indicate the witnesses were presenting fabricated testimony and were recruited for that purpose.

At the Rwanda tribunal, we made a point in our trial of aggressively cross-examining these “witnesses” and they invariably fell apart on the stand, since they could not remember the scripts assigned to them. We further made a point of asking the “witnesses” how they came to meet with prosecution staff and how the interviews were conducted and how these statements were created. The results were an embarrassment to the prosecution as it became clear they had colluded with investigators to manipulate, pressure and influence “witnesses” and that they were complicit in inventing testimony.

Further, it is important for anyone reading this “judgment” to be able to refer to the pages in the transcripts at which the witnesses testified, what they testified to, and what they said in cross-examination, because a statement is not testimony. It is just a statement.

A statement cannot be used as evidence. That requires the witness to get in the box and to state under oath what they observed. Then they can be questioned as to the reliability as observers, their bias if any, their credibility and so on. But in this case we see hundreds of references to “witness statements.” This indicates that the judges based their “judgment” not on the testimony of the witnesses (if they were called to testify) but on their written statements, prepared by the prosecution, and without facing any cross-examination by the defence.

It is not clear at all from this judgment that any of the witnesses referred to in the statements actually testified or not. If they did then their testimony should be cited, not their statements. The only valid purpose the statements have is to notify the lawyers what a witness is likely to say in the trial, and to disclose the prosecution case to the defence so they can prepare their case and then use the statements in the trial to cross examine the witness by comparing the prior statement with their testimony under oath in the witness box.

The formula is a simple one. The prosecution witness gets in the box, is asked to state what he observed about an event and then the defence questions the witness,

“Mr. Witness, in your statement dated x date you said this, but today you say that. …Let’s explore the discrepancy.”

That’s how it is supposed to go. But where is it in this case? It is nowhere to be found.

It would take a book to recite the problems with the “trial” as exposed by this judgment. But there is one example which highlights the rest relating to Srebrenica and concerns a famous meeting that took place at the Fontana Hotel on the evening of July 11, 1995 at which General Mladic meets with a Dutch peacekeeper colonel to arrange the evacuation of the civilians in the Srebrenica area and the possible laying down of arms of the 28th Bosnian Army Division. There is a video of that meeting available on YouTube.

I paraphrase but it shows General Mladic asking why NATO planes were bombing his positions and killing his men. He asks why the UN forces were smuggling weapons to the Bosnian military. He asks why the UN forces tried to murder him personally. To each question he receives an apology from the Dutch officer. He then asks the Dutch officer if he wants to die and he says no. Mladic replies, nor do my men want to die, so why are you shooting at them? No answer.

The rest of the video concerns discussion of a plan to evacuate the town during which Mladic offers the UN men cigarettes, and offers some wine to ease the tension. For me, as a defence lawyer, it is a crucial element of the defence to the charges concerning Srebrenica. But no reference to this video is made in the judgment. Instead the judges refer to the testimony of several UN-NATO officers who were at the meeting in which they totally distort and twist what was said. There is no clue that the defence cross-examined those liars using the video; “Sir you state that this was said, but here in the video it shows that you are wrong. What do you say?”

It is nowhere. Was it used and ignored by the judges or not used? I have no idea. But it is clear that the prosecution chose not to use it because it would mean the collapse of their case. For even on the prosecution evidence it is clear that the men of the 28th Division refused to lay down their arms and fought their way to Tuzla. Most were killed in the fighting on the way. Many were taken prisoner. A handful of Bosnian witnesses claim these prisoners were massacred. But their testimony is of the “I was the lone miraculous survivor of the massacre” variety they tend to use in these trials.

I won’t enter into the heavy use of the bogus legal concept of joint criminal enterprise to attach criminal liability to the general, guilt by association and without intent. That they used it shows they know they had no case against him.

In summary this document contains within it little sense of the defence case or what the facts presented by the defence were, what the defence arguments were on the facts, nor their full legal arguments.

But most importantly we have no idea what the testimony was of most of the prosecution witnesses and no idea what the testimony was of defence witnesses. It is as if there was no trial, and the judges just sat in a room sifting through prosecution documents writing the judgment as they went. We must suppose that this is not far from the truth.

This “judgment” and the trial are another humiliation of Yugoslavia and Serbia by the NATO alliance since it is clear from its creation, financing, staffing and methods that the ICTY is a NATO controlled tribunal. This is confirmed by the statement of the NATO Secretary-General, who said,

“I welcome the ruling…. the Western Balkans are of strategic importance for our Alliance…”

In other words, this conviction helps NATO to consolidate its hold on the Balkans by keeping the Serbs down and out. General Mladic is a scapegoat for the war crimes of the NATO alliance committed in Yugoslavia, which the ICTY covers up and so assists NATO in committing more war crimes, as we have seen since.

The ICTY has proven to be what we expected it to be, a kangaroo court, using fascist methods of justice that engaged in selective prosecution to advance the NATO agenda of conquest of the Balkans as a prelude to aggression against Russia. NATO uses the tribunal as a propaganda weapon to put out a false history of the events in Yugoslavia, to cover up its own crimes, to keep the former republics of Yugoslavia under its thumb, and to justify NATO aggression and occupation of Yugoslavian territory. It is a stain on civilization.

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.” where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author.

Few could have colonised a role as comprehensively as David Suchet playing Hercule Poirot, that pedantic, fastidious figure of sleuthing fame created by Agatha Christie. Manner, affectation, and delivery all seemed immaculate, read, and even delightful. Invariably, this sort of thespian appropriation and adaptation creates its hordes of admirers, zealots who refuse to accept rivals, pretenders, or usurpers.

Kenneth Branagh, to that end, was always on a hiding to nothing taking on the task of re-creating Poirot, even if dramatic roles can never be patented. Things, in other words, were always bound to go wrong, in some sense. If not how Branagh portrayed it, then the why of it. 

Murder on the Orient Express seems, at first glance, to be a considerably overly egged pudding. Veteran actors come at you from all sides (Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench), and at times, the film resembles a major actor’s grand reunion. The same could also be said of the 1974 production by Sidney Lumet: Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery. 

Screenshot Star2.com

Branagh was certainly keen to have some impact on his cast, wanting them all “to have the experience of being blindfolded and sticking a knife into the animal organs. I wanted to have everybody understand what it might be like to have sharp steel going through flesh.”  

If only that lesson had been learned a bit more avidly, not least of all than by Branagh himself, who wished to avoid letting his actors think of the material as a case of “theatrical pantomime”. The analytical cool steeliness of the Belgian detective shades into self-reflection and moistened emotion. Close-up shots feature tear ducts welling up.  

He reflects; he ponders; he anguishes over the murder in the Calais coach. Some of this is openly derived from Branagh’s own Shakespearean take on “the poison of deep grief”, something which he reads into Christie’s work much unjustified enthusiasm. 

It is not quite true to claim, as Anthony Lane in The New Yorker does, that there is nothing to desecrate here. However much one is impressed or, for that matter, unimpressed by Christie’s work, effort is still called for. 

Some thought might have, by way of example, been given to get the scenery, suspended as an infuriatingly sterile animation, accurate. The sense of the inauthentic permeates the whole show. The book commences in Aleppo, though Branagh’s Poirot finds himself in Jerusalem, swiftly moving to Istanbul. Viewers familiar with the landscapes will find the blemishes of geography a bit hard to take at stages of the journey.  

Perhaps this is Branagh’s point. He is showing fidelity of sorts – after all, Christie was accused of improbable plot lines and a sequence of miraculous discoveries by her sleuths. This was the line of writing that irked Raymond Chandler, whose The Simple Art of Murder remains both a treat and a weapon against that generation of the fabulous and the confounders. 

Chandler reserves a bolt for a certain M. Poirot who “decides that nobody on a certain through sleeper could have done the murder alone, therefore everybody did it together, breaking the process down into a series of simple operations, like assembling an egg-beater.” 

The film also throws in odd moments of cinematography. On the big screen, the viewer becomes squeamish at certain angles of filming. As part of this optical license, the victim, from above, is only shown after an initial conference, stab wounds revealed like evidence of a ceremonial sacrifice. 

The freedom taken in some instances suggests, ironically enough, a limitation. Branagh wishes to remain politic and contemporary, a point that leads to such improbable insertions as black soldiers in the then Kingdom of Yugoslavia army. How those in the Balkans will chuckle.

There seems to be much in the way of miscasting and a miscarriage of thespian effort. Dench is barely breathing as Princess Dragomiroff, and Johnny Depp is far from sensible as the doomed Ratchett, mumbling his words of concern like a narcotised patient. (His character’s derogatory reference to canines might well have been inspired by personal experiences suffered in his efforts to smuggle two of his own into Australia.) 

No one, then, can fault Branagh on attempting such a project. Murder mysteries sell. Christie affords rich material to adapt, an eternal mine to sort through and reimagine. But this is one occasion where a few more stumbles might have been avoided.  

To get it across the line, the film will no doubt be relying on the lavish period piece costumes and the glamour factor rather than the spectacular feats of M. Poirot. It certainly worked with The Guardian, which regarded the film as much like “a Belgian iced bun: a nostalgic pleasure, goes down easy, irresistible on a Sunday afternoon.”

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

The Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Member of Knesset Tzipi Hotovely, held meetings this week with representatives of YouTube and Google, to find ways of cooperating to censor Palestinian videos from occupied Palestine, videos she dubbed as “inciting violence and terrorism.” Israeli daily Maariv said Hotovely will be working with Google and YouTube officials in a joint mechanism that will be in charge of “monitoring and preventing” any publication of materials deemed by Tel Aviv to be “inflammatory.”

Hotovely announced in a Hebrew-only press release that she met with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and Google’s Director of Public Policy, Jennifer Oztzistzki, at Google’s Silicon Valley Offices.

Hotovely said that she received a comprehensive review mechanism for companies to monitor the films that allegedly incite violence, claiming that the supposed ‘incitement videos’ drive young children to go out and stab: ‘The attacks daily in Israel are the result of youths and children incited by the education system and the social networks, this is a daily war of incitement.’

She said that Google agreed to strengthen the bilateral relations with Israel’s Foreign Ministry, and build a mechanism of “collaborative work” that would make both parties partners in monitoring the published materials and censoring them.

The Israeli move comes amidst escalating tension in occupied Palestine, and a large number of videos, including those showing Israeli soldiers and officers killing Palestinians execution-style after injuring them, and many videos that in general highlight the suffering of the Palestinian people, living under the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The Israeli coordination with Google and YouTube has very serious implications, and many journalists have spoken out in opposition, saying it is a direct assault on the Freedom of the Press.

All foreign journalists who report in the Occupied Territories are required to register with the Israeli military, and any footage that they film is required to go through the Israeli Military Censor’s office before it can be released.

With the recent advances in technology, many Palestinians and other civilians have been able to post videos uncensored online.

The Israeli government has frequently voiced its discontent with this development, and have worked to find ways to continue to censor videos coming out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

All images in this article are from IMEMC News.

Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress:

In the next few weeks, the US Congress will decide whether or not to mandate oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the 2018 federal budget bill. The Arctic Refuge may seem far away to many, but its ecosystems sustain a diverse array of species that matter to Americans and to people around the world. Opening this refuge to fossil fuel development would ignore the will of the American people, who have for decades urged their elected officials to protect this irreplaceable ecological treasure. It would also violate human rights and jeopardize the food security of the indigenous Gwich’in people of the US and Canada. We are scholars from a wide range of fields—including the humanities, the social sciences, the sciences, the arts, and other areas—united in our belief that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would be a grave mistake. We call upon Congress to remove this reckless provision from the budget.

There is no justification for using the budget process to push through oil development in the Arctic Refuge. Drilling proponents claim lease sales will generate 1 billion dollars in revenue over the next decade to help defray the 1.5 trillion dollars of proposed tax cuts for corporations and the rich. Even if the anticipated revenue figure turned out to be correct (many estimates predict a far lower amount), it still represents an incredibly minute fraction of the tax-cut proposal.  This abuse of the budget process would sacrifice one of the nation’s most ecologically and culturally significant places for a paltry sum of federal revenue.

As the ecological heart of the Arctic Refuge, the coastal plain provides critical calving and nursing habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd. Almost 200,000 caribou embark every year on the longest land migration of any animal on earth, journeying from the taiga and boreal forest ecosystems of northeast Alaska and the adjacent northwest Canada to the coastal plain, where they calve and nurse their young. Caribou biologists have repeatedly warned that oil development would have catastrophic effects on the herd. In addition to nurturing caribou, the coastal plain provides nesting and feeding habitat for millions of migratory birds. Nearly two hundred different species travel from all fifty states and six continents to breed and find nourishment in the Arctic Refuge. The coastal plain also offers the most important on-shore denning habitat in the US Arctic for polar bears, now listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As we are in the midst of what scientists call the earth’s sixth mass extinction, the vast nursery of the coastal plain needs protection now more than ever.

For Gwich’in communities on both sides of the US-Canada border, the prospect of drilling represents an existential threat to their cultural survival. The Gwich’in have relied upon the Porcupine caribou herd for nutritional, cultural, and spiritual sustenance for millennia. To them, the coastal plain is “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins.”

Drilling in the Arctic is risky—the inevitable and chronic spills of oil and other toxic substances onto the fragile tundra would scar this land and disrupt its wildlife. The pollution caused by the sprawling infrastructure of oil development would threaten wildlife populations and harm indigenous communities that rely on the biotic life. Moreover, as the effects of climate change become more apparent, and as the global community continues to move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy, why would we now destroy the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System?

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must not be auctioned off to Big Oil. Its natural values far exceed any oil that may lie beneath the coastal plain. As scholars from across the United States and Canada, we ask that you keep this cherished place and vibrant ecosystem protected for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Subhankar Banerjee, Lannan Chair and Professor of Art and Ecology, University of New Mexico

Finis Dunaway, Professor of History, Trent University

Mark Meadowcroft, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State College of Medicine

Mary Evelyn Tucker, Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology

Christoph Irmscher, Provost Professor of English; George F. Getz Jr. Professor in the Wells Scholars Program, Indiana University Bloomington

Keith Pluymers, Howard E. and Susanne C. Jessen Postdoctoral Instructor in the Humanities, Caltech

Jennifer Tucker, Associate Professor of History and Science in Society Program; photographic and environmental historian; Wesleyan University

Catherine Jurca, Professor and Executive Officer of the Humanities, Caltech.

Shirley Roburn, McGill University

Heather Houser, Associate Professor of English, University of Texas at Austin

Robert Newman, President, National Humanities Center

Joseph Cook, Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico

Lynn Ramert, English instructor, University of Nebraska

Alexandra Lakind, PhD student in Environment & Resources.

Janet Pritchard, Professor, Department of Art and Art History, University of Connecticut

Kency Cornejo, Assistant Professor of Art History, University of New Mexico

Jeffrey Terr, Undergraduate researcher, Biology Department, University of New Mexico

Scott Fraser, Professor of Biomedical Engineering and of Molecular and Computational Biology, and of Pediatrics, University of Southern California

Michael Hecht, Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University.

Vivian Halloran, Professor of English and American Studies, Indiana University

Roberto Salas, University of Texas El Paso MFA

Char Miller, W.M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pomona College

Margaret Werner Washburne, Regents Professor emerita, Biology, University of New Mexico

Carolyn Kay, Professor, History Department, Trent University

Trevor Fristoe, Postdoctoral Researcher, Washington University in St. Louis

Lisa Tremaine, Art Director, University of New Mexico

Nina Karnovsky, Professor of Biology, Pomona College

Jonathan Wright, Professor of Biology, Pomona College

Scott Tremaine, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study

Paul Sutter, Professor of History, University of Colorado Boulder

Catherine Peters, Ph.D. Candidate, American Studies, Harvard University

Catherine Xu, Visiting Student in Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford

Douglas Sackman, Professor of History, University of Puget Sound

Reese Phillips, Adjunct Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico

Terry Tempest Williams, Writer-in-Residence, Harvard Divinity School

Kristine Johnson, Ph.D, Research Associate Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico

Karl Jacoby, Professor of History, Columbia University

Erika Doss, Professor, Department of American Studies, University of Notre Dame

Anthony Lioi, Associate Professor of English, The Juilliard School

Aaron Frith, Post-doctoral Researcher, Philosophy of Water Project, University of North Texas

Joe Gallegos, Graduate Student, Department of American Studies, University of New Mexico

Laura Kay, Professor of Physics, Barnard College

Stuart Schrader, Fellow, American History, Harvard University

Marsha Weisiger, Associate Professor of History, University of Oregon

Elizabeth Johnson, Distinguished Professor of Theology, Fordham University, New York City

Ivan Kreilkamp, Associate Professor, English, Indiana University

Adriene Jenik, Professor of Art/Intermedia, Arizona State University

Daniel Brotman, Adjunct Professor of Economics, Glendale College

Stephanie Rutherford, Associate Professor in the School of the Environment, Trent University

David Pengelley, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, New Mexico State University

Lillian Ball, Ecological art, visiting professor, Cooper Union School of Art

Piet Hut, Prof. of Astrophysics, Institute for Advanced Study

Terrence Gosliner, Senior Curator, California Academy of Sciences

Arlene Plevin, Professor of English, Olympic College.

Caddie Alford, Associate Instructor, Indiana University

Frank Zelko, Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Vermont

Rick Steiner, Professor, University of Alaska (ret.)

Ragini Bhow, M.F.A Candidate Art & Ecology, University of New Mexico

Ross MacPhee, Curator in Vertebrate Zoology/Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History

Karla Armbruster, Professor of English, Webster University

Harvard Ayers, retired Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Sustainability, Appalachian State University

Ellen Babcock, Associate Professor, Department of Art, University of New Mexico

Nicole Seymour, Assistant Professor of English, California State University at Fullerton

William Goldsmith, Professor emeritus of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University

Elizabeth Nevada, Adjunct faculty – University of New Mexico Dance Program

Mark Stoll, Professor of History, Texas Tech University

Elizabeth Cullingford, Professor and Chair of English, University of Texas at Austin

Julianne Warren, Ecosphere Studies, Center for Humans and Nature

Julie Minich, Associate Professor of English, University of Texas at Austin

Jon Wlasiuk, Environmental historian, Michigan State University

David Stradling, Associate Dean of Humanities and Professor of History, University of Cincinnati

Phaedra C. Pezzullo, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Colorado Boulder

Jon Corey Hazlett, PhD Candidate, Case Western Reserve University

Kathleen Segerson, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Connecticut

Catriona Sandilands, Professor of Environmental Studies, York University

James Morton Turner, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Wellesley College

Marit Munson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Trent University

Stephen Bocking, Professor of environmental policy and history, Trent University

Teal Arcadi, PhD Candidate, US History, Princeton University

Julia Grummitt, Ph.D Candidate, History Department, Princeton University

Kevin Siena, Assoc. Professor of History, Trent University

Grace Hale, Commonwealth Chair of American Studies and History, University of Virginia

Hilary Stamper, Visiting Professor of Psychology, Stanford University

Michael Sherwin, Associate Professor of Art, West Virginia University

Anne Coleman, Associate Professor of American Studies, University of Notre Dame

Parker Krieg, Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Humanities Program, University of Helsinki

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Israel is planning to block its Arab citizens from living in almost 1,000 neighbourhoods and villages under the pretext that they were built for Jews only, Quds Press reported on Tuesday. According to a report in Haaretz, the Knesset (Israeli parliament) is set to discuss a law to build Jew-only areas in the country.

Describing the proposed legislation as “racist”, the director of the Alternative Planning Centre, which specialises in planning and construction, said that it aims to prevent Arabs from living in new neighbourhoods. Hanna Sweed added that municipalities used to prevent Arab citizens from living in Jewish neighbourhoods, but this practice looks set to become enshrined in law.

“There have been indirectly-racist laws in Israel,” explained Sweed, “but this law stipulates clearly the building of Jewish neighbourhoods without any Arab residents.”

He warned that this might lead to more racist laws to put extra limits on Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up 20 per cent of the population.

The former MK pointed out that there is no law that prevents Jews from living in Arab neighbourhoods.

“What’s more, consecutive Israeli governments have built hundreds of Jewish towns and neighbourhoods in occupied Palestine [Israel], but have never built any Arab neighbourhood since 1948.”

He noted that the Israeli authorities have never even expanded Arab neighbourhoods, causing severe housing shortages and pushing Arabs to apply to live in new Jewish areas.

“Due to years of having their land confiscated, Israel’s Arab citizens do not have enough land to meet housing demand as the population continues to grow.”

“All good things arrive for them that wait – and don’t die in the meantime.” – Mark Twain

It is damp, drizzly November once again, the grim grey in-between month, a time for dying and a time, above all, for waiting. Waiting for the fallen dead foliage to be buried in snow, waiting for the shortest day to come and go, waiting for the New Year to usher in great changes. 

Waiting – so what’s new?

Some sullen sage once said that life is what we do while we wait for death. It’s not the kind of wise-guy wisdom I would try to refute, since I was one of the precocious kids who saw the skull at his first pabulum banquet. He seemed to be waiting for me even then, and I can only assume he is waiting still, though, like the dead writer William Saroyan, I can enjoy thinking an exception will be made in my case. But wishful thinking aside, there’s no question that Mr. Death knocks at everyone’s door sooner or later, preferably later, better never than late, to coin a phrase in reverse and revert to wishful thinking. Nevertheless, it’s hard to deny he’s coming and everybody is waiting for his knock.

Of course, rather than knock, he just might blow the house down. Though it’s a little impersonal, a lot of people are waiting for that. Like the early Christians who were eagerly awaiting the imminent end of the world, most people today are waiting for a nuclear holocaust – on the evening news, of course. The general consensus seems to be that it will solve all problems; and anyway, what’s there to do goes the refrain. Keep waiting, that’s all, seems to be the popular approach. If I didn’t know better, I’d think people were looking forward to meeting Mr. Death. For why else are they waiting?

That’s the big picture, so to speak, the big waiting game. Waiting in the smaller sense can also kill you, or keep you going (but don’t ask where), depending on your point of view. There are endless variations to this waiting game.

Every day at my local post office I see the anxiously expectant faces of people eagerly awaiting their mail, as if that special, life-transforming letter will be arriving. Then, when they pull the latest sales circular from their magic boxes, you can see their faces momentarily drop, but just as quickly do they revive, for now they can still have something to wait for – tomorrow’s mail. But tomorrow is such a long time away, so most quickly check their phones to see if God has called, or at least sent a text. Hope springs eternal in the banal post office.

Then there are those other desperate waiters, those who regularly play the lottery. They are the truly faithful ones who haven’t lost their faith, or who’ve found a parallel one – true believers in the money god waiting to surprise, the deus ex machina of the American happiness machine. For no matter what the odds, they regularly plunk down their bucks and intone the magic numbers that will change their lives forever. Then they wait. “You never know; someone’s got to win, so why not me” is their refrain. Sure. And everyone has got to die. But to hell with the odds.  Ever hopeful, like Gatsby cataleptically gazing across the water at the green light on Daisy’s dock, they wait for their numbers to be up – up above the conjuring computers that raise their tickets to happiness – so that they too, like John Smith, who won 400 million last year and said, “Of course I’m not going to let this change my life. I’m not going to quit my job in the dog food factory. I’m going to be the same regular guy I’ve always been” – so that they too can give up waiting for the gravy train and find something else to wait for.

It’s easy. They can always join the millions who are always waiting for the interminable weather reports or those who, as soon as one season has barely begun, are anxiously awaiting the next. Spring is a favorite season to wait for, eternal green spring, the time of year when most suicides can’t take waiting any longer since the weather’s nice but nothing else has changed, so they rush to Mr. Death who solves all their anxious waiting.

We all know those who are always waiting for Fridays and the great relief from their weekday horrors that the weekends bring. If that’s your game, and you’re far from retirement age, don’t worry, you can look forward to years and years of waiting for Fridays. Thank God. And then you can wait in dread for Mondays. Damn the devil. Wasn’t it Studs Terkel who said that most jobs in America are hellish? You wait to get one and then you wait until you can afford to get rid of it. It’s a lot of waiting.

Waiting is endless, and endless is the waiting.

As for me, I’ve been waiting to tell you the truth. Not too long ago I lost all hope. After decades of secretly waiting for a knock at my door, I now know it will never come. It’s over, this waiting of a true believer in the American Dream. I guess I’ve been exactly where George Carlin meant when he said to believe in the American Dream you have to be asleep. I was shocked to recently learn that Michael Anthony is dead, or to be more precise, Marvin Miller, the actor who played Michael Anthony is dead. Even as the years have tumbled out the backdoor of my life – 32 to be exact – I thought Marvin/Michael was waiting in the wings to surprise me. But I have just learned he died in 1985. My heart dropped. My waiting all these years, my secret hope of hopes, my train that would one day come in and rescue me – gone. No more. The door will not be knocked. My waiting days are over.

Who, you ask, was Michael Anthony, this character…in a movie, a play, or on television? In reality? A dream? A hallucination? He was my hope and salvation coming from the private sector, of course. He was the emissary from the invisible god, the billionaire John Beresford Tipton. And every week he would knock on someone’s door and hand him or her a check for one million dollars. “The Millionaire” was more than a television show; it was a waiter’s dream. It was why I thought of myself as “a temporarily embarrassed millionaire,” as John Steinbeck said most of us poor slobs do.  And though I haven’t been waiting for reruns, I have thought a knock was imminent, that I would be a chosen one. Now my hope is gone, my capitalist dream in shatters. I am Zero Mostel without a song.

The odd thing is, it’s a great relief. Hope, after all, is the fuel that drives all this waiting. Without waiting, everything changes. That’s often the message waiting in an obituary; you see the name, realize it’s not yours, and perhaps give up waiting for the day your waiting ends.

It’s living, I think they call it, something you can’t wait for forever, no matter what the month. Take a tip from me: being a waiter is not that rewarding. You can get by doing it, but you’ll miss the meal.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

Featured image is from Colourbox.

I attended the Silver & Gold Summit in San Francisco November 20 and 21. It was great connecting with the many people I know in the industry, but I will tell you that a) attendance was low, and b) crypto promoters were out in force. It turned out to be more of a gold and crypto conference than anything else. Some of the more lively sessions were the gold vs. crypto debates, and one company offered “free bitcoin!” if you opened an account with them.

I talked to many exhibitors and speakers and attendees, and it seemed the first question on most investor’s minds was how high bitcoin will go, and when the bubble will pop—not if it will pop. Most seemed to believe bitcoin is in a bubble, with the only outstanding question how high the price goes.

But the low attendance and focus on an alternative asset reminded me a lot of when I attended a similar conference in the spring of 2007. Interest in gold was flat, the Dow was roaring, and uranium was the flavor of the day. Of course 18 months later the Dow was crashing, the uranium market was obliterated, and gold and silver were on the cusp of beginning a historic run-up. The “low interest” in precious metals ended up serving as a signal for one of the greatest buying opportunities. I have a feeling we’re at a similar juncture now.

Without further ado, here are some of the more interesting quotes, gloats, and anecdotes from the conference you might find interesting (for the most part I’m paraphrasing from my notes)…

Rick Rule, Chairman of Sprott Resources: “Gold’s biggest competitor is not bitcoin but the 10-year government bond, which is near the end of a 35-year bull market.”

Doug Casey, Casey Research:

“Bitcoin is in a bubble, but it’s going to get bigger before it blows up.”

Doug stated he has 7 figures invested in the stocks of crypto companies, but said he plans to sell out of most positions at some point. He also reconfirmed his view that gold will be the next great bubble, and gold stocks the next super-bubble.

Jim Rickards:

“The shoeshine boy has said to buy cryptos: an elderly lady in a small coffee shop in my tiny New England town asked me if she should buy bitcoin.”

“I’ll never sell one bitcoin—ever!” Bitcoin newsletter writer. (I almost wanted to point out to him that the Nasdaq still hasn’t recovered from the tech wreck of the late 1990s.)

Cryptos panel, when asked for their short and long-term outlook for the market: most said crypto prices are headed higher in the short term (1-2 years) but not in the long-term (3 years or more), except the guy who said he’ll never sell a bitcoin.

Frank Holmes, Chairman of HIVE Blockchain Technology:

“Most bubbles pop due to excessive leverage.”

At this statement a few panelists pointed out that the CME is starting a bitcoin futures contract, which will allow both shorting and leverage.

Jim Rickards:

“Cryptos will never replace gold. And government intervention is a certainty once they go after the terrorists and child pornographers that use them.”

“There will be no Merry Christmas if you don’t own gold, silver, and bitcoin. There will be a major disruptive event the first week of December, and that’s when a major shift into precious metals begins.” Bo Polny, Gold 2020 Forecast.

Rob McEwen, CEO McEwen Mining:

”A prolonged period of cheap money and the shift of investor focus to gold as a haven from geopolitical and financial risk could boost the price of gold to over $5,000 an ounce within five years—if that happens there is going to be a tsunami of money looking for a place to go.”

Bud Conrad, former chief economist of Casey Research:

“The biggest buyer of US stocks has been the companies themselves—the stock market is a bubble.”

Bud’s not exaggerating. In fact, share buybacks have almost perfectly tracked the price of the S&P 500 for the past decade, until lately.

The simmer of unease prompted by the prospect of Donald Trump in command of nuclear weapons—initially highlighted during last year’s presidential campaign—reached full boil last week. A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nuclear use authority included clear expressions of concern, most pointedly from Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who said he and others were concerned “that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national security interests.” But the Senate hearing resulted in no immediate consensus on the ways in which a president’s relatively unfettered authority to launch nuclear weapons might be modified without raising significant constitutional questions.

Indeed, the hearing and a wide range of commentary that followed illustrate the tension that exists between a president’s constitutional position as commander in chief, obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats, and the constitution’s delegation to Congress of the power to declare war. Under the current system, a president is the only US official who can order a nuclear attack. To be sure, such a decision is unlikely to be made without significant input from his national security advisers. Military commanders could theoretically refuse to execute an “illegal” nuclear-strike order, but such orders are presumed legal. A president is certainly allowed to consult with Congress ahead of a nuclear attack or response. But given the extremely tight time constraints under which a decision to use nuclear weapons might be made, consultation is not necessarily contemplated under the current nuclear command and control system, and the sole authority for deciding to use nuclear weapons belongs to the president.

Perhaps the most nuanced of the commentaries to follow the Senate hearing came from one of its witnesses, Duke political science professor Peter Feaver. As both his testimony and a subsequent article in Foreign Policy magazine attest, the precise chain of command that would result in use of the US nuclear arsenal is not a simple thing to explain in public, in part because many of its particulars are classified. Feaver’s bottom line: A congressional review of nuclear command-and-control issues is warranted, given that no such formal review has occurred for decades, but Congress should avoid hasty legislation that could have unintended and highly dangerous consequences, perhaps leading adversaries and allies to question the United States’ ability to respond quickly in a crisis situation.

“[W]e should be wary about second- and third-order consequences and so should scrutinize proposals [to change nuclear command authority] with as jaundiced an eye as we scrutinize claims by nuclear operators that suggest ‘all is well, nothing to see here…’” Feaver wrote.

Feaver’s discussion of the always/never dimension of US nuclear command and control—the system should always respond with a nuclear strike when required, yet never allow an accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons—is particularly worth reading. And his explanation of the conceptual differences between two general nuclear-use situations—one in which the military “wakes up” the president and asks him to respond to an imminent or actual nuclear attack, and another in which the president “wakes up” the military with an order to use nuclear weapons first—illuminates the real-world complexity of nuclear decision making. All nuclear situations are not made equal.

In an appearance on CSPAN, Stevens Institute of Technology nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein explained the general outlines of the US nuclear command structure in a perhaps more accessible way. His answer to the question of whether Congress could or should place limits on a president’s ability to order a nuclear strike is worth quoting in its entirety:

I think Congress should at the very least have some very frank discussions about whether or not the current system is the best of all possible worlds, whether or not the current system is as safe as it could be with regards to the fact that any president—and it doesn’t have to be Trump, [though] Trump has obviously raised a lot of these concerns—but any president is a single human being. We have plenty of examples of presidents who were fallible, president who suffered from mental illness, presidents who were addicted to various types of substances. If you go through American history, it’s very hard to come away with the idea that presidents are somehow above it all. Could Congress do it? [That] gets into pretty thorny constitutional law questions. I don’t feel like we know exactly what the dimensions, the answer to that is. Congress has intervened with the War Powers Act in their role as a body that is meant under the Constitution to declare war. The president is the commander in chief. These things are somewhat at odds in our modern age, where the ability to use military forces and the ability to declare war can be nearly instantaneous, as opposed to say in the 18th century when the Constitution was drafted. Could they [members of Congress] do it? Maybe. Should they do it? I think they should look into it.

London Review of Books contributing editor Adam Shatz offers a sharper-edged take in a lengthy piece that focuses largely on the overwhelming concentration of power that the US presidency has acquired in recent decades.

“Perhaps the question we should be asking,” Shatz writes, “is not whether Trump can be stopped, but whether the system as a whole can be overhauled. ‘We have elevated the president to the position of a demigod, and then when he turns out to be Donald Trump, we’re shocked,’ [retired US Army career officer Andrew] Bacevich said to me. ‘But since Roosevelt we have vastly enhanced the power and prerogatives exercised by the president, and his ability to execute the nuclear war plan is just part of the package. Why have we entrusted this one imperfect individual with the power to blow up the planet?’”

In recent months, a bill proposed by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Ted Lieu of California—the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017—has gained much notice and significant support from experts and activists concerned by President Trump’s statements on matters nuclear, especially as regards his threat in August to inflict “fire and fury” on North Korea. The bill would prohibit the president “from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike. ‘First-use nuclear strike’ means a nuclear weapons attack against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or a US ally.”

In an interesting and perhaps surprising turn, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, which is essentially Lieu’s hometown newspaper and tends generally in a liberal direction, came out on Sunday against the Lieu-Markey bill, saying,

“Our principal concern about this bill is that it would make it harder for a president not just to use nuclear weapons, but also to deter aggression by leaving adversaries in doubt about whether and when such weapons might be used.”

This position points up the dilemma: Unfettered, an unhinged president could order an unwarranted nuclear strike that leads to global catastrophe. Controls on the president’s ability to order such a strike, however, could slow critical responses to aggression or embolden enemies.

The current US system of command and control gives the president such complete authority over whether a nuclear attack is ordered that Harvard University’s Elaine Scarry calls that system (in her book of the same name) Thermonuclear Monarchy. But there are other, less-monarchical systems, and the Union of Concerned Scientists has published an admirable roundup of open source information about how other countries with nuclear weapons control their use.

“Instead of relying solely on the judgment of a single individual to make a decision that could lead to worldwide devastation, most nuclear-armed states have put in place systems that—at least in theory—limit the ability of any one individual to independently order a launch,” the UCS report notes.

One can hope that members of Congress from both parties read the report and think long and hard about whether it is reasonable to place the fate of the entire world in the hands of one person. Any person.

According to former US Secretary of State John Kerry Israel and Egypt were pushing the US to “bomb Iran” before the nuclear deal was struck in 2015. He added that a number of kings and presidents told the US that a military action was the only language Iran would understand.

Kerry emphasized the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that was “genuinely agitating toward action.”

Kerry made the statement during a forum in Washington. He defended the deal and said that the military action suggestions were a “trap”. According to the former US secretary of state, the same countries would have publicly criticized the U.S. if it did carry out a bombing of Iran as they were secretly supporting.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear deal made during the Obama presidency. Trump vowed to reconsider the terms and conditions of the deal and to put an additional pressure on Iran. These statements faced a very cold response from Tehran, which is against any deals that would limit his sovereignty.

Featured image is from South Front.

Twenty-first century slave markets. Human beings sold for a few hundred dollars. Massive protests throughout the world.

The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets. Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.

In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles, destroying the government’s ability to resist rebel forces.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) used NATO’s own materials to show how “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misrata even referred to themselves in 2011 as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—an eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.

The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafi’s convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebels—sodomized with a bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared live on CBS News (10/20/11), “We came, we saw, he died!” The Libyan government dissolved soon after.

In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed. Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority. Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaced—a staggering number, nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.

Corporate media, however, have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.

Moreover, even the few news reports that do acknowledge NATO’s complicity in the chaos in Libya do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.

O NATO, Where Art Thou?

CNN (11/14/17) published an explosive story in mid-November that offered a firsthand look at the slave trade in Libya. The media network obtained terrifying video that shows young African refugees being auctioned, “big strong boys for farm work,” sold for as little as $400.

CNN (11/14/17) does not bring up the US role in allowing people to be sold.

The flashy CNN multimedia report included bonuses galore: two videos, two animated gifs, two photos and a chart. But something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.

Despite these huge flaws, the CNN report was widely celebrated, and made an impact in a corporate media apparatus that otherwise cares little about North Africa. A flurry of media reports followed. These stories overwhelmingly spoke of slavery in Libya as an apolitical and timeless human rights issue, not as a political problem rooted in very recent history.

In subsequent stories, when Libyan and United Nations officials announced they would launch an investigation into the slave auctions, CNN (11/17/17, 11/20/17) again failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.

One CNN report (11/21/17) on a UN Security Council meeting noted, “Ambassadors from Senegal to Sweden also blamed trafficking’s root causes: unstable countries, poverty, profits from slave trading and lack of legal enforcement.” But it failed to explain why Libya is unstable.

Another 1,200-word CNN follow-up article (11/23/17) was just as obfuscatory. It was only in the 35th paragraph of this 36-graf story that a Human Rights Watch researcher noted, “Libyan interim authorities have been dragging their feet on virtually all investigations they supposedly started, yet never concluded, since the 2011 uprising.” NATO’s leadership in this 2011 uprising was, however, ignored.

An Agence France-Presse news wire that was published by Voice of America (11/17/17) and other websites similarly failed to provide any historical context for the political situation in Libya. “Testimony collected by AFP in recent years has revealed a litany of rights abuses at the hands of gang leaders, human traffickers and the Libyan security forces,” the article said, but it did not recount anything that happened before 2017.

Reports by the BBC (11/18/17), the New York Times (11/20/17), Deutsche Welle (reprinted by USA Today, 11/23/17) and the Associated Press (reprinted by theWashington Post, 11/23/17) also failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.

A New York Times story (11/19/17) was exceptional in connecting the rise in Libyan slavery to Muammar Qadhafi’s overthrow–yet it failed to mention the US’s leading role in that overthrow.

Another New York Times story (11/19/17) did provide a bit of context:

Since the Arab Spring uprising of 2011 ended the brutal rule of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s coast has became a hub for human trafficking and smuggling. That has fueled the illegal migration crisis that Europe has been scrambling to contain since 2014. Libya, which slid into chaos and civil war after the revolt, is now divided among three main factions.

Yet the Times still erased NATO’s key place in this uprising of 2011.

In an account of the large protests that erupted outside Libyan embassies in Europe and Africa in response to reports of slave auctions, Reuters (11/20/17) indicated, “Six years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is still a lawless state where armed groups compete for land and resources and people-smuggling networks operate with impunity.” But it did not provide any more information about how Qadhafi was toppled.

A report in the Huffington Post (11/22/17), later republished by AOL (11/27/17), did concede that Libya is “one of the world’s most unstable [sic], mired in conflict since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and killed in 2011.” It made no mention of NATO’s leadership in that ousting and killing.

Part of the problem has been the unwillingness of international organizations to point out the responsibility of powerful Western governments. In his statement on the reports of slavery in Libya, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (11/20/17) did not mention anything about what has happened politically inside the North African nation in the past six years. The UN News Centre report (11/20/17) on Guterres’ comments was just as contextless and uninformative, as was the press release (11/21/17) on the issue from the International Organization for Migration.

Al Jazeera (11/26/17) did cite an IOM official who suggested, in Al Jazeera‘s words, that “the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.” But the media outlet provided no context as to how Libya became post-Qadhafi in the first place. In fact, Al Jazeera‘s source went out of his way to make the issue apolitical: “Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique.”

While it is true that slavery and human trafficking happen in other countries, this widespread media narrative depoliticizes the problem in Libya, which has its roots in explicit political decisions made by governments and their leaders: namely, the choice to overthrow Libya’s stable government, turning the oil-rich North African nation into a failed state ruled by competing warlords and militias, some of which are involved in and profit from slavery and trafficking.

Selective Attention to NATO’s Aftermath in Libya

Corporate media reporting on Libya largely mirrors reporting on Yemen (FAIR.org, 11/20/17, 8/31/17, 2/27/17), Syria (FAIR.org, 4/7/17, 9/5/15) and beyond: The role of the US government and its allies in creating chaos abroad is minimized, if not outright ignored.

Strikingly, one of the only exceptions to this overwhelming media trend came back in April from, of all places, the New York Times editorial board. The Times editorial (4/14/17) did not mince words, directly linking the US-backed military operation to the ongoing catastrophe:

None of this would be possible if not for the political chaos in Libya since the civil war in 2011, when — with the involvement of a NATO coalition that included the United States — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled. Migrants have become the gold that finances Libya’s warring factions.

This is a significant reversal. Immediately after NATO launched its war in Libya in March 2011, the Times editorial board (3/21/11) cheered on the bombing, effusing, “Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes.” It waxed poetic on the “extraordinary,” “astonishing” military intervention, and hoped for Qadhafi’s imminent downfall.

The April 2017 Times editorial stopped far short of a being a mea culpa, yet it was still a rare admission of truth.

At the time this surprisingly honest editorial was written, there had briefly been a bit of media attention to Libya. The International Organization for Migration had just conducted an investigation into slavery in post–regime change Libya, leading to a string of news reports in the Guardian (4/10/17) and elsewhere. Practically as soon as this appalling story got the interest of corporate media, however, it quickly died out. Attention shifted back to Russia, North Korea and the bogeymen of the day.

This Guardian piece (4/10/17) cites “the overthrow of autocratic leader Muammar Qadhafi,” but does not say that the US (or Britain) was instrumental in overthrowing him.

When Western governments were hoping to militarily intervene in the country in the lead-up to March 19, 2011, there was a constant torrent of media reports on the evils of Qadhafi and his government—including a healthy dose of fake news (Salon, 9/16/16). Major newspapers staunchly supported the NATO intervention, and made no secret of their pro-war editorial lines.

When the US government and its allies were preparing for war, the corporate media apparatus did what it does best, and helped sell yet another military intervention to the public.

In the years since, on the other hand, there has been exponentially less interest in the disastrous aftermath of that NATO war. There will be short spikes of interest, as there was in early 2017. The most recent spurt of press coverage was inspired by the publication of CNN‘s shocking video footage. But the coverage invariably rapidly peaks and goes away.

The Extreme Racism of Libyan Rebels

The catastrophe Libya might endure after the collapse of its state had been predictable at the time. Qadhafi himself had warned NATO member states, while they were waging war against him, that they were going to unleash chaos throughout the region. Yet Western leaders—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the US, David Cameron in the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Stephen Harper in Canada—ignored Qadhafi’s admonition and violently toppled his government.

Even from the small number of media reports on slavery in Libya that do manage to acknowledge NATO’s responsibility for destabilizing the country, nevertheless, something is still missing.

Looking back at Libya’s anti-Qadhafi rebels, both during and after the 2011 war, it is very clear that hardline anti-black racism was widespread in the NATO-backed opposition. A 2016 investigation by the British House of Common’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Salon, 9/16/16) acknowledged that “militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards.” But many rebels were not just fundamentalist; they were also violently racist.

It is unfortunately no surprise that these extremist Libyan militants later enslaved African refugees and migrants: They were hinting at it from the very beginning.

Most American and European media coverage at the time of NATO’s military intervention was decidedly pro-rebel. When reporters got on the ground, however, they began publishing a few more nuanced pieces that hinted at the reality of the opposition. These were insignificant in number, but they are enlightening and worth revisiting.

Three months into the NATO war, in June 2011, the Wall Street Journal‘s Sam Dagher (6/21/11) reported from Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city and a major hub for the opposition, where he noted he saw rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”

Dahger indicated that the rebel stronghold of Misrata was dominated by “tightly knit white merchant families,” whereas “the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.”

Other graffiti in Misrata read “Traitors keep out.” By “traitors,” rebels were referring to Libyans from the town of Tawergha, which the Journal explained is “inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade.”

Dagher reported that some Libyan rebel leaders were “calling for the expulsion of Tawerghans from the area” and “banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.” He added that predominately Tawergha neighborhoods in Misrata had already been emptied. Black Libyans were “gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.”

The rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous told the Journal, “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”

Al-Halbous would later reappear in a report by the Sunday Telegraph (9/11/11), reiterating to the British newspaper, “Tawarga no longer exists.” (When Halbous was injured in September, the New York Times—9/20/11—portrayed him sympathetically as a martyr in the heroic fight against Qadhafi. The Halbous brigade has in the years since become an influential militia in Libya.)

Like Dagher, the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan drew attention to the slogan painted on the road between Misrata and Tawergha: “the brigade for purging slaves [and] black skin.”

Gilligan reported from Tawergha, or rather from the remnants of the majority-black town, which he noted had “been emptied of its people, vandalized and partly burned by rebel forces.” A rebel leader said of the dark-skinned residents, “We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.”

Gilligan noted “a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither immigrants nor Gaddafi’s much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans.”

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization assisted these virulently racist rebels in Misrata. NATO forces frequently launched air attacks on the city. French fighter jets shot down Libyan planes over Misrata. The US and UK fired cruise missiles at Libyan government targets, and the US launched Predator drone strikes. The Canadian air force also attacked Libyan forces, pushing them out of Misrata.

In a public relations video NATO published in May 2011, early in the Libya war, the Western military alliance openly admitted that it intentionally allowed “Libyan rebels to transport arms from Benghazi to Misrata.” Political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) pointed out the implications of this video: “A NATO surface vessel stationed in the Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite, and NATO was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its hypocrisy.”

Throughout the war and after, Libyan rebels continued carrying out racist sectarian attacks against their black compatriots. These attacks have been well documented by mainstream human rights organizations.

Human Rights Watch (9/4/11) documented racist persecution in post-Qadhafi Libya.

Human Rights Watch’s longtime executive director Kenneth Roth cheered on NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, calling the UN Security Council’s unanimous endorsement of a no-fly zone a “remarkable” confirmation of the so-called “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

Roth’s organization, however, could not ignore the crimes anti-Qadhafi militants committed against dark-skinned Libyans and migrants.

In September 2011, when the war was still ongoing, Human Rights Watch reported on Libyan rebels’ “arbitrary arrests and abuse of African migrant workers and black Libyans assumed to be [pro-Qadhafi] mercenaries.”

Then in October, the top US human rights organization noted that Libyan militias were “terrorizing the displaced residents of the nearby town of Tawergha,” the majority-black community that had been a stronghold of support for Qadhafi. “The entire town of 30,000 people is abandoned—some of it ransacked and burned—and Misrata brigade commanders say the residents of Tawergha should never return,” HRW added. Witnesses “gave credible accounts of some Misrata militias shooting unarmed Tawerghans, and of arbitrary arrests and beatings of Tawerghan detainees, in a few cases leading to death.”

In 2013, HRW reported further on the ethnic cleansing of the black community of Tawergha. The human rights organization, whose chief had so effusively supported the military intervention, wrote: “The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity.”

These atrocities are undeniable, and they lead a path straight to the enslavement of African refugees and migrants. But to acknowledge NATO’s complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATO’s role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya in the first place.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for AlterNet’s Grayzone Project and a contributor to FAIR. His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Featured image is from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

It’s an obscenity, not a mark of distinction or impressive achievement – symbolic of unprecedented wealth inequality in a nation obsessed with super-wealth and profit-making for its privileged class.

It comes at the expense of a growing underclass, tens of millions impoverished Americans, disadvantaged ones, their numbers increasing, not diminishing, greater numbers coming if the GOP tax cut scam becomes the law of the land.

It’ll enrich Bezos and other super-rich Americans more than already, gaining more wealth from the pockets of the nation’s low and middle income households – a diabolical scheme supported by Republicans, maybe enough to make it the law of the land, no matter the harm it causes.

Politics in America is money controlled, a system unlike in any other country, amounting to organized bribery.

In return for large campaign contributions (bribes by any standard), congressional members pass laws benefitting their benefactors, most often at the expense of the general welfare – the defining feature of dirty politics.

Earlier US robber barons were small-time compared to today’s mega-ones – lionized by media scoundrels as heroic figures, profiting at the expense of exploiting workers, paying them poverty wages – or gaining riches by using money to make more of it, contributing nothing to society.

Money power in private hands and democracy can’t co-exist. Wall Street crooks transformed America into an unprecedented money-making racket – making it the old-fashioned way by stealing it.

Other corporate predators operate the same way, functioning as legalized crime families, oligopolies and monopolies, eliminating competition, not fostering it.

Complicit with corrupt politicians, socialism for the rich, free market capitalism law of the jungle for ordinary people reflects the American way – rewarding predation, punishing the poor and disadvantaged, plutocracy, not democracy.

The Constitution’s general welfare clause (Article I, section 8) applies to the nation’s privileged class alone, no one else.

Jeff Bezos and other multi-billionaires earn more in a day than their workers in a year. Last April, as Amazon shares rose sharply, his net worth increased by $6 billion in 20 minutes.

A few weeks ago, his wealth increased by $1.5 billion in one day. Last year, he made $19.3 billion – on average around $52 million daily, over $2 million per hour, $36,000 a minute, $600 a second.

He has over fourfold the wealth of his alma mater, Princeton University. According to the Land Report, he’s the 25th largest US landowner.

Will he become the world’s first trillionaire in years to come? At age-53, he likely has many years ahead for greater wealth accumulation than already.

In contrast, most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, one missed one away from hunger, homelessness and despair.

Tens of millions of people are food insecure, dependent on food stamps and food pantries to feed themselves and their families.

Hunger in America is a national disgrace. So is obscene wealth concentrated in few hands.

The nation’s three richest billionaires are wealthier than the bottom half of the population.

Bezos tops the list – the richest of America’s corporate predators, aiming to become more super-rich than already.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Brandeis once said:

“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

A Final Comment

Bezos is well-connected. He has CIA ties, recipient of a $600 million agency contract for much more than Amazon Web Services (AWS). As owner of the Washington Post, he serves as its mouthpiece.

He has a disturbing history currying favor with national security officials. WaPo is a virtual CIA house organ, a major conflict of interest destroying its credibility.

AWS’ Secret Region cloud technology lets the CIA and other US intelligence agencies host, analyze and secure their data across all classification levels – from unclassified to top secret.

Bezos is the US intelligence community’s man at Amazon.

A qualified majority of EU countries agreed the reauthorisation of Europe’s most used weedkiller, glyphosate, this week. After months of wrangling and a failure by EU nations to agree its fate, the Appeal Committee, consisting of experts from EU countries together with the European Commission, agreed to renew the license for this toxic herbicide for another five years.

Eighteen countries, including the UK, voted in favour of renewing the chemical which is linked to cancers and other health problems and to damaging biodiversity and soil health.

This renewal occurred despite the fact that the European Parliament recently voted for a five-year phase out and almost one-and-a-half million EU citizens have signed a petition against glyphosate. As to the events that have led to this relicensing, they are nothing short of scandalous.

Corporate bully

Patented by corporate giant Monsanto in 1974, glyphosate has continued to grow in use globally over the past couple of decades. Government figures show its use in UK farming has increased by a shocking 400 percent in the last 20 years.

Until recently, the chemical was commonly thought to be safe for human consumption. Alarm bells started to ring in 2015 when the UN Cancer Agency (IARC) declared glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic’.

In the US, a group of plaintiffs are suing Monsanto for covering up evidence that they believe explains why many of them are suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after exposure to the herbicide. Monsanto have in turn waged war on the plaintiffs using the wide range of legal, financial and political armoury available to them.

But it’s not just in the US that Monsanto has been covering up foul play. The EU Food Safety Agency (EFSA) recently released a report deeming glyphosate ‘unlikely to be carcinogenic’ prompting a sigh of relief from farmers and agribusinesses across the EU.

Defamatory remarks

Yet it has left many asking why there are conflicting verdicts from the EFSA and UN? While EFSA have been refusing to release the studies used in their research, there is strong evidence to suggest Monsanto have been ghost writing studies for them; a clear conflict of interest. But it gets worse.

Speaking at a hearing on glyphosate in the European Parliament last month – which Monsanto refused to attend – Dr Christopher Portier, a leading environmental and health expert on causes of cancer, questioned whether sufficient scientific studies have been carried out on the possible health impacts of glyphosate.

Yet he is being slandered as ‘anti-science’ and a ‘fake’ by Monsanto and its affiliates. This smear campaign has also stretched beyond Dr Portier, and is being levelled against the UN IARC itself, with baseless accusations that the agency “edited out non-carcinogenic findings” from its study in 2015.

It all demonstrates that corporations like Monsanto will readily resort to insults, defamatory remarks and falsehoods in an attempt to destroy the work of scientists when and where this threatens their interests.

Precautionary principle

Glyphosate is present in a large amount of the foodstuffs that we consume every day. It is commonly used on wheat crops and Defra found traces of glyphosate in 60 percent of bread in the UK. Traces have also been found in animal products such as meat, milk and eggs. Worldwide usage has increased more than 20-fold since 1990.

Glyphosate is a classic example of why we need the precautionary principle, something enshrined in an EU Treaty, but recently rejected as an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill. If you boarded a plane and heard one announcement that it was safe and ready for take-off followed by another that the plane was experiencing technical difficulties, you would probably choose not to fly until you were absolutely certain that the plane was safe.

Those of us that support enforcing the precautionary principle on products that we don’t know are absolutely safe for human consumption are often branded as ‘anti-science’.

There was evidence of this recently when the EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety made an outlandish outburst during an Agriculture Committee meeting, accusing Greens of fighting against science.

In reality, it is Greens who have been demanding more not less science and that only peer-reviewed research be used in decision-making. We have also called for more public funding and support for independent research, which is so vital if we are to uphold any credibility in our public institutions.

The poison

In the absence of a Europe-wide ban, glyphosate is forecast to be worth USD 9 billion by 2024. The decision to reauthorise glyphosate confirms the profound influence and power agrichemical corporates have over our public institutions and policymakers. Governments and the Commission have cracked under the intimidating pressure of Monsanto and other giant corporations.

It is time to weed out the poison from the Commission and its Agencies and root out corporate lobbyists who are having such a huge influence on EU governments. They are working against the interests of public health and environmental protection. A failure to do so will mean we continue to quite literally poison European citizens for years to come.

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West and sits of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee. She tweets at @MollyMEP.

Featured image is from Flickr.

Microsoft’s CEO has warned the technology industry against creating a dystopian future, the likes of which have been predicted by authors including George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Satya Nadella kicked off the the company’s 2017 Build conference with a keynote that was as unexpected as it was powerful. He told the developers in attendance that they have a huge responsibility, and that the choices they make could have enormous implications.

They won’t listen of course. The collection of big data along with management, selling and distribution and the systems architecture to control it is now worth exactly double global military defence expenditure. In fact, this year, the big data industry overtook the worlds most valuable traded commodity – oil.

The truth is that the tech giants have already captured us all. We are already living in the beginnings of a truly dystopian world.

Leaving aside the endemic surveillance society our government has chosen on our behalf with no debate, politically or otherwise, we already have proof of the now and where it is leading. With fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, various virtual wallets to pay for deliveries, some would say your identity is as good as stolen. If it isn’t, it soon will be. That’s because the hacking industry, already worth a mind blowing $1trillion annually is expected to reach $2.1 trillion in just 14 months time.

The reality of not being able to take public transportation, hire a car, buy a book, or a coffee – requiring full personal identification is almost upon us. Britain even had an intention to be completely cashless by 2025 – postponed only by the impact of Brexit.

Alexa, the Amazon home assistant listens to everything said in the house. It is known to record conversations. Recently, police in Arkansas, USA demanded that Amazon turn over information collected from a murder suspect’s Echo — the speaker that controls Alexa, because they already knew what information could be extracted from it.

32M is the first company in the US that provides a human chip, allowing employees “to make purchases in their break-room micro market, open doors, login to computers, use the copy machine.” 3M also confirmed what the chip could really do – telling employees to “use it as your passport, public transit and all purchasing opportunities.”

Various Apps now locate people you may know and your own location can be shared amongst others without your knowledge and we’ve known for years that governments and private corporations have access to this data, whether you like it not.

Other countries are providing even scarier technologies.  Hypebeast Magazine reports that  Aadhaar is a 12-digit identity number issued to all Indian residents based on their biometric and demographic data. “This data must be linked to their bank account or else they’ll face the risk of losing access to their account. Folks have until the end of the year to do this, with phone numbers soon to be connected through the 12 digits by February. Failure to do so will deactivate the service. ” The technology has the ability to refuse access to state supplied services such as healthcare.

Our article “Insurance Industry Leads The Way in Social Credit Systems” also highlights what the fusion of technology and data is likely to end up doing for us. An astonishing 96 per cent of insurers think that ecosystems or applications made by autonomous organisations are having a major impact on the insurance industry. The use of social credit mechanisms is being developed, some already implemented, which will determine our future behaviour, which will affect us all – both individually and negatively.”

The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. Already being piloted on 12 million of its citizens, the aim is to judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents. Something as innocuous as a person’s shopping habits become a measure of character. But the system not only investigates behaviour – it shapes it. It “nudges” citizens away from purchases and behaviours the government does not like. Friends are considered as well and individual credit scores fall depending on their trustworthiness. It’s not possible to imagine how far this will go in the end.

Howeverm to get us all there, to that situation, we need to be distracted from what is going on in the background. Some, are already concerned.

Distraction – detaching us from truth and reality

The Guardian wrote an interesting piece recently which highlighted some of the concerns of those with expert insider knowledge of the tech industry. For instance, Justin Rosenstein, the former Google and Facebook engineer who helped build the ‘like’ button –  is concerned. He believes there is a case for state regulation of smartphone technology because it is “psychologically manipulative advertising”, saying the moral impetus is comparable to taking action against fossil fuel or tobacco companies.

“If we only care about profit maximisation,” he says, “we will go rapidly into dystopia.” Rosenstien also makes the observation that after Brexit and the election of Trump, digital forces have completely upended the political system and, left unchecked, could render democracy as we know it obsolete.

Carole Cadwalladre’s recent Exposé in the Observer/Guardian proved beyond doubt that democracy has already departed.  Here we learn about a shadowy global operation involving big data and billionaires who influenced the result of the EU referendum. Britain’s future place in the world has been altered by technology.

Nir Eyal 39, the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products writes:

“The technologies we use have turned into compulsions, if not full-fledged addictions.” Eyal continues: “It’s the impulse to check a message notification. It’s the pull to visit YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter for just a few minutes, only to find yourself still tapping and scrolling an hour later.” None of this is an accident, he writes. It is all “just as their designers intended”.

Eyal feels the threat and protects his own family by cutting off the internet completely at a set time every day.

“The idea is to remember that we are not powerless,” he said. “We are in control.”

The truth is we are no longer in control and have not been since we learned that our government was lying to us with the Snowden revelations back in 2013.

Tristan Harris, a 33-year-old former Google employee turned vocal critic of the tech industry agrees about the lack of control.

“All of us are jacked into this system,” he says. “All of our minds can be hijacked. Our choices are not as free as we think they are.”

Harris insists that billions of people have little choice over whether they use these now ubiquitous technologies, and are largely unaware of the invisible ways in which a small number of people in Silicon Valley are shaping their lives.

Harris is a tech whistleblower. He is lifting the lid on the vast powers accumulated by technology companies and the ways they are abusing the influence they have at their fingertips – literally.

“A handful of people, working at a handful of technology companies, through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today.”

The techniques these companies use such as social reciprocity, autoplay and the like are not always generic: they can be algorithmically tailored to each person. An internal Facebook report leaked this year, ultimately revealed that the company can identify when teenagers feel “worthless or “insecure.” Harris adds, that this is “a perfect model of what buttons you can push in a particular person”.

Chris Marcellino, 33, a former Apple engineer is now in the final stages of retraining to be a neurosurgeon and notes that these types of technologies can affect the same neurological pathways as gambling and drug use.

“These are the same circuits that make people seek out food, comfort, heat, sex,” he says.

Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist who benefited from hugely profitable investments in Google and Facebook, has grown disenchanted with both of the tech giants.

“Facebook and Google assert with merit that they are giving users what they want,” McNamee says. “The same can be said about tobacco companies and drug dealers.”

James Williams ex-Google strategist who built the metrics system for the company’s global search advertising business, says Google now has the “largest, most standardised and most centralised form of attentional control in human history”.

“Eighty-seven percent of people wake up and go to sleep with their smartphones,” he says.

The entire world now has a new prism through which to understand politics, and Williams worries the consequences are profound.

Williams also takes the view that if the attention economy erodes our ability to remember, to reason, to make decisions for ourselves – faculties that are essential to self-governance – what hope is there for democracy itself?

“The dynamics of the attention economy are structurally set up to undermine the human will,” he says. “If politics is an expression of our human will, on individual and collective levels, then the attention economy is directly undermining the assumptions that democracy rests on. If Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are gradually chipping away at our ability to control our own minds, could there come a point, I ask, at which democracy no longer functions?”

“Will we be able to recognise it, if and when it happens?” Williams says. “And if we can’t, then how do we know it hasn’t happened already?”

The dystopian arrival

Within ten years, some are speculating that many of us will be wearing eye lenses. Coupled with social media, we’ll be able to identify strangers and work out that a particular individual, in say a bar, has a low friend compatibility, and data shows you will likely not have a fruitful conversation. This idea is literally scratching the surface of the information overload en-route right now.

It is not at all foolish to think that in that same bar a patron is shouting at the bartender, who refuses to serve him another drink because the glass he was holding measured his blood-alcohol level through the sweat in his fingers. He’ll have to wait at least 45 minutes before he’ll be permitted to order another scotch. You might even think that is a good idea – it isn’t.

Google’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence  Lab, already works with other organisations associated with NASA. Google’s boss sits on the Board of the Pentagon with links plugged directly into the surveillance architecture of the NSA in the USA and GCHQ in Britain. This world, where artificial intelligence makes its mark, as Williams mentions earlier, will deliberately undermine the ability to think for yourself.

In the scenario of the eye lenses, you might even have the ability to command your eyewear to shut down. But when you do, suddenly you are confronted with an un-Googled world. It appears drab and colourless in comparison. The people before you are bland, washed out and unattractive. The art, plants, wall paint, lighting and decorations had all been shaped by your own preferences, and without the distortion field your wearable eyewear provided, the world appears as a grey, lifeless template.

You find it difficult to last without the assistance of your self imposed augmented life, and accompanied by nervous laughter you switch it back on. The world you view through the prism of your computer eyewear has become your default setting. You know you have free will, but don’t feel like you need it. As Marcellino says the same neurological pathways as gambling and drug use drive how you choose to see the world.

This type of technology will be available and these types of scenario’s will become real, sooner than you think.

Our governments, allied with the tech giants are coercing us into a place of withering obedience with the use of 360 degree state surveillance. New technology, which is somehow seen as the road to liberty, contentment and prosperity, is really our future being shaped by a system that will destroy our civil liberties, crush our human rights and it will eventually ensnare and trap us all. This much they are already attempting in China and Japan with social credit mechanisms and pre-crime technology which is a truly frightening prospect. Without debate or our knowledge, here in western democracies, these technologies are already in use.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

North Korea test fired a long-range missile today that appears to have the range to potentially hit most parts of continental United States, including its capital Washington DC. The test took place amid high tensions on the Korean Peninsula stoked by the Trump administration’s threats to use military force to destroy North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities.

North Korea fired the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at about 3 am local time from around Pyongsong, a town northeast of the capital Pyongyang. It flew on a lofted trajectory for about 53 minutes, reaching an altitude of around 4,500 kilometres and landing 960 kilometres away to the north of Honshu, Japan’s largest island.

If the ICBM had been fired at an angle designed for maximum distance, the range is estimated at more than 12,500 kilometres, placing the US east coast and Washington DC potentially within its reach. Whether the missile can carry a heavy payload, such as a nuclear warhead, over that distance is unknown.

Two similar North Korean ICBMs tested in July remained aloft for 37 minutes and 47 minutes respectively. A US intelligence official told Reuters the initial indications were that the missile engine was not significantly more powerful than the previous Hwasong-14 tests.

David Wright from the Union of Concerned Scientists suggested in a blog that North Korea simply lightened the missile’s payload.

“If true, that means it would not be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier,” he wrote.

Doubts also remain as to whether North Korea has developed a re-entry vehicle capable of shielding a nuclear payload from the intense heat and pressures generated when it re-enters the earth’s atmosphere from outer space. According to Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera, the missile broke up before landing in Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

US President Donald Trump made a relatively muted response at a press conference with Defence Secretary James Mattis.

“We will take care of it,” Trump told reporters. “It is a situation that we will handle.”

Mattis declared that the missile “went higher, frankly, than any previous shots.” He continued:

“The bottom line is it’s a continued effort to build a … ballistic missile threat that endangers world peace, regional peace and certainly the United States.”

However, the chief responsibility for inflaming tensions in North East Asia lies with US imperialism. Trump’s administration, following on from President Obama’s, has tightened the noose of crushing economic and diplomatic sanctions around North Korea and made clear that only Pyongyang’s complete capitulation to US demands will prevent a war.

Following North Korea’s nuclear test in early September, Trump threatened at the United Nations to “totally destroy” the country. The remark highlights the vast disparity between the US, which has the world’s most powerful military and thousands of nuclear warheads, and North Korea, which has a very limited nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.

The US has provocatively staged a series of large-scale military drills with South Korea, Japan and other allies throughout 2017. Earlier this month, the US navy held an exercise involving three American aircraft carriers, along with their accompanying strike groups of destroyers and cruises, and various South Korean vessels.

The latest war games, due to commence on Saturday, involve a massive display of air power. Known as Vigilant Ace, the air drill will involve 230 aircraft, including six F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, and 12,000 US military personnel. Its purpose, according to the US military, is to enhance interoperability between US and South Korean forces and “increase the combat effectiveness of both nations.” In other words, the intent is to prepare for war with North Korea.

Following today’s ICBM test by North Korea, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared:

“Diplomatic solutions remain viable and open for now. The United States remains committed to finding a peaceful path to denuclearisation and to ending belligerent actions by North Korea.”

He announced that the US and Canada would convene an international meeting next year to discuss how to counter North Korea.

However, the Trump administration has repeatedly rejected calls by China and Russia to pave the way for negotiations through a so-called freeze-for-freeze—suspending US and South Korean joint war games in return for North Korea halting its nuclear and missile tests.

Moreover, Trump last week reinstated North Korea to the US State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism in a move calculated to undermine any attempt to start negotiations. The Bush administration removed Pyongyang from the list in 2008 as part of US commitments contained in a denuclearisation deal signed in 2007. Just months later, President Bush sabotaged the deal by demanding more intrusive inspection procedures.

North Korea reacted angrily to Trump’s announcement, declaring that the decision to relist it as a sponsor of terrorism was “a serious provocation and violent infringement” of its sovereignty. Today’s missile test—the first of any type since September—is another indication that Pyongyang judges that the US cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith.

The latest missile launch can only heighten tensions in North East Asia. South Korea responded six minutes later with its own show of force—the simultaneous test firing of a “precision” barrage of missiles from its army, navy and air force. All the missiles were calibrated to the distance to the North Korean test site, but fired into waters between South Korea and Japan.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has backed Washington’s aggressive stance toward North Korea to the hilt, spoke to Trump by phone. In comments to reporters, he called for a meeting of the UN Security Council, which is due to hold an emergency session on the launch Wednesday (US time).

The Trump administration’s policy of “maximum pressure” is not aimed just against North Korea, but also China, which is being pressured by the US and its allies to enforce what amounts to a complete economic blockade. The result is a highly dangerous situation in which any incident or accident could precipitate a catastrophic war.

The news about the wars the U.S. is waging all over the world is unreliable. The same statements of progress are repeated year after year. The official numbers, be they of civilian casualties or deployed troops, are mere lies. Every news presentation should be engraved with a warning: “Assertions and numbers are not what they appear.” Consider, for example, the various “turned corner” statements officials have made about Afghanistan.

On October 5 2017 the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani confirmed to the BBC that Afghanistan has “turned the corner”:

… when I ask whether he is saying Afghan forces have turned the corner in the fight against the Taliban, there is no hesitation: “Yes,” he says.

On October 24 the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan General John Nicholson agreed with President Ghani:

“With the mounting military, diplomatic, and social pressure that is building – that we all are collectively committed to sustaining over the coming years – the enemy will have no choice but to reconcile. I believe, as President Ghani says, ‘we have turned the corner,’” he concluded.

But a month later General Nicholson seemed to disagreed with his earlier statement:

“We are still in a stalemate,” Nicholson, a four-star Army general said in an exclusive interview.

Today, five days after his “stalemate” statement, the general’s opinion has changed again. Kevin Baron, the editor of Defense One, reports:

‏JUST IN: Top US general in Afghanistan says war has “turned a corner… “ The momentum is now with the Afghan security forces.” …

The General seems confused. But he is not the first to have such a change of mind.

On February 3 2010 then U.S. commander General Stanley McChrystal was cautious about the proverbial corner:

General Stanley McChrystal also expressed confidence that Afghan forces would grow quickly enough to allow a reduction in U.S. troop numbers to begin on schedule in 2011. … “I‘m not prepared to say we have turned the corner,” he added.

Only twelve days later the turn had been made:

Gen Stanley McChrystal had his own words. Helmand had “turned the corner” in its four year war, he told The Daily Telegraph.

In May 2011 a British General also noted the turn:

The civilians are looking to people such as General James Bucknall, a British Coldstream Guards officer who is second in command of the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf).
…
[H]e sets out why he thinks a corner has now been turned, nodding to the surge in American troop numbers that has made it possible.

Six years earlier another British General had already seen that turn:

Handing over to 3 Commando Brigade, Brig Butler said: “When we prepared, we knew there would be rocky times ahead, and that things would get harder before they got easier. That has certainly been the case, but I judge we have turned the corner. We have achieved a huge amount.”

In May 2011 the U.S. Secretary of Defense was more cautious than the generals but nonetheless optimistic:

I think we could be in a position by the end of this year where we have turned the cornerin Afghanistan,” [U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates] said.

According to is boss, progress came faster than Gates anticipated. On June 23 2011 CBS headlined Obama: U.S. has turned corner in Afghanistan:

President Barack Obama on Thursday told American troops who’ve fought in Afghanistan that the U.S. has turned a corner after nearly 10 years of war, and it’s time for their comrades still in that country to start coming home.

Obama’s victory jump may have been a bit premature, but a month later the local commander agreed that the turning process had at least begun:

I spoke to Gen Petraeus as he stopped off in London on his way home from Afghanistan. In the interview, he spelled out what makes him think the country has begun to turn a corner after nearly 10 years of war.

In September 2012 another U.S. Secretary of Defense asserted that the turn had finally been completed:

[US Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta, however, has rejected suggestions that the strategy is failing, and on Friday he said “we have turned the corner,” in Afghanistan …

Four month later the Afghan President confirmed the turn:

[President] Karzai also said that Afghanistan has turned the corner in terms of battling the Taliban.

Karzai was very modest in acknowledging the turn. He knew that it had already happened much earlier:

On October 9th, 2004, Afghanistan turned the corner. After decades of invasion, civil war, and anarchy, Hamid Karzai became the first democratically-elected President of a united Afghanistan.

In May 2014 another man was elected President of Afghanistan. This finally turned the corner:

Tonight there is a sense that the country has turned a corner – a new president who will sign the BSA, a continuation of developmental aid and training programmes, and Afghanistan has more than a fighting chance.

A year later the Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani was encouraged by the corner turning progress the new government had made:

With the successful conclusion of the security and political transitions, Afghanistan turned the corner in our path to becoming a self-reliant nation.

Today, two and a half years later, General Nicholson is still in the corner turning business.

The corner turning in Afghanistan is similar to an earlier war the U.S. had fought in vain:

Of course, the Afghanistan War (ostensibly part of a Global War on Terrorism) differs from the Vietnam War (ostensibly part of the Cold War) in myriad ways. Yet it resembles Vietnam in three crucial respects. First, it drags on with no end in sight. Second, no evidence exists to suggest that mere persistence will produce a positive outcome. Third, those charged with managing the war have long since run out of ideas about how to turn things around.

Another similarity is the constant lying by the military spokespersons. The famous Five o’clock Follies of Vietnam have been replaced by video conferences and drone videos but the central issue is the same. The military is consistently and consciously lying to the public.

How many U.S. troops are there in Afghanistan? By law the Pentagon has to release the deployment numbers every three month. The latest release for September 2017 lists 15,298 soldiers and 1,202 DoD civilians in Afghanistan. But there are 29,092 soldiers listed in “unknown locations”. The generals must have lost these somewhere. The report also lists nearly 2,000 soldiers in Syrian and nearly 9,000 in Iraq. The publicly admitted numbers are way lower. They are as trustworthy as all the “turned corner” claims. Indeed:

The Defense Department’s publicly disclosed data, which tracks U.S. personnel levels in dozens of countries, are “not meant to represent an accurate accounting of troops deployed to any particular region,” said Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman.

The Pentagon clearly states that official data and assertions are “not meant to represent an accurate accounting”. It is a warning. Whatever officials claim about this or that war, about “turned corners”, or casualties, or troop deployments, must be considered to be a lie until it has been confirmed by observation or additional sources.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped a nuclear weapon on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. In the spring of 1946, writer John Hersey went to Japan to interview some survivors. The result was one of the most powerful and influential pieces of writing ever published: a long article which filled an entire issue of The New Yorker and then appeared as a book, “Hiroshima.”

The book is not about politics or policy. It’s about people, and what a nuclear weapon does to them. Hersey focuses on six individuals: a Protestant minister, a seamstress, a factory worker, two doctors, and a German Jesuit priest. All of them were at least three-quarters of a mile away when the bomb went off (virtually everyone closer than that was incinerated).

Hersey recounts, in cool prose that is all the more devastating for its restraint, what happened. First there was the blinding flash of light, then the blast, the collapsing buildings, the flying glass. Then the people trapped, crushed, under rubble. Then the fires. “Now not many people walked in the streets, but a great number sat on the pavement, vomited, waited for death, and died.”

Hospitals were destroyed; more than 1,000 doctors and nurses were killed or injured. Inside one major hospital, the single uninjured doctor labored to take care of the 10,000 wounded who poured in: “Ceilings and partitions had fallen; plaster, dust, blood, and vomit were everywhere. Patients were dying by the hundreds, but there was no one to carry away the corpses.” Wounded and burned people made their way to the banks of the river, where they lay all night shivering and festering, and strafed by the whirlwind that arose in the freakishly bomb-charged atmosphere; by morning many of them had drowned, too weak to retreat from the rising tide.

Hersey’s survivors couldn’t comprehend the magnitude of what had happened to them or to their city. The center of the city was gone, leveled. What was left was on fire. Each of them wandered in a world of nightmarish scenes. Hersey lets the vivid detail speak for itself. The pastor, trying to rescue survivors, “reached down and took a woman by the hands, but her skin slipped off in huge, glove-like pieces.” A priest carrying water to victims came upon a group of 20 soldiers in the underbrush. “Their faces were wholly burned, their eye sockets were hollow, the fluid from their melted eyes had run down their cheeks.”

In all, over 100,000 people died in the immediate aftermath of the bombing. Thousands more suffered from the long-term, often ultimately deadly, aftereffects of radiation.

Hersey’s great achievement is to translate these unimaginable numbers, this unspeakable death and damage, into individual stories. Before I read his book I thought I knew what a nuclear weapon was and what it could do; afterward I realized that I hadn’t known anything.

I was lucky enough to take a writing workshop with John Hersey in college. He was a grave, meticulous, self-effacing teacher. I have always admired “Hiroshima” as a piece of masterful prose. But this month, listening to the increasingly strident, irresponsible, and dangerous rhetoric from the White House, I got out the book and read it again. I felt its urgency and its relevance for today.

The story of six people at Hiroshima is the strongest possible indictment of nuclear weapons. Looking this closely at what happened, as Hersey did and as he allows his readers to do, is the best way to make sure it never happens again.

We have to look.

Joan Wickersham’s column appears regularly in the Globe.

Featured image: Rehashing the posturing of her long-departed predecessor, Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban missile crisis, Nikki Haley denounced the incident at Khan Shaykhun by displaying a number of terrible photographs. However, the UNO-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism refused to authenticate these alleged elements of “proof”. We note the hawk Jeffrey Feltman sitting by the ambassador’s side.

While Presidents Putin and Trump continue to make progress on the question of Syria, the United States senior civil servants in service at the UN have locked into a round of arm-wrestling with Russia. Refusing to investigate a crime that they have already tried a priori, they provoked not one, but four vetoes at the Security Council. For Thierry Meyssan, the schizophrenic behaviour of the United States on the international stage is a demonstration of the divisions within the Trump administration and the decline of US imperialism.

***

Decidedly, very little has changed since 11 September 2001. The United States continue to manipulate international public opinion and the tools of the United Nations, no doubt for different reasons, but still with the same contempt for the truth.

In 2001, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, John Negroponte and Stewart Eldon, assured that their two countries had just attacked Afghanistan in legitimate defence after the attacks committed in New York and Washington [1]. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, promised to hand the Security Council a complete dossier presenting proof of Afghan responsibility. 16 years later, this document has still not been seen.

In 2003, the same Colin Powell came to explain to the Security Council, during a speech which was relayed by the televisions of the whole world, that Iraq was also implicated in the attacks of 11 September, and that it was preparing new acts of aggression against the United States by means of weapons of mass destruction [2]. However, once he had retired from his functions in the US government, General Powell admitted on a TV channel in his own country that the many accusations in his speech were all false [3]. 14 years after this speech, we are still waiting for the United States to apologise to the Security Council.

Everyone has forgotten the US accusations concerning the responsibility of President Saddam Hussein in the attacks of 9/11 – since then, Washington has attributed these same attacks to Saudi Arabia, and again, today, to Iran, but without ever providing the proof for any of these four cases). However, we do remember the debate, which lasted for months, about weapons of mass destruction. At the time, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was unable to find the slightest trace of these weapons. A conflict developed between Hans Blix, the Swedish director of UNMOVIC and, first, the United States, then the UNO, and finally, the whole of the Western world. Washington claimed that Mr. Blix had not found the weapons because he was a negligent worker, while Blix himself assured that Iraq had never possessed the capacity to build such weapons. But whatever, the United States bombed Baghdad, invaded Iraq, overthrew President Saddam Hussein and hanged him, occupied his country and plundered it.

US methods after 2001 were totally different from any that had preceded them. In 1991, President Bush the Father had made certain that he had international law on his side before he attacked Iraq, having pushed President Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and to dig in. He had thus obtained the support of almost all the nations in the world. On the contrary, in 2003, Bush the Son settled for lying and then lying some more. Many States distanced themselves from Washington, and we saw the greatest pacifist demonstrations in History, from Paris to Sydney, from Beijing to Mexico.

In 2012, the UN Department of Political Affairs drew up a project for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria [4]. Its director, US citizen Jeffrey Feltman, ex-Under-Secretary of State for Hillary Clinton, used all the means at his disposal to create the greatest coalition in History and accuse Syria of all manner of crimes, none of which were ever proven.

If the States which possess the Feltman document have decided not to publish it, their intention is simply to preserve the United Nations. It is indeed unacceptable that the might and means of the UNO were used to promote war, when the institution was created in order to preserve peace. Since I am not held to the same obligations as a State, I have published a detailed study of this ignoble document in “Right Before Our Eyes” [5].

In 2017, the UNO-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism, created at the request of Syria in order to investigate the use of chemical weapons on its territory, became the object of the same struggle which had earlier opposed Hans Blix to Washington. Except that this time, the fronts were reversed. In 2003, the UNO was defending peace. This is no longer the case, since Jeffrey Feltman was reappointed and is still the number 2 of the UNO. This time it’s Russia which is opposing the pro-US international civil servants in the name of the Charter.

Although the work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism was debated in normal fashion during its first period – from September 2015 to May 2017 – the discussions risked dichotomy when Guatemalan Edmond Mulet nominated the Argentine Virginia Gamba as its director; a nomination which may be imputed to the new Secretary General of the UNO, Portuguese António Guterres.

The Joint Investigative Mechanism mobilises international civil servants from the UNO and the OPCW. This prestigious international organisation received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013, in particular for its work of supervision on the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons by the United States and Russia. However, its director, Turkish citizen Ahmet Üzümcü, has since moved on. In June 2015, he was invited to Telfs Buchen (Austria) for the meeting of the Bilderberg Group, the NATO club.

In December 2015, Ahmet Üzümcü was decorated with the Légion d’honneur by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, the man for whom President el-Assad “has no right to be alive” and al-Qaïda were “doing a good job”.

The question was all the more serious in that in 2003, the dispute opposed, on the one hand Hans Blix, and on the other, the United States, who were threatening to intervene against Iraq if the UNO could prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction. In 2017, however, the dispute was between Russia and Edmond Mulet, who may be have been able, a posteriori, to validate US intervention against Syria. Indeed, Washington had already made their minds up, considering Syria as being responsible for a sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, and had already bombed the old air base at Cheyrat [6].

In the event that the Joint Investigative Mechanism should depart in whatever way from Washington’s script, the United States would be obliged to apologise to and indemnify Syria. The pro-US international civil servants therefore considered that their mission was to arrive at the conclusion that Syria had bombed its own population with sarin gas which it had hidden illegally on the air base at Cheyrat.

As from the month of October, the rhetoric began to escalate between certain UNO and Russian civil servants. Contrary to what the Western Press alleged, the disagreement had nothing to do with the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, but exclusively with its methods – Moscow refused in advance any conclusion obtained by methods which did not conform with the international principles established in the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the OPCW [7].

Sarin gas is a neurotoxic agent which is extremely lethal for humans. There are variations of this product, chlorosarin and cyclosarin, and an even more dangerous version, VX gas. All these products are absorbed by the skin and pass directly into the blood. They degrade within a few weeks or a few months in the environment, but not without consequences for the animals which may enter into contact with them. When they penetrate the soil, in the absence of oxygen and light, they may be conserved for a long time.

It is enough to look at the photographs of the attack on Khan Shaykhun, which show people taking samples a few hours later without wearing protective suits to cover their skin – to understand immediately that if gas had in fact been used, it could not have been sarin gas or one of its derivatives. For more details, we may consult the study by Professor Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in which he debunks, one by one, the arguments of the so-called “experts” from the CIA [8].

In fact, contrary to the principles of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Investigative Mechanism did not visit the site to take samples, to analyse them, and identify the gas used, if indeed any gas had been used.

Questioned on this subject in May and June 2017 by Russia, the OPCW declared that they had studied the security conditions necessary for such a journey before concluding that it was unnecessary since, according to them, « The use of sarin is not in doubt ».

The Investigative Mechanism did, however, visit the air base in Shayrat where, according to Washington, the sarin gas had been illegally stored and loaded onto the bombers. But then, despite the insistence of Russia, they refused to take samples.

The Investigative Mechanism also refused to study the revelations by Syria concerning the supply of gas to the jihadists by US and British companies Federal Laboratories, NonLethal Technologies, and Chemring Defence UK [9].

The United States and their allies themselves wrote into their project for resolution, presented on 16 November, the requirement for international Civil servants to carry out their investigations in a « manner appropriate to the realisation of their mandate » [10].

Russia rejected the report by the Investigative Mechanism in view of its amateurism, and refused on three occasions to accept reappointment for its mandate. It opposed its veto on 24 October [11], and on 16 [12] and 17 November, as it had done on 12 April [13] when the United States and France [14] attempted to condemn Syria for this alleged sarin gas attack. These were the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th times that it used its veto on the Syrian question.

We do not know why Washington presented, or had presented by proxy, the same assertion to the Security Council on four different occasions from four different angles. These stammering attempts had already been seen at the start of the war against Syria, on 4 October 2011, 4 February and 19 July 2012, when France and the United States attempted to have Syria condemned by the Council for what they called the repression of the Syrian spring. At that time, Russia affirmed on the contrary that this was not a case of civil war, but of external aggression. Each time, the Westerners retorted that they would « convince » their Russian partner.

It is interesting to observe that the Western ‘doxa’ pretends that the war in Syria began with a democratic revolution which went wrong and was finally recuperated by jihadist forces. But, contrary to what was alleged, there is no proof of the slightest demonstration in favour of democracy in 2011-2012 in Syria. All the videos published at the time were either in favour of President el-Assad, or against the Syrian Arab Republic, never for democracy. Not one video shows pro-democracy slogans or posters. All the videos of the alleged « revolutionary demonstrations » from this period were shot on Friday evenings as the Sunni mosques emptied out, never on another day, and never at meeting places other than Sunni mosques.

It is true that in certain videos, we can hear phrases which contain the word « freedom ». If we listen carefully, we notice that the demonstrators are not calling for « Freedom » in the Western sense of the word, but for the « Freedom to apply charia law ». If you can find a traceable document of a demonstration of more than 50 people which contradicts my statement, please send it to me and I will not fail to print it.

In order to avoid the occasion for his opposition to accuse him of having gone to collect new orders from KGBist Vladimir Putin, President Trump did not take a private interview with him – but here the two men demonstrate their compatibility (Đà Nẵng, 11 November 2017).

We could interpret the stubborn US manipulation of facts as a sign that the Trump administration is aligning itself with the policies of the previous four mandates. But this hypothesis is countered by the signature of a secret Memorandum in Amman, on 8 November, between Jordan [15], Russia, and the United States, and by the Joint Declaration by Presidents Putin and Trump, on 11 November, in Đà Nẵng, on the sidelines of the APEC summit [16].

The first document has not been published, but we know via certain indiscretions that it does not take into account the Israëli demand for the creation of a neutral zone on Syrian territory, not beyond the Israëli frontier, but 60 kilometres beyond the 1967 cease-fire line. Never missing an occasion to add fuel to the flames, the British government reacted by publishing, by the BBC, satellite photographs of the Iranian military base of El-Kiswah (45 kilometres beyond the cease-fire line) [17]. As expected, Israëli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rejected the agreement between the major powers and announced that he reserved the right of Israël to engage in military intervention in Syria in order to preserve its security [18] – this comment constitutes a threat and as such, is a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. In fact, everyone is aware that for the last seven years, the pretext of weapons for Lebanon is still working. As an example, on 1 November, Tsahal illegally bombed an industrial zone in Hassiye, pretending that it was destroying weapons destined for Hezbollah. In reality, the target was a copper factory, indispensable for restoring the distribution of electricity in the country [19].

The Declaration of Đà Nẵng includes some notable advances. It establishes, for the first time, that all Syrians will be able to participate in the next Presidential election. In fact, until now, exiled Syrians have been forbidden to vote by the members of the international Coalition, in violation of the Vienna Convention. As for the « National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces », it has boycotted the elections because that instance was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, according to whom « The Coran is our Law », and there is no place for elections in an Islamist regime.

The contrast is startling between the progress of Russo-US negotiations concerning Syria on the one hand, and on the other, the bullheadedness of the same United States in denying the facts before the Security Council.

It is interesting to note the embarrassment of the European Press – faced with the work of Presidents Putin and Trump as well as the infantile mulishness of the US delegation at the Security Council. Almost no organ of the media mentions the Amman Memorandum, and they all commented the Joint Declaration before it was published, based on a simple note from the White House. As for Ambassador Nikki Haley’s tantrums at the Security Council, they unanimously noted that the two major powers had reached no agreement, and ignored the Russian arguments which had nonetheless been exhaustively explained by Moscow.

We are obliged to note that if President Trump is attempting to pay off the imperialist policies of his predecessors, the pro-US international civil servants from the UNO are incapable of adapting to the real world. After 16 years of systematic lies, they can no longer think in terms of fact, but only in thrall to their fantasies. They are no longer able to avoid taking their desires for realities. This behaviour is characteristic of Empires in decline.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

Notes

[1] Reference : UN S/2001/946 and S/2001/947

[2] « Discours de M. Powell au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU », par Colin L. Powell, Réseau Voltaire, 11 février 2003.

[3] “Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief”, ABC, September 8, 2005.

[4] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.

[5] Sous nos yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Demi-Lune, 2017. Next to be published in English under the title Right Before Our Eyes. From 11 September to Donald Trump.

[6] “Why did Trump bomb Cheyrat?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 2 May 2017.

[7] “Comments by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation concerning the Syrian chemical dossier”, Voltaire Network, 23 October 2017.

[8] “Several serious errors in the CIA Report on the Khan Shaykhun incident”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 15 April 2017.

[9] “Chemical weapons: From London and Washington to the jihadists”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 16 August 2017.

[10] “Draft Resolution on the Joint UN-OPCW Survey Mechanism (Russian Veto)”, Voltaire Network, 16 November 2017.

[11] “Draft Resolution on the Renewal of the Joint Investigative Mechanism (Russian Veto)”, “Use of chemical weapons in Syria (Vetos)”, Voltaire Network, 24 October 2017.

[12] “Draft Resolution on the Joint UN-OPCW Survey Mechanism (Russian Veto)”, Voltaire Network, 16 November 2017.

[13] “Security Council meeting on Khan Cheïkhoun (Russian veto)”, Voltaire Network, 12 April 2017.

[14] « Évaluation française de l’attaque chimique de Khan Cheikhoun », Réseau Voltaire, 26 avril 2017.

[15] “Jordan lends its support to Syria”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 30 August 2017.

[16] “Statement by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of America”, Voltaire Network, 11 November 2017.

[17] “Iran building permanent military base in Syria – claim”, Gordon Corera, BBC, November 10, 2017.

[18] “Israel rejects the Russian-US Peace Agreement”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 20 November 2017.

[19] “Israel bombs a copper plant in Syria”, by Mounzer Mounzer, Voltaire Network, 3 November 2017.

All images in this article are from the author.

A factional struggle inside the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party has created the conditions for the resignation of longtime leader President Robert Gabriel Mugabe on November 21.

Through a project entitled “Operation Restore Legacy”, the president was removed from his leadership position as first secretary of the party along with being the head-of-state of the Republic of Zimbabwe within a matter of eight days.

The removal of the first secretary and president on the surface appeared to have been the outcome of divisions within ZANU-PF where rival elements surrounding the former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa on the one side, and First Lady Grace Mugabe on the other, reached an impasse stemming from irreconcilable differences. President Mugabe was in the concluding months of his present term of office scheduled to expire in mid-2018.

President Mugabe had joined the national liberation movement at a young age while working as an educator and youth leader in the former British settler colonial outpost known as Rhodesia. During the late 1950s and early 1960s he had lived, worked and studied in the West African state of Ghana, the-then fountainhead of Pan-Africanism under Prime Minister and eventual President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

After spending a decade in prison in the 1960s and early 1970s, Mugabe relocated in Tanzania and Mozambique to work full time as a leader of ZANU. In 1979, he played a pioneering role alongside Zimbabwe African People’s Union Patriotic Front (ZAPU-PF), headed by former Vice President Joshua Nkomo, in the negotiations for the Lancaster House agreement paving the way towards non-racial democratic elections in April 1980 which brought Mugabe to power as prime minister of a coalition government in its first five years. The initial government included the remnants of the settler colonialists headed by former Prime Minister Ian Smith. By 1985, Zimbabwe had become a republic with ZANU-PF as the leading political party. In 1987, ZANU and ZAPU merged to form a unitary ruling party.

The divisions within ZANU-PF came to a head after the termination of Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa in early November. Mnangagwa was relieved of his duties after an incident in Bulawayo when First Lady Grace Mugabe was booed while speaking before a youth interface rally. These actions taken by the president’s office was said to have been in response to a plot to overthrow Mugabe by a faction in the party led by Mnangagwa.

In addition to the sacking of Mnangagwa, reports were circulated that at least 100 other party officials were being examined for possible expulsion from both the organization and government. On November 13, Zimbabwe Defense Forces (ZDF) Commander General Constantino Chiwenga held a press conference along with 90 other military officers where he threatened intervention if the purges did not cease.

Tanks Move into the Streets of Harare

This military press conference was not covered by the state-run Herald newspaper or other ZANU-PF controlled media agencies. The following day, November 14, social media and foreign news bureaus began to report on irregular tank movements in the capital of Harare. Several hours after sundown stories began to emerge claiming that the Zimbabwe Defense Forces (ZDF) had seized the national Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) television station in preparation for a statement to the country. Rumors were rife throughout Zimbabwe, across Africa and the world that a military coup was underway inside the country.

Later on in the early morning hours of 4:00am Zimbabwe time on November 15, Major General S.B. Moyo went on television saying that there had not been a military coup. He said that President Mugabe remained head-of-state and that the security for the leader and his family were guaranteed. Moyo noted that the ZDF was only targeting “criminals” surrounding the president in order to prevent a further deterioration of the social situation which could become violent.

Several hours after this, President Jacob Zuma of the neighboring Republic of South Africa spoke with Mugabe on the telephone. Zuma relayed in an interview over the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) that President Mugabe told him he was confined to his residential home in the capital of Harare. He also told Zuma that no harm was done to him or his family.

Zuma is currently the chair of the regional 15-member Southern African Development Community (SADC). The following day on Thursday November 16, Zuma deployed the Minister of Defense Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to sit in on mediation talks between Mugabe and the military. Photographs of the meeting which took place at State House in Harare were published on the website of the Zimbabwe Herald (Zimpapers).

Reports on Friday November 17 showed Mugabe presiding over a graduation ceremony at the Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU). Nonetheless, by Sunday November 19, there were dispatches sent out in the international press saying the ZANU-PF Central Committee had voted to recall the president from leadership and consequently as head-of-state. These same reports also emphasized that the First Lady Grace Mugabe was being expelled from the party.

Party and War Veterans Call for Mugabe’s Removal

In these same articles, it was said that Mugabe had until Monday November 20 to step down from office. The president addressed the nation and the world on Sunday November 19 where he acknowledged the factional conflict within the ZANU-PF party. However, he did not resign and alluded to the upcoming special congress of the party in which he said as first secretary would preside over.

Another press conference had been held on November 15 after Moyo’s television statement and the eventual broadcast of Chiwenga’s remarks from two days earlier. The Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veteran’s Association (ZNLWVA) said in the press conference at Club Chambers in Harare that they supported the actions taken by the military leadership and would hold a demonstration on November 18 in Harare. Spokespersons for ZNLWVA also accused leading ZANU-PF and government officials associated with the party faction aligned with First Lady Grace Mugabe of being criminals and even Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives.

Zimbabwe Senator Monica and ZNLWVA Leader Christopher Mutsvangwa

After the deadline set by the ZANU-PF Central Committee passed on November 20, impeachment resolutions were threatened by party Members of Parliament. On November 21, a series of charges were spelt out by Senator Monica Mutsvangwa of Manicaland Province accusing the president of several constitutional violations.

This impeachment resolution language read by Mutsvangwa said in part:

“President Mugabe is old and he needs to be hand held. As such, he is no longer fit for office…. The President has abrogated his constitutional mandate to his wife who makes public utterances on issues of government like the appointing and dismissal of Government Ministers and senior civil servants. This motion is moved in terms of Section 97 (1) which provides for the removal of The President or Vice President from office. The charges are (a) Serious misconduct; (b) Failure to obey, uphold or defend this Constitution; (c) Willful violation of this Constitution; or (d) Inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity.”

Later the debate on the impeachment resolution was terminated after the House Speaker Jacob Mudenda read out a letter said to have been from Mugabe tendering his resignation. Through international media outlets scenes of jubilation were shown for several hours in the streets of Harare. The resignation letter was later published in the Zimbabwe Herald along with reports that Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko was now acting president until Mnangagwa could be sworn in by Friday November 24.

International Implications of “Operation Restore Legacy”

Judging from the response of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) the government in London was delighted with the removal of Mugabe from the leadership of ZANU-PF and the Zimbabwe state. However, the former colonial power is quick to advise the new government in Harare on how it should proceed.

British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson said in a Twitter post that he does not regret Mugabe’s downfall, calling the resignation “a moment of hope for the people of Zimbabwe”. This echoed the remarks of Prime Minster Theresa May who said that the sudden removal of Mugabe would “forge a new path free of the oppression that characterized his rule. In recent days we have seen the desire of the Zimbabwean people for free and fair elections and the opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy under a legitimate government.” (Al Jazeera, Nov. 21)

A BBC article arrogantly inquired on November 22:

“So, will Emmerson Mnangagwa be able to take Zimbabwe’s economy off life support and at least start to put it on the road to recovery? Analysts are very skeptical that a quick solution is even feasible. The euphoria that has gripped the nation has certainly raised hopes that the future will be brighter, but if that improved sentiment is to deliver economic dividends, the government needs to make some drastic reforms. In 2009, Mr. Mugabe signed the Indigenization and Economic Empowerment Act (IEEA) into law, which aimed to place 51% of companies into the hands of Black Zimbabweans.”

The IEEA was a response to the dominance of the Zimbabwe economy by British settlers and foreign corporations. A land redistribution program enacted in 2000 set off the deepening of sanctions against Harare because the ZANU-PF government sought to give the land back to its rightful owners who had been victimized by the onslaught of British imperialism in the late 19th century.

As it relates to the role of the United States in the recent developments in Zimbabwe, the Voice of America (VOA) acknowledged in a report published on November 21 that the State Department has been conducting what it described as “behind the scenes talks” with officials of the ZANU-PF government and western-backed opposition forces inside the country. The article outlines some of the preconditions set down by Washington for lifting sanctions on the Southern African state which has relied upon the Republic of South Africa, the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Republic of Mozambique, the People’s Republic of China and other fraternal states in order to stave off an already dire economic situation imposed by imperialism.

Nike Ching of the VOA writes:

“The way for Washington to lift sanctions is for Harare to carry out the due process, to respect human rights, and to give the opposition a genuine opportunity to form a government, said (Donald) Yamamoto (the U.S. Undersecretary for African Affairs). ‘What we don’t want is a manipulation by the government or by the ruling ZANU-PF party – holding rush elections, not taking into consideration a lot of the reform issues that the opposition wants to implement; also, not giving political space for the Zimbabwe people for them to express what they want to see in a new government,’ he said. U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Harry Thomas has been meeting with officials from the ZANU-PF party and the opposition party behind the scenes to try and help push the political process forward.”

Both SADC and the African Union (AU) have expressed concerns over events in Zimbabwe emanating from “Operation Restore Legacy.” Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been an ideological and political base for Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism on the continent.

In this same above-mentioned report in Al Jazeera, it says:

“Alpha Conde, president of Guinea and African Union (AU) chief, said it is ‘a shame’ Mugabe ‘has to leave through the back door.’ He added, however, that he was ‘very pleased’ with Mugabe’s decision to resign, noting that the AU had warned against a coup in Zimbabwe. Hailing Mugabe’s role in Zimbabwe’s fight for independence, Conde called Mugabe ‘an African hero.’ Mugabe will never be forgotten, he was a great fighter,’ he was quoted as saying by Guinean media.”

One opposition media agency, Bulawayo 24, published an unsubstantiated report saying that neighboring Zambian President Edgar Lungu was willing to militarily intervene in Zimbabwe to place his troops under Mugabe’s command. Western-backed entities have emerged on the streets of Harare as well carrying signs attacking both the AU and SADC as was in evidence during the demonstrations on November 18. (Nov. 16)

Critical Issues for the Future of Zimbabwe

At least four important aspects of ZANU-PF’s domestic and foreign policy will be important to observe in the days and weeks to come in order to assess the direction of the Mnangagwa government.

Zimbabwe ZANU-PF figures involved in factional disputes includes Grace Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa and President Mugabe

The land reform program, popularly referred to as the “Third Chimurenga”, has been a cornerstone of domestic policy since 2000. Will the land redistribution project be maintained, moderated or reversed?

Secondly, the Indigenization policy is important for all post-colonial states in Africa due to the dominance of foreign capital over the national and regional economies. Neo-colonialism has failed to provide genuine independence, sustainable growth and development across the continent.

Another major question is whether Zimbabwe can maintain its commitment to regional integration and industrialization, both within SADC and the AU. Mugabe served as Chair of the AU in 2015 advancing the cause of economic integration and independence from western capitalist states. Just earlier this year, the president presented a fundraising check for $1million to the AU in order to set an example for individual state commitment to the continental body.

Finally, Pentagon military involvement in Africa has grown substantially over the last decade with the formation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). The Mugabe government has kept AFRICOM out of the country.

The presence of AFRICOM in Somalia, Niger, Mali, Nigeria and other AU member-states has not resulted in greater security and social stability. Quite the opposite has occurred with burgeoning instability, economic crises and population displacement.

Ultimately, it is up to the Zimbabwe people themselves to chart a future course. Nevertheless, despite the apparent errors of the recent period the legacy of Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF remains a sterling example of national liberation, Pan-Africanism and struggle against imperialism throughout the world.

Israel, the USA, and Saudi Arabia are doing everything to lay the foundations for war against Iran.

That is why Iran and its people must be demonized and dehumanized. The Israeli government has  been doing this since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 by the Iranian people.

In general, all Sunni Muslim countries get along well with Iran, except Saudi Arabia and those Arab regimes that succumb to their financial pressure. 

In a flattering interview with the New York Times, the Saudi crown prince and future king, Mohammed bin Salman, called the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, the “new Hitler of the Middle East.”[1] And he continued with a skewed comparison, saying:

“But we learned from Europe that appeasement doesn’t work. We don’t want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East.”

The same rhetoric was used by Netanyahu when he agitated against the nuclear deal with Iran.

Besides the silliness of such comparisons, it’s an incredible insult to the highest Shiite authority by a Sunni Muslim, who is going to be the next “King of Saudi Arabia.” The Iranian clerical elite will never forgive and forget. They rebuked this insult elegantly saying:

“No one in the world and the international arena gives credit to him [MBS] because of his immature and weak-minded behavior and remarks.”

As an old deep-rooted people, the Iranians gave bin Salman a good advice:

“Now that he has decided to follow the path of famous regional dictators … he should think about their fate as well.”

A regime that can only survive thanks to the “American and Zionist sword” not to mention their financial tribute in the form of large weapons purchases and mercenary pay for terrorist fighters should have not future.

But there is a sneaky plan behind bin Salman’s slander. It started with Donald Trump‘s silly speech he delivered during his visit to Saudi Arabia in which he called Iran “the top state sponsor of terrorism.” And Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu called Iran “the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” Both leaders cooperate very closely in deranging the nuclear deal signed under the Obama administration. Now, Mohammed bin Salman has thrown himself into the fray.

At least for the time being, President Trump is not jet willing, despite his anti-Iranian bias and rhetoric, to go to war with Iran for Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s sake. To sacrifice American lives for two rogue regimes would be politically very unwise.

That is why an image cultivation of the Saudi regime has already started in the United Kingdom and the US. In the case of Israel, the reporting in the US and the UK are one-sided and incredibly biased. Hence, the Saudis have to catch up.

The Guardian and the leading newspaper of the US Empire, the New York Times,  have started to paint the new Saudi strongman, Mohammed bin Salman, as a kind of visionary reformer, although he has been spreading terror and blood since he took office.

That Saudi Arabia has been fighting a brutal war against the people of Yemen, supports the different terror groups in Syria and stirs up tensions against Iran is not of object of concern by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times. Even bin Salman’s crackdown on large parts of the political and economic elite and his bloody purge against political opponents is portrayed by the NYT as a fight against “corruption.” Nobody should be surprised that the US and its major media outlets are embracing this brutal strongman because he serves US interests.

While the Guardian was full of praise for bin Salman throughout the year, the NYT reported more cautiously until Thomas L. Friedman took over. In a kind of press release, the Guardian was full of praise for the future Saudi King. He did arrest not only 11 peopled but also sidelined 20 billionaires. That several people died in an organized helicopter crash was not worth reporting by the Guardian.

Friedman didn’t want to be in no way inferior to the Guardian’s uncritical reporting. He even topped it writing:

“The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia.”

All the other Arab Spring movements failed miserably happening from bottom up; the Saudi one is led from the top down by bin Salman. That the Crown Prince wants to reform a degenerated Saudi version of Islam seems worth reporting. Time will tell. Reading all these articles, one can ask who paid for these base flatteries.

Why didn’t Friedman ask bin Salman about his 500 million US-Dollars worth yacht? Or the cost of the last vacation in Morocco, where he and his father’s royal household spent 950 million US-Dollars. So much to combat corruption, Mr. Friedman.

Bin Salman also maintains an unconventional and rough diplomatic contact with other heads of states when they are on a Saudi drip-feed.

When Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited Saudi Arabia, he was forced to announce his resignation via Saudi TV. Apparently he feared for his life. For a few days, he stood under house arrest. Due to the speech of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the whole Lebanese leadership rallied behind Nasrallah and called for Hariri’s return to announce either his resignation or to stay in office.

The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, also intervened on behalf of Hariri. Finally, Hariri could leave Saudi Arabia via France from where he returned to Lebanon to celebrate the country’s independence day. Bin Salman’s farce failed miserably. Almost the same happened to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Saudis ordered him to Riyadh and presented him an outline of the American Israeli “peace plan.” After returning to Ramallah, Abbas rejected the US Zionist document of surrender.

It’s an open secret that Saudi Arabia and Israel are cultivating intensive diplomatic contacts not only on security issues. A rare interview by the head of Israel’s armed forces to a Saudi owned news outlet confirms  close links between the two countries. Despite the denial of the Saudi foreign minister Adel el-Jubeir, these rumors won’t disappear.

“There are no relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” Jubeir said.

Formally, he seems correct, but what about the informal contacts. Hasn’t Mohammed bin Salman visited Israel in camera?

According to Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Israel enjoys “warm relations” with many Arab countries despite the fact that these nations officially refuse to recognize Israel diplomatically. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been boosting for quite some time about close contacts with several Arab countries.

The Israeli Saudi US American alliance aims at Iran. They want to push back Iran’s influence in Iraq and Syria. For the time being, bin Salman’s plan to assist Israel in waging war against Lebanon to crush Hezbollah has failed. Hariri was not the Saudi stooge bin Salman thought.

What these three rogue states have in common is the destruction of Iran like they did with Iraq, Syria or Libya. Netanyahu has warned President Bashar al-Assad not to allow Iran to build military bases in Syria.

It remains to be seen whether the new (alleged) “Axis of Evil” or the Russian Iranian Turkish alliance will prevail in the Middle East.

So far, the US-Israel-Saudi “alliance” have brought devastation to the region.

Note

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html

The ISIS-held pocket on the western bank of the Euphrates River is close to a full collapse as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Tiger Forces are advancing on the last ISIS-held points there.

On November 27 and 28, fierce clashes were ongoing in the areas of Asharah and Makhan. According to pro-government sources, both towns are now in the hands of the SAA, but ISIS continues to attack them.

Once the attacks are repelled, government forces will focus on liberating the last ISIS-held town in the pocket – Quriyah. Then, the ISIS-held part of the western Euphrates bank between al-Bukamal and Salihiyah will be the main target of the Syrian military.

On November 28, the Syrian Defense Ministry announced that the SAA had liberated Quriyah. However, no photos or videos are available yet.

In the Eastern Ghouta region, near Damascus, sporadic clashes between the SAA and militants continued in the area near the Armoured Vehicles Base. Ahrar al-Sham and its allies have conducted no further attempts to capture the base after the recent failed advance.

Pro-government sources also speculated that the SAA is going to encircle the militant—held part of Jabar district advancing along the M5 highway. However, no major attacks have taken place as yet.

In northeastern Hama, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) to its surprise found that ISIS had seized over a dozen villages from its relatively moderate counterparts. According to reports, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took back Abu ‘Ajwah, Rasm Sakkaf and Shayhat.

Separately, the SAA liberated the village of Mustarihah from HTS in the nearby area.

The violence in Syria has calmed down slightly after the liberation of key ISIS strongholds in eastern Syria. Now, the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance and US-backed forces are focused on clearing the remaining ISIS-held areas there.

According to pro-government experts, HTS will become the obvious target for the military operations of the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance after the full defeat of ISIS. However, much will depend on the results of the upcoming Sochi conference on Syria, which will involve Iran, Turkey, Russia, the Syrian government and a notable part of the Syrian opposition.

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Several thousand small-holder farmers from across India held a massive demonstration in New Delhi, from 20-21 November to draw attention to the acute agrarian distress plaguing the countryside and seeking immediate intervention by the Union Government.

Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha and South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements – who are also part of the global peasant movement La Via Campesina, joined in large numbers.

For long, farmers movements and civil society organisations in India have been pointing out the problem of mounting debt in rural farm households.

A steady and steep increase in cost of production over the last three decades, near-stagnant farm incomes and increasing cost of rural household expenses, which are exacerbated by crumbling public welfare services and privatisation drives, have resulted in nearly 60% of the farm households trapped in a cycle of debt. Back-to-back droughts and unseasonal rains since 2012 resulting in severe crop losses, a crash in farm prices over the last several seasons have only worsened the crisis.

On a set of 25 crops, the Government of India offer a guaranteed and minimum support price across to the country’s farmers. However, for several years now as social movements have pointed out, this support price is marginally above – in some instances below – the cost of production.

In 2014, while campaigning for general elections, Narendra Modi who is currently the Prime Minister, had publicly promised to procure farm produces at a higher rate, which would be at least 1.5 times the cost of production. Yet, this is far from reality. What is worse is also that farmers are right now forced to sell their produces at levels that are even lower than the minimum support price.

Green revolution and the subsequent opening up of Indian agriculture to the global free market, has exposed the country’s small-farmers to unfair and unequal competition on the world scene. Agricultural policies that are focused on exporting food, rather than promoting local production and distribution has only favoured agribusinesses and severely marginalised the peasants and small-holder farmers. Despite this, global institutions such as the WTO continue to mount pressure on the Indian government to reduce the support price further and to lower the import tariffs!

The consequences have been devastating. Since 1995, at least 300,000 farmers in India have been forced to commit suicide unable to bear their piling debt and harassments from lenders. Government data shows that on an average 2000 farmers are forced to quit agriculture everyday and migrate to cities in search of work in factories and construction sites.

The resurgence of farmers’ movements in India

The discontent, which has long been brewing in the countryside is now knocking at the doors of the national capital.

Over 180 farmers’ organisations across India have come together under the banner of All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) to ensure that the farmers present a united resistance against the government’s apathy and ill conceived policies.

India has a rich history of massive farmers’ mobilisations – including those led by Mahendra Singh Tikait of Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) and of the ones led by Prof. Nanjundaswamy of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) and several others.

The current crisis in rural India has led to a resurgence of these struggles and organisations from almost all regions of India are in solidarity to stick together and fight until their demands are met.

Speaking to a massive gathering of several thousand farmers, Chamarasa Patil, a farmer and senior leader of KRRS thundered,

“We know you have police on your side. We know that the police have guns. We know that those guns have bullets, never hesitating to pierce through the flesh of innocent farmers. But you must know that if the 750 million farmers of this country decide to hit the streets, your bullets wont be enough and your governments will vanish in no time. Do not test our patience”.

Mr. Patil was referring to the recent incidents of state atrocities on protesting farmers in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh – which resulted in the shooting and killing of farmers.

During the two days, women and men who were assembled at the site of the mobilisation also held a simulated parliamentary-style discussion, in which they collectively placed their demands in the form of a Bill, which they want the Union Government to take up in the upcoming winter session of the Indian Parliament.

During the mobilisations the protesting farmers, also faxed an invitation to the Prime Minister, inviting him to the street and listen in to their demands and concerns. While it did not elicit any response from the Prime Minister’s office, the organisations have now planned to resume the next leg of the agitation from Gujarat, the home state of the Prime Minister and where state elections are to be held soon.

All images in this article are from Via Campesina.

First published in August 2014, this essay brings to the forefront Washington’s relentless support for Saudi Arabia, a State sponsor of terror, which has been waging since 2015 a war on the people of Yemen, tantamount to genocide.   

America Has Sold Its Soul for Oil

Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism

A U.S. congressman for 6 years,  who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:

By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

***

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

***

Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

***

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

***

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

***

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

***

The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS?

Frontline notes:

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.

***

By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

“The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.

***

“Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch. Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Yet, the United States continues with this approach.

Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.

“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN.

“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”

Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.

***

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

***

Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.

***

Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much of the mayhem in the Muslim world.

The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

***

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

***

Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

***

Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

***

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”

***

Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.

***

For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

***

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.

As we’ve extensively documented, the Saudis and the U.S. backed the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

Indeed, the U.S. is backing the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis, who are heavily concentrated in Saudi Arabia, while overthrowing the more moderate Arabs.

This book is a globally unique documentation by Dr. Rosalie Bertell. I think it is one of the most important books of the 21^st century. In addition to the author’s original text from the year 2000 there are various updates by herself until 2011 and additional articles written by international experts. As the founder of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” which was organized after having known Bertell’s work (2010) in order to distribute it always more, I have contributed to the book in various ways as well. We translated it and organized its publication. Rosalie has named me her representative in the German speaking part of the world.

When Rosalie Bertell passed, she was 83 years old. We learn from her that free expression of opinions and thoughts about the topic in question, as well as a whole collection of detailed scientific facts, as presented by her, have been suppressed to be discussed for decades. For me there needs to be a public discussion and a theoretical clarification asking the question: In which of the academic traditions, sciences, worldviews, in what logics, politics, and motivation does the literally inconceivable fit that Rosalie Bertell is describing? What are the consequences to be drawn?

Who was Rosalie Bertell?

Dr. Rosalie Bertell was born in 1929 in the United States. She earned a PhD in Biometry at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC, in 1966. She holds nine honorary doctor’s degrees, and she won numerous prizes, among them the “Right Livelihood Award”, RLA (1986); she co-founded multiple organizations including the “International Institute of Concern for Public Health” (IICPH) in Toronto, Canada (1984) and the “International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine” in Geneva, Switzerland (1999). She has worked as an appraiser for the UN, worked in more than 60 countries for this institution, and was a life-long member of the Roman Catholic Congregation “Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart”, Pennsylvania, USA. Rosalie Bertell is concerned about human health, the environment and the planet as a whole respectively, and about a warning referring to the dangers we face. Her very first book dealt with nuclear dangers: “No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth”. She was awarded the RLA for this very publication in the year of the MCA in Chernobyl 1986. Due to the several hundreds or even more times greater ultimate MCA in Fukushima in 2011 this book is now more relevant than ever.

“If the public were to discover the real health costs of nuclear contamination, a cry would arise from every part of the world and the people would refuse to continue to passively contribute with their own death!“ (Bertell, 1985, p. xiii)

For today she states:

 “What is planned now are climate and weather wars, wars in which earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and droughts, hurricanes and monsoon rains will play a role.“ (Bertell 2013, p. 57)

The dangers that we people and the planet are facing today are far more developed in the post-nuclear era without that the dangers of the nuclear one would have diminished.

Rosalie Bertell is an ethicist of the same magnitude as before her Rachel Carson with her book “Silent Spring” about the fifties and sixties of the 20^th century, who was the first to create awareness about the spreading chemical contamination in nature, and its ramifications with regards to steadily growing cancer rates (Carson 1962).

Bertell, too, wants to deliver a wakeup call for people to become active from below. Her hope is that a peaceful, cooperative and wiser world will emerge. The earth is still a wonderful planet, so she believes at the end of her book, as she calls upon us all “to respect it, to love it and to save it!” (Bertell 2013, p. 439)

Bertell is an ecofeminist and a pacifist in the best sense of the word. She stands for respect of the rights of Mother Earth as a “cosmic being”, and of all beings upon, beneath, and above her. She argues for the abolition of the military and of war, for the end of patriarchy as the attempt to dominate all life and meanwhile the earth itself, and for the end of capitalism as the raving and reckless looting of the whole planet.

She stands for the peaceful resolution of conflicts through international courts, and for the necessary foundation of an environmental court that will preserve the interests of the Earth and its safety and integrity, as well as rule over compensation for inflicted damage. Bertell is a most sensible thinker, crystal-clear and keen; she had a sixth sense for the uncovering of hidden information, she was committed and courageous, and she never gave up even though she has been threatened by several attacks on her life.

As a Catholic nun she was backed by her Congregation “Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart” in the US and had therefore not been dependent on funding by individuals or institutions.

Why is this book so important?

1. It is a history of the ongoing destruction of planet Earth through the development and employment of new military technologies
2. It shows the reaction of the public and of social movements
3. It should be the end of the “conspiracy theory” accusations
4. It shows the overall damages to the planet
5. It needs more of a theoretical explanation
6. It shows the legal situation

This book discusses the history of an ongoing destruction of our Planet, caused by applied natural science, corporate capital, and the military.

Since World War II the development and employment of new military technologies in the East and the West have been the basis of destructions in the very “life systems”, as Bertell calls them, of our planet. The book presents us with a unique historical documentation, which reads like a breathtaking thriller. Its scope ranges from chemical, biological, and nuclear technological development and warfare to the post nuclear, especially in the field of electromagnetic “plasma” weapons, not only threatening to wipe out all life on earth using technologies that are able to produce huge catastrophes, but also threatening to destroy the planet itself. The essence of the thriller Rosalie Bertell has written lies precisely in this escalation. For, it is literally this planetary dimension, which connected to warfare that has been taking action for a long time already, is completely new and unimagined. The beginning of this development started with the use of detrimental substances in industrial agriculture, and in the medical field – such as herbicides, pesticides, detergents, chlorine, and anesthetics – which were used during both world wars. It was Rachel Carson (Carson 1962), the first “eco-feminist” who protested against this development.

In this handout picture released by the U.S. Army, a mushroom cloud billows about one hour after a nuclear bomb was detonated above Hiroshima, Japan on Aug. 6, 1945. Japanese officials say a 93-year-old Japanese man has become the first person certified as a survivor of both U.S. atomic bombings at the end of World War II.

The story continues with rocket technology and the atmospheric, surface, and underground nuclear and hydrogen bomb tests that have been ongoing since the end of World War II. There have been around 2.300 tests between 1945 and 1998 (s. Bertell 2013, p. 323) beginning with Hiroshima/Nagasaki up to the many tests in the western parts of the United States, in Central Asia and the South Pacific; more than half of them instigated by the US. These tests mark the beginning of a systemic radioactive contamination of the earth and the application of nuclear processes and radiation to food and for medical purposes. The nuclear tests caused the first damages to the ozone layer and all other layers of the atmosphere, and they were particularly detrimental to the layers of the Van Allen Belts, which determine the earth’s magnetic field.

Due to a lack of knowledge about the functions of the upper atmospheric layers in regard to the preservation of the earth’s life support systems, as Bertell calls them, there was complete ignorance about the effects (exo-)atmospheric nuclear testing could possibly cause. The military scientists acted by “trial and error”. Nature’s reaction to an attack on it’s very self would just have to be seen (Bertell 2013, pp 58f, 151, 156f, 158, 167, 476).

The damages to this sensitive mantle of the atmosphere, however, are unaccounted for until today and it remains unclear, if they will ever vanish again. We may never grasp the meaning of the earth’s “life systems” of which the electromagnetic field is a part, or understand the changes it has undergone.

In addition, experiments with the weather began to take place, reaching a first climax during the Vietnam War. They started with experiments on an artificially prolonged monsoon season, with artificially intensified severe weather episodes, using lethal chemicals such as Monsanto’s “Agent Orange”, which was dispersed through sprayings by airplanes, so that the trees would lose their leaves. These experiments moved on to the attempt of creating a hole in the ozone layer, with the objective of triggering a collapse of Vietnamese agriculture through the induction of unfiltered cosmic radiation, consisting of gamma rays, x rays, infrared rays, UV rays, or certain other microwaves, from which intact layers of the atmosphere protect the earth (Bertell 2013, p. 230).

Meanwhile the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica and the one that has formed recently and for the first time over the Arctic, probably due to radioactivity from Fukushima, allow numerous types of radiation, including the most harmful, to penetrate the atmosphere. Beyond that, this type of radiation is additionally manufactured for medical and electronic use down here (a.a.O.), following the principle of using war technologies in peace as well.

Further, the strategy around rockets and space travel, including supersonic flight, space stations, satellites, and the SDI „Star Wars“ program (Bertell 2013, pp. 184-188; 258ff), centers around projects designed to obtain military control of the Earth from space. “The space will be the next battlefield” (Bertell 2013, p. 177). For this reason thermonuclear bombs have circled above our heads to ensure swifter bombarding of targets on earth, and we have been endangered by plutonium that has been used to fuel rockets like the Cassini during its mission to Saturn, starting in 1997, a potential for widespread and lethal contamination in case of an accident.

Finally, experiments with EM (electromagnetic) waves and the heating up of the upper layers of the atmosphere (Bertell 2013, p. 139ff), called “ionosphere”, from an altitude of 80 km on, began in die 1960ies and 1970ies by influencing this electromagnetically charged layer through the use of “ionospheric heaters”. The most famous of these “heaters” being HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) in Alaska, built up later in the 1990ies, huge radar installations with antenna and a special energy supply (Bertell 2013, pp.273ff). According to Bertell, the Arctic region has been subjected to a deliberate thawing process through the utilization of EM-ELF (extreme low frequency) waves, action that seems to have been agreed upon by the former Soviet Union and the United States in Vladivostok 1974 already (Bertell 2013, p. 256, 445; Ponte 1976; MacDonald 1968).

This is a kind of borderline science, since much of this knowledge remains outside of the scientific discourse familiar to us. Practically nobody is aware of this new science, even though nearly 40 years have passed. In contrast, scientists, researchers and the population are made to believe that greenhouse CO2 gas emissions by the civilian industry are the cause for the swift thawing of the Arctic region, and are proof of climate warming through CO2 in general! (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 533).

Meanwhile Exxon Mobile and its Russian colleagues have begun to stake out areas of the Arctic region in their quest for oil…

In the meantime there have been continuous “official“ wars in which, however, new unofficial weapons were put to use, such as laser guided weapons and especially DU (depleted uranium) ammunition, produced from de-riched Uranium 238 which originates in nuclear plants. This has been the case in the Balkans, during the Gulf War with Iraq/Kuwait, and everywhere else since – in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in Libya.

As a result, radioactive contamination in these areas and for those living in these regions temporarily or permanently has increased drastically (see the “Gulf War Syndrome”, Günther 2002, Lengfelder 2006). Research by the geophysicist Leuren Moret has provided evidence of a significant decline in birthrates; a rebound cannot be expected (Moret 2011c, d). In other words, radiation has actually already led to a real decline in population in the respective areas. Fukushima’s contribution to this development (Moret 2011 a, b; Kaku 2011, 6^th Info-Letter on www.pbme-online.org) is still completely unforeseeable.

After the many smaller facilities for manipulating the layers of the atmosphere with EM – electromagnetic – waves were installed, such as Poker Flats/Alaska, Plattville/Colorado, and HIPAS/Alaska, the larger ones emerged. This is to be seen in Arecibo/Puerto Rico, EISCAT in Tromsö in Northern Norway, as well as the so called “Woodpecker” in the Soviet Union (Bertell 2013, p. 288ff), and since the early 1990ies the HAARP antenna farms with 180 radar towers in 2002. They are meanwhile accompanied by facilities in the Netherlands and Sweden, Israel, Australia, China, and other countries (recently probably MARLOW near Rostock, northern Germany) as well as by mobile x-band radar as swimming supports, capable of ranging beyond the horizon. About two dozens of these facilities are estimated to be globally operational today. In the year 2013 a new one, MUOS, for satellite coordination, has been built in Sicily (MUOS 2015).

This way, a bombardment or heating up of the ionosphere can occur simultaneously, separately or in opposition to each other, be it for experimental purposes or as a planned attack (see “SuperDARNS” in Bertell 2013, p. 283ff).

For this to work, the electrically charged air of the ionosphere, the “plasma”, which is a unique aggregate state beyond a solid, fluid, or gaseous state (Bertell 2013, p. 143), is heated up using the power of the ionospheric heaters that can add up to GIGA watts, billions of watts. This operation is causing the plasma to densify and to bulge, creating a mirror like reflector from which rays of energy, sent by ionospheric heaters, can be bounced off at any desired angle, and be redirected back to a corresponding point on or under the earth’s surface (Bertell 2013, pp. 279ff). From there the great destruction emanates, that until now could not be explained as an artificially induced catastrophe, though the ENMOD Convention of the UN from 1977, after the Vietnam War, already talked about them, trying to forbid its military use (UN 1977). The use of ionospheric heating with pulsed EM waves as one of the main techniques for environmental modification is especially potent in unleashing or amplifying latent or beginning motion, being along earthquake lines or within active volcanoes. Such processes, utilizing extreme low frequency – ELF – waves, are capable of penetrating and cutting even through the interior of the earth and of causing disturbances at and within its very core, where the magnetic field of our planet is originating (“Deep Earth Penetrating Tomography“ or “Earth Probing tomography”, Bertell 2013, pp. 285ff).

EM waves of different types can also be used to change the “Jetstream” – fast winds moving around the globe on the northern and southern hemispheres being a barrier to  temperatures – up north or down south, so that more heat or cold can stream in. The waves can be used to change the course of the vapor-streams – clouds that move around the globe – to influence the development of droughts and floods. They can be used to get more energy than normal transported to certain places, producing fires, thunderstorms and extreme lightning down to the soil, or heavy explosions that resemble nuclear ones. They can be used to keep freak weather conditions on a certain place for a long time. They can be used to move and build up large storms and to influence ocean currents like El Nino and La Nina (Bertell 2013, pp. 445 ff; 465 ff).

The probably largest ionospheric heater, HAARP in Alaska, is able to set 1, 8 GIGA watts – billions of watts – in motion, and bundle them up to focus on one single point in the ionosphere. The types of technologies existing to destroy the environment have been explained by geophysicist and presidential consultant Gordon MacDonald in his article “How to Wreck the Environment“ published in “Unless Peace Comes” in 1968. That happened 48 years ago! (MacDonald 1968, cf. below)

The prominent journal “The Guardian“, London, has reported about the topic for example (4.4.2012) in an article titled: “At war over geo engineering“. The articles reads as follows:

“…Few in the civil sector fully understand that geo engineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon … While seemingly fantastical, weather has been weaponized. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and organization to regularly alter weather, and geologic events for various military and black operations.… Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, drought and flooding, including the use of polymerized aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems”.

The article mentions as well the role of a gradual warming of the Polar Regions for resource extraction.

This article entirely validates the statements of Prof. Gordon MacDonald, former deputy director of the Institute for Geophysics and Physics at the University of California, and member of the president’s science advisory committee under president Lyndon B. Johnson, made in 1968. The globally renowned scientist writes in Nigel Calder’s book “Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons“. On geophysical warfare in the chapter “How to Wreck the Environment”, he describes, how the energy fields of the earth can be used to manipulate the weather, resulting in a melting of the polar caps, the destruction of the ozone layer, and the triggering of earthquakes. Prof. Gordon MacDonald therefore established in the 1960s that these weapons were actually in production and that the whole process would practically go unnoticed by their victims if potentially utilized (www.Sauberer-Himmel.de).

• In fact, there was talk in the US as early as 1958 that „Climate control is coming!“ (Newsweek 1958): Edward Teller, “father” of the hydrogen bomb, was at the very front regarding the discussion of possible warfare through the manipulation of weather, for instance dumping aerosols into the atmosphere (cf. Hamilton in Bertell 2013, pp. 498ff).
• The UN ENMOD convention of 1976/77 – now 40 years ago – describes these abominations, and prohibits the military or any other hostile use of these technologies. In the meantime, they are heard of on a daily basis today: earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, and floods, change of weather patterns throughout entire regions, ocean currents and tornados, changes of the ozone layer and the ionosphere (cf. Bertell 2013, p. 46; Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 527).
• In the year 1997 the former US secretary of defense, William Cohen, voiced his concerns about the possibility of precisely these types of weapons being put to use by terrorists (cf. Bertell 2013, p.291).
• The EU Parliament conducted a hearing in 1999 in the matter of HAARP. The hearing remained without consequences, despite all the warnings. It, nevertheless, was admitted by the EU Commission that is has no influence whatsoever on military affairs! (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, p. 36). HAARP communications, however, state that “ionospheric heaters” are designed only for research purposes, and are by no means to be considered as a weapons system. Thus, they would most definitely be in the scope of EU influence, or would have to be prohibited by the UN!
• On the other hand, there is not much talk either about the European ionospheric heaters such as EISCAT in Tromsö, northern Norway. This facility is operated by the German Max-Planck-Institute.
• The UN pronounced another Moratorium on Geoengineering at the Biodiversity Conference in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010, prohibiting the private and publicly uncontrolled use of geoengineering (Bertell 2013, p. 318).
• In 2013 nearly 50 European activists and several members of the European Parliament, organized in “Skyguards”, made another intent to mobilize the EP via a conference “Beyond Theories of Weather Modification – Civil Society versus Geoengineering”, accompanied by a Petition to the EP that was even accepted by the EP-Commission on Petitions in 2014 (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, pp. 33-41). In 2016, nevertheless, the same happened to this petition as to the one of 1999: Ex-MEP Josefina Fraile from Skyguards, who had organized the Petition, got a letter from the EU-Commission telling her that military questions are not to be treated in the realm of the EP – though the petition spoke especially about civil geoengineering.
• In general, the Report on “Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather in 2025”, prepared for the US Air Force in 1996, shows that the question of “weather wars” is in the hands of the military. A civilian and independent geo-engineering for “saving the world from climate change” is surely not existing (US Air Force 1996).

Results’ summary:

These political experiences seem to contradict the central thesis of Bertell´s book that the earth has already been transformed into a weapon of war, pointing against us as well as against itself in a perverse manner! The meaning behind all this: There is no official  recognition of the existence of means and possibilities of warfare that don’t only pose a threat to all life on earth by utilizing the earth’s own forces against us and itself, but beyond that the existence of a capacity capable of destroying the whole planet as such! (Bertell 2013, p. 251f). This danger had been spelled out already by physicist Nikola Tesla (1856-1943, Bertell 2013, pp. 223ff, 468ff), the original inventor of different ways how to use the electromagnetic powers of the planet (Bertell 2013, p. 32, 239f). Using her own forces, the earth can now be compelled to kill its own beings and then possibly coerced into suicide!

The means to destroy the planet are those of “geoengineering” – including electromagnetic plasma weapons and all additional forms of weather wars (Bertell 2013, p. 317). If these technologies used in an enhanced form, if the increase of rhythmically pulsed EM waves and the effect of their resonance becomes practically unlimited (Tesla’s “Magnifying Transmitter“, and “controlled earthquakes“, Bertell 2013, p. 288), the earth could possibly even be torn apart, plunge into the sun, or in last consequence, be hurled out into space! Special “Scalar” EM effects of resonance could be instantly reflected, when originating from the earth and penetrating space. A result could be the earth’s destruction through the sun, or the dynamic balance bet originating from the earth and penetrating space ween the earth and the moon, sharing the same magnetic field, could fall apart… Nikola Tesla, the most innovative mind in regard to the work with EM waves, predicted and warned of all these scenarios as a theoretical possibility at the beginning of the last century already (Bertell 2013, p. 465ff).

Further developments:

• The further development of EM weapons in dimensions of longitudinal “scalar” waves, as first developed in the Soviet Union, has found particular focus in the work of former member of the US Army, Tom Bearden, a scientist and disciple of Tesla’s who has been quoted by Bertell (Bertell 2013, pp. 223ff, 238ff, 465f; Bearden 1986/2002). This chapter of weapons technology with (longitudinal) scalar waves appears to be even more mysterious than that of other (transversal) EM waves. Considering that in the so-called vacuum or hyperspace – the “ether” (according to Tesla) or the space beyond the solar system – the movement of these scalar waves reaches beyond the three – dimensional terrestrial space and its conditions, acting independently of each of them under at least four – dimensional conditions – the three dimensions of space and the time dimension. This means for instance that scalar waves are simultaneous, they don´t need time to spread. Military application of these processes on earth – that is working with “unlimited” extra-terrestrial conditions under limited terrestrial ones (cf. first Wagner 1970 on nuclear fission on earth) – would be and actually is the greatest imminent threat (Bearden 2012; Wood 2010).
• Besides the effects triggered on a macro level, other effects that are no less eerie could be caused by EM waves on the micro level as well. We are talking about the interference with our brains using ELF waves that correspond to the pulse – the Schumann frequency – of the earth, which is the same as that of the brain (Begich/ Manning 1996; Bertell 2013, p. 289). These methods have apparently been developed predominantly by the Soviets, and can also be applied to larger populations, according to Bearden.

All this happens true to the motto: Electromagnetic pulses can reach anywhere, due to the fact, that matter itself “oscillates” (Begich/Manning 1996). This is finally the real “secret” of the magnitude and efficiency of the new Tesla-technologies as patented for their use in ionospheric heaters (official US patents by physicist Bernard Eastlund, Bertell 2013, p. 277ff) and elsewhere (Bearden 2012; Wood 2010).

The reaction of the public and of social movements

Through Bertell we are now finding out that we, the public, humans, and citizens have been vulnerable to this increasing threat since ca. 70 years without being made aware of it, let alone having been asked for our approval or “consent”, even though these developments are life endangering for us and the planet and have eroded conditions of life globally. Actually, if these threats are not brought to a halt, our living conditions and the earth itself could be destroyed within a brief period of time already.

Considering Bertell’s quotes: “The military is always 50 years ahead“. And:

“The military never uses the same weapons in a new war that have been used in an old one” (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, p. 48; Bertell Interview II, 2014).

We, as the allegedly responsible citizens:

1. Although embarrassing, we must now come to grips with the fact that we have not been aware of anything that has been going on in this field.

2. We need to realize that since the end of the “Cold War” we have allowed ourselves to believe in the end of wars, at least in the end of large-scale wars, and in the absence of the threat through another world war, nuclear war, let alone environmental wars, wars due to “natural” disasters, energy weapons, and eco terror! We held and still hold it unthinkable that the earth’s own forces can be used against us and the earth itself, and we even did not know about these forces at all…!

3. So, we have to ask, how and if at all there is still a differentiation between friend and foe, civilians and the military, conquerors and the conquered. Why has this distinction evidently become irrelevant? What kind of a war is this?

In respect to social movements, from Bertell’s analysis follows:

• A peace movement exists that has not recognized that there is a modern war, that is directed at and against the environment (Bertell 2013, p. 57f; 325f; 344ff).
• On the grounds of a continuously more obvious destruction of the environment, there nevertheless exists an ecological movement that has not yet realized the problems, which have particularly been caused by the military (Bertell 2013, p. 71).
• The anti- nuclear movement has not realized the post nuclear development of weapons of mass destruction within the military that supersede the necessity of nuclear wars (cf. Bertell 2013, p. 58).
• Right now a trend toward the creation of „environmental justice movements“can be observed. These “movements” intend to promote civil “geoengineering” within the fields of civil science, politics, and private industry, by claiming to fight “climate warming”. They are predominately comprised of geo-engineers. They claim to be in the position to fight climate warming without actually confronting the causes! (Hamilton in Bertell 2013, pp. 485 ff; Bertell 2013, p. 312ff). The blame for climate warming is laid down on the doorstep of civilian CO2 emissions, a position that is being taken only since 1997 (Kyoto protocol, Bertell 2013, p. 311).

According to Bertell, not a single climate conference ever mentioned CO2 before that! However, the movement of geo-engineers does not focus on the reduction CO2 emissions at all. On the contrary, this movement assumes that there is no chance of politically enforcing any considerable norms in this regard anyway. This “movement“ is targeting the alleged symptoms and not the problem of damages of the earth itself while attracting considerable funding and technical resources (Fraile 2015; Weiss 2014; 2016).

Rosalie Bertell

Under the premises of the CO2-thesis, these geo engineers tamper with nothing less than the planetary dimension of the earth’s elements. With the oceans (“ocean fertilization”), the layers of the air (aerosols, “Solar Radiation Management”, SRM, sprayings, s. Bertell 2013, p. 2543; 319), and the ground (deforestation (!), action in regard to more “albedo“, sun reflecting white spaces and clouds), to screen the earth against solar heat and/or for more effective CO2 absorption and to eliminate the necessity of CO2 reduction. Although the dangers resulting from CO2 are supposedly threatening, this approach denies the need to further deal with the issue – that is how to get rid of it itself! The process of fighting “climate warming”, once initiated in an engineering context, would need – as is said by geo-engineers – to be sustained “indefinitely” in order to maintain the climate and not risk an immediate overheating of the planet under the sweltering heat of a sun allowed to shine in blue skies. As a matter of fact, a partial warming of the earth is indeed taking place. However, this is not happening in the troposphere where CO2 actually accumulates, but rather in the higher layers of the stratosphere in which HAARP and similar facilities – the “ionospheric heaters” – are active! (Phillips 2011).

In total, global warming cannot be a result of CO2 emissions after all! (Bertell 2013, pp. 321-323). CO2 is dirty, but it is not heating up, as she says.Apart from Bertell hardly anyone has noticed that the environmental crisis in the guise of the so called climate crisis, as well as the alleged solutions for this crisis, namely geo-engineering, both originate from the same military laboratories!

Ironically, as said in Hamilton’s contribution to Bertell’s book: The military itself does not assume the existence of any kind of climate crisis at all! The measures of military geoengineering do not aim at reducing climate warming. These measures have been invented for completely different reasons, namely military ones: they are geo-weapons (Bertell 2013, p. 58).

Instead of figuring out how to stop military disruption and manipulation of the climate through, as Bertell states, “weather wars, plasma weapons, and geo engineering” by, for example, turning off “ionospheric heaters” globally, the discussion is focused on fighting the consequences of this global war – precisely by employing the same measures that have actually caused them!

The fact that it isn’t the alleged CO2 issue or even „evil nature“ opposing us, remains concealed due to the creation of deliberate confusion! One of most generous private sponsors of geo engineering, which poses as a civilian measure to counter the consequences of CO2 emissions, while actually being a military scheme towards the planet, is the wealthiest man on earth, Bill Gates (Bertell 2013, p. 253f; Hamilton in Bertell 2013, p. 504).

The end of “conspiracy-theory” accusations?

Bertell’ s book could be the beginning of an end to insults and suspicions that have been geared toward making all this sound like a “conspiracy theory” (a term invented by the CIA to revile those who doubted the official version of the murder of J.F. Kennedy). Where the corresponding current developments are dragged out of the dark room of anonymity, secrecy, denial, and concealment – as Bertell has done –, it will not be possible anymore to brush the facts off!

This, nevertheless, is not yet happening, as we know now, five years after having published Bertell in German – the first real public appearance of her book after the sudden bankruptcy of her English publisher in 2000. The background of this strategy to hide the facts can precisely be seen in the ongoing concealment of the connections between environmental crisis and military experiments and attacks. Hiding by all means a meanwhile “unofficial” and/or possibly already raging undeclared war, is necessary in order to not risk opposition from civil society, or even from law, as would inevitably happen if reality were to become publicly evident (Storr in Bertell 2913, p. 545). MacDonald, who has been mentioned earlier, explains that such a ‘secret war’ need never be declared or even known by the affected populations. It could go on for years with only the security forces involved being aware of it (MacDonald, 1968). This kind of “geo-terrorism” and as such “technetronic” (MacDonald) warfare would appear in the guise of militarization or “weaponization” of “industrial mishaps”, “environmental disasters”, and “geo-engineering” (Phillips 2011).

Rosalie Bertell states that the military needs us for legitimization since it is in need of civilian resources (Bertell 2013, p. 388) and legwork, as e.g. done through scientists, and our belief in its ability to create security in a military sense (Bertell 2013, p. 365) and in case of disaster. To have us assuming that it produces these disasters itself would of course be a bad fit! The civilian academic field is precisely one that asserts the impossibility of this type of disaster occurring due to a deliberate manipulation of natural events. All the catastrophes of the past decades, namely 10 times the number of natural disasters as compared to before 1970 (Bertell 2013, p. 306) and the unending cluster of most severe earthquakes globally, are nothing but simple natural events for them. We must not forget, that „normal science“ is unable to explain these phenomena, as they have never taken into account what Nikola Tesla had explored and invented. The earth seems to have remained unchanged tectonically and seismically, and there are no reasonable explanations for the increase in volcanic activity, for instance.

Yet, it is science itself enabling the dangers discussed by Bertell. For without science the development of the relevant technologies pertaining to our topic would never have been possible. It is important to bring the invisible doings of a science serving the military to awareness within the sciences themselves. Civilian science is going to lose its reputation and credibility in public, when trying to disguise possible and current mega crimes that would not be possible without its cooperation with military science in the first place. As Lowell Wood, “civil” geo-engineer and disciple of Edward Teller put it:

“We as humans always influenced our environment the way we wanted it. Why not the Planet?” (Hamilton in Bertell 2013, p. 501).

The overall damages to the planet.

Meanwhile, the earth, our planet, is in critical conditions. According to Bertell it has been weakened and could already have been irreversibly damaged (Bertell 2013, p. 59, 228, 320, 323, 326, 455, 473). The planet has become „a research victim of militarism“ (Bertell 2013, p. 483). It is as if air, water, soil, animals, plants and humans are presented like a “sacrifice” (Bertell 2013, pp 325ff) to the “Gods”!

Bertell illustrates how the military causes the greatest environmental damages, usurps most of the resources, and wastes away living conditions on earth by compromising it ruthlessly and without conscience (Bertell 2013, pp. 335ff). She draws parallels between the military and the behavior of an addict. The addict will not refrain from his addiction on his own. Obviously, all this goes without the knowledge or approval of the earth’s population, regardless of our democratic systems and beliefs.

Preliminary effects of the new weapons which have been described here in part, are:

• Apart from damages through mining, chemistry, nuclear and genetic engineering, life industries, Nano- technology, and sprayed substances like aluminum, barium, sulfur and lithium, that continue to destroy the atmosphere, the soil, the water, plants, and living conditions,
• there are holes in the ozone layer, produced by decades of nuclear testing, supersonic flights and rocket flights into space (and not by FCKW as we are constantly told!)
• there are disturbances of the earth’s electromagnetic field within its core as outside in space and in the Van Allen belts,
• there are holes and incisions throughout the protective layers of the atmosphere, produced by ionospheric heaters,
• there is a wobble/an imbalance of the planetary motion (Bertell 2013, p. 450) and a slowing down of the rotation,
• there is, therefore, the possible acceleration of a magnetic polar shift/polar reversal;
• there is the active thawing of the arctic region (Bertell 2013, p. 227) since the 70ies of the 20^th century
• causing an increase in ocean levels, a loss of fresh water,
• and there is a weakening of the gulf stream by 1/3 already, the end of which would mean a possible new ice age for Europe.
• There is the disappearance of the glaciers worldwide that leads to huge floods now and to extreme droughts later with the effect that the large rivers of the world would run dry and leave the population and nature without fresh water.
• Further, the outer layers of the atmosphere are decreasing by 1 km every 5 years (Bertell 2013, Chapter 3-5 in Part II, additional Texts A, D, C in Part IV).
• This means the loss of protection of the atmosphere against cosmic radiation like UV, Gamma, microwaves and x rays on the earth´s surface (Bertell 2013, p. 230), detrimental for all life on it and,
• if more, finishing with agriculture.
• It means weather and climate chaos everywhere and loss of any equilibrium to be expected.
• It means natural catastrophes of any magnitude, and that it will mostly be impossible to distinguish between natural and manufactured ones, especially when the tipping point is reached, and synergetic effects enter into play.
• It means that no catastrophe can be foreseen, or protected against. Catastrophes can and do happen everywhere and at any moment.
• If used for war these weapons can even lead to a total destruction of the planet as such, as Tesla warned (Bertell 2013, p. 241).

What are the plans? What is going on currently? How much of the earth’s living systems have already been destroyed irreversibly? How is the process of destruction going on already? What means that nature has a time lag of 40-60 years to respond to our manipulations? Does it mean that nothing is going to stop what is only starting to happen now? What actually do we not know about ongoing experiments? (Bertell 2013, p. 305)

We can anticipate: a boomerang effect, a nemesis – a counter reaction – of nature, synergies/tipping points as well as unpredictable “side effects” that will need to be taken into consideration (Bertell 2013, p. 256). “How do I repair a system without understanding it?” This is a question, which geo-engineers pose to themselves with regard to the climate. What they omit in the process is the fact that they are referring to a “system” that has essentially been under attack precisely by them, and that, too, before they had an understanding of it themselves!

The phenomenon of “kyndiagnosia”, the incapacity to recognize danger, is omnipresent in science, politics, economy, ecology, society, and particularly in the military. All the time over society has allowed these institutions to put life at risk – the life of people, nature and now even the planet – for their destructive actions and experiments. Never have the principles of war crimes, defined by the Nürnberg Tribunal after World War II, been applied to them (Bertell 2013, p. 474).

The need for more of a theoretical explanation

Since the whole undertaking causes harm to everyone, it becomes unbelievable and seemingly irrational. An explanation is necessary. Who of us regular human beings could possibly understand this deliberate promotion of insanity?

Rosalie Bertell is explaining the multiple facts she has gathered about the military as an institution that exists for ongoing and planned wars. As it seems clear, therefore, that the military is specialized in destruction and systems of destruction of always new kind, there appears to be no necessity for a more thorough explanation. This necessity, however, exists, because the military technologies stem from the natural sciences, the civil as well as the military ones.

Bertell as a scientist herself, though, has not developed a critique of the sciences as such, which means of modern science. The analysis of the origins and the development of modern science, nevertheless, shows that the military is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath its water surface, there is the mountain of a science that has been invented in modern times. It started with planning subjecting nature in all its forms, including women as “nature”, destroying and controlling them and nature alike by means of the “scientific experiment”. The respective technologies were first developed in the dungeons of the “Holy Inquisition” (Merchant 1982). These new sciences were not only motivated by a “patriarchal” society that was interested in new forms of subjecting women, but also in working with and for the military from their very beginning (Wagner 1970).  Today they are now ending up with trying to control Mother Nature, too, as Earth herself, like a sort of “mega witch”, destroying her, the planet, as we now know.

So, things have remained the same until today, the only, but important difference being that the dimensions and the dangers which have multiplied since, as well as the overall connection between the civil and the military sciences seems to be outside of the general knowledge and consciousness. When looking at the destruction of nature and life that takes place everywhere and can surely not be denied any more, occurring even without any direct war, we then can realize what it means that the sciences are related to the military even where they declare to be “civil” and “peaceful”. This way the whole of the scientific undertaking in reality is a war against life, the military being only its peak. This is exactly what we now are experiencing full size.

So, we now have to answer the question why and how this has happened and is even promoted by the Society, using all possible means, as we have seen.

From the point of view of my approach of the “critical theory of patriarchy”, the military has invented something like a “military alchemy”, an expression that Rosalie Bertell liked very much when she knew about it. (She even wanted a new edition of her book be entitled this way). It means that the patriarchal, women and nature hating – dimension of modern civilization (Werlhof 2016b) goes back to antiquity, where the science and technique of a patriarchal “alchemy” were developed. Their aim at that time already was to start to take control over women, mothers and Mother Nature in order to transform them into a supposedly higher and better life and matter, namely a motherless life and artificial gold (Schütt 2000; Werlhof 2011). They failed in doing so and did not succeed. With the invention of modern science and technology, nevertheless, the modern “alchemists” started with the same project again, being much more successful than at any time before in history. The results can be admired today: the machine, the commodity, money and “capital” in general being the alchemical wonders of modernity which are thought to replace life, nature and “matter” by something more civilized, more developed and more divine!

From nuclear, genetic and nanotechnology to geoengineering, from micro- to macro-life, this has been the path of modern alchemy, the military alchemy of geoengineering being its last invention, as I see it (Werlhof 2011, 2014, 2015).

The “Anthropocene“ (Crutzen 2002) is the result, the earth-era of mankind, to truly be God! This is “proved”:

• by transforming – “hacking” – the planet into a manageable instrument, as if this would be desirable and possible without damaging it;
• by reversing the vibrant planet into a “better” one, a predictable giant machine, a Mega-Machine, and a war-machine!
• by means of intended ultimate control over all of life’s processes, the ones of the planet as a whole included;
• and, finally, through a „taming“ of Mother Earth as a sort of dangerous and life threatening „mega witch“! (“Dr. Strangelove” in Hamilton 2013, p. 498ff)

There are people at work who are not kidding at all, but risk the last and greatest matricide, that of the earth herself. These people are “allowed” to do so! The necessity to demand an end to such a dangerous undertaking and hubris has not been acknowledged, and such undertaking has not been forbidden! It is obviously believed that all this is a desirable “progress” and “development” and really worth striving for. So, as an endeavor it takes on a truly religious dimension. We can see this way, how historically old this kind of “wishful thinking” and hubris is already. A failure seems inconceivable for the perpetrators, and such a thing does not even exist in their minds.

This development has endured for 500 years – rooted in a 5000 years old belligerent-religious-ideological beginning. It comes to a climax and to an end now: We are talking about “patriarchal” thinking and the development of a global “alchemical system” based on the utopian project of the destruction and technical substitution of a motherly nature, a process that appears to have become the “collective unconscious” of today’s civilization. (Werlhof 2010, 2014a, 2015, 2016b; Projektgruppe 2011).

Bertell says about the dangers and the secrecy around military activities:

 “Until now, nobody has clearly considered the potential consequences, described them, or admitted to them.“ (Bertell 2013, p.473).

What we will hear in the end might be no different from what the nuclear industry, which in fact remains uninsured against failure, has to say, namely that they assumed that the “worst case” scenario would never actually take place.

Bertell was still somehow optimistic in the year 2000. She was confident in grass roots movements throughout the world and their ability to join forces with international organizations like the UN in order to disempower the military, even abolish war (Bertell 2013, p. 376), and to find a path towards a peaceful and friendly future shaped by respect towards the earth and the maintenance of “ecological safety”.

Today, 16 years later, the ongoing crisis points towards a completely different development, if not to a new world war (Chossudovsky 2012 and 2015) which seem to have begun already. The public, most of civil science, social movements and most politicians, though, have not yet understood how the new weaponry of weather wars, plasma weapons and geoengineering is functioning. They lack any understanding why it should be possible to produce earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, droughts, floods, changing ocean currents, tsunamis, influencing the weather of whole regions, heat and cold, freak conditions beyond the seasons or the climate zones – all mentioned in the UN ENMOD Convention in 1977 already.

The reason is that these effects are mainly due to “Tesla technologies”, based on the manipulation of the electromagnetic potential of the earth. The physicist and inventor Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) has never been publicly recognized by the civil sciences, even if without him there would be no alternating current, no electronic device, and no wireless communication. Tesla´s idea of treating the phenomena of life via its “waves” instead of via its “particles”, taking influence on its movements instead of on solid matter, as was usual in modern science, led to inventions of a character and magnitude that could neither have been produced, nor explained by “normal” physics. Tesla´s inventions (Tesla 1919) were secretly taken over by the military in the East, and the West at the end of World War II, and were never discussed in public. Less was it recognized how Tesla´s inventions were related to Quantum physics, another part of the new physics of the last century, leading to even more terrible weapons, as explained by Bearden, a disciple of Tesla, and Bertell (Bearden 1986; Bertell 2013, pp. 237, 239, 243, 251, 454, 468ff).

“Unfortunately”, says Bertell, “waiting for these weapons to be employed in order to then be able to better understand them will mean the end of our civilization and our life. Our research must be ahead of the threats instead of limping behind. Chemtrails are the attempt of biological and chemical warfare. What they are dumping on us now might only be a pre-taste of what is actually planned”. (Bertell, email 27.1.2011)

 What about the legal situation?

“No laws exist that prohibit the tampering with the earth’s climate” (Hamilton in Bertell 2913, p. 502).

Bertell’s stance on this issue: if the military is tampering with our air, our water, the ground and the forces of our earth, or doing anything that questions our living conditions, let alone has the potential to destroy them, then that simply must not happen! First and foremost this needs to be discussed publicly…Beyond all secrecy we must have a right to that!

Environmental advocate Dominik Storr:

“The fact that geophysical warfare against mother earth has no legal repercussions is, however, also a symptom of complete political failure. Politically it has not been possible to generate any binding legal norms concerning limitations, let alone a ban on climate and weather moderating measures.” (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 528).

For, these remain concealed, and are regarded as inexistent, though the laws concerning human rights in general are sufficient to ban climate and geoengineering, once investigated and proved their necessarily detrimental effects on the health of people as well as of the environment as such. The UN-ENMOD Convention is prohibiting the hostile use of techniques that are altering the environment.  This Convention can, therefore, not been taken for legal activities as far as a “scientific and peaceful” use of these techniques is propagated, as civil geoengineering is proposing it. So, the military use of it has to be kept secret (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 526, 530ff, 534ff).

None of the UN-Conferences has brought to the table a discussion about the military behavior, so Bertell, even though the UN has been well aware of the existence of weather modification for wars since 36 years, and has actually banned this, the topic was not even raised at the conference in Copenhagen 2009, at which climate was the central topic. Nor has this been the case in the COP21 UN-Conference in the same issue in Paris in 2015.

Instead, however, the UN enforced a global Moratorium against geo engineering in Nagoya 2010, prohibiting individual, therefore private action. Who cares? At the Stock Exchange, you can gain money with “weather derivates”.

What can we do?

It is our objective to rouse the public, the media, movements, science, politics, the EU, and above all, the people, especially the youth.

The official theories about global warming and the alleged reasons for it, namely the civil output of CO2 gases, as recently maintained again at the last UN Climate Conference COP21 in Paris (2015), have to be dismantled (Bertell 2013, pp. 300ff). The IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as the main official institution propagating the theory about the importance of CO2, is based on mere computer simulation and has no real proves to offer (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 533). Most scientists even have severe doubts about the CO2 thesis (Weiss 2016; Wigington 2016). The results of independent scientists like Marvin Herndon are not published (a.a.O.). Investigations like those of activist Dane Wigington are not valued (Wigington 2016), even if he is quoting official sources like a recent speech of CIA-Director Brennan on geo-engineering and some of its methods. Civil geo-engineers, on the other hand, are denying the actual use of these methods, pretending that they are only on the table of discussion for an eventual future use (Fraile 2015, Weiss 2014, 2016). This way they avoid any legal problem, any problem with civil society and any proximity to the military. For, if climate change is the result of the application of military geo-engineering, there is no way to propagate it against climate change!

COP 21: Heads of delegations (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Rosalie Bertell is an eye-opener! She leads us into 7 decades of manipulation and destruction of the earth´s systems, and shows how complicated the reality has become in the meantime, as synergetic effects may have been influential on the one hand, whereas the results of scientific research about them are lacking in public on the other hand.

She shows us that and why a new dimension never considered until now has to be recognized – the planetary one. At the same time, she demonstrates that this planet is a gigantic, but friendly and beautiful cosmic being that wants to maintain the abundance of life it has created over billions of years – us included! Rosalie Bertell is able to see the new dimensions of incredible dangers that are threatening us, to analyze them soberly, and to call for our love for Mother Earth as a mental and spiritual way to move on at the same time. It is an invitation to not give up, not to hide, and not to go into despair, but to start to open up, to join, to get organized and to stand up for this Earth as it is the only one we have. I call it her “planetary consciousness” (Werlhof 2014b), a consciousness for this wonderful planet that has to be loved and protected by us. What else?

Rosalie has called herself an ecofeminist. Isn´t her consciousness and love of Mother Earth exactly what ecofeminism needs today in order to be at the level of a reality that has entered a new dimension, one that has never existed on earth before? The key is, therefore, to wake up to this planetary consciousness before and not after an electromagnetic geophysical war. A new movement will be needed to get to it and a broader theory to understand it.

Bertell’s book is a global warning for all of us.

Claudia von Werlhof is Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

This article was originally published by PBME. 

You can read the French version here.

Sources

Altnickel, Werner: Kerner und Greenpeace: Über Chemtrails, Massenmord und HAARProben. Ein Interview mit Chemtrail-Kritiker Werner Altnickel, in Kopp Nachrichten, 18.11. 2011

Bearden, Thomas E.: Fer de Lance. Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons, Santa Barbara, Cheniere Press 1986/2002

Bearden, Thomas E.: Skalar Technologie, Peiting, Michaelsverlag 2012 (engl. Gravitobiology)

Begich, Nick und Manning, Jeanne: Löcher im Himmel, Peiting 1996 / Angels Don´t Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla-Technology, Earthpulse Press

Bertell, Rosalie: No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, London/Toronto, The Women´s Press, 1985

Bertell, Rosalie: Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War, London, The Women´s Press 2000

Bertell, Rosalie: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, J.K. Fischer Verlag, Gelnhausen 2011/ 2nd ed. Birstein 2013/ 3. ed. 2016

Bertell, Rosalie: Interview: Are we the Last Generations? Radioactivity as progressive extinction of life, in: 8^th Information-Letter, 2013b, www.pbme-online.org

Bertell, Rosalie: Interview: Planet Without A Future? New Weapons through the Destruction of Mother Earth 2010, in: 9^th Information-Letter, 2014, www.pbme-online.org

Carson, Rachel: Silent Spring, Mifflin, Boston/New York 1962

Chossudovsky, Michel: Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, Ottawa 2012

Chossudovsky, Michel: The Globalization of War. America´s “Long War” against Humanity, Global Research, Ottawa 2015

Crutzen, Paul, J.: Geology of mankind, in: Nature 415, 23; 2002

Dahl, Jürgen: Die Verwegenheit der Ahnungslosen. Über Gentechnik, Chemie und andere Schwarze Löcher des Fortschritts, Stuttgart, 2. ed. 1994, Klett-Cotta

ETC Group: The Big Downturn? Nanogeopolitics, 2010 www.etcgroup.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=129&qid=S7135

Fraile, Josefina: Climate Engineers in Berlin. Coup d´Etat against global democracy – Summarized report of a critical environmental activist, in: 11^th Info Letter, July 2015, www.pbme-online.org

Günther, Siegwart-Horst: Uran-Geschosse: Schwergeschädigte Soldaten, mißgebildete Neugeborene, sterbende Kinder. Ahriman, Freiburg (Breisgau) 2000, 2. ed.

Hamilton, Clive: die Rückkehr des Dr. Strangelove – Die Politik der Klimamanipulation als Antwort auf die globale Erwärmung, in: Bertelll 2013, pp. 485-507

Information-Letters of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth“, www.pbme-online.org

Lengfelder, Edmund: Kaku, Michio in Bob Nichols: Fukushima: How Many Chernobyls Is It? 8.7.2011 (in: 4. Info-Letter PMME, Okt. 2011)

MacDonald, Gordon: How to Wreck the Environment, in: Nigel Calder: Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, London, Pelican 1968, pp. 119-213 (see also https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/unless-peace-comes/, 6.4.2012) http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2012/01/12/climate-control-is-coming/?utm_source= feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernMechanix+%28Modern+Mechanix%29

Merchant, Carolyn: The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, Sn Francisco, Harper & Row 1982

Moret, Leuren: Erdbeben in Japan und Atomunfälle sind Folgen eines tektonischen Nuklearkrieges, www.politaia.org/kriege/bekannte-Geowissenschaftlerin…, 23.3.2011a

Moret, Leuren: Der tektonische Nuklearkrieg wird von den weltweiten HAARP-Partnern beobachtet, www.politaia.org/kriege/leuren-moret…, 27.5.2011b

Moret, Leuren: Mega-Tsunami, totale Kernschmelze und Strahlenkrankheiten, www.politaia.org/israel/leuren-moret-am-14-06-2011, 19.6.2011c

Moret, Leuren: Japan, U.S., Kanada vertuschen Fukushima-Strahlungsdesaster, www.politaia.org/sonstige-nachrichten/leuren-moret…, 21.8.2011d

Morpheus: Transformation der Erde. <interkosmische Einflüsse auf das Bewusstsein, Berlin/München 2010, 2. Aufl., Trinity Verlag i. d. Scorpio Verlag GmbH & Co. KG

MUOS: U.S. Navy Launches 4th MUPÒS Telecom Satellite, in: Spacenews, 3 September 2015

Newsweek (condensed from Newsweek) Climate Control is Coming.

April 1958 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2012/01/12/climate-control-is-coming/ ?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernMechanix+%28Modern+Mechanix%29.

Phillips, Jeff: Geo-Terrorism: The Weaponization of ´Industrial Accidents´, Natural Disasters´ and ´Environmental Engineering´, 4, 2011 (cf. www.pbme-online.org)

Ponte, Lowell: The Cooling. Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it? Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1976

Projektgruppe „Zivilisationspolitik“(Hrsg.): Kann es eine ´neue Erde´ geben? Zur Kritischen Patriarchtstheorie und der Praxis einer postpatriarchalen Zivilisation, Reihe „Beiträge zur Dissidenz“ Nr. 27, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Verlag 2011

Schütt, Werner: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, München, CH. Beck 2000

Smith, Jerry E.: Weather Warfare – the Military´s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, 2006

Storr, Dominik: Eine juristische Betrachtung von Rechtsanwalt Domini Storr, in: Bertell 2013, pp.525-546

Tesla, Nikola: My Inventions V – the Magnifying Transmitter, in: Electrical Experimenter, June 1919, pp.112f, 148, 173, 176 ff.

The Guardian, 4.4.2012: At war over geoengineering, London

UN: Environmental Modification Convention – Convention on the Prohibition of Military and any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Geneva, 18. May 1977, Web.

U.S. Air Force. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” A Research Paper by Col Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J. Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer and Maj James E. Pug, 1996

Wagner, Friedrich: Weg und Abweg der Naturwissenschaft, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta 1970

Weiss, Mathias: Capturing the atmosphere of the CEC 2014 – Climate Engineering Conference, in 10^th Info-Letter, Sept. 2014, www.pbme-online.org

Weiss, Mathias: Zur Geschichte des Geo-Engineering, „Postscript“ in Bertell: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 2016, 3rd. ed, forthcoming

Werlhof, Claudia von: West-End. Das Scheitern der Moderne als „kapitalistisches Patriarchat“ und die Logik der Alternativen, Köln, PapyRossa 2010

Werlhof, Claudia von: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a “Deep” Alternative. On “Critical Theory of Patriarchy” as a New Paradigm, Frankfurt a. M./New York, Peter Lang 2011

Werlhof, Claudia von: Mit Bertell gegen Geoengineering: Debatte im Europaparlament 2013, in: Bertell 2013, pp. 33-41

Werlhof, Claudia von: Nell´Età del Boomerang. Contributi alla teoria critica del patriarcato, Milano, Unicopli 2014a

Werlhof, Claudia von: „Planetary Consciousness“ – What is that?, in: Return to Mago, USA July 2014/August 2014, in: Magoism, The Way of S/HE, http://magoism.net/2014/07/10/meet-mago-contributor-claudia-von-werlhof/, 14/15 July and 4/5 August 2014b

Werlhof, Claudia von: Madre Tierra o Muerte! Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca, El Rebozo 2015

Werlhof, Claudia von: La destrucción de la Madre Tierra como último y máximo crimen de la civilización patriarcal, México, Noviembre 2015, in: DEP, Venedig, Nr. 30, Februar 2016a, pp. 259-281

Werlhof, Claudia von: The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us. On: Global Research, 16 August 2016b
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hatred-of-life-the-world-system-which-is-threatening-all-of-us/5541269

Werlhof, Claudia von: Geoengineering and Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, in: CWS – Canadian Womens´ Studies Journal, Toronto 2016c, forthcoming

Wigington, Dane, 2016 http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/scientists-surveyed-unanimously-refuse-to-deny-climate-engineering-reality/

Wood, Judy: Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, 2010 (Web)

www.pbme-online.org

www.sauberer-himmel.de

Assistant Professor of History at Georgetown University Abdullah Al-Arian has written an epic tweetstorm showing that the “paper of record” has long pretended that the leaders of our close “friends” (cough … radical head-choppers) the Saudis are on the verge of becoming “moderate”:

.

This piece from 1953 describes King Saud as “more progressive and international-minded than his autocratic father” pic.twitter.com/U8ZFLNX0Ko

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

This piece from 1957 doesn’t refer to Saudi Arabia specifically but it’s an epic headline nevertheless. pic.twitter.com/Gj6NB1DRtq

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1960: “King Saud has increasingly assumed the role of liberal champion of constitutional reform.” (The Saudi constitution was adopted by royal decree in 1992). pic.twitter.com/3kwGcgnpDd

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1962: “The Oil Genie and the Sheikh” offers a tour of Gulf palaces that marvels at their “gilded furniture of impressive ugliness.” pic.twitter.com/EcFqhUpayE

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

The rest of the article (not included here) provides descriptions from several other Gulf states. Here is part of the photo spread from Oman and Bahrain with the caption “‘heaven on earth”—air conditioned palaces, Cadillacs, girls” pic.twitter.com/j6p7LiMmZt

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 25, 2017

During the so-called “Arab Cold War” Saudi royals were supported as a bulwark against Nasserism. This 1963 piece celebrates Crown Prince Faisal’s “burst of social reform and economic development.” pic.twitter.com/OR6g73Zveh

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

“With his older brother no longer looking over his shoulder…” pic.twitter.com/8KlT0vPYiP

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1964: “He is a man who has gained nearly absolute power without really wanting it.” pic.twitter.com/QYzWOKyzpE

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Here Faisal is described as “ascetic, with only one wife, who lives on grilled meat and boiled vegetables and makes a fetish of moderation.” pic.twitter.com/SSQV0s822i

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

This 1975 obituary: “Faisal, Rich and Powerful, Led Saudis Into 20th Century“ pic.twitter.com/2YZm2O3M3A

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Faisal’s successor, King Khalid, was a “moderating force” pic.twitter.com/MxmpR9vaAe

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

A couple of more headlines from 1975, including one on “planting the seeds of a parliamentary system in the kingdom.” pic.twitter.com/TlwWu1vLYv

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

An epic lede here from 1979: “His black Trans-Am sports car creeps along the Corniche Road on the edge of the Red Sea. To the left, skyscrapers jab into the humid air, a sight made more impressive by the desolation surrounding the ancient city of Jidda.” ? pic.twitter.com/0ljqekE2YN

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1982: “King Fahd has been depicted as the leading figure in a progressive, modernizing faction within the tradition-minded monarchy.” pic.twitter.com/lPPFWrW0QA

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1991-92: “major political changes,” “modernizers,” “governmental reform,” “and other political reforms” pic.twitter.com/0gRSPLSkjm

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1992: “In making the changes, King Fahd is following previous generations of Saudi rulers who had also moved toward modernization since King Abdelaziz united a vast territory populated by feuding tribal leaders into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 60 years ago.” pic.twitter.com/3NXCn6oo54

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

1996: Friedman makes his first appearance, describing King Fahd as a “bulldozer” in tackling political problems on behalf of his US ally. pic.twitter.com/DoYcoyVxrE

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

2000: “Saudi Heir Urges Reform, and Turn From US” pic.twitter.com/9iFEJ963MH

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

2002: Friedman opines about the “2 futures” for Saudi Arabia, concluding “Which school would I bet on? Ask me in five years.” pic.twitter.com/msVsLawvKl

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Luckily, we wouldn’t have to wait that long. On eve of Iraq invasion Friedman makes the case that war “could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world” pic.twitter.com/ML6IfkE4uo

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

2005: “For Abdullah, who has fashioned himself as a reformer in a land where conforming to tradition is a virtue, the challenge now is to make good on longstanding promises for change.” pic.twitter.com/NlZWDWRphp

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

? pic.twitter.com/6f9Vtz6j5a

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

“Saudi King Tries to Grow Modern Ideas in Desert” ? pic.twitter.com/hEsHoH3jMp

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

2009: A cabinet reshuffle can sometimes be reform. pic.twitter.com/nOO7DCUARY

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

This editorial welcomes the reshuffle. pic.twitter.com/Z6Z0eUYlDx

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

“More generally, the reform agenda has drawn momentum from King Abdullah’s personal popularity…” pic.twitter.com/Q0LrjTUPtm

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

“Yet by the Saudi’s premodern standards, the 85 year-old King Abdullah, with a harem of wives, is a social revolutionary.” pic.twitter.com/zQ2tAj1p9L

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Saudi society is divided, but the monarch’s sympathies lie with the reformers. pic.twitter.com/x1siP4RnL6

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

From 2012: “King Faisal, in a rush to modernize his realm, created Saudi state television in the 1960s, and that bold step is widely believed to have led to his assassination” pic.twitter.com/ZZgrTLXi1y

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Twitter gets a shout! pic.twitter.com/lfoH8gkZaS

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Reporting from the front lines of the Arab uprisings in Dubai, Friedman calls Saudi King Abdullah “a real progressive” pic.twitter.com/Qf6bWuJUv6

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

King Abdullah’s 2015 obituary describes him as “…a cautious reformer amid great changes in the Middle East.” pic.twitter.com/urrdKRvkbk

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

Saudi Arabia’s economic revolution offers “tantalizing hints at even broader reforms.” ? pic.twitter.com/lJEKbhrHcD

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

From earlier this month, this Friedman piece includes such gems as “he is much more McKinsey than Wahhabi — much more a numbers cruncher than a Quran thumper.” pic.twitter.com/g6pkppqmQi

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

And finally, the one that inspired it all, a hagiographic ode to royal reform that represents seven decades of strategic policy objectives barely concealed beneath recycled cultural tropes. pic.twitter.com/DQHeftCxnz

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

L’aeroporto militare di Ghedi (Brescia) si prepara a divenire una delle principali basi operative dei caccia F-35.

Il ministero della Difesa ha pubblicato sulla Gazzetta ufficiale il bando di progettazione (importo 2,5 milioni di euro) e costruzione (importo 60,7 milioni di euro) delle nuove infrastrutture per gli F-35: l’edificio a tre piani del comando con le sale operative e i simulatori di volo; l’hangar per la manutenzione dei caccia, 3460 metri quadri con un carroponte da 5 tonnellate, più altre strutture da 2800 m²; un magazzino da 1100 m², con annessi una palazzina di due piani per uffici e la centrale energetica con cabina elettrica e vasche antincendio; 15 hangaretti da 440 m² in cui saranno dislocati i caccia pronti al decollo.

Poiché ciascun hangaretto ne potrà ospitare due, la capienza complessiva sarà di 30 F-35.

Tutti gli edifici saranno concentrati in un’unica area recintata e videosorvegliata, separata dal resto dell’aeroporto: una base all’interno della base, il cui accesso sarà vietato allo stesso personale militare dell’aeroporto salvo che agli addetti ai nuovi caccia.

Il perché è chiaro: insieme agli F-35A a decollo e atterraggio convenzionali – di cui l’Italia acquista 60 esemplari insieme a 30 F-35B a decollo corto e atterraggio verticale – saranno dislocate a Ghedi le nuove bombe nucleari statunitensi B61-12.

Come le attuali B-61, possomo essere anch’esse sganciate dai Tornado PA-200 del 6° Stormo ma, per guidarle con precisione sull’obiettivo e sfruttarne le capacità anti-bunker, occorrono i caccia F-35A dotati di speciali sistemi digitali.

Poiché ciascun caccia può trasportare nella stiva interna 2 bombe nucleari, possono essere dislocate a Ghedi 60 B61-12, il triplo delle attuali B-61.

Come le precedenti, le B61-12 saranno controllate dalla speciale unità statunitense (704^th Munitions Support Squadron della U.S. Air Force), «responsabile del ricevimento, stoccaggio e mantenimento delle armi della riserva bellica Usa destinate al 6° Stormo Nato dell’Aeronautica italiana».

La stessa unità dell’Aeronautica Usa ha il compito di «sostenere direttamente la missione di attacco» del 6° Stormo. Piloti italiani vengono già addestrati, nelle basi aeree di Eglin in Florida e Luke in Arizona, all’uso degli F-35 anche per missioni di attacco nucleare.

Caccia dello stesso tipo, armati o comunque armabili con le B61-12, saranno schierati nella base di Amendola (Foggia), dove un anno fa è arrivato il primo F-35, e in altre basi. Vi saranno, oltre a questi, gli F-35 della U.S. Air Force schierati ad Aviano con le B61-12.

Su questo sfondo richiedere, come ha fatto alla Camera il Movimento 5 Stelle, che l’Italia dichiari la sua «indisponibilità ad acquisire le componenti necessarie per rendere gli F-35 idonei al trasporto di armi nucleari», equivale a richiedere che l’esercito sia dotato di carrarmati senza cannone.

Il nuovo caccia F-35 e la nuova bomba nucleare B61-12 costituiscono un sistema d’arma integrato.

La partecipazione al programma dell’F-35 rafforza l’ancoraggio dell’Italia agli Stati uniti. L’industria bellica italiana, capeggiata dalla Leonardo che gestisce l’impianto di assemblaggio degli F-35 a Cameri (Novara), viene ancor più integrata nel gigantesco complesso militare-industriale Usa capeggiato dalla Lockheed Martin, la maggiore industria bellica del mondo (con 16000 fornitori negli USA e 1500 in 65 altri paesi), costruttrice dell’F-35.

Lo schieramento sul nostro territorio di F-35 armati di bombe nucleari B61-12 subordina ancor più l’Italia alla catena di comando del Pentagono, privando il Parlamento di qualsiasi reale potere decisionale.

Manlio Dinucci