Global Research

Did Trump cheat us all with his campaign promises and his succinct ‘to the point’ Inaugural Address? Or did he just deceive some of us, some of the time, and the rest will be taken care of by a more or less sophisticated trickery? – A gambit, one of which is Iran?

After all, we know how he has been elected. Among the ruses used was a distinct scheme of mind manipulation, targeting specific voter groups in swing states, just as many as necessary to swing the state in his favor. This allowed him to capture a large majority of electoral votes, making him the winner, but running almost 3 million popular votes behind Hillary (“Mind Manipulations” to Influence Election Results –

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mind-manipulations-to-influence-election-results/5566894).

By no means is this a plea for Hillary. With her in the White House we might already be in WWIII, I mean the nuclear version of it. But it shows that the choice Americans were given was rigged from the very beginning, as it usually is. It was either ‘business as usual’ or ‘business as usual – plus’. I don’t dare guessing what we have now. But for sure it ain’t going to be peace for America and the rest of the world anytime soon. Not by a long shot. Not even near the prospects Trump put out when he said he would like to make peace with Russia, have Russia as a partner, rather than an enemy, and he would put an end to interventions in foreign countries. He specifically pointed to Syria, where he would not insist on a ‘regime change’, but rather fight efficiently and in collaboration with Mr. Putin, Islamic terrorism, i.e. ISIS, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and whatever other names they give themselves.

The picture today looks quite different. Although, Mr. Trump said from the very beginning he didn’t like Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran, and that he would like to rip it up. But why would he want to do this? First, he assured his electorate no more interfering in foreign countries – which for many Americans was the reason for voting Trump; and second, he knows that this deal is not just an “Obama Deal”.

It is called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, France, Russia, UK, US plus Germany (5+1) and the European Union. It’s not so easy to undo. – Why did he say it? – Perhaps because he wanted the ultra-conservative neocon Jewish vote? –  And even more so, express his alliance with superstar Zionist Netanyahu?

During the campaign, when the controversies of Trump’s pleas and promises were so confusing, contradictory and chaotic, people laughed and didn’t take him seriously. The point is – nobody connected the dots. The departure dot increasingly looks like Netanyahu and his Zionist network, its extended arm in the US Homeland, AIPAC. The Zionist goal is Israel’s dominion over the Middle East from the Euphrates to the Nile. Trump amplified this commitment by his repeated statements that America will always defend and support her chief ally, Israel – Israel Über Alles – which sounded more like ‘Israel First’. America First is but a ruse to please the masses, utterly deceived by Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’.

Then Trump appointed Steve Bannon as his personal advisor and White House Chief Strategist. Mr. Bannon is a neoliberal Zionist, the extended brain (sic) of Netanyahu, so to speak. Bannon was a Goldman Sachs banker (go figure!) and the chief editor of the ultra-conservative “Breitbart News”.

And Why did he sell out to Israel – even more so than his predecessors? – Perhaps because he is a businessman who knows where the money is and who manages it – from the FED, to Wall Street, to the Basle-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the Central Bank of all Central Banks –  those who manipulate the western monetary system and its banksters – and everything in between.

Peace with Russia, is it still a priority?

The Deep State handlers of the Pentagon and its multitrillion-dollar military-security complex do not want peace with Russia. They want and need war for their milk-cow USA to survive.

Trump knows that. In the meantime, he has already watered down his peace pledge with Russia. He still says he prefers a good relation with Putin than a bad one, but says also he doesn’t know whether he will get along with Putin; Putin was not a friend. Despite the many links Trump has to Russia, he makes sure the Putin haters understand that there is not going to be an alliance of roses with Russia. Though he did come forward in a half-hearted defense of Putin, when he replied to Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, slandering Putin as a murderer, ‘We [the US] have many murderers. Do you think we are so innocent?’

Trump wants to keep the door to Putin open. Remember, one of Washington’s brandmarks is always dancing on several weddings.

Let’s see how this works. The next dot is Iran – like in Iran-bashing to justify a war and to please the war industry. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis proclaimed without any evidence – or rather all evidence to the contrary –  that “Iran is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism”. State sponsored terrorism is a red flag for fear- and war-mongering, a propaganda tool not to be missed by the MSM.

Trumps National Security Advisor Michael Flynn uttered similar lies on several occasions. Trump himself said that Iran is the number One terrorist state. Pentagon voices indicate that the White House is also considering listing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Iran’s main defense entity – as a terrorist organization. If this happens, any move of the IRGC may become a false flag, potentially justifying an all-out aggression on Iran.

The presstitute will invariably pick-up on these ‘false news’ and repeat them at nauseatum, so the public at large in America and the rest of the western world is indoctrinated and mentally prepared for an attack on Iran. A false flag could even trigger a nuclear attack, thus helping Israel to get a step closer to regional hegemony, and Washington to world hegemony. That’s their pipedream.

Not so fast. There is the solid alliance of the axis Russia – China – Iran. Iran is the most important partner of Russia and Syria in fighting Islamic terrorism, made in USA. Iran is also in the long run the stabilizing factor in the Middle East. For the Washington hegemon, the Middle East is not to become a stable region. All to the contrary, it must be chaotic in order to be controlled.  Russia and China would most likely not stand by idly, if Iran was to be attacked. This might be the moment of a direct confrontation between US / NATO forces with Russia and possibly also with China.

With false accusations of China’s aggressive behavior against Japan’s, Vietnam’s and the (alleged) Philippines territorial claims in the South China Sea, China is already framed for an attack. Remember, Washington needs a big war to sustain its sick and faltering economy. WWIII, nuclear or not, triggered in the Middle East might expand north rapidly to engulf Europe in a devastating conflict, the third time in hundred years.

This is exacerbated by a rapid and massive US military build-up. President Trump called on the Pentagon to expand US military power, step up violence in Syria, and to prepare the nuclear arsenal for war with “near-peer competitors”—a reference to nuclear-armed China and Russia—and “regional challengers,” such as Iran. This despite his earlier promises for a future non-intervention policy in foreign lands.

In addition, on the northern fronts NATO’s ongoing and steadily advancing troop and armor movements along the Russian borders, are encircling Moscow like a closing noose.

Trump has asked Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, to come up within 30 days with a plan of a significantly expanded military strike force, including the renewal of the US nuclear arsenal – to be a full-fledged strike force by 2022. The cost is not clear, but roughly estimated at about US$ 100 billion per year, in addition to the current about US$ 600 billion official budget. This would be in line with Obama’s plan of renewing the nuclear arsenal at a cost of about 1 trillion in ten years. No doubt, the true cost of the US military-security spending with all the associated industries and services is already today in the trillions.

Wars continue to be in the air over the coming years of the Trump Administration. In fact, looking back over the last 16 years – in 2000 Bush was the right man for the Deep State, those who pull the strings, to start the mess in the Middle East by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; all under false pretenses, as we know in the meantime. But, by the time the public found out, it was too late.

Then followed Obama, the smooth spoken, intelligent African American (by his looks only), who would bring change, as in “Yes, We Can”, convincing hundreds of millions around the world of a new era of peace. In anticipation of his peacemaking, he was bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize, before he even moved a finger towards peace. Following orders from above, disregarding the Nobel Committee, he stepped up the two wars left behind by George Bush and started new wars to end his Presidency on 20 January 2017with seven active wars at his credit – and millions of people killed; tens of thousands by his personal drone-killing approvals.

Follows Donald Trump, a businessman through and through, who promised peace and harmonious relations with Russia, non-intervention in foreign countries – and to bring back jobs to “Make America Great Again”. A new slogan, a new public deception, a new approach by a new king without clothes. Thus, has chosen the “Deep State”, or at least part of the Deep State. While Trump is seeking world dominion through his allies, the FED and Wall street banksters, he seems not to neglect the weapons industry – by preparing for an arms race that could go ballistic – and nuclear – anytime.

An attack on Iran could well be carried out by Israel, backed by Washington. Under the arrangement between Washington and Israel, an Iranian retaliation against Israel would be equal to an aggression on the US, hence engaging the Pentagon, leading to a direct confrontation with Russia and possibly China; the beginning of WWIII, being played out initially in the Middle East, then extended northwards, where NATO is ready to attack Russia.

Trump’s aggressive Executive Orders for the Pentagon, the stepped-up hostilities in Yemen and planned in Syria, plus putting Iran in the cross-hairs with unfounded anti-Iran slander propaganda, increases the tension level throughout the world. But would Trump actually trigger an all-destructive WWIII? – One that would put the annihilation of humanity as we know it at stake?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

There are some well known stages that mark the path towards totalitarianism – and one indicator that we are strolling down this dangerous path is the UK government’s Investigatory Powers Act.

One of the principal purposes of the IPA is to records the phone calls, internet browsing records and other data traffic of every person in the country, just in case it comes in useful later.  Namely – to create an internal surveillance system. This was quite rightly judged to be illegal by The Court of Justice of the European Union, although the government is yet to meaningfully respond to the ruling. One can only surmise that our impending exit from the jurisdiction of the CJEU will mean that any protection afforded by the judgement will be short lived, if it ever materialises at all.

Apparently undeterred by this small setback, the government now appears to be considering new, even more oppressive, legislation which would easily fulfil a key requirement on any aspiring dictator’s to do list – that of control of the press.

Proposals for a new ‘Espionage Bill’ are quietly being considered by the UK Law Commission and would replace official Secrets Acts dating back to 1911, but they go much further than that in their scope.

Their recommendations, due to be finalised by April 3rd, are contained in a consultation paper entitled ‘Protection of Official Data’ which pointedly targets those who both communicate and obtain leaked information, classifying them as spies liable to spend up to 14 years in prison. Crucially it also seeks to remove the statutory public interest defence for finding, handling and releasing such information.

Anyone publishing or even re-publishing already leaked material that is “capable of benefiting a foreign power” would be a crime. Of course that definition would be open to a wide interpretation by anyone seeking to hush up something they wanted kept quiet, for example it’s been speculated that this will include any information about the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.

Journalists would be walking a virtual tightrope with little confidence about the implications of revealing any information they had obtained through unofficial channels. This flies in the face of previous guidance and legislation on the fair treatment of whistle blowers, meaning that hackers, journalists, NGOs and even elected politicians could now be treated in the same way as foreign agents, even if the information they reveal is in the public interest.

Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of free expression campaign group Index on Censorship, said:

“The proposed changes are frightening and have no place in a democracy, which relies on having mechanisms to hold the powerful to account. It is unthinkable that whistle blowers and those to whom they reveal their information should face jail for leaking and receiving information that is in the public interest.”

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who also lambasted The Investigatory Powers Act as something that would make most despotic regimes green with envy, said of these new proposals:

“It is alarming that such a far-reaching proposed reform of laws which could be used to jail whistle blowers and journalists should have been drafted without any adequate consultation with free speech organisations.”

Despite claims from the Commission to have “consulted widely”, The National Union of Journalists have said they were told nothing and were never contacted. The Commission themselves have confirmed that most British organisations concerned with human rights and free expression have not been involved. This includes the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Centre for Investigative Reporting, Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, Article 19, Open Democracy, Privacy International, Index On Censorship and the writers group PEN. They did however seek advice from MI5 and MI6 as well as selected media corporations.

Ironically, Parliament itself has often been the source of many a leaked document.  Indeed it’s seemed in recent years that leaks have become the preferred method of announcing government proposals, to test the water and perhaps reduce the shock of unpopular legislation when it’s officially announced. This proposed bill itself is only being discussed now due to what could easily be characterised as a leak. Were this legislation to be in force at the moment I might be treated to a night in the cells, or worse, simply for writing about it.

That threat of jail can only serve to effectively curtail any investigative journalist who values his or her freedom. Investigative journalism by its very nature involves discovering something that someone doesn’t want to be found. The mere act of happening across some information in the course of researching a story, or speaking to a source could see journalists arrested and prosecuted, or at the very least threatened with as much if they don’t keep quiet. Official government stamped announcements will become the only safe sources of news, regardless of its veracity or the agenda of those behind it. Effectively we will have a state controlled press.

It’s clear that we’re seeing both an orchestrated attack on the rights of a free media, along with a more subversive undermining of faith in news reporting across all platforms. In many ways the discussions around so called fake news also plays into this scenario. This isn’t a coincidence and it would not be surprising if similar legislation is drafted in the USA before too long. If Nixon could be brought down by two determined journalists exposing the Watergate scandal, how paranoid is the Trump administration likely to be? Assuming it’s humanly possible to be more paranoid than Trump.

An unfettered and trusted media is part of the bedrock of a free and democratic society, even if both those concepts are at times questionable in themselves. We mustn’t allow shady, oppressive legislation to drive real journalism into the shadows. As we all know, knowledge is power and a free press should keep that power with the people, where it belongs.

Just as, at the dawning of a new geological era, the whole world collapses in a gigantic crack, new mountains rise up while gaping abysses open up, and new plains and seas take shape, so will the present structure of Europe be capsized in an immense cataclysm . . . The only chance for Germany to resist this pressure will be to seize the initiative and take control of the inevitable upheaval from which will come a new dawning of history. – Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks / Voice of Destruction, 1939

 We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it? – Carl Sagan to Charlie Rose, May 27, 1996

The race to control space began in 1945 when Operation Paperclip [1] brought committed Nazi engineers, technicians, and scientists to the United States to engineer their wonders during the Hegelian ruse known to history as the Cold War. One example among the 10,000 Nazis who sought refuge in the U.S. was Arthur Rudolph, former colleague of Wernher von Braun, aerospace engineer and NASA director of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Rudolph had been director of the Mittelwerk underground rocket factory nicknamed “Dante’s Inferno” where 52,000 prisoners turned out 6,000 V-2 rockets. From 1951 to 1961, Rudolph worked for Martin Marietta in Waterton, Colorado; in 1995, Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin. Initially in charge of R&D for the Pershing missile, Rudolph became an American citizen, headed the Saturn project for NASA, and received the Distinguished Service Award. In 1984, he renounced his U.S. citizenship and returned to Germany, having faithfully served the transfer of the Third Reich to the United States.

Thus it was through the military-industrial complex that the Trojan horse of amoral, cryptic Nazism entered the resource-rich United States. In short order, the National Security Act, formation of the CIA, and Cold War followed. Rockets, satellites, computers, MK-ULTRA brain engineering, and exotic propulsion craft thrust the 20^th century into the 21^st century of a new millennium.

The Space Age—Star Trek’s “final frontier”—began with the necessity of dominating airspace, the near space around the Earth, and weather. Military research into weather control was kept quiet throughout the Cold War while dire warnings about a “little ice age,” “greenhouse gases,” “desertification,” then “extreme weather” and “global warming” were released to keep the dollars flowing.

Now, it is the more neutral “climate change” accompanied by showcase international conferences packed with PhDs recommending expensive “solutions” under the rubric of geoengineering, the intentional human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems (Stanford Environmental Law Journal) to make weather into a “force multiplier” [2] for the seven military operations discussed in my previous book Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth: (1) Weather modification, environmental / geophysical modification, (3) electromagnetic manipulation, (4) military full spectrum dominance, (5) biological manipulation, (6) intelligence / surveillance, and (7) detection / obscuration of exotic propulsion technology. [3]

“Climate control”

The Federal Government has been involved for over 30 years in a number of aspects of weather modification, through activities of both the Congress and the executive branch. Since 1947, weather modification bills pertaining to research support, operations, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, establishment of panels and committees, and international concerns have been introduced in the Congress. There have been hearings on many of these proposed measures, and oversight hearings have also been conducted on pertinent ongoing programs. [4]

Infiltration and co-optation, compartmentalization, confidentiality agreements, backroom deals, threats, bribes, skewed research, packed peer review committees, embedded international media—one can only marvel at the legerdemain and deception it takes to steer international conferences, committees, publishing houses, news outlets, and university and elementary school curriculi so as to construct a vast global house of cards built on turning carbons, the building blocks of all of life, into the cause célèbre to explain away the fact that our atmosphere and weather are being modified by the military’s manipulation of the ionosphere. Besides, carbon taxes and emissions trading meant making more money off of the weaponized environment. It is quite the con, given that CO2 is not far above the minimum to sustain plant life [5] and nations should be increasing CO2 instead of being penalized for the CO2 they have. [6]

But then, the emperor wears no clothes. The first congressional report on geoengineering in the U.S. House of Representatives did not appear until October 2010 just before the moratorium against geoengineering issued by the 10^th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Nagoya, Japan was about to appear—a moratorium the U.S. was not planning to ratify. [7] Were the delegates from 193 nations aware that geoengineering had been going on in the U.S. and other NATO nations for well over a decade? Four months after the Nagoya moratorium, a geoengineered earthquake struck Japan.

Since the moratorium, embedded media have ramped up weather confusion in the public mind, blaming cars and industrial pollutants while assiduously ignoring the greatest polluters and propagandists of all: the over-inflated American military and the military-industrial-intelligence complex that runs it. In 2013, the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that solar radiation management (SRM) was already underway: “If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [8]

Greenhouse gas forcing is the least of our worries. What about the rogue military transforming our atmosphere for its own full spectrum dominance agendas?

Now and then, scientists like CERN particle physicist Jasper Kirby [9] and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center heliophysicist Douglas E. Rowland—“There’s different kinds of chemtrails as you probably know” [10]—leak a tantalizing tidbit about what is really going on, but it is tacitly ignored by mainstream media. An Italian senator calls for declassification of chemtrail documents, [11] a Cyprus agriculture and environment minister pledges to look into chemtrails [12]—and then, nothing.

Over and over again, government agencies near the hub of the “climate change” thrust (NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc.) are caught lying, but embedded media roll on. NASA proclaimed July 2012 the hottest month on record and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center agreed: the July 2012 temperature average of 77.6ºF was 3.3ºF above the 20^th century average and 0.2ºF above the previously warmest July of 1936 (during the Dust Bowl years). However, when meteorologist Anthony Watts checked NOAA data, he found that July 1936 had been reinstated as the hottest month on record. “You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote.

“This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately … This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.” [13]

David L. Lewis, PhD, a former microbiologist for the EPA’s Office of Research & Development, wrote in Science For Sale: How the Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits (Skyhorse Publishing, 2014) that EPA leadership consistently “mishandles science.” One incident occurred in 2003, when former Acting Assistant Administrator Henry L. Longest II made midlevel EPA managers read management consultant Margaret Wheatley’s Turning to One Another, urging environmentalists “to abandon Western science in favor of ‘New Science’ … the ‘space of not knowing’ and the ‘abyss.’ While passing through the abyss, new scientists shed their religious beliefs and sexual inhibitions, then turn to one another.” [14] Managerial candidates then had to fill out a confidential questionnaire about their promiscuity, religion, morality, and willingness to keep secrets. (What exactly was the EPA up to in the Bush II years?)

Add murder to propaganda, manipulation of international convocations, requiring sexual histories to forge bonds of secrecy, and blackmailing nations with geoengineered weather threats. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) fought hard for HR2977, the 2001 Space Preservation Act that over the next few years was stalled in committee after committee before its final death. On December 19, 2007, Kucinich’s 52-year-old younger brother was found dead; the following year on November 12, his 48-year-old sister died of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Coincidence, or payback?

On August 9, 2010, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) was investigating HAARP (see image right) at the request of Alaskan bush pilot Theron “Terry” Smith when their aircraft crashed, killing Stevens and Smith but not NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe, who was also onboard. Coupled with the fact that Smith’s son-in-law had been killed just days before in a C-17 crash at Elmendorf Air Force Base, “accident” or “coincidence” seems highly unlikely. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed the crash on the “pilot’s temporary unresponsiveness for reasons that could not be established.” [15]

Strange purges are underway. Canada has dismissed 2,000 scientists and hundreds of programs that monitored smoke stack emissions, food inspections, oil spills, water quality, climate change, etc. while closing seven of the eleven Fisheries and Oceans libraries:

… a document classified as “secret” that was obtained by Postmedia News mentioned “culling of materials” as a main activity in the reduction of libraries … reports have emerged of books being strewn across floors and even piled into dumpsters. [16]

Thus after decades of subterfuge, manipulation, and one extreme weather “experiment” after another in full view of nations whose citizens no longer believed in their own perceptions but instead sought media weather interpretations—as I write, Hurricanes Matthew and tropical storm Nicole are making profits for disaster capitalists along the Florida-Georgia-Carolinas Atlantic coast—came the globalist move to subject nations to the will of the U.S.-controlled United Nations, now that a dependable weather weapon was at last at hand.

A UN power shift

The participation of the U.S. and China is significant, as the two account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement goes into force once 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions officially sign … Parties to the agreement will still have to go through the process of joining the agreement, which for most will require processes of approval in their home countries … [17]

On Earth Day 2016, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate agreement was signed. It had been hammered out over the course of multiple conferences culminating in the COP21 in Paris November 30-December 11, 2015. The 2011 UN Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa had attempted to include an International Tribunal of Climate Justice provision, [18] but by COP21, it had disappeared.

It was all quite the show. Climate mouthpieces were carefully chosen—the IPCC, geoengineers David Keith and Ken Caldeira, prestigious universities, embedded NGOs, government agencies, the World Bank and IMF, and of course the usual Wall Street-London deep pockets. Scriptwriters worked overtime on the fate of the Earth as cameras panned in on lightning flashes, rolling storms, deluges and droughts, crying babies, hospital emergency rooms filled to overflowing … The UN was to be tasked with vast new tax and regulatory powers in the name of keeping global warming below 2°C.

A quieter UN meeting had taken place in New York City two months before COP21: the Sustainable Development Summit concentrating on UN Agenda 2030 (Agenda 21 by a new name) that would coordinate with the carbons scam to turn nationhood into a mere address:

To cheers, applause and probably a tinge of relief, the 17 global goals that will provide the blueprint for the world’s development over the next 15 years were ratified by UN member states in New York on Friday. After speeches from Pope Francis and the Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, and songs from Shakira and Angelique Kidjo, the ambitious agenda – which aims to tackle poverty, climate change and inequality for all people in all countries – was signed off by 193 countries at the start of a three-day UN summit on sustainable development … The global goals summit continues until Sunday, after when all eyes will be on the UN climate talks in November. Asked if the goals will be scuppered without a strong deal in Paris [COP21], Mogens Lykketoft, the president of the UN general assembly, was hesitant, saying leaders were making more commitments than they were in previous COP meetings. ‘From what we know and hope for, we will be approaching a better deal.’ [19]

Weather warfare technology was the teeth “sustainable development” Agenda 2030 had been waiting for (and surely why developing nations had valiantly attempted to include an International Tribunal of Climate Justice). Immediately after the two conferences, the Dutch Defence Joint Meteorological Group (JMG) took the lead “in providing weather forecasts for every exercise or deployment of [NATO’s] Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).” [20] And if you think the VJTF is only “forecasting” weather …

To be fair, some academics do ponder the naked emperor. How exactly is CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere “using an infrastructure we don’t have and with technology that won’t work on the scale we need, and finally to store it in places we can’t find” [21]? Others recognize that the carbon solution is a ploy for raking in disaster capitalist cash: $90 trillion in energy infrastructure investments, $1 trillion green bond market, multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market, $391 billion climate
finance industry. [22] The UN Green Climate Fund alone will clear $100 billion per year, purportedly to support concrete carbons mitigation in developing countries. Should we take bets on if the money will ever make it to the developing countries after being filtered through multilateral and private banks like World Bank and Deutsche Bank? After all, the naked emperor is not known for keeping his promises.

Traditional bureaucratic foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie were said to be giving way to “philanthrocapitalism,” a muscular new approach to charity in which the presumed entrepreneurial skills of billionaires would be applied to the world’s most pressing challenges … [23]

Too late, the public is awakening to the dismal fact that its institutions, agencies, universities, laboratories, and courts obey the very powers that have milked public assets dry. Worker and food safety, gone. Bill of Rights, gone. Environmental protections, gone. Soon, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or facsimiles thereof will lock in corporate feudalism under an oligarchic world rule. Billionaire members of the Good Club [24] are establishing “brain institutes” to support the Brain Initiative and its neuroscientists in service to a Transhumanist future. [25]

“Science is broken”

For two decades, independent scientists and the science-minded have been attempting to sound the alarm regarding what is going on in our skies and in low-earth orbit while university labs and burgeoning university scientists buckle to military grants dedicated to weaponizing everything under the Sun, if not the Sun itself. Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock relates how CIA-funded consultants contacted him to ask two questions: If we control someone else’s climate, would they know about it? and Would climate experts be able to determine if another nation was attempting to control the climate? The CIA—not exactly known for being forthcoming—has funded multiple grants targeting weather domination (including HAARP via minions like Raytheon), including two February 2015 National Academy of Sciences reports: “Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration” (154 pages) and “Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth” (234 pages). [26]

The peer review system has been co-opted, favoring some theories and scientists and banishing others to the outer darkness of non-publication and stonewalled careers. Nobel Laureate biologist Sydney Brenner:

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals … it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organizations making money out of it. [27]

“Powerful orthodoxy against a marginalized heterodoxy” is how Charles Eisenstein describes the opposition to cutting-edge Electric Universe scientists:

If you have faith in the soundness of our scientific institutions, you will assume that the dissidents are marginalized for very good reason: their work is substandard. If you believe that the peer review process is fair and open, then the dearth of peer-reviewed citations for [Electric Universe] research is a damning indictment of their theory. And if you believe that the corpus of mainstream physics is fundamentally correct, and that science is progressing closer and closer to truth, you will be highly skeptical of any major departure from standard theories … Can we trust scientific consensus? Can we trust the integrity of our scientific institutions? Perhaps not. Over the last few years, a growing chorus of insider critics have been exposing serious flaws in the ways that scientific research is funded and published, leading some to go so far as to say, ‘Science is broken.’ [28]

Between 1973 and 2013, the decision-making as to which scientific papers merited publication and which didn’t was controlled by six major publishers (ACS; Reed Elsevier; Sage; Taylor & Francis; Springer; and Wiley-Blackwell), all in the back pocket of Big Pharma and the medical industry:

’As long as publishing in high impact factor journals is a requirement for researchers to obtain positions, research funding, and recognition from peers, the major commercial publishers will maintain their hold on the academic publishing system,’ added [Professor Vincent Lariviere, lead author of the study from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science]. [29]

Then there’s the danger quotient far beyond loss of career for scientists working on classified projects. In the early days of the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) now culminating in the Space Fence, two dozen scientists and experts working for Marconi and Plessey Defence Systems either disappeared or died under “mysterious circumstances.” Most were microbiologists. The scientist death toll continued into the 1990s and post-9/11. [30] Now, the targets appear to be naturopathic doctors and health-minded MDs peering behind the curtains of Big Pharma vaccinations, autism, and cancer-for-profit. [31]

Next stop: The SSS Space Fence

We are a long way from President Kennedy’s Space Age dreams and resolution to put an end to chemical polluters and the destruction of soil and biodiversity. Now, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University, and with the stroke of a presidential pen on Thanksgiving 2015, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (HR2262) a/k/a Space Act of 2015 thumbs its nose at the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, erasing whatever fleeting separation was left between the military and corporations bent on making profits from space-based mining of asteroids and the helium-3 isotope on the Moon.

For those in North America, the Clean Air Act has been amended and the North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan signed in June 2016 by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The “sustainable future” for these three nations appears to be as a hemispheric union. Hillary Clinton’s dream, she told a Brazilian bank in 2013, is “a hemispheric common market, with open borders, sometime in the future,” [32] which sounds a lot like the partnership plan’s Leaders Statement:

Our actions to align climate and energy policies will protect human health and help level the playing field for our businesses, households, and workers … that sets us firmly on the path to a more sustainable future. [33]

Translated out of double-speak, does “protect human health” mean vaccinations for all, and “level the playing field” the death of the middle class? To sustain something is to make it last with dependable support systems. Is the Leaders Statement alluding to the SSS (Space Surveillance System) Space Fence constructed and operated by North American and NATO interests—a great surveillance machine with many parts that altogether provide real full spectrum dominance not just of weather and the near-earth environment but of planet Earth and its inhabitants in their entirety for generations?

It is a near-impossible task to describe the resurrected Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) “Star Wars” Space Fence in our atmosphere now transformed into a wireless antenna in order to “master the Human Domain,” but we must prepare for the lockdown Space Age now built around us in the air and on the Earth, which is why I wrote Under An Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown.

Elana Freeland is a writer, ghostwriter, lecturer, storyteller, and teacher who researches and writes on Deep State issues, including the stories of survivors of MK-ULTRA, ritual abuse, and invasive electromagnetic weapons (Nexus, October 2014). She is now perhaps best known for Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth, published in June 2014 by Feral House, and has recently completed the sequel Under An Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown to be released in September 2017. She lives in Olympia, Washington.

Notes

1. The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) circumvented then-President Truman’s anti-Nazi order and scrubbed Nazi affiliations, then granted them new identities and security clearances.

2. Col. Tamzy J. House et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” August 1996. “2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.

3. These categories were first made public by independent scientist Clifford Carnicom, carnicominstitute.org.

4. Robert E. Morrison, Specialist in Earth Sciences, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, “Chapter 5: Federal Activities in Weather Modification.” Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, November 15, 1978.

5. P. Gosselin, “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth.” NoTricksZone, 17 May 2013.

6. “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2.” Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), 3 July 2013.

7. Juliet Eilperin, “Geoengineering sparks international ban, first-ever congressional report.” Washington Post, October 29, 2010.

8. Rady Ananda, “Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails.” Global Research, November 5, 2013.

9. “Chemtrails Confirmed: Climate Scientist Admits Jets Are ‘Dumping Aerosols.’” Chemtrailsplanet.net, January 9, 2015.

10. “NASA Scientist Admits ‘Chemtrails’ Are Real.” Chemtrailsplanet.net, March 11, 2016.

11. Christina Sarich, “Italian Senator Calls for Declassification of Chemtrail Documents.” Naturalsociety.com, April 15, 2014.

12. “Minister pledges probe into chemtrails,” Cyprus-mail.com, February 17, 2016.

13. J.D. Heyes, “NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012.” Naturalnews.com, July 1, 2014.

14. David Lewis, “EPA’s disturbing leadership.” The Oconee Enterprise, May 12, 2016.

15. Alan Levin, “NTSB: Ted Stevens’ plane crash remains a mystery.” USA Today, May 24, 2011.

16. Ari Phillips, “Canadian Government Dismantles Ecological Libraries After Dismissing Thousands of Scientists.” Climate Progress, January 10, 2014.

17. “World Leaders Sign Paris Climate Agreement.” Huffington Post, April 22, 2016. The article closed with “a group of businesses, including Google, Ikea, Starbucks and General Mills, lent their support to the signing ceremony.”

18. Sarah Malm, “UN planning an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ which would allow nations to take developed countries to court.” Daily Mail, 2 November 2015.

19. Liz Ford, “Global goals received with rapture in New York – now comes the hard part.” The Guardian, 25 September 2015.

20. “The Netherlands takes over meteorology for the NATO Response Force.” SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) press release, 13 January 2016.

21. Jocelyn Timperley, “Academics call for geoengineering preparation in wake of Paris Agreement’s ‘deadly flaws.’” BusinessGreen, 11 January 2016.

22. James Corbett, “And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle …” The Corbett Report, February 24, 2016.

23. Jacob Levich, “The Real Agenda of the Gates Foundation.” Aspects of India’s Economy, No. 57, May 2014.

24. Paul Harris, “They’re called the Good Club – and they want to save the world.” The Guardian, 30 May 2009.

25. William J. Broad, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science.” New York Times, March 15, 2014.

26. Daniel Barker, “Nations are now using weather modification as clandestine warfare, CIA warns.” NaturalNews.com, December 19, 2015.

27. Charles Eisenstein, “The Need For Venture Science.” Huntington Post, August 27, 2015.

28. Ibid.

29. Sean Adl-Tabatabai, “Nearly All Scientific Papers Controlled By Same Six Corporations.” YourNewsWire.com, July 20, 2015.

30. Mark J. Harper, “Dead Scientists and Microbiologists – Master List,” February 5, 2005, http://rense.com/general62/list.htm.

31. Erin Elizabeth, “A Connection with the Holistic Doctor Deaths?” HealthNutNews.com, February 1, 2016.

32. Amy Chozick et al., “Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street.” New York Times, October 7, 2016.

33. Patrick Wood, “NAU Reborn As ‘North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership’.” Technocracy News, June 30, 2016.

The leaked draft of a presidential memorandum Donald Trump is expected to sign within days suspends a 2010 rule that discouraged American companies from funding conflict and human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo through their purchase of  “conflict minerals.”

The memo, distributed inside the administration on Friday afternoon and obtained by The Intercept, directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily waive the requirements of the Conflict Mineral Rule, a provision of the Dodd Frank Act, for two years — which the rule explicitly allows the president to do for national security purposes. The memorandum also directs the State Department and Treasury Department to find an alternative plan to “address such problems in the DRC and adjoining countries.”

The idea behind the rule, which had bipartisan support, was to drain militias of revenue by forcing firms to conduct reviews of their supply chain to determine if contractors used minerals sourced from the militias.

Mining workers stand on a muddy cliff as they work at a gold mine in north eastern Congo in 2009.

Photo: Lionel Healing/AFP/Getty Images

The impending decision comes as Trump held a meeting Wednesday with Brian Krzanich, the chief executive of Intel, one of the leading firms impacted by conflict mineral regulations. At the White House today, Krzanich appeared with the president to announce a new manufacturing plant in Arizona.

Human rights advocates — who had celebrated the conflicts rule as a major step forward — were appalled. “Any executive action suspending the U.S. conflict minerals rule would be a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt,” said Carly Oboth, the policy adviser at Global Witness, in a statement responding to a Reuters article that first reported the move.

“It is an abuse of power that the Trump administration is claiming that the law should be suspended through a national security exemption intended for emergency purposes. Suspending this provision could actually undermine U.S. national security.”

Advanced computer chips, including technology used in cell phones and semiconductors, contain minerals often sourced from war-torn countries in central Africa. Firms such as Intel, Apple, HP, and IBM use advanced chips that contain tantalum, gold, tin, and tungsten — elements that can be mined at low prices in the the DRC, where mines are often controlled by militias fueling a decadeslong civil war.

American tech companies, such as Intel, lobbied directly on the rule when it was proposed. But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule. Trade groups representing major U.S. tech firms and other manufacturers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, attempted to block the rule through a federal lawsuit. In 2014, a federal court struck down a part of the rule that forced firms to reveal DRC conflict minerals on their corporate websites.

Intel is also one of the firms that has touted its effort to comply with the law, publishing a report that notes the company has conducted 40 on-site reviews of smelters in the eastern DRC.

Reuters also reported that acting SEC chief Michael Piwowar has taken steps to also weaken enforcement, asking staff to “reconsider how companies should comply.”

Read the draft memo here:

Seymour Hersh – The Redirection:

[T]he Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Former Vice President Biden explaining who finances Takfiri terrorism (video):

Mr Biden said that “our biggest problem is our allies” who are engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shiite war against Syrian President Bashar Assad. He specifically named Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad – except that the people who were being supplied were (Jabhat) Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Mr Biden said.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining who finances Takfiri terrorism (original):

… we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback:

Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

CIA honors Saudi Crown Prince for efforts against terrorism

The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, received a medal on Friday from the CIA for his distinct intelligence-related counter-terrorism work and his contributions to ensure international peace and security.

The medal, named after George Tenet, was handed to him by CIA Director Micheal Pompeo after the Crown Prince received him in Riyadh on Friday in the presence of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense.

As long as these weapons exist, one day they could be used with devastating effects, risking almost certain doom or close to it.

The only way to prevent eventual nuclear war is by eliminating these weapons entirely, the world community uniting on this most vital of all issues to save life on earth from possible extinction.

Nuclear roulette assures losers, not winners. Einstein said splitting the atom “changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Bush/Cheney’s December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), asserted the preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons. Madness remains US policy.

Obama’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategies pledged US first-strike use of nuclear weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not.

Last year, he approved a $1 trillion program to upgrade America’s arsenal over the next 30 years, assuring other nuclear powers will follow suit.

A nuclear arms race increases the risk of these weapons being used, especially given America’s permanent war policy, targeting all sovereign independent states for regime change.

Instead of stepping back from the brink, president-elect Trump tweeted “(t)he United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

US belligerence poses an unparalleled nuclear threat, the only nation ever using them in combat, indicating likely willingness to use them again, instead of taking the lead in initiating efforts to abolish these weapons once and for all – although the technology to produce them will always exist. The atom cannot be unsplit.

During his phone conversation with Vladimir Putin, Trump rejected Obama’s 2010 New START Treaty with Russia, according to Reuters.

It capped US and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads. Trump called it “a bad deal for the United States, according to two US officials and (a) former (one) with knowledge of the call,” Reuters reported.

The treaty became effective in February 2011, expected to remain in force until at least 2021. Putin suggested extending it beyond that time frame.

Both countries have until February 2018 to reduce their nuclear arsenals to a maximum 1,550 warheads. It limits deployment of land, air, sea and subsurface nuclear weapons.

It doesn’t eliminate their weapons, nor new propulsion and delivery technological research to be able strike targets anywhere on earth in less than an hour with nuclear or non-nuclear warheads.

No global strike capabilities are compromised, nor constraints on nuclear arms modernization.

Candidate Trump said Russia “outsmarted” us, incorrectly claiming it’s allowed to continue producing nuclear weapons while America cannot.

During his confirmation hearing, Secretary State Tillerson said he supports New START, adding it’s important for Washington to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START, and also ensure our accountability as well.”

A transcript of Trump’s conversation with Putin remains classified. Reuters got its information from administration sources knowledgeable about what both leaders discussed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Los últimos acontecimientos políticos en Estados Unidos generan inquietudes y confusiones pues el hilo conductor de acciones y dichos de Donald Trump aparece y desaparece en las olas de una lucha de posiciones entre las élites de millonarios que no sigue patrones comunes en la forma de manifestarse.

En el establishment estadounidenses hay una lucha entre y dentro de los grupos financieros y empresariales desde el sótano hasta la azotea, y aunque no es inédita lo nuevo es que en esta ocasión se produce a cielo abierto y no de forma soterrada y poco percibida como hasta ahora.

Se puede asegurar sin temor a equivocaciones que no hay una unidad monolítica en las esferas de poder en Estados Unidos y que tampoco existe una identificación plena de intereses en la cúpula suprapartidista que hasta ahora les permitía ponerse de acuerdo.

No significa que las contradicciones en el núcleo de mando sean irreconciliables, pero su antagonismo está en los límites de la tolerancia.

Una expresión de esa situación son las manifestaciones en las calles contra Trump y su equipo de multimillonarios auspiciadas por adversarios poderosos, y el rechazo a sus ideas de conseguir por la vía más peligrosa, ofensiva y aterradora que ‘Estados Unidos vuelva a ser fuerte’, como proclama voz en cuello el nuevo mandatario.

Si es cierto el axioma de que cuando un edificio está enfermo se derrumba o lo derrumban pues es la única alternativa posible para solventar el mal cuando es estructural, el sistema de dominación estadounidense puede estar en precario y la llegada de una persona como Trump a la Casa Blanca es una constatación.

Tampoco significa que el imperio esté en las últimas o que sus días estén contados.

En Trump hay una carga pesada y peligrosa de inexperiencia política y diplomática, válida en general para su equipo de multimillonarios irreverentes -y también de sus principales asesores- lo cual no justifica sus llamados de corte nacionalsocialista como en su discurso de toma de posesión cuando remarcó que ‘de hoy en adelante una nueva visión gobernará nuestra tierra. A partir de este momento Estados Unidos será lo primero’.

Con esas espantosas palabras de Trump saltaron todas las alarmas en el mundo, incluidas las de sus aliados europeos y de la propia OTAN, en especial porque el nuevo mandatario dispondrá este año de de cerca de 600 mil millones de dólares para un presupuesto militar que es probable acelere una carrera armamentista tanto o más intensa que en la época de la guerra fría.

Hay una radicalización en ese discurso que en lugar de bajar sigue subiendo de tono en tal magnitud que da la impresión que Trump lleva años, y no días, en la Casa Blanca al punto de que en solamente la primera semana de gobierno su rechazo en el electorado marcaba 51 por ciento.

‘Juntos haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser fuerte. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser próspero. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser orgulloso. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser seguro de nuevo. Y juntos haremos que Estados Unidos sea grande de nuevo’.

Como apuntara hace poco el teólogo brasileño Leonardo Boff, subyacente a estas palabras funciona la ideología del ‘destino manifiesto’, de la excepcionalidad de Estados Unidos que posee una misión única y divina en el mundo, la de llevar sus valores de derechos, de la propiedad privada y de la democracia liberal al resto de la humanidad. Una equivocación horrible.

Todo puede comenzar con una guerra comercial total y un proteccionismo destructor y xenofóbico del que la discriminación étnica y religiosa y la cruzada antislámica son una suerte de sostén ideológico de la propaganda antiterrorista para encubrir objetivos mucho más profundos como los de reconstruir un hegemonismo que no tiene cabida en esta época y requeriría el uso de una fuerza superior a la desplegada en Iraq, Afganistán, Siria y otros teatros de guerra, y más abarcadora.

Trump arrastra en esa cruzada a ultraderechistas como Marine Le Pen, en Francia, o Mauricio Macri, en Argentina, y da riendas al expansionismo de los israelíes agresivamente contrarios a las recomendaciones de la ONU de que abandonen la colonización de Jerusalén y otros territorios palestinos que ocupan, pero al mismo tiempo se echa en contra a sus más cercanos aliados europeos e incluso a la OTAN.

Hay una coincidencia general entre economistas de diversas tendencias que ninguno de los proyectos de Trump generará el empleo que el mandatario esgrime como argumento y que el proteccionismo tampoco funcionará y será un desastre. No son tiempos de improvisaciones.

El gobierno de Trump nació torcido porque es hijo de la decadencia del sistema. Sus cimientos cedieron al peso del neoliberalismo y una globalización desenfrenadamente mal conducida, y de la necesidad de un reacomodo de fuerzas liderado por los sectores que representan los supermillonarios elegidos para integrar el gobierno, incluidos el petrolero y el militar-industrial.

Ese gabinete ministerial marca una polarización política que va más allá de la separación matemática de un conglomerado en dos partes con suficientes potencialidades de poder, pues atañe más que a una ideología partidista, al resquebrajamiento de la estructura del sistema que les sirve de soporte a demócratas y republicanos.

Ciertamente, el nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos es fiel a un guion preconcebido dirigido a producir un cambio dentro del sistema que permita aplicar nuevas estrategias sin temer la cercanía del abismo extremista para recuperar el hegemonismo que Trump considera perdido. La gran confusión de Trump y sus allegados es que no estamos en una época de cambios, sino del cambio de una época.

Luis Manuel Arce Isaac

El comercio entre Japón y los Estados Unidos es uno de los temas de la reunión de hoy en Washington entre el primer ministro japonés, Shinzo Abe, y el presidente estadounidense, Donald Trump.

Trump indicó que busca un acuerdo de comercio bilateral, pero no mencionó si tiene la intención de que sea de libre comercio.

La cumbre es, en opinión de expertos, una oportunidad para que Abe averigüe las verdaderas intenciones del nuevo ocupante de la Casa Blanca.

Japón no está dispuesto a aceptar una posible oferta de negociaciones con la parte estadounidense, si en lugar de hablar sobre un acuerdo de libre comercio, Trump hace hincapié en la corrección del desequilibrio entre los dos países.

El presidente de Estados Unidos puso como ejemplo la industria automotriz para argumentar que el comercio bilateral perjudica a su país.

Pero Trump está obsesionado con la imagen de la década de 1980, plantean algunos analistas.

En aquellos días, Japón exportaba al año tres millones 800 mil vehículos a Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo, esa cifra se redujo en más de un 50 por ciento hasta llegar a un millón 740 mil en la actualidad.

En realidad, las automotrices japonesas están aumentando su producción en suelo estadounidense hasta aproximadamente tres millones 900 mil unidades.

Por consiguiente, es importante convencer a Trump y a los funcionarios de su Gobierno de que las cosas ya no son como en la era de fricción de hace unas décadas.

Especialistas como el profesor Yorizumi Watanabe, de la Universidad Keio, recomiendan a Abe que proponga la manera en que Japón puede contribuir a la economía estadounidense a través de proyectos de mejora infraestructural, entre otros.

Los métodos no deben ser los utilizados en la década de 1980, cuando ese país del este de Asia importaba cierta cantidad de vehículos y componentes automotrices de Estados Unidos para compensar el desequilibrio.

Incluso, si Washington propone un tratado de libre comercio bilateral, Tokio debe rechazar las negociaciones al respecto.

Ambas naciones ya sostuvieron conversaciones detalladas sobre eliminación de aranceles y el momento de su aplicación.

Lo hicieron al margen de los diálogos sobre el Acuerdo Estratégico Transpacífico de Asociación Económica (TPP).

El profesor Watanabe no cree que Japón tenga intenciones de retomar esa negociación.

Abe debe decirle a Trump que Estados Unidos va a salir perjudicado si se mantienen lejos del TPP y obliga a Japón a aumentar sus importaciones, precisó el mencionado investigador.

Negociar ese tipo de cuotas solamente será una pérdida de tiempo, ya que las autoridades niponas se niegan a aceptar nuevas propuestas.

La industria agropecuaria estadounidense podría perder su cuota en el mercado japonés si se prolongan las nuevas negociaciones.

Por ejemplo, Japón importaría definitivamente más carne vacuna australiana, ya que el tratado de libre comercio nipo-australiano se encuentra vigente.

Con el TPP se reducirían poco a poco los aranceles.

Estados Unidos se puede beneficiar si aumentan sus exportaciones basándose en menores tarifas.

Richard Ruíz Julién

“ALL tailings “ponds” are a problem. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.”  — Canadians.org

Last year, Duluth News-Tribune published a Local News article with the title “EPA signals its support for final PolyMet review”.

The article ended with what I regard as an intentionally deceptive and woefully insufficient sentence: “Critics say the project is likely to taint downstream waters with acidic runoff”.

In a column for the Duluth Reader, which I wrote in response, I attempted to correct the notion that “acidic runoff” is the major reason for the widespread opposition to PolyMet’s proposed copper/nickel mining project (which is adjacent to the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness). PolyMet, it should be mentioned, is a Penny Stock company from Canada and a total novice when it comes to operating copper/nickel mines. The company has never earned a penny producing a product. All their revenues have come from speculators and other investors that are hoping that the regulatory agencies will succumb to corporate and public pressure, that the mine will be built and that they can cash in on their investment.

The Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014

On August 4, 2014, a mine at Mount Polley, British Columbia had its huge tailings pond dam (an earthen dam) suddenly burst, massively polluting downstream streams, rivers and lakes, not to mention underground aquifers which had already been polluted during the years before the catastrophe.

The millions of tons of toxic sludge flooded into tiny Hazeltine Creek and then into the pristine Quesnel Lake, which flows into the 800 mile long British Columbian Fraser River, a migratory Sockeye salmon-bearing river, that empties into the Georgia Strait and the Pacific Ocean at the city of Vancouver, B.C.

Typical of most government and industry responses to such catastrophic mining industry failures, Stephen Harper’s conservative government of Canada – not to mention the ruling Liberal Party government of British Columbia – tried to cover up the disaster. Hence, most North Americans on either side of the border (certainly us Minnesotans) were unaware of the event, thanks in part to our co-opted corporate-controlled media that failed to adequately report on it.

Immediately below are links to dramatic photos and videos that have been available to the US government and media agencies, but which were not reported on the evening news of either local or regional media outlets.

Imperial Metals Corporation of Vancouver, the owner of the mine, acknowledged that they had been regularly dumping toxic metals into the slurry (aka “slime”) pond in the years leading up to the failure of the earthen dam. The following list of toxic minerals is taken from Environment Canada’s website at:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/donnees-data/index.cfm?do=disposal_details&lang=En&opt_npri_id=0000005102&opt_report_year=2013.

Environment Canada reported that the metallic contaminants that had been dumped in the tailings pond included: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury.

Each of these 9 heavy metal contaminants are highly toxic to all life forms and have no safe levels in drinking water or in the serum or tissues of human or animal bodies. These contaminants, commonly found in hard rock mines, are also lethal to plant life, but only when they are ground up into fine powder form in the mineral extraction process.

The photo above was taken following the Mt Polley tailings pond failure. It pictures what was once the tiny, 6 foot wide Hazeltine Creek. Photo courtesy of Clayoquot Action, Tofino, BC (www.clayoquotaction.org)

Here is a selection of links to some of the videos of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam failure:

The first one is titled: ‘The Unlikely Truth’ – The Imperial Metals Environmental Disaster”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfMolg5Ul_0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfanpPz8HeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAItFxc8bME&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3yd8GPSnA

And here is an important video of an experimental tailings dam breach that can happen to any earthen dam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWEWVw7TGk4

“ALL tailings “ponds” are a problem. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.”

The birds-eye view of the mouth of the tiny (normally about 6 feet wide) Hazeltine Creek (now 120-150 feet wide) as it enters into Quesnel Lake, the previously deepest, purest lake in British Columbia and a famous trout and salmon fishery; that is, until August 5, 2014, when 24,000,000 cubic meters of toxic water and sludge breached the Mt Polley mine’s tailings dam and exploded downstream. The tan material in the photo represents millions of floating dead trees that were swept away in the massive sludge flood.

Immediately below are satellite photos of the Mt Polley copper/gold mining facility’s before and after it suddenly dissolved and broke in 2014. Note the change in color of the tailings pond, the nearby lakes and the widening of the Hazeltine Creek that directed the toxic sludge into Quesnel Lake. The creek had been invisible to satellite photos until the flood.

All these photos depict what are considered the biggest environmental disasters in the histories of Canada and could, someday in the near or distant future, represent what could happen to Minnesota’s St. Louis River watershed, since highly toxic metal tailings/sludge/slurry/slime ponds have a substantial risk of failing, especially in the case of one of our planet’s increasingly common (seemingly annual) 100-year catastrophic floods, storms or downpours. 

These photos are posted at: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster#Imperial_Metals_history

A Final Thought

Northern Minnesotans, Native American Water Protectors ( like the heroes at Standing Rock), sportsmen, environmentalists, downstream businesses, wild rice harvesters, fish, game, birds and just plain working folks whose babies and other vulnerable beings with developing brains need non-toxic water to thrive or simply survive must understand that such relatively common catastrophes could destroy the aquifers in the BWCAW, Birch Lake, the Partridge River, the Embarrass River, the St. Louis River, the city of Duluth and ultimately, Lake Superior.

In the considered opinion of many ethical thinkers, any human with an ounce of morality would conclude that the risks of allowing amateur mining companies such as PolyMet and Twin Metals – and other similarly amoral, sociopathic and non-human corporations like Switzerland’s GlencoreXstrata or Chile’s Andofagasta are too great.  (Glencore and Andofagasta  are the two major multinational mining corporations that control PolyMet and Twin Metals.)

The plans to open and operate sulfuric acid-producing copper mines in pristine watersheds that are just upstream and upwind from children and other living things should be shelved for the good of the planet. But somehow, the legislators who are often in bed with their corporate paymasters are quite willing to ignore the risks in favor of a few temporary jobs. The risks seem to be OK for conscienceless corporations and their investors, but they don’t live here.

States that surround the potentially poisoned Lake Superior and the other downstream great lakes should have a say in the issue. Bullying corporations, along with their co-opted friends in positions of power in state and national capitals are quite willing to risk permanent catastrophes such as Mt Polley.

They, being the sociopathic entities that they are, can’t be expected to act as ethical humans, especially when billions of dollars are involved.>

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace. Many of his columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;http://www.globalresearch.ca/authors?query=Gary+Kohls+articles&by=&p=&page_id= or at https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

The US-baсked Syrian Democratic Forces, predominantly Kurdish YPG units, have been developing an advance in the eastern countryside of the ISIS self-proclaimed Syrian capital of Raqqah.

The decision to flank the ISIS stronghold from eastern direction followed a failed attempt of the US Special Forces and some SDF units to infiltrate the area of the strategic Tabqa dam.

De-facto, this meant that the US-led forces were not able to achieve their strategic goal west of Raqqah. However, the SDF announced the end of the 2nd and the start of the 3rd stage of the Operation Wrath of Euphrates.

The goal of the 3rd stage is to further isolate the ISIS-held city, including seizing the road to Deir Ezzor. If the SDF captures the road, ISIS units in Deir Ezzor will be cut off from their allies in Raqqah. This will decrease significantly the terrorist group’s ability to redeploy reinforcements from one front to another. Nevertheless, this is under a big question. The US strategists are well known due to their will to keep open exit roads for ISIS terrorists in besieged cities in Syria and Iraq. If the road remains open, ISIS units will likely flow from Raqqah to Deir Ezzor, escalating confrontation with the Syrian army in the besieged city.

While the new US administration is considering a new plan of the Raqqah operation, SDF representative, Rojda Felat, has already claimed that the SDF will need more heavy military equipment, including battle tanks, to storm the city. In other words, the YPG wants to get more equipment to increase its military capabilities. But this doesn’t mean that the group will throw all what it has to storm Raqqah.

Indeed, the fate of Raqqah depends on the decision of the US administration on the issue. Earlier this month, Lieutenant General Jon Davis emphasized that the US would need not only additional airstrikes.

There are already between 300 and 500 US Special Forces troops and unknown number of French and German special forces. This number will likely be increased to retake the ISIS capital in Syria. It could indicate that the Pentagon is going to involve US and NATO forces during the operation, repeating the Mosul case. The real role of the SDF is now unclear. In any case, its goal will be to show that its “local Syrian forces” storm the ISIS stronghold.

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

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the immunity given to high-ranking Bush-era officials in Saleh v. Bush,  and has dismissed Ms. Saleh’s claims of aggression against George W. Bush and others for their alleged planning and commission of the crime of aggression against Iraq.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Westfall Act, a federal law that provides domestic immunity to government officials who commit alleged wrongdoing, is broad enough to cover acts that would amount to aggression under international law.

According to the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff seeking to hold high-ranking officials liable for illegal acts under international law must allege something akin to a financial interest in order to litigate against domestic officials. The Ninth Circuit provided the following hypothetical:

A federal official would act out of “personal” motives and not be “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve the master” if, for instance, he used the leverage of his office to benefit a spouse’s business, paying no heed to the resulting damage to the public welfare.

The Ninth Circuit also dismissed arguments that the Nuremberg Judgment’s prohibition on domestic immunity to government officials who engage in aggression was binding as a matter of domestic, U.S. law.

You can read the opinion below.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

As the third-largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa and the continent’s number one oil producer, Angola seems set for a promising future. The country finally pulled out of a 27-year long civil war in 2002 and has been rapidly building up its infrastructure ever since, even if its economy still retained its energy-exporting dependence.

The economic crisis that’s been caused by the latest oil slump has given Luanda a pressing motivation to finally diversify its revenue base and begin exploring the manufacturing industry and steel production.

Only time will tell if this is too little too late or the right move at the right time, but the most fundamental component of Angola’s diversification strategy is its ambition to serve as a terminal point for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia’s multinational railroad projects. Together these constitute the coast-to-coast Southern Trans-African Route (STAR) being spearheaded by China, which in turn reinforces the Chinese-Angolan Strategic Partnership and underscores the unparalleled importance of Luanda in Beijing’s continental grand strategy.

Benguela Will Brighten Angola’s Future

China’s New Silk Road vision for Africa encompasses much more that natural resource extraction. It in fact aims to facilitate the continent’s commercial capabilities in serving as a labor and export market for China’s overcapacity. African countries can only be in a position to purchase excess Chinese products if they themselves have a stable and growing economy, which is impossible to maintain under an energy export-centric system. Therein lays the strategic value of Chinese investments in Angola and the other countries of the South-Central, East, and Horn of African regions that are expected to be connected to the new transnational multipolar transport corridors that Beijing is financing and constructing all throughout the continent. Angola’s role in this ambitious construction is to function as STAR’s South Atlantic terminal via the colonial-era Benguela Railroad that China just rehabilitated last year.

Following its (re-)inauguration, Angola now has the potential of joining its Atlantic port of Lobito to the mineral-rich former Katanga region of the DRC, as well as to the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. Moreover, the construction of the Northwest Railway in the latter landlocked state would directly link Lusaka to Lobito, and in an even broader context, provide a safer alternative to the conflict-prone Congo in connecting Angola with Tanzania, or in other words, bridging Africa’s Atlantic and Indian Ocean coasts. In the event that a commercially viable transport interconnector can be created between Tanzania and Kenya, then the broader potential would emerge for Tanzania to establish a mainland trading route with Ethiopia via the LAPSSET Corridor. By extent, this would then make it possible for two of the continent’s largest economies of South Africa and Angola to conduct overland trade with its fastest-growing one in Ethiopia by means of the stable East African Community (EAC) transit states of Tanzania and Kenya.

Angola’s key to cashing in on this transregional real-sector economic corridor is the Benguela Railroad, and it’s the only infrastructural hope that Luanda has for sustainably augmenting its intra-African trade and not losing out on this historic opportunity for physically networking its economy with its continental counterparts. Given this supreme importance, it’s not hyperbole to state that Angola’s future is dependent on Benguela, since it’s only a matter of time before the energy bonanza dies out and/or the impoverished population becomes violently unhappy (due to foreign NGO prodding) with the rising income inequality that’s been piercingly aggravated by the present economic crisis. Without the sort of renewable economic opportunities that international transport infrastructure can bring to Angola, its entrepreneurs will have difficulty cost-effectively penetrating other markets. Even in the event that they opt for maritime trade routes across the cape and all the way to the other side of Africa, they’d lose out on competitively valuable time in doing so that could otherwise be optimized by relying on the new interconnected rail routes.

The Russian-Chinese Strategic Outpost In The South Atlantic

 Concept:

It has been comprehensively described how Angola fits into China’s larger plans for Africa, and that’s not even counting the fact that the country is Beijing’s second-largest supplier of oil, but Russia also has an interest in Angola, too. Whereas China’s focus is evolving from energy imports to multinational transport facilitation and real-sector investments, Russia’s is still concentrated on natural resource extraction and the global energy market in general. Moscow also maintains close military relations with Luanda dating back to the Soviet era, and it uses this strategic connection to reinforce its bilateral partnership and ensure that it’s not totally left out of the economic developments in the country. The confluence of Russia and China’s attention in Angola means that the South Atlantic country is host to a unique interplay of the global Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership. This plays out through Moscow assisting with security and energy marketplace cooperation while Beijing reliably purchases the said energy supplies from Luanda and works on modernizing its real-sector economic potential.

Commercial:

Prior to addressing the traditional military-energy mainstays of the Russian-Angolan Strategic Partnership, it’s important to touch upon the recent commercial incentives that have emerged as a driving force in the bilateral relationship. The outcome of the Angola-Russia Intergovernmental Commission meeting in April was that both sides would work towards deepening their cooperation in the spheres of automobile technology, light and heavy industry, fisheries, manufacturing, mining, renewable (solar) and non-renewable energy, railroad components, and agriculture. It’s hoped that closer collaboration in these sectors can lead to an increase in bilateral trade from its present level of $244 million last year to something worthier of the high level of strategic relations that both sides presently enjoy, though that isn’t to say that this current state isn’t commendable as it is. One report writes that this rate is actually “four times more than the amount yield [sic] in the previous period”, which indicates that economic relations are already growing at an astronomical pace and will likely continue along a positive path for the coming future, though probably not in such an exponential way.

Military-Strategic:

The most well-known characteristic of Russian-Angolan relations is their visible military cooperation, with the latest deal being signed in 2013 for the export of $1 billion worth of Russian jets, tanks, artillery, arms, and ammunition to the African nation. President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Angola’s leader since 1979, visited the Kremlin and met with President Putin in 2006, while then-President Medvedev reciprocated the measure and went to Angola in 2009 during his tour of Africa. These leadership summits underscored just how important each side views the other, and they served to remind the world that Russia had not forgotten about Angola despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the renunciation of their shared ideological ties of communism. Modern-day Russian diplomacy towards Angola is driven by military considerations just as much as it is by energy ones, and nothing illustrates this more clearly than a brilliant article written by Gustavo Plácido Dos Santos for Eurasia Review.

Energy:

In “Russia’s ‘Charm Offensive’ In Africa: The Case Of Angola – Analysis”, the researcher writes that sub-Saharan Africa is already awash in oil and is expected to produce more gas than Russia by 2040, thus making it an attractive alternative source for non-Russian energy imports for the EU. He believes that Russia’s energy cooperation with Angola is centered on giving it a position in the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf of Guinea and thus allowing it to indirectly exert influence over the EU’s forthcoming reserve pool, ironically negating Brussels’ hope that the region would not in any way be under Moscow’s sway. This is a clever approach by Russia’s energy corps and perfectly supplements what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense have in mind for Angola.

Leadership Assistance:

By becoming a greater energy power hand-in-hand with Moscow’s expertise and investment in this field, Luanda can then be in a better position to purchase more weaponry for defending its interests, with the combination of energy and military power leading to the inevitable expansion of political influence throughout the region. China’s assistance in guiding Angola’s transition from a vulnerable resource-exporting economy to a more stable commercially linked one via the New Silk Roads is integral to sustaining Luanda’s projected leadership, and it’s here where the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership again overlaps in the South Atlantic and gives the US yet another reason to want to sabotage Angola’s rise.

Angola’s African Power Plays

Angola is one of Africa’s fastest-rising powers, and it’s taken the opportunity to flex its muscles abroad on more than one occasion, even during the times that it was embroiled in civil war. Here’s a look at the instances in which Luanda make Angolan influence felt in different parts of Africa:

Shaba I and II:

Following the immediate post-independence crisis in the Congo, new leader Mobutu renamed his country Zaire forbade its mineral-rich and secessionist-prone southeastern province of Katanga from going by its original name, instead rechristening it as “Shaba”. The pro-American leader actively cooperated with the West in turning his country into the camp’s geostrategic African stronghold, and this naturally saw him extending support to the allied pro-American UNITA rebels fighting in Angola’s civil war. In response, the ruling People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) party and its Soviet and Cuban patrons are suspected of having aided the Zairean rebel group “Front for the National Liberation of the Congo” in their 1977 invasion of Shaba from Angolan soil. The US and France sent material and military support respectively and the invasion was repelled, but a follow-up attempt was made one year later in which France once again teamed up with the US in order to save their proxy.

São Tomé and Príncipe:

The former Portuguese colony in the Gulf of Guinea gained independence in the same year as Angola did in 1975, and only three years later it requested its fellow freedom fighter’s troops to quell a coup attempt in 1978. Relations have since been very strong between the two Lusophone states, and the islands are a priority vector of Angola’s grand strategy. Being situated where they are in the oil-rich waters right off the coast of Nigeria, they’re primed to be used as a launching pad for further Angolan influence along the waterway and around the West African bend. In fact, São Tomé and Príncipe is so significant to Angola because it represents the first node in a larger Lusophone chain of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) from Western Africa to the US and the EU, all of which are under varying degrees of Luanda’s influence.

Together with Cabo Verde (formerly Cape Verde until 2013) and Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe could one day collectively constitute a West African “string of pearls” along the maritime Silk Road, especially as multipolar-aligned Angola continues to receive assistance from the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership in its quest to become an African Power. Each of these states could fulfill their own respective logistical roles in hosting warehouses and storage facilities that facilitate the convenient transshipment of African goods to the US under the framework of the trade-enabling African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). A similar such agreement might be signed between the EU and different African countries or regions sometime in the future, at which time these Lusophone SLOC would become doubly important.

The only inadvertently negative consequence of Luanda’s rising influence in São Tomé and Príncipe is the potential that this has for sparking a strategic dilemma between Angola and Nigeria. This will be addressed at the end of this section, but the author would like to draw the reader’s attention to a comprehensive article written by the aforementioned Portuguese political scientist Gustavo Plácido dos Santo, this time called “Nigeria And Sao Tome And Principe: A Relationship Centered On Oil And Geostrategy – Analysis”. The researcher compiled a diverse collection of facts about the bilateral relationship between these two states, especially as it relates to the energy sphere and future anti-piracy security measures in the Gulf of Guinea, to postulate that Abuja has a discernable interest in the islands, but that Angola’s rising military and investment cooperation with the islands might lead to Nigeria feeling threatened.

Namibia:

MPLA hosted the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) which was fighting throughout most of the Cold War against apartheid South Africa’s occupation of what is nowadays called Namibia. During that time, the South African military regularly violated Angolan territory and participated in many battles with the country’s military. Angolan-Namibian ties continued to strengthen after independence and fortuitously provided a common geographic platform for bringing Luanda and Pretoria together as well, after which their relations finally began to take off at the turn of the century. It was right before that time that Angola and Namibia entered into a broader multilateral mutual defense pact in 1999 that also included Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In order to explain the peculiarity of how rivals Angola and the DRC came to militarily support one another, a conversation must be undertaken about the First and Second Congo Wars that raged throughout the latter half of the 1990s.

First and Second Congo Wars:

Angola invaded Zaire in 1997 in order to avenge Mobutu’s decades-long support for the pro-American UNITA rebels. It wasn’t the first country to get involved in the fray, but its large-scale participation could be considered as a tipping point for the anti-Mobutu coalition due to Angola’s proximity to the country’s capital and the fact that it opened up a second Western front to accompany the first one in the East. Rwanda and Uganda had by that time already been streaming towards Kinshasa as part of their jungle blitzkrieg, and unable to fight a two-front war against such capable military foes, Mobutu abdicated shortly thereafter and the rebel chief Laurent Kabila became the country’s president, after which he renamed the country the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

His former Rwandan and Ugandan allies tried to turn him into their puppet right away but he rebelled and expelled their forces from his recently liberated country, which in turn sparked the Second Congo War. It was through this conflict which some have called “Africa’s World War” that Angola and the DRC became mutual defense partners and Luanda sent soldiers to Kabila’s aid. In the nearly two decades since, the relationship has had its ups and downs, such as when Angola and the DRC resolved the border dispute between them in 2007, but yet Angola still continued to kick out Congolese citizens en masse under the pretense that they were illegal immigrants.

It’ll later be seen when discussing the Hybrid War scenario of Kongo Kingdom Revisionism why this may have been a much more forward-looking strategic decision than the short-sighted reactive one that people thought it was at the moment, but for now it’s enough to say that state-to-state relations between Angola and the DRC are stable and improving despite the illegal immigration impediment. Each side is gradually bettering their connectivity and security cooperation with the other in light of the Benguela railway’s refurbishment and the associated cross-continental New Silk Road benefits that it will make available to both of them, and this can be expected to lead to even closer relations in the coming years that might eventually put to rest the low-scale rivalry that still exists between them.

Republic of the Congo:

Angola’s most daring military operation was probably when it sent its troops to back the rebels of former Congolese President Denis Sassou Nguesso in retaking the Republic of the Congo’s capital of Brazzaville in late 1997. No other foreign forces were involved in this campaign, unlike in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, but just like during the First Congo War, the rebels probably wouldn’t have prevailed had it not been for the Angolan intervention. Luanda’s strategic objective in this campaign was to install a friendly government in Brazzaville that wouldn’t provide aid and sanctuary to the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) that’s fighting for the independence of the barely discontiguous province north a few kilometers north of the Congo River.

Although obviously not a factor at the time, Angolan influence over President Nguesso could indirectly give Luanda another trump card over Kinshasa when it comes to the Chinese-supported trans-African routes being developed through the DRC. The Southern Trans-African Route (STAR) terminates at the Atlantic port of Lobito, while its northern counterpart, the Northern Trans-African Route (NTAR), will reach the ocean either at the poor and geographically unsuitable DRC port of Matadi or the deep-water and much more accessible Republic of Congo one in Pointe-Noire. Since Matadi isn’t foreseen to ever become anything more than a secondary backup to Pointe-Noire, the Republic of the Congo will ultimately hold the final say over the DRC’s transcontinental trade route, thus giving Brazzaville’s allied government in Luanda a say over Kinshasa by extent.

Guinea-Bissau:

The last significant projection of influence that Angola partook in was in Guinea-Bissau, though this one was much more covert and barely made the headlines. The former Portuguese colony is situated along the forecasted Lusophone SLOC from Western Africa to the US and EU, and it’s also a notorious drug-smuggling point for South American cocaine to Europe. It’s so deeply enmeshed in the drug trade that The Guardian even declared it the world’s first “narcostate” in 2008, pointing to the fact that the fifth-poorest country in the world was practically controlled by Colombian cartels and their corrupt military partners.

The coup-prone country experienced a successful military seizure of power in 2012, ostensibly in reaction to what the plotters denounced as a “secret deal” between the Angolan and Bissauan governments for “Angola to attack Guinea-Bissau’s military”. To add some context to what might otherwise sound like an unsubstantiated claim, Angola had deployed 270 troops to the country to help reform the military and hopefully put an end to this institution continuously undermining the political authorities. Whether Luanda was indeed trying to ‘destroy’ the military through this format or not, they probably saw it as a threat to their future influence over the state, hence why they launched the coup and Angola withdrew its troops a few months afterwards (though the departure was announced a few days before the regime change unfolded).

Angola’s attention to this seemingly obscure state is driven by its shared colonial history, familiar Lusophone identity, and its strategic position along the SLOC. Luanda likely thought that it could easily reform the Bissauan military and turn the state into an outpost for projecting dual maritime-mainland influence. Whatever its motivation was in getting involved with Guinea-Bissau, Angola clearly failed to achieve its objectives, and while the two states have since normalized their relations and decided to strengthen them, it’s very likely that Luanda won’t engage in another power play there anytime soon. This doesn’t mean that the two countries can’t pragmatically cooperate on joint projects, but that the Angolan military will probably never be redeployed to the country again, thus preventing a repeat of the pre-coup events that sparked the regime change and keeping relations at a respectful level free from unnecessary distractions and future speculation.

An Angolan-Nigerian Rivalry?:

Angola’s rise as an African Power is pushing up against Nigeria’s future ambitions in the Greater Gulf of Guinea space and the broader West-Central African region in general, though it hasn’t yet gotten to the point of an observable rivalry between both sides. Angola and Nigeria have the potential to pool their capabilities and become the cores of a larger multipolar network throughout the whole of Atlantic Africa, and neither objectively has anything to fear from the other. It’s possible for a friendly competition to develop in which Abuja and Luanda stake out their own respective spheres of influence and then work on pragmatically integrating these areas into a collective framework that ultimately complements the multipolar vision for the continent. It’s still too early to tell which direction Angolan-Nigerian relations will go, but the US certainly has a stake in stoking a manufactured strategic dilemma between both sides and getting them to deeply distrust one another to the point of encouraging a divisive Cold War between them.

São Tomé and Príncipe is the perfect location for this to happen, just as Dos Santos warned about in his article for Eurasia Review. It would geographically make sense for the islands to partner more closely with Nigeria out of their common anti-piracy interest in protecting their oil-rich waters and the Joint Development Authority that they both share, but the socio-cultural factors connecting it to Angola might mean that Luanda could interpret any prospective security cooperation between the two as being against its interests or vice-versa vis-à-vis Abuja if São Tomé and Príncipe invites Luanda to take on this role instead. Right now the state of Angolan-Nigerian affairs in regards to São Tomé and Príncipe is calm and there seems to be no reason to worry, but all that it might take to change the situation is one or a few high-profile successful or attempted hijackings before the joint anti-piracy initiative that Dos Santos suggested would be brought to the fore of the Gulf’s geopolitics.

From Angola’s perspective, any relative Nigerian advances in what it believes to constitute its soft sphere of cultural-political influence (the Lusophone space), as well as over another oil-exporting country like itself (albeit nowhere near as big as either of these two), could lead to the eventual retreat of Angolan influence in similarly composed states (e.g. Guinea-Bissau and Equatorial Guinea) and scuttle Luanda’s plans for regional leadership. From the reverse angle, Nigeria knows that if Angola came out on top in any prospective competition for São Tomé, then it could indirectly gain influence in the waters of its strategically placed Exclusive Economic Zone, which a look at the map shows would essentially hem Nigeria in along its southern maritime periphery and give Luanda influence within close proximity to the country’s oil-producing Niger River Delta. If Angolan anti-piracy vessels started patrolling the nearby waters outside of any multilateral military understanding that included Nigeria, then it would certainly be assessed as a strategic threat in Abuja.

If the US succeeded in starting a Cold War between Angola and Nigeria for São Tomé and Príncipe, then it would directly play right into Washington’s strategic hands by having two of Africa’s West Coast powers face off against one another in a mutually disadvantageous scenario. Nigeria is already a weakened giant both because of its internal identity-political dysfunction and the resultant (Western-supported) outgrowth of Boko Haram, and even though Angola is clearly on the ascent, its rise could severely be hampered by an unnecessary and potentially costly rivalry with Nigeria. The US would prefer to have two embattled states contain one another and pick their rival apart than to have one or both of them peacefully succeeding and tilling the political landscape to make it more fertile for multipolarity. Seeing how Nigeria is currently beset with a multitude of serious problems stemming from Boko Haram and other regional threats such as the Niger Delta-based “Avengers” and similar criminal-separatist organizations, it’s going to be a while before it can ever return to substantially chasing its leadership ambitions, therefore leaving Angola as the last target in the duo for the US to destabilize.

Plotting Against Angola

Having established that Angola is a reliably stable country that endeavors for regional leadership on both the high seas (the Lusophone SLOC) and the continental interior (its involvement in the DRC and terminal role in STAR), one can conclude that the country is well on its way to becoming a cornerstone of multipolarity in Africa. Despite the structural risks that are still present in the economy due to its excessive revenue dependency on energy exports, the country has by and large remained on the positive trajectory that the MPLA civil war victors have laid out for it.

Even though long-serving and elderly President Jose Eduardo dos Santos has no clear political heirs, it’s feasible that his billionaire entrepreneur daughter Isabel (who also doubles as Africa’s richest woman and the current head of the state oil company Sonangol) might one day take up the reins and ensure strategic continuity, which in that case would reinforce the Russian position in Angola because of the fact that she was born in the USSR to an ethnic Russian mother and realistically retains a positive attitude towards her maternal homeland. Since it can be predicted that Moscow’s influence will only continue to rise within this country together with China’s, the US might seek to tap into its decades-long Cold War-era reserve of on-the-ground proxies to encourage a series of counteracting Hybrid Wars.

In relation to the ever-present threat of a Color Revolution and possibly preceded by or unfolding in coordination with it, these could take the form of a revived UNITA insurgency, Cabinda separatism, and Kongo Kingdom revisionism.

UNITA 2.0:

Background

This Portuguese-era rebel group never stopped fighting after the colonialists departed, instead turning their guns on their MPLA rivals who were by then leading the newly independent country. This immediately threw Angola into the throes of civil war before it ever had a chance to know peace. UNITA ended up being heavily supported by the US and apartheid South Africa, while MPLA was backed up by the USSR and Cuba, the latter of which staged a dramatic years-long military intervention by sending tens of thousands of troops to assist its beleaguered socialist ally in Africa. The civil war between UNITA and the MPLA continued even after the Cold War had ended, though by the mid-1990s the US officially disowned its warlord proxies and joined the rest of the UNSC in sanctioning them for violating ceasefire accords.

This marked a turning point in the civil war and might have been influenced by the US’ realization that UNITA wouldn’t win and that it would be much better for Washington to team up with the MPLA instead of fruitlessly keep opposing it by backing the losing side. The US may have desired reliable access to Angola’s large oil sector, and whether or not this was indeed the full motivation behind the decision to drop UNITA, it turned out to play exactly to Washington’s favor in that regard over two decades after the fact. Following the Angolan military’s neutralization of UNITA founder Jonas Savimbi in 2002 and the end of the civil war that year, the US removed sanctions against the guerrilla group which had by that point legally transitioned into an opposition party, but its diplomatic support for the government in the final stages of the war and its abandonment of UNITA led to a breakthrough in bilateral relations most clearly manifested in the energy sector and the 2009 declaration of a “Strategic Partnership Dialogue”.

Energy Politics

The US is now Angola’s second-largest oil export market behind only China, and the South Atlantic state is the US’ 10^th largest import source as of May 2016. Furthermore, when the US’ domestic fracking industry underperformed in the past year because of the energy crisis, Washington opted for replacing some of its lost production with an increase in Angolan imports. The two countries are evidently very close in this sphere, but it’s clear that the relationship isn’t so integral to the US that the country would be irreparably damaged if this was disrupted. This could be taken to mean that whatever Angola’s motivations might have been in allowing the US to become its second-largest oil purchaser, this state of affairs doesn’t in any way ensure that the country is safeguarded from American-supported destabilization. It’s true that the opportunity to provide the US a reliable backup source of oil was advantageous to both sides – the US was able to diversify its imports while Angola’s MPLA ruling party could “make nice” with their former enemy and bring in much-needed revenue directly from the dollar’s source – but there’s nothing in this relationship that can’t be substituted by another actor, such as the US depending more on Nigeria and Angola on China, for example.

Neither side inherently ‘needs’ the other, though their energy partnership is for now a win-win arrangement that could indefinitely continue so long as the US wants it to. There’s no sensible reason why the US would want to change this relationship except in the event that its domestic fracking production picks back up and Angolan imports are no longer required at their current level, but even then, it’s more prone to simply decrease its purchases and not overthrow the government. However, when analyzed from a broader strategic perspective, for as positive as the US’ relations with Angola presently are (especially in the energy sector), they’re not influential enough to get Luanda to use its exports to China as a proxy instrument of American pressure against Beijing. Therefore, aside from the already presumed Law of Hybrid War motivation for destabilizing Angola as a means of disrupting the multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project (STAR) running through its territory, the other reason that the US has for doing this is to create an opportunity for an allied political force to seize power and subsequently exert indirect American influence over China’s main African source of oil.

This by itself isn’t a coup de grace against Beijing, but combined with other energy-related Hybrid Wars all across the world, could contribute to crafting a future where the US in one form or another acquires the power to disrupt, control, and influence most of China’s foreign energy sources, which in that case would give Washington unthinkable leverage over Beijing and possibly even end the New Cold War with a unipolar victory. This is why the US might seek to support a second UNITA insurgency in Angola – not to ‘steal’ the oil for itself, but to establish a degree of control over it so that it could deny it to its competitors in the future, similar in essence to the reason why the US launched the War on Iraq. Behind the rhetorical polemics about “democracy” and “weapons of mass destruction”, one of the realpolitik ‘justifications’ other than geostrategically rearranging the Mideast was always for the US to directly or indirectly control its rivals’ oil, whether through an on-the-ground occupation or an allied proxy government, both of which did not yield the expected results for a wide range of reasons. Despite being an expensive failure in the Iraqi case, the strategic ‘reasoning’ behind the war is still attractive to the minds of the US’ zero-sum “deep state” decision makers, which is why they may be tempted to wage a Hybrid War on Angola.

The Insurgent Trigger

The most realistic circumstances under which UNITA might try to return to the forefront of domestic politics would obviously have to be after President dos Santos’ death or resignation. This is because the 2010 constitution stipulates that the president is no longer directly elected by popular vote, but that the leader of the winning party in parliamentary elections immediately assumes this office. It’s expected that the transfer of power from dos Santos to his future successor will serve as the trigger event for sparking a preplanned Color Revolution driven by demands for a “democratic vote” and other rabble-rousing liberal-progressive rhetoric designed to drum up easily manipulatable popular anger against the authorities. It doesn’t matter too much whether this is directed against scarecrows such as his daughter Isabel or perhaps even a ruling party apparatchik, because what’s important is that UNITA and its affiliated pro-Western NGO allies will work hard to channel the civil society energy that they’ve manufactured so as to improve their odds of ‘democratically’ seizing power.

Needless to say, the government won’t make an exception to the constitution just to please the ‘opposition’, so it’s not predicted that they’ll reinstitute presidential elections, though depending on the circumstances of dos Santos’ succession (whether he unexpectedly passes away in office or initiates a phased leadership transition), there might be early parliamentary elections (which in turn would lead to a new president). UNITA doesn’t stand a chance at winning them, though they’ll try to agilely ride the wave of social discontent amidst the ongoing economic (energy commodities) crisis in order to boost their previous showing of 18% in 2012. Unhappy with not winning the presidency, some of their members may then use the party’s defeat and the indirect elections to that office as the ‘justifications’ for taking back to the bush and waging a low-level insurgency, which they’d of course would expect to receive some level of American support (whether directly acknowledged or indirectly and covertly supplied). It’ll more than likely be the latter, and it doesn’t seem foreseeable that the US will at this time devote too many resources or attention to such a campaign aside from putting it on the backburner as an option to return to in the future whenever the subjective ‘need’ arises (such as the possibility for a grand bargain with China or to disrupt its Angolan energy supplies and STAR).

So as not to be misconstrued, the author is not necessarily predicting that UNITA will indeed take up arms once again, but is instead postulating the scenario under which this might be possible. In any case, it’s not expected that UNITA’s second insurgency will be anything like RENAMO’s in nearby fellow Lusophone Mozambique. The two rebel groups differ for a few reasons, including most importantly the fact that UNITA’s founder was killed in 2002 while RENAMO’s most prominent Cold War-era leader continues to live, lead, and fight. Another factor that can’t be overlooked is that UNITA doesn’t control or lay claim to any physical territory despite its history of support in the eastern regions (which is where they may return to in the event of a second outbreak of conflict), unlike RENAMO which operates in 6 provinces and controls swathes of territory outside the reach of government forces. The last point to be mentioned on this topic is that Angola is already an energy giant while Mozambique is on the path to becoming one. Luanda accordingly has much more money available at its disposal for state-of-the-art weapons purchases that would greatly enhance its ability to defend its sovereignty and carry out anti-terrorist operations against any forthcoming UNITA insurgents, while comparatively poorer Maputo isn’t yet strong enough to do any of this and is thus in a much more vulnerable position that could more easily be exploited.

Cabinda Separatist Crisis:

Background

The exclave of Cabinda (inaccurately called an “enclave” by the main separatist organization) is but a tiny fraction of Angola’s territory and population, but it disproportionately produces 60% of the country’s oil. Luanda won’t ever let this territory go no matter what happens, yet this hasn’t stopped some from trying to fight for independence. The Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) that was spoken about earlier in regards to the Republic of the Congo is the main rebel group operating in the province, and it’s formed from several insurgent organizations that joined together in 1963 in order to optimize their efforts at achieving the shared objective of future state sovereignty.

Perspectives

The way that they see it, the small exorbitantly oil-rich province is being denied what some locals feel is their fair share of the revenue proceeds, which instead must be sent to Luanda and divided amongst the other much poorer provinces. FLEC points to Cabinda’s identity and historical uniqueness relative to the rest of the country and the fact that the territory was briefly administered as its own separate colony by Portugal. They insist that if the oil revenue was concentrated in Cabinda, then the less than one million citizens that inhabit their prospective country would become unimaginably wealthy and achieve the sort of socio-economic development that they feel they’ve been deprived of for decades. Looked at from the opposite angle, the Angolan authorities view Cabinda as an integral part of their country and an irreplaceable source of wealth for the state as a whole. They could convincingly argue that the exclave’s resources have contributed to modernization and development all throughout the country, thus benefiting the greater good of Angolan nationhood as opposed to only a handful of people in a small sliver of land.

Escalations

Regardless of which side is normatively ‘right’ in this conflict, objectively speaking, an upsurge in militant Cabindan separatist activity on whatever grounds it’s argued would have the most immediate potential for destabilizing the state. Angola depends much too heavily on Cabinda to not be affected by an incipient wave of violence there, and even though the oil rigs are far offshore and seemingly untouchable, that still doesn’t mean that disturbances in the mainland portion of the province wouldn’t impact on its maritime counterpart. All that it takes is one or a few high-profile piracy or missile attacks targeting one or some of Angola’s many Western offshore energy investments in order to create panic among the relevant community and engender an immediate and harsh military crackdown. The state rightly recognizes that instability in the jungled interior could thus lead to the inevitable outgrowth of coastal conflict, which is why they absolutely need to contain whatever violence might break out and prevent it from interfering with Angola’s offshore energy extraction.

There’s already evidence that a new wave of insurgent activity is about to strike Cabinda, as seen by FLEC’s surprise attacks against the Angolan military there at the end of July. According to the separatists, they killed 9 government troops and injured 14 in a jungle ambush, and they also called on international oil workers to leave the province. This is a clear statement of intent signaling that plans are already underway for a rebel offensive or return to guerrilla warfare in the coming future, though with foreign contractors likely remaining at their job posts and not heeding FLEC’s call, it seems all but inevitable that some of them will be taken hostage, kidnapped, or killed in the future as part of a dramatic attention-grabbing flare-up in the region. Even with increased private military and Angolan state-provided security, oil workers, their job sites, and barracks are just too soft of targets to be adequately protected at all times, so Angola and its partners need to brace themselves for the possibility that civilians will be caught in the crossfire of a renewed Cabindan secessionist conflict.

Internationalization

Under the present domestic and regional circumstances, the Angolan military is more than capable of dealing with a new Cabindan insurgency, but if this reaches its zenith concurrent with other crises in the country such as an oncoming Color Revolution during next summer’s parliamentary (and thus by indirect extent, presidential) elections, the authorities might be overwhelmed and taken off guard. Additionally, if the US’ succeeds in a future regime change operation in the Republic of the Congo (considering that its most recent lackluster one failed) or the neighboring DRC, then either of these countries could come under the control of American-influenced client regimes that thus become “Lead From Behind” participants in the militant campaign for Cabindan independence. That would not only increase the rebels’ chances of success – whether in achieving independence, drawing the Angolan military into a quagmire, or carving out ‘liberated’ territory (no matter how small) – but it would also spike the possibility of state-to-state violence between Luanda and whichever of the two neighboring governments provides aid to FLEC. This would consequently internationalize the secessionist crisis and massively complicate Angola’s peaceful rise to regional leadership.

Kongo Kingdom Revisionism:

Background

The last Hybrid War scenario in Angola is the least likely to occur in the short-term, but might be the most destabilizing if it suddenly pops up amidst a Color Revolution, a second UNITA insurgency, an intensified Cabindan separatist campaign, or a combination thereof. To explain, approximately 8% of Angolans are of the Bakongo ethnicity, with most of them being concentrated in the northern provinces of Zaire (which is coastal and well-endowed with offshore oil reserves and an LNG processing facility) and Uige where they form a majority of the population. These two regions used to be part of the pre-colonial Kongo Kingdom, which also stretched into Cabinda, the Bas-Congo province of the DRC, and areas of the Republic of the Congo (which is nearly half Bakongo).

Foundational Concept

It’s very difficult for outside observers to gauge the sense of transnational ‘identity togetherness’  that this demographic feels and the potential for it to be politicized into a separatist movement, but it can generally be assumed that foreign-directed NGOs would be instrumental in consolidating this sentiment and manipulating it for geopolitical gains. One of the most probable starting points for the weaponized information campaign of Bakongo nationalism would be the historical experience of the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) rebel group during the civil war period. This organization played a much lesser role than UNITA did, but it nonetheless is relevant in this context for having brought together many Bakongo people under a shared militant banner. When taken together with the historical memory of the Kongo Kingdom, the FNLA functions as the military-political tool for actualizing this territorially revisionist project, no matter if it’s organizationally spread across the tristate region or concentrated in the Angolan-DRC borderlands.

Cross-Border Trouble

The author wasn’t able to find information about any active Bakongo separatist groups in Angola (other than FLEC, with Cabindans being a part of this civilization), but there was one organization in the DRC which repeatedly came up throughout the research as a group to watch. The Bundu dia Kongo (BDK) has been involved in several violent provocations against the Kinshasa authorities, and their main objective is to create a sovereign Bakongo state out of the Bas-Congo province. Clearly, though, this would naturally extend into Angola, both in Zaire and Uige provinces and Cabinda, so the group must automatically also be seen as a threat to Angola’s sovereignty alongside the DRC’s. BDK is troublesome for both states because it could catalyze a conflict between them, whether one in which both governments are fighting the same allied network of interrelated cross-border insurgents or a scenario through which an expansionist regime-changed pro-American DRC uses the group as a proxy lever for destabilizing Angola on America’s behalf.

Scenarios

Both possibilities could happen, with the first one occurring either under the already existing conditions or amidst the type of total-state breakdown that will be discussed in the next chapter about the country, while the second might happen if the DRC decides to devolve along the lines of an “Identity Federation” (whether on its own prerogative or in response to another civil war). If the aforementioned political reconstitution enters into force, then it could be safely inferred that the Bakongo would receive their own quasi-independent statelet in Bas-Congo province which could then be used as a springboard for a revived FNLA Bakongo nationalist movement in Angola. This would naturally merge with the Cabindan separatist campaign that was described above in order to throw most of Angola’s northern borderland into conflict, thereby jeopardizing the government’s oil revenues in Cabinda and Zaire provinces. Ironically, this would be a ‘reverse-Shaba’ in the sense that it wouldn’t be Angolan rebels invading the DRC’s restive Katanga province, but Congolese DRC ones invading the Bakongo frontiers of Angola.

Even though the Benguela railway doesn’t run through any of the forecasted operational areas, it would likely be used in this scenario as an instrument of blackmail by Kinshasa owing to Luanda’s future real-sector economic dependency on this route, which would then in that case totally disrupt China’s cross-continental New Silk Road plans for this part of Africa and fulfill the strategic objective of Hybrid War. Moreover, because of Luanda’s proximity to the DRC border and the Bakongo-majority-inhabited areas of its own internal borderland, if military forces in the DRC ever got powerful enough either in a nationwide sense or a non-state regional one like in Bas-Congo province with the BDK, then they might be able to decisively threaten the Angolan capital under the pretense of staging a ‘humanitarian intervention’ for the Bakongo and thus indefinitely hold out the Damocles’ Sword of regime change over the MPLA.  There is nothing to indicate that this would happen anywhere in the coming future, but it’s still a strategic risk that Angolan policy makers should monitor just in case, as the geopolitical foundation for this danger will never change so long as the borders and their related demographics remain the same as they are today.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently residing in Moscow. Thew views expressed are his own. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanma

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Donald J. Trump, Twitter, Feb 9, 2017

It seems in little need of recapitulation, but the Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” has been living a charmed and distorted life.  It sought to ban, for 90 days, the entry of nationals into the United States from seven countries.  The order was subsequently challenged by two states as unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

Its progenitor, the now foamingly livid US President Donald J. Trump, was always labouring under the impression that it would pass muster in its entirety. But then again, The Donald was unaware about the restraining niceties of the US court system.

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had to entertain themselves with yet another appeal from the Trump administration on the urgency of the EO, this time against the decision made by District Judge James J. Robart of the Western District of Washington State to grant a temporary restraining order.

The Executive Order’s enforcement was suspended by the good judge, who deemed it necessary to make his order nationwide in application.  Apoplectic, Trump charged Judge Robart with a lack of competence, suggesting that any deaths resulting to US citizens from this action be placed squarely on his judicial head.  A groan was duly registered in the separation of powers.

Three factors caught the attention of the appeals panel: whether the administration had showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; the extent or degree of hardship caused by the stay or its denial; and that ever pressing issue of the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

Even reading this decision, the EO seems linguistically sloppy, misguided and even hallucinatory in seeing threats and fears.  The hallmark of terrorist attacks on US soil, those of September 11, 2001, is seen as a marker, the symbolic point where all justifications issue. Since that date, “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes”.  It followed that the United States had to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The global situation was truly a panic-inducing one, even if some it had been occasioned by the mischief-making of the US war machine.  Many a failed state has had its origins in the carelessly murderous musings of the Pentagon and White House.

The grindstone of war and devastation, according to the EO, globally placed the US at risk, sombrely making Trump reflect that, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.”

The judges of the Ninth Circuit did not waste time diving into the hardship caused.  The government’s case was not being well received.  The Executive Order saw thousands of visas cancelled, hundreds of travellers with such visas prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the US or denied entry at point of arrival.  Instances of detention were also noted.

On the issue of injury, the States had made out that their public universities had been affected, notably in the fields of teaching and their “research missions”.  Students and researchers who were nationals of the seven countries on the banned list were specifically mentioned as being harmed, be it in terms of their study, collaborative ventures, or seeing families. “We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order.”

The Executive Order also fell foul of the due process clause. Trump’s lawyers had not demonstrated sufficiently that the Fifth Amendment had been followed. There had been, for instance, no notice or a hearing prior to restrictions on particular individuals for travel. The government’s assumption here – a point of some alarm to the judges – was that “most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.”

The muddle became apparent in the Order’s lack of discrimination on the status of the traveller.  Did lawful permanent residents have sufficient due process rights when re-entering the US?  Seemingly not.  Had the government provided lawful permanent residents a “constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry”? Again, the answer was no.

The court also showed reluctance in limiting the scope of the restraining order to lawful permanent residents. Nor did the geographic scope of the restraining order require curtailing. To do so would result in a “fragmented immigration policy”. Judge Robart must have been grinning at this point.

Even as the Trump administration’s arguments were being given the full heave-ho, the judges could not resist making a point that the government’s lawyers had done little other than reiterate the need to combat terrorism as a government priority.  Despite being pressed by the bench, and by the lower District Court to adduce evidence that the US was at such immediate and dire risk, nothing was forthcoming.

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack on the United States.” In place of evidence, an impetuous position had been assumed by Trump’s team: the court could not review that decision at all.  Judges often find such dismissive positions uncomfortable, preferring to wade in.  The President, much to his consternation, will have to flog this horse, deadened by three failures, a touch longer.

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

Rosa Ortega, a Mexican citizen, has been convicted of voter fraud and sentenced to 8 years in prison in Texas after inadvertently admitting to election officials that she had been voting in Dallas County for years. 

Apparently the voting fraud was discovered by chance after Ortega tried to register to vote in Tarrant County but was rejected after she admitted that she was not actually a citizen of the United States.  While she should have probably just accepted the rejection, Ortega pushed back by arguing that she had already been voting in Dallas County, an argument that drew the attention of investigators.

Ortega’s voting privileges were approved in Dallas after she falsified her application by claiming to be a citizen.  Of course, liberal lawyers, have done a masterful job convincing courts around the country that verifying things like a person’s identity and citizenship status prior to allowing them to vote is unconstitutional.  Per CBS:

 Prosecutors say the reason officials at the elections department in Dallas didn’t stop the voter fraud from happening is because Rosa Ortega claimed she was a citizen on her application.

Now the Tarrant County D.A.’s office is calling for those claims to be verified before handing out registration cards.

Prosecutors said whether this case prompts elections officials to verify citizenship is an issue for the legislature.

As you may recall, we wrote about a similar incident back in September in which the Cascade Mall shooter, a Turkish citizen, who killed 5 people in the state of Washington was found to have also been illegally voting for years.  And, just like the case above, Washington’s Secretary of State noted that there was no way to prevent the voter fraud because “we don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.”

  We don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.  So, we’re in this place where we want to make sure we’re maintaining people’s confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that we’re giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process. We’re moving forward, and that investigation is really coming out of the investigation from the shootings.

The penalties are very serious. That’s why we want to make sure we’re very measured, and this is why we want to make sure we’re very calm and purposeful in how we move forward.  The stakes are very high on both sides. You want to keep the confidence level high, but you also want to protect the voting rights of everyone.

Our hands are kind of tied, but make no mistake, we want to make sure that everybody has confidence that people casting ballots are eligible. This is certainly going to be a topic at next legislation.

Of course, Ortega’s lawyer tried to argue that a learning disability made it impossible for her to comprehend the complex laws that allow only U.S. citizens to vote in U.S. elections…Sure, because why wouldn’t Mexican citizens be allowed to vote in the U.S.? 

  Her attorney said she has a learning disability and was confused about the difference between being a citizen and a legal resident, so she thought she was allowed to vote.

“The jury didn’t believe that story. They believed that the defendant knew exactly what she was doing, and they responded accordingly,” Prosecutor Jonathan White said.

“Once she gets out of prison and she’s deported, does she bring her four minor children to Mexico? As a mother I think that would be a difficult choice for her,” Birdsall said.

We’re currently awaiting confirmation from Democrats and MSNBC that there is still no concrete evidence of voter fraud and that Trump’s vow to conduct a “major investigation” into the topic is still just a political sham.

In response to the establishment media’s contrived ‘fake news’ crisis designed to marginalise independent and alternative media sources of news and analysis, 21WIRE is running its own #FakeNewsWeek awareness campaign, where each day our editorial team at 21st Century Wire will feature media critiques and analysis of mainstream corporate media coverage of current events – exposing the government and the mainstream media as the real purveyors of ‘fake news’ throughout modern history…

Understanding the complex relationships that make up human endeavors permeates every aspect of society and politics. The ability to be informed about events is a basic motivation to search out news about what is exactly happening in the world we all live in.

Journalism purports to report the first draft of history. In practice, the press and media coverage is systemically bereft of relevant facts and completely void of objectivity. The currency of the realm is trust for all journalists. Their collective credibility is bankrupt for a very simple reason; their newscasts are based upon lies, newspeak and intentional deception.

Carlin Romano in We Need ‘Philosophy of Journalism’, asks an essential question that is not at all addressed by the Fourth Estate: “How can it be that journalism and philosophy, the two humanistic intellectual activities that most boldly (and some think obnoxiously) vaunt their primary devotion to truth, are barely on speaking terms?”

Essentially, every component of the mainstream media multiplex is foremost a business. The business model is to operate under the aegis of monopolies. Even a casual observation of the interlocking ownership of big media must acknowledge that the concentration of likeminded Oligopolists are in unison to construct a consortium of predisposed narratives that has nothing to do with seeking the truth.

When the term Pressitude is used to characterize the profession, the uninformed or limited literate news consumers often find comfort in turning on their network disinformation program. Those who take pride in obtaining their news from ‘papers of record’ like the New York Times and the Washington Post rely upon a different motivation. Their aversion to any source that contradicts the establishment worldview is so painful to consider that they adopt a feeble rationalization for self-preservation, which demands rejection of any argument, verifiable facts or documented evidence that challenges their scripted storyline of reality.

The example of Sharyl Attkisson, and Judith Miller, have been treated differently by their own employers. The first demonstrating courageous investigative reporting; whereas the second produced a fabricated account that deceived the public about nonexistent WMDs in Iraq. Attkisson was ostracized, while Miller is now a FOX News contributor.

Miller’s Pulitzer Prize, awarded while employed by the NYT – is no badge of honor. The term “Yellow Journalism” is most closely associated with Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Their sensational duelling newspapers and extra editions shared the “Fake News” prototype during the late 19th century and early 20th century. What once was conveyed by a cartoon image is now a 24/7 cable news cycle. Granted, the 21st century is different, but the spin and outright lies follow the same pattern of misinformation. Deception, falsification and distortion are absorbed as nonchalantly as a My Pillow advertisement that inundates the propaganda that masquerades as news.

The orthodox version of American media journalism was crafted under the guidance of William S. Paley of CBS, setting the highest standard for news reporting at that time. Names like Edward R. Murrow, Elmer Davis, William L. Shirer, Charles Collingwood, Howard K. Smith and Eric Sevareid are icons in the industry. For those who contend that this era invented “The most trusted man in America” Walter Cronkite, one must not forget that the broadcast news division ran budget deficits, while the parent network was most profitable.

Yet for all the celebrated accolades that CBS News coveted, the underlying message behind the script was Edward Bernays’ propaganda. Fast forward to the internet age and you find that these one-time news bureaus no longer control their monopoly over the news cycle.

Immediacy in information dissemination no longer guarantees accuracy in the report anymore than corporatist editing ensures the believability of the popularly accepted viewpoint. Nevertheless, the predominant originator of “Fake News” comes from a far more sinister source; government brainwashing. Indeed, at the very core of vast news media apparatus are state-sponsored operatives and embeds. Any pretense that there is any independence within establishment media outlets is a symptom of the chronic idiocy within the popular culture. Inserting the government fake news version, using unreliable sources to shape an echo chamber of official fiction is the paradigm for mass indoctrination. Controlling gatekeepers to filter out any conflicting accounts uses both covert and overt censorship. The flagship news purveyors devote their resources to discredit genuine freelance reporting from any ideological perspectives. Mainstream Media (MSM) has the mission to smear any alternative news source and label them as disrepute journalists.

The American Press Institute states that Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. Then refines this criterion by adding conditionality to the standard: “Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but in a capacity that is more down to earth.”

By inserting a subjective value element, any reasonable expectation that the work product is trustworthy is suspect. It becomes the task of the reader or viewer to critically analyze the underlying bias and intention to inculcate the culture.  When Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, “The medium is the message,” he was foreseeing the extent of the newspeak affixed within the medium was not fully appreciated.

Corporations select journalists for their adherence to nihilism in reporting. The MSM’s denial of objective facts and practicing deception by generating actual fake news has produced generations of naïve, ill-informed and confused souls – placing a purdah veil over the heads of trendy clones, fostering the shearing of the sheeple society.

Escaping this planet of press corps apes requires a withdrawal from the sophism. The coordinated accusations of “Fake News” attacks by the dinosaur media upon autonomous internet reporting is a sure sign that suppressing truth to power is the only storyline that matters to these secular relativists and muckraking crusaders to maintain their stranglehold on headline sound bites.

The selection agenda which determines what constitutes news is an editorial function that bears witness to the parameters for public conditioning. All other reporting is declared as ‘conspiracy theory.’ Even a casual assessment of the foreign press provides a contrast to the perception spin machine from K Street or Madison Avenue. As the monopoly media manipulation resorts to their faux news narrative, astute observers understand that their broadcast lies are the real Fake News.

***
Author SARTRE is a special contributor to 21st Century Wire. Learn more about his writing and join-in on more forum discussions at BATR.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! 

Trump’s screaming tweet, complete with all caps in the original, captures the essence of this president’s bold move to take total power over the United States.

When he says “the security of our nation is at stake,” he refers demagogically to the imaginary threat of terrorists from seven countries. He is right to say “the security of our nation is at stake,” but not at all in the way he means – the security of our nation is profoundly at stake in this case because, if he wins, then presidential orders will become dictatorial decrees beyond the reach of the courts. Our constitutional crisis continues.

At issue is Executive Order 13769, issued January 27, 2017, establishing the so-called Muslim ban on immigrants from seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya). The order was prepared with limited vetting and implemented with no advance planning, creating immediate, global chaos that led to numerous court challenges and partial stays of the order. The case brought January 30 by the states of Washington and Minnesota together persuaded a Washington State judge (appointed by President Bush) to issue a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the U.S. government from enforcing key provisions of the Executive Order (which the government apparently took its time to obey). The government’s motion for an emergency stay of the TRO was heard February 7 by a three-judge federal district Appeals Court (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court). On February 9, the Appeals Court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling and left the TRO in place, unmodified, until the lower court holds a duly-scheduled hearing of the government’s appeal of the TRO before deciding whether to make the TRO permanent.

Trump’s Executive Order has created a watershed crisis in U.S. constitutional government. Trump fired an acting attorney general for questioning his order’s constitutionality and legality. Several lower federal courts have found the order, in the words of the Appeals Court, “unconstitutional and violative of federal law.” The issue is likely to reach the Supreme Court before long. If the Supreme Court rules for the president, then he will be able to rule by decree. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts, that will check the president’s power to rule by decree, but only until the next challenge to the U.S. Constitution’s traditional balance of powers.

9th Circuit Appeals Court rejects attack on Constitution

What follows is a brief summary of the Appeals Court’s 29-page order, including the constitutional issues that court identified. The language of the Appeals Court order is as restrained and dignified as the president’s tweets are hysterical and outrageous. The court begins (p. 3) by stating the basis for deciding the issue:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

In sketching the background for the Executive Order, the court notes (p. 3) that the only specific attack or threat cited to justify the danger to national security is 9/11. The court described elements of the Executive Order and their impact as they were implemented.

In a February 10 tweet, President Trump asserted:

LAWFARE: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the) statute.” A disgraceful decision!

Since the court cites the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. (p. 4), it’s not clear what statute Trump had in mind. The court also wrote (p. 6) that in issuing its initial restraining order:

The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful.

The U.S. government claimed that the states had no standing to sue, no right to sue, because the states had not suffered sufficient injury from the Executive Order. The government did not dispute that the state universities “are branches of the States under state law” (p.8). After reviewing the impact of the Executive Order on members of the state universities, the court held (p.12):

We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.

According to government lawyers, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to review any presidential orders “to suspend the admission of any class of aliens: (p. 13). The government argues that such orders are even more unreviewable when the president is motivated by national security claims, even if the orders violate constitutional rights and protections. The government claims that court review of unconstitutional orders violates the principle of separation of powers in government. The court rejects these arguments (p. 14):

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy…. Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches….” We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.

The court notes (p.15) that the government is so desperate to find support for its claims that it misquotes from a case (Kleindienst v. Mandel) to reach a false conclusion. Even in national security cases, the courts have a legitimate role, contrary to the government argument. The court points out that, while the Supreme Court counsels deference to national security decisions of the White House or Congress, the Supreme Court also made clear that (pp. 17-18):

… the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war…. it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.

Addressing the government’s motion to stay the lower court order, the Appeals Court points out that a stay is not a matter of right, but a matter of court discretion based on the particular circumstances of the case. The government, by requesting the stay, bears the burden of showing that those circumstances support the request:

Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” [citation omitted]

The court concludes that the government fails to satisfy any of the four criteria. The court cites the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement that “No person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law …” and describes the government position in quietly scathing terms (pp. 19-20):

The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause. [emphasis added]

To make this argument, the government lawyers must ignore the plain language of the Constitution referring to “No person” and hope that no one notices that the individuals affected by the Executive Order are, in fact, living, breathing persons. People noticed, and people noticed that this attitude is authoritarian and in antithesis to American democratic standards.

The government tries to mitigate the Executive Order by referring to an “Authoritative Guidance” issued by White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn addressing and seeking to remedy certain portions of the order relating to lawful permanent residents. The court rejects this government argument with withering dry scorn (pp. 21-22):

The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely. Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments.

In analyzing this and other poorly thought out, incomplete, and incompetent aspects of the government’s case, the court points out (p. 24) that “it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order.” What the court says, with somewhat sly due deference, is that it’s up to the White House to do its job correctly.

The court turns to the states’ argument that the Executive Order violates both the Constitution’s First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. White citing Supreme Court holdings supporting the states’ argument, the Appeals Court chooses not to address it in the context of the government’s emergency motion. The court reserves the right to address the issues when the appeal of the TRO is heard.

Although the court does not address it directly, the underlying absurdity of the Executive Order is that it is based on fear-mongering over imaginary threats. If the “terrorist threats” endlessly uttered by the Chicken Littles of government and media had any basis in reality, then suspending the Executive Order might actually be dangerous and might even lead to “irreparable injury.” The court rejects that government argument, too (p.26):

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury…. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years. The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. [emphasis added]

In contrast, the court found that the states had provided ample evidence that the Executive Order had already caused irreparable damage to some people and that, if reinstated, it would cause irreparable damage to many more.

Assessing the general public interest, the court saw favorable arguments on both sides. The public has a “powerful interest in national security,” but the public also has an interest in “free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.” At this point, the court denies the government’s motion for an emergency stay, in effect because there is no perceptible emergency. Or rather there is no emergency as the government defines it. Taken as a whole, the court’s order illustrates a serious constitutional emergency perpetrated by the president against his own government and people. While the court doesn’t list other public interests, the public also surely has a substantial interest in a government that follows the constitutional due process of law, that acts in good faith, that supports its arguments with facts based in reality, and that does not claim the right to act dictatorially with no checks and balances.

White House acts as if it is not only ABOVE the law, it IS the law

Late on February 10, Trump administration sources said there would be no appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court. That leaves the future district court decision as a possible vehicle for a Supreme Court ruling. But late on February 10, the president hinted at just issuing a brand new Executive Order (adding “I like to surprise you.”). This might be good for the White House, avoiding a possible Supreme Court decision requiring them to act within the constitutional framework of the law. That might also be better than a Supreme Court decision that reinforced the president’s power to rule by decree. We don’t know how far the Supreme Court will go either for ideology or to protect judicial authority. We can be pretty sure that our constitutional crisis will not be over any time soon, and may not turn out well for the Constitution.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

‘If the Captain of Chaos wants to disrupt everything—including resetting relations with little ol’ Canada—Palin would be the one to break the china’

Rumors that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin could be the next ambassador to Canada have been met with a resounding “No Siree,” as Canadians this week have erupted in a chorus of (hilarious) outrage.

The backlash erupted after White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday refused to rule out the appointment when questioned directly.

Sarah Palin “represents the descent of politics,” wrote the Ottawa Citizen‘s Andrew Cohen.
“We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin’s child.” (Photo: AP)

“We have no additional ambassador nominations or announcements to make on that front,” Spicer told reporters. “I’m sure at some point we will have, soon.” Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau is expected to meet with U.S. Donald Trump on Monday.

Several Canadian lawmakers swiftly responded with their own thoughts on the reports.

“Well that would show how little Steve Bannon and his pal @realDonaldTrump think of Canada,” Member of Parliament (MP) Charlie Angus wrote on social media. Fellow New Democrat Nathan Cullen said Palin’s appointment would be “tantamount to having to deal with two Donald Trumps,” according to CBC News.

“She has never been very comfortable with the truth,” Cullen told reporters on Thursday. “Couldn’t recognize it most mornings if it jumped up and knocked her on the head.”

In a searing op-ed, Ottawa Citizen columnist Andrew Cohen argued that the appointment would not be out of the realm of possibility for Trump and warned that if appointed, the former vice presidential candidate and reality TV star “would bring her traveling carnival to Canada.”

“If the Captain of Chaos wants to disrupt everything—including resetting relations with little ol’ Canada—Palin would be the one to break the china,” Cohen wrote. Palin, he continued, “represents the descent of politics. We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin’s child.”

Should she be appointed, Cohen concluded, she would remind Canada, “lest we forget, of our new life through the looking glass.”

As the rumors percolated, other neighbors to the north took to Twitter to voice their opposition and to revel in the morose comedy of it all.

Notably, there is growing concern among Canadians over Trump’s so-called “America First” strategy. A new survey found that the majority of citizens want Trudeau to stand up for the nation’s economic interests during upcoming trade negotiations and 58 percent “would support a trade war with the U.S. if the Trump administration slapped new tariffs on Canadian exports,” the Globe and Mail reported Thursday.

At the same time, there has been growing pressure on Trudeau and other Canadian lawmakers to counter Trump’s travel ban by lifting its cap on refugee resettlement.

It has been two months since the South Korean National Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeaching Park Geun-hye for her involvement in the corruption scandal with her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and South Korean citizens are growing concerned about the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion. To add to the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment trial, the special prosecutor charged with investigating the corruption scandal has yet to obtain access to the evidence it needs to prosecute Park.

The Constitutional Court faces delays as Park’s legal team continues to request additional witnesses for examination. This week, Park’s lawyers pressured the Constitutional Court to consider taking on 17 more witnesses. The Court ended up scheduling eight witnesses to take the stand in the next few weeks, so it is highly unlikely that it will reach a verdict before March, as was widely expected. Members of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee have accused Park’s representatives of requesting an endless list of witnesses as a tactic to delay the court’s decision. They were also critical of the Constitutional Court for its inability to push the trial process along.

On February 8, lawmakers of the opposition parties demanded the Constitutional Court reach its final verdict before March 13, when the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court Lee Jung-mi is scheduled to retire. Lee instructed representatives of Park Geun-hye and the National Assembly’s impeachment committee to submit their closing arguments by February 23. If the Constitutional Court allows the trial to move forward as scheduled without further delay, there is a chance that the final verdict will be announced before March 13. If the trial is delayed beyond March 13, however, only seven active judges (of the usual nine) will remain to make the final verdict. The previous Chief Justice Park Han-chul retired after completing his term last month.

As the courtroom drama drags on, the South Korean people are gearing up to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision. On February 10, the Emergency Task Force to Remove the Park Geun-hye Administration and other civil society groups called for one million people to take to the streets again for the 15th candlelight action on Saturday, February 11. The task force is aiming to pressure the court to rule in favor of impeachment and put an end to the Park administration’s abomination before the end of February. They will also march to the Blue House to demand the resignation of acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, who served as the prime minister under Park Geun-hye.

Time Running Out for Special Prosecutor

It has been two months since the South Korean National Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeaching Park Geun-hye for her involvement in the corruption scandal with her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and South Korean citizens are growing concerned about the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion. To add to the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment trial, the special prosecutor charged with investigating the corruption scandal has yet to obtain access to the evidence it needs to prosecute Park.

The Constitutional Court faces delays as Park’s legal team continues to request additional witnesses for examination. This week, Park’s lawyers pressured the Constitutional Court to consider taking on 17 more witnesses. The Court ended up scheduling eight witnesses to take the stand in the next few weeks, so it is highly unlikely that it will reach a verdict before March, as was widely expected. Members of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee have accused Park’s representatives of requesting an endless list of witnesses as a tactic to delay the court’s decision. They were also critical of the Constitutional Court for its inability to push the trial process along.

On February 8, lawmakers of the opposition parties demanded the Constitutional Court reach its final verdict before March 13, when the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court Lee Jung-mi is scheduled to retire. Lee instructed representatives of Park Geun-hye and the National Assembly’s impeachment committee to submit their closing arguments by February 23. If the Constitutional Court allows the trial to move forward as scheduled without further delay, there is a chance that the final verdict will be announced before March 13. If the trial is delayed beyond March 13, however, only seven active judges (of the usual nine) will remain to make the final verdict. The previous Chief Justice Park Han-chul retired after completing his term last month.

As the courtroom drama drags on, the South Korean people are gearing up to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision. On February 10, the Emergency Task Force to Remove the Park Geun-hye Administration and other civil society groups called for one million people to take to the streets again for the 15th candlelight action on Saturday, February 11. The task force is aiming to pressure the court to rule in favor of impeachment and put an end to the Park administration’s abomination before the end of February. They will also march to the Blue House to demand the resignation of acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, who served as the prime minister under Park Geun-hye.

Time Running Out for Special Prosecutor

The U.S Empire, which serves narrow oligarch[1] special interests, rather than broad-based national interests, always uses the banner of “human rights” as a pretext for criminal invasions, but the invasions, at least since 9/11, are NEVER about human rights.

Quite the opposite.

Recently, as an example, U.S coalition warplanes deliberately, and criminally, bombed bridges and water lines serving the city of Raqqa, Syria, all for the benefit of the U.S terrorist proxies occupying and terrorizing the city.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book directly from Global Research

Targeting civilians for death and destruction is U.S military strategy, well-honed during previous illegal invasions of other countries, including Iraq and Libya.

If the criminal cabal driving the Empire’s mass-murdering, country and international law-destroying overseas holocaust did use human rights as a reason for invasion, then it would be invading itself. The US has among the highest rates of incarceration[2] in the world, stratospheric child-poverty rates[3], a foreign policy consisting of war crimes, and a well-honed apparatus for torturing[4] people globally etc.

But the fake “humanitarian” pretexts regularly fool and tame the MSM–consuming masses, thus engineering consent for more war crimes of the highest order.

A recently-released Amnesty International Report[5] – based on hearsay, and fabricated in the U.K — fails all tests of validity, but nonetheless serves the Pentagon’s strategy of “information dominance”[6], codified in U.S law with the passage of HR5181[7], which provides a framework for “countering” and “refuting” narratives that do not align with U.S propaganda narratives.

All of the war lies about Syria, covered and repeated incessantly by MSM fake news, have been discredited.  Assad is not a brutal dictator.  He does not willfully bomb his own people.  He does not “kill his own people”, nor does he gas his own people. And so the next Big Lie is the Amnesty fake news story, dutifully reported and legitimized, of course, by MSM fake news.

— Prof Tim Anderson

The Amnesty lie serves to obscure the increasingly obvious real story about Syria, including the nature of the West’s terrorist proxies,^[8] and the crimes[9] that they commit.

The criminal narratives of the warmongering oligarch class need to be replaced with on-the-ground real news about Syria, and the real news tells us that Syria is winning the battle against the NATO et al. terrorists.  This should be cause for celebration[10].

In the 1980s the Mur was the only “dead river” in Austria. It was poisoned by many different kinds of chemical wastewaters, mainly from papermills. “Drink one glass of Mur-water and you will die.”, my teacher told me and my classmates in those years.

Then chlorine bleaching was forbidden, wastewater treatment became common and the river began to recover. In the late 1990s the water quality of our river which is called “the green Mur” in the Styrian anthem became much better.

The banks of the Mur are covered by  trees – a lot of them are centuries old, with much more than one meter in diameter. The green ribbon of our Mur is – like the famous clocktower – one of the most important landmarks of Graz for residents and tourists alike.

The river is flowing fast with about 200 cubic meters per second and there is even whitewater (3rd degree) in the middle of the city. In summer we have a lot of people sitting on the big stones under the old trees, enjoying the sound of the wild water or surfing in the huge standing waves or simply relaxing. A beautiful place. It’s one of the things which make living in our city nice.

Now the river is in danger of being killed again – this time not by poisoning, but through ruthless corrupted politics. The green oasis of trees and the original old face of the city are scheduled to be sacrificed in order to build a river power plant.

For only a little more then 10 MW of electrical power the beautiful, historical old face of the city will be destroyed. Three big powerstations in the vicinity (all together much more than 1000 MW) are working in a very low operating grade about 30%, another newly built gas power plant was closed due to a lack of demand but nevertheless officials who seem to be densely interlaced with the building sector tried to convince the citizens of the necessity of the river power plant.

Adviser firms have done their best to prevent the whole thing from looking like corruption, but the striking disproportion between a ridiculous little yield of energy and so much destruction of century-old nature and recovery space in my hometown does not allow any other conclusion than corruption at the cost of us, the people of Graz.

On the 21st of January thousands of protesters marched in our streets, to bring around the administration. But they continue their ruthless plan of destruction. To see that happen hurts like the loss of a beloved person. Politicians use the local media to twist what we say and to suppress what we feel. 

Daniel Vidic, born and living in Graz, Austria

Prepress technician (gravure) for food packaging

Hobbies: Canoeing, Hanggliding (flight instructor), climbing, mountaineering

1. Youtube-Video: Mur-march (04. jan. 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S_FpeJ7JM8

2. Youtube-video 4000 marching people to save the mur

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

3. Website “Save the Mur”

http://www. rettetdiemur.at

A clean-up mission using a remotely operated robot at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has had to be aborted, as officials feared they could completely lose control of the probe affected by unexpectedly high levels of radiation.

The robot equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a camera designed to withstand up to 1,000 Sieverts of cumulative exposure had been pulled off the inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex earlier this week, The Japan Times reported Friday, citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The device reportedly broke down just two hour into the probe.

The failure led experts to rethink estimated levels of radiation inside the damaged reactor.

While last week TEPCO said it might stand at 530 Sieverts per hour – a dose that can almost instantly kill a human being, following the latest aborted mission a company official has said a reading of up to 600 Sieverts should be “basically correct.”

Even despite the considerable 30-percent margin of error for the revised estimate, the latest probe left no doubt that radiation levels are at record highs within the reactor. Even though it cannot be measured directly with a Geiger counter or dosimeter, the dose is calculated by its effect on the equipment.

Last month, a hole of no less than one square meter in size was discovered beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The apparent opening in the metal grating is believed to have been caused by melted nuclear fuel, TEPCO then said.

The recent mission has demonstrated that the melted fuel is close to the studied area.

While extreme radiation levels have been registered within the reactor, officials insist that no leaks or increases outside have been detected.

The failure might force Japan to rethink the robot-based strategy it has adopted for locating melted fuel at Fukushima, according to The Japan Times.

The robot affected by radiation was supposed to wash off thick layers of dirt and other wreckage, clearing ways for another remotely controlled probe to enter the area, tasked with carrying out a more proper investigation to assess the state of the damaged nuclear reactor. Previously, even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have crumbled and shut down affected by the radioactive substance inside the reactor.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986. TEPCO is so far in the early stages of assessing the damage, with the decommissioning of the nuclear facility expected to take decades.

A clean-up mission using a remotely operated robot at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has had to be aborted, as officials feared they could completely lose control of the probe affected by unexpectedly high levels of radiation.

The robot equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a camera designed to withstand up to 1,000 Sieverts of cumulative exposure had been pulled off the inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex earlier this week, The Japan Times reported Friday, citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The device reportedly broke down just two hour into the probe.

The failure led experts to rethink estimated levels of radiation inside the damaged reactor.

While last week TEPCO said it might stand at 530 Sieverts per hour – a dose that can almost instantly kill a human being, following the latest aborted mission a company official has said a reading of up to 600 Sieverts should be “basically correct.”

Even despite the considerable 30-percent margin of error for the revised estimate, the latest probe left no doubt that radiation levels are at record highs within the reactor. Even though it cannot be measured directly with a Geiger counter or dosimeter, the dose is calculated by its effect on the equipment.

Last month, a hole of no less than one square meter in size was discovered beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The apparent opening in the metal grating is believed to have been caused by melted nuclear fuel, TEPCO then said.

The recent mission has demonstrated that the melted fuel is close to the studied area.

While extreme radiation levels have been registered within the reactor, officials insist that no leaks or increases outside have been detected.

The failure might force Japan to rethink the robot-based strategy it has adopted for locating melted fuel at Fukushima, according to The Japan Times.

The robot affected by radiation was supposed to wash off thick layers of dirt and other wreckage, clearing ways for another remotely controlled probe to enter the area, tasked with carrying out a more proper investigation to assess the state of the damaged nuclear reactor. Previously, even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have crumbled and shut down affected by the radioactive substance inside the reactor.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986. TEPCO is so far in the early stages of assessing the damage, with the decommissioning of the nuclear facility expected to take decades.

With major media featuring fake news, Net Neutrality is key to keeping the Internet free and open, letting users access all content without restrictions, limitations, or discrimination, an online level playing field for everyone. 

First Amendment rights depend on it. Without Net Neutrality, consumer choice will be lost, stolen by corporate predators, making the Internet look like cable TV, letting communication giants decide what web sites, content and applications are available at what cost.

Net Neutrality is essential to assure no content is favored over others. Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) legal director Corynne McSherry expressed concern about Trump’s new FCC director Ajit Pai “taking steps to undermine Net Neutrality protections,” adding:

“If so, we, and millions of Internet users, will do what is necessary to defend a free and open Internet.” Separately, EFF raised concerns about FCC opposition to encryption under Pai, urging tech companies to defend and preserve it along with Net Neutrality and privacy rights.

FreePress.net said “everything (it) fought for at the FCC is in jeopardy” under Pai. Previously he was a corporate lawyer for Verizon Communications, involved in regulatory and broadband issues, among others.

At the FCC, he held several positions in its Office of General Counsel, most prominently as deputy general counsel. He also practiced law at Washington-based Jenner & Block, specializing in communications practice.

In 2011, Obama named him an FCC commissioner. He strongly opposes regulations, prioritizes their removal. In 2015, he opposed the FCC’s Open Internet Order. Last December, he said Net Neutrality’s days are “numbered.”

In January, Free Press CEO Craig Aaron blasted Pai, saying he’s “been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC during his tenure.”

He’s never met a mega-merger he didn’t like or a public safeguard he didn’t try to undermine. He’s been an inveterate opponent of Net Neutrality, expanded broadband access for low-income families, broadband privacy, prison-phone justice, media diversity and more.

He “looks out for corporate interests” exclusively. Their lobbyists are “thrilled” about his appointment.

Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate and cheered decisions like the historic Net Neutrality ruling, and Pai threatens to undo all of that important work.

Digital democracy is at risk with him as FCC chairman. Net Neutrality is a defining issue, preserving it vital.

It’s the last frontier of free and open communication space.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

His access to America travel suspension targeting seven Muslim-majority countries was rejected at the district and appeals court levels.

Instead of cutting his losses and moving on, Reuters reported he’s “considering a new executive order,” possibly “exclud(ing) green card holders, or permanent residents (to) alleviate some concerns expressed by the courts,” according to an unnamed source.

His alternatives are to try getting the judicial rulings against him overturned by the full Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in an emergency hearing. Either choice may result in further defeat.

Specifics of a new order aren’t known, if it’s coming. One thing is clear. Trump isn’t backing down on wanting citizens and residents of targeted countries prevented from entering America – beginning with a temporary suspension, likely then making it permanent for the duration of his tenure.

According to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, “(e)very single court option is on the table, including an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision on the TRO (temporary restraining order) to the Supreme Court, including fighting out this case on the merits.”

And, in addition to that, we’re pursuing executive orders right now that we expect to be enacted soon that will further protect Americans from terrorism.

The best way to do it is by ending support for these groups, abandoning America’s imperial project, its endless wars on humanity at home and abroad.

The most obvious ways to defeat terrorism aren’t being considered – the pretext Washington needs to continue its quest for unchallenged global dominance, no matter the cost in human lives and misery.

Aboard Air Force One heading for his Florida second home, Trump said a “brand new order” could be issued early next week. It was being prepared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his travel ban.

“We will win that battle,” he said. “The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”

During a Friday White House press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “(w)e will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt we’ll win that particular case.”

He also promised to “rapidly” introduce what he called “additional security” steps next week, without further elaboration.

Whatever revised restrictions he intends imposing on citizens and residents of designated Muslim-majority countries will again likely be challenged in court – continuing what looks like a protracted fight ahead.

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Friday(conducted on February 7 and 8) showed 53% of respondents disapproved of his performance so far, 43% approving (compared to 35% two weeks ago) – 46% favoring impeachment.

PPP concluded saying “we continue to find that unhappiness with Trump – and with Congressional Republicans -could help Democrats to make big gains in 2018.”

America is a one-party state with two right wings, in lockstep on virtually all issues mattering most.

Disagreements when occuring are largely political, aiming to give one side an edge over the other. Privately, they’re united, serving privileged interests over most others.

America is a sham democracy, not the real thing. Elections are farcical. Voting changes nothing. Dirty business as usual always wins.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

“Perhaps the best answer is that Standing Rock is the killing of three birds with one stone. [1) Protection of BNSF profits, 2) Continued colonization of Indigenous Peoples, 3) An integral observation lab to study NVDA training impacts/results on non-Anglo cultures in recognition that NGOs are now rolling out NVDA training “programs” across the globe.“

-from STANDING ROCK: PROFUSION, COLLUSION & BIG MONEY PROFITS [PART 1] by Cory Morningstar and Forrest Palmer

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:24)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

Standing Rock Sioux Nation, in what is called North Dakota has become the centre of what’s been dubbed an unprecedented convergence of tribal communities from across the continent and around the world.

Hundreds of tribes and thousands of people rallied behind this community in its fight to frustrate the development of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a fracked oil pipeline they claim will desecrate their sacred sites and threaten the quality of water in the Missouri River basin.

Joining the frey have been prominent Non Profit organizations, including the Rainforest Action Network, 350.org, and the Sierra Club. These groups and others helped publicize the action, utilizing websites, social media and e-petitions. Soon, the world would connect Standing Rock with fundraising concerts and celebrity visits.

Optimistic prospects as to the success of a strategy centred around prayer, ceremony and Non Violent Direct Action (NVDA) appear to have hit a wall. The US Army Corps of Engineers under the new Trump administration just granted the easement to allow the pipeline to pass under Lake Oahe.

This week’s Global Research News Hour attempts to take a fearless look at the Dakota Access Pipeline resistance, and what is at stake, not just for the people in the area, but for the future of authentic environmental and Indigenous struggles.

In the first half hour, we hear from two water protectors, who identify as Cedar Woman (Lorraine Clements) and Wopilawin (Paula Antoine, an organizer and veteran of a similar anti-Keystone XL action). They spoke from their vantage point on how the camp came together, the violent actions against campers by law enforcement and security personnel, mis-portrayal of the camp by media as ‘riotous’, and the importance of remaining united in the face of this common struggle.

Later on, retired Canadian biophysicist Dennis LeNeveu utilizes his own research and provides an assessment of the hazards stemming from the pipeline if it proceeds along the projected path.

Finally, London, Ontario based writer and researcher Cory Morningstar, returns to the program with a critical evaluation of the many non-profits, celebrities, and even corporations like Unilever, which have jumped on the Standing Rock bandwagon, to the detriment of the Tribal peoples and ecological causes those ‘allies’ purport to support. Following up on her research into the “non-profit industrial complex” (NPIC) Morningstar reveals the hidden and unwholesome motives of Warren Buffett, and other ‘philanthropists’, who finance anti-pipeline activism to the tune of millions of dollars through their foundations.

Even though there are, according to John Schertow of Intercontinental Cry, as many as 15 other pipeline developments in the U.S. alone threatening Indigenous lands, #NoDAPL has become the focus of attention in mainstream and alternative media. Morningstar notes that blocking the completion of one pipeline will not stop the ongoing genocide of tribal peoples in and around the Bakken. She also postulates that the NPIC- boosted profile of the Standing Rock protest may signal that efforts are underway to socially engineer grassroots Indigenous resistance, arguably the one grassroots movement left posing a serious challenge to imperialist plunder of the planet.

Cory Morningstar, a past guest of this program, is a native of London, Ontario. An independent journalist and researcher, she is published at Counterpunch, and Wrong Kind of Green, as well as her own site, theartofanniliation.com. Her six part series: STANDING ROCK: PROFUSION, COLLUSION & BIG MONEY PROFITS first appeared at Wrong Kind of Green in early December, 2016.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:24)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

Any other ally which depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel.

Late last month, Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front), al-Qaida’s Syrian arm, announced that it was severing ties with al-Qaida and renaming itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (the Front for the Conquest of Syria).

In a video, the group’s leader, Abu Mohamed al-Jolani, explained that the group’s association with al-Qaida permitted the outside powers intervening in the Syrian conflict to label it as an Islamic terrorist group.

The Guardian quoted al-Jolani as saying that the name change is intended “to remove the excuse used by the international community – spearheaded by America and Russia – to bombard and displace Muslims in the Levant: that they are targeting al-Nusra Front, which is associated with al-Qaida.”

Members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front carry their weapons as they sit in a trench
near al-Zahra village, north of Aleppo city, November 25, 2014.

He further explained that the new policy was an attempt to have the group removed from international terror lists and to allow it to be perceived as a more acceptable alternative to its main competitor, Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group known as ISIS or ISIL in the West).

Al-Nusra shares certain common goals with Daesh in seeking to overthrow the secular government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and replace it with a more traditional form of Islamic rule. It has also expressed hatred for the United States and other Western governments. Writing for the National Interest in November, geopolitical analyst Daniel R. DePetris explained:

Like its jihadist competitors in the Islamic State, al-Nusra is composed of highly motivated individuals and commanders who would like nothing more than to strike at the United States or at targets in Europe. Jabhat al-Nusra shares the same, minority-within-a-minority Salafi-Jihadist interpretation of Islam as ISIL, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities that have made ISIL’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the most wanted international terrorist alive.

Though it has focused its attacks more directly on Syrian government forces and their symbolic and physical centers of power, it maintains a similar ruthlessness to that of Daesh. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch noted that both groups were “were responsible for systematic and widespread violations, including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions” in Syria. Daesh and al-Nusra both impose strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls, and have actively recruited child soldiers, according to the report.

Smokescreen or strategy?

In its recent rebranding, Al-Nusra also seems to be evaluating the political calculus of the Syrian civil war and acknowledging the recent gains by Syrian forces and their allies — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. With Assad strengthening his position and the rebel forces in disarray, al-Jolani may be making a bid to unify the opposition by projecting a less militant image to the outside world.

Still, it’s unclear what this apparent break with al-Qaida actually means. At the announcement of the group’s new name, al-Jolani was joined by a high level associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaida, creating the impression that the changes are more tactical than strategic.

Smadar Perry, an Israeli journalist known to have close ties to Israeli intelligence sources, even hinted that Israel’s Mossad urged this new path on al-Nusra. In an opinion piece posted by YNet on Monday, Perry wrote:

It may be that this separation is just a smokescreen, and that al-Julani will keep in touch with al-Qaeda in secret. It may also be that Jabhat al-Nusra have received an intelligence analysis from a very certain organization that told it to prepare for the day after Assad leaves power.

The White House has a hard time buying this turnover. They’re in a test period with us, said an official spokesperson, not dismissing outright the possibility of local fighters joining the American-led coalition against ISIS.

If they make a show of force in the field, and Jabhat al-Nusra’s dissociation leads to al-Qaeda’s further weakening in Afghanistan, and if Israel provides its supposed intelligence about al-Julani – Hezbollah and Assad swear he’s a Mossad agent – al-Nusra may become another piece of the puzzle that is the new Syria.

In the original Hebrew version of the same analysis, Perry noted the likelihood that Syria will be divided in “three or four cantons.” This has always been the goal for Tel Aviv, which sees Syria as one of the few remaining Arab states that can threaten its interests and security.

In Israel’s view, peace on its northern border would be guaranteed if Syria can be splintered into warring factions. It’s an approach championed at the onset of the civil war in 2012 by Daniel Pipes, a pro-Israel neocon who serves as president of Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. Arguing that “the continuing Syrian conflict offers benefits to the West,” he explained:

As Sunni Islamists fight Shiite Islamists, both sides are weakened and their lethal rivalry lessens their capabilities to trouble the outside world. By inspiring restive minorities (Sunnis in Iran, Kurds and Shiites in Turkey), continued fighting in Syria could also weaken Islamist governments.

He further noted:

Nothing in the constitutions of Western states requires them to get involved in every foreign conflict; sitting this one out will prove to be a smart move. In addition to the moral benefit of not being accountable for horrors yet to come, staying away permits the West eventually to help its only true friends in Syria, the country’s liberals.

In a 2012 email released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton offered an Iran-focused variant of this approach:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

The al-Nusra-Israel bond

Ultimately, Israel doesn’t care much about what happens in Syria as long as it can maintain a puppet protectorate along its Golan border. Israel began occupying and administering the region in the Six-Day War of 1967, and it officially annexing the Golan in 1981. Israel continues to refuse to return the territory to Syria despite near universal consensus that the occupation is illegal under international law. Further, the discovery of potential gas deposits there has coincided with a rise in Israeli settlement expansion in recent years.

Examining the al-Nusra-Israeli alliance in the region, it’s clear that the bonds between the two parties have been exceedingly close. Israel maintains a border camp for the families of Syrian fighters. Reporters have documented Israeli Defense Forces commandos entering Syrian territory to rendezvous with Syrian rebels. Others have photographed meetings between Israeli military personnel and al-Nusra commanders at the Quneitra Crossing, the ceasefire line that separates the Syrian-controlled territory and the Israeli-occupied territory in the Golan Heights.

A photo from the Israel, Syrian border along the Golan Heights
showing IDF soldiers conversing with Jabhat al Nusra fighters.

U.N. personnel also documented Syrian rebel vehicles picking up supplies from the Israeli side:

Quarterly UNDOF [United Nations Disengagement Observer Force] reports since the pullback reveal an ongoing pattern of Israeli coordination with those [al-Nusra] armed groups.

According to the December 2014 report, UNDOF observed two Israeli soldiers ‘opening the technical fence gate and letting two individuals pass from the [Syrian] to the [Israeli] side’ on 27 October. Unlike most fighters seen entering the Israeli side, these individuals were not wounded and the purpose of their visit remains a mystery.

UNDOF ‘sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting’ with the Israeli military across the ceasefire line, the report states.

The next UNDOF report, released in March, notes that UN forces witnessed Israeli soldiers delivering material aid to armed Syrian opposition groups.

These were presumably supplies and equipment designed either to help the rebels in their fight against Assad or to improve communications between Israeli and rebel forces.

Israel’s divide-and-conquer approach

Israel’s support for radical terror groups is a long-term strategy it’s exploited in multiple theaters. Its ultimate purpose is to weaken a strong foe.

In terms of Hezbollah, Israel hadn’t anticipated that the Lebanese militant group would grow to become a much more powerful and dangerous foe than the PLO had ever been in Lebanon.

Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of a Sunday Israeli airstrike,
in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights, Monday, April 27, 2015

The strategy worked better regarding Hamas because it has never been able to dominate Fatah. The two have maintained a wary and draining battle of wills over the decades, with neither being able to oust the other. This has created a rift that has substantially weakened the Palestinians and their cause. Still, Hamas has trained its sights on Israel as well and become an even more militant foe than Fatah ever was.

Thus, Israel’s strategy of forging an alliance with al-Nusra and strengthening it so that it can wage a formidable fight against Assad, is part and parcel of a longstanding goal of dividing the enemy. Israel hopes the militant extremist group will dominate the Golan region and maintain stability and security there. However, Israel neglects what almost always happens to these golems: Once they are created they take on a life of their own. The creator loses control of his creation, which wreaks havoc and even turns against him.

Just as it happened to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, and Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, so it happened with the U.S. alliance with the Afghan mujahadeen, and the Israeli alliances with their own Arab proxies.

Israel’s alliance with al-Nusra also points to the utter cynicism of its approach. While the rest of the world labels the group terrorists, and fights to prevent their terror attacks on Western soil, Israel looks only for its own advantage. There’s the old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but in Israel’s playbook, the saying goes: “The enemy of my friend may certainly be my friend.” This rings especially true when Israeli leaders warn the world about the threat of global jihad, while also cozying up to jihadis in their own corner of the world.

Benjamin Netanyahu looks at Syrian ‘patient’ being treated in an IDF field hospital. (photo credit:KOBI GIDEON/GPO)

The U.S. and European countries seem to either not notice or deliberately ignore Israel’s tactical embrace of the jihadi movement. The Obama administration is even preparing to ink a new record-breaking military spending agreement with Israel that will up U.S. aid from the current $3 billion a year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded $5 billion per year over the life of the 10-year deal, and the final amount will likely settle somewhere in the middle.

Only Israel gets away with such a level of cognitive dissonance in its alliance with the U.S. Any other ally which depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel. It forges its own path without regard for the interests of others, even its best friends.

Richard Silverstein is a MintPress analyst who has written the Tikun Olam blog since 2003, specializing in Israeli politics and US foreign affairs. He earned a BA from Columbia University, a BHL from the Jewish Theological Seminary, and MA in Comparative Literature from UCLA. Follow Richard on Twitter: @Richards1052 

Within just a few weeks, two studies were published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports that cast new doubts on the safety of genetically modified foods and glyphosate herbicide. The first found that a genetically modified corn, NK 603, was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO counterpart, which is contrary to claims of GMO proponents. The second study found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, can cause a serious liver disease at doses thousands of times lower than that allowed by law.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, Head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London in the United Kingdom, led the ground-breaking research.

The main focus of research within Dr. Antoniou’s group is the study of the molecular mechanisms of the regulation of gene function. He has used these discoveries to develop efficient gene expression systems for efficacious and safe biotechnological applications, including gene therapy.

More recently, Dr. Antoniou has expanded his research program to include using molecular profiling “omics” methods in evaluating the safety of foods derived from GMO crops, low dose exposure from their associated pesticides, and other chemical pollutants.

Dr. Antoniou is also a co-author of GMO Myths and Truths, an evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety of genetically modified crops and foods.

I recently interviewed Dr. Antoniou about his newly published studies.

Please summarize the findings of your study showing that the GMO corn NK 603 was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO corn.

Dr. Michael Antoniou: We used a modern in-depth compositional analysis to test the claim that a genetically engineered corn variety, NK603, was substantially equivalent to an isogenic non-GMO counterpart.

The establishment of substantial equivalence is a foundation for safety evaluation of GMO crops. In the United States and in other countries, the crops that have been commercialized are claimed to be substantially equivalent to non-GMO equivalents, and therefore safe.

But the kind of compositional analyses done thus far to see if a GMO crop is substantially equivalent is a crude nutritional analysis of total protein, fats, and vitamins.

If you use cutting-edge molecular profiling methods as we did, they will provide a spectrum of different types of proteins and small molecule metabolites. It’s a very in-depth analysis.

Does the claim of substantial equivalence stand up to this fine compositional analysis? No, it doesn’t. Our analysis found over 150 different proteins whose levels were different between the GMO NK603 and its non-GMO counterpart. More than 50 small molecule metabolites were also significantly different in their amounts.

What do these differences indicate?

Dr. Antoniou: They indicate that there were changes in the protein profile that were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism and oxidative stress. In terms of metabolite changes, the most pronounced were increased levels of two polyamines. These polyamines, putrescine and especially cadaverine, can be toxic in certain contexts when consumed in large amounts.

The bottom line of the paper is that once you do a compositional analysis properly, the GMO corn doesn’t stand up to claims of substantial equivalence. This questions the validity of a key step in the GM corn’s approval process.

A more detailed safety evaluation should have been conducted for this corn.

What about the criticisms from supporters of GMO crops?

Dr. Antoniou: There have been vociferous attacks, and we have dealt with them in a rational, evidence-based way. We have posted four extensive rebuttals.

For example, critics said we had to compare the GMO corn with many other non-GMO varieties to see the range of “natural variation.” But comparing with more varieties has the effect of hiding the differences—the exact opposite of what we were trying to do.

Our aim was to analyze to see any effect of the GM transformation process, so the only scientifically valid comparator is the nearest possible isogenic non-GMO counterpart. When you do that, you find differences.

Tell me about the Roundup/glyphosate study.

Dr. Antoniou: For the very first time we have established a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of daily ingestion of Roundup and a serious disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

We used cutting edge compositional analytical methods to determine the health status of rats’ livers. Protein and metabolite profiles are a direct measure of the composition of organs and give a direct readout of the health or disease status of organs. We found that these organs weren’t healthy. There were clear hallmarks of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which correlated with previous observations of an increased incidence of tissue necrosis or liver tissue replaced with scars.

We were able to make a direct statement that Roundup caused disease.

Roundup is a hitherto unknown and unsuspected potential risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that calls for further investigation. Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population suffers from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Risk factors include obesity, diabetes, and high blood fat levels. But there are risk factors for the disease that have not yet been identified, and it’s possible that exposure to Roundup could be one such missing risk factor.

What are key takeaways of the study?

Dr. Antoniou: First, the rats consumed a glyphosate-equivalent level of Roundup that is 75,000 times lower than what is permitted in Europe and 437,500 times lower than that allowed in the U.S. Our study results suggest that the permitted safety intake level of glyphosate-based herbicides needs to be revisited as they may have been set way too high.

The second point that this is a new risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and needs to be taken into account by the medical establishment.

What are your thoughts about genetic engineering of foods?

Dr. Antoniou: I’ve maintained all along that when you take a look at the GMO transformation process—whether inserting genes or using newer methods, such as gene editing—and place these methods in the context of new genetics, which tells us that no gene or its protein product works in isolation, then you can expect problems from these genetic engineering procedures. Genes and their protein products work together in a highly complex, interactive, and integrated network. From the holistic perspective of gene organization, control, and function, the GMO transformation process is technically and conceptually flawed. It’s inevitable that there will be problems; it’s just a matter of degree. This is what basic science tells us.

And when GMOs are added to their associated pesticide residues, as a package, they become a potentially very harmful product.

Technologies like genetic engineering in agriculture must be re-evaluated for safety as the science shifts. If, as we do this, we find that it is not a predictable and safe technology, we need to have the courage to say “no” and look at different ways to achieve our goals because what we are doing is clearly disruptive.

Here are links to the studies published by Dr. Antoniou and his team:

Roundup – liver toxicity: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328 (Open Access)

NK603 GM corn analysis: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855 (Open access)

Here are rebuttals to criticisms of the NK603 GMO corn study:

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855#comments (2 postings in response to others’ comments)

http://www.feednavigator.com/Sectors/Swine/Design-of-GMO-corn-equivalence-study-flawed-US-animal-scientist (see comments thread

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vug3coCSYqTOcChYHUqR2C4h8GROkm1PmLQFebHD5JA/edit

US President Trump has gone out of his way to provide a gushing welcome to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who began a two-day state visit to the US yesterday with discussions between the two men and a joint press conference. While both leaders were effusive about the relationship between Japan and the US, the tensions and uncertainties remain.

Abe—the first world leader to meet Trump in November after his election win—was seeking reassurances over Japan’s longstanding military alliance with the United States, as well over economic ties between the two countries. In the course of his election campaign, Trump questioned the US alliances with Japan and South Korea and accused both of unfair trade practices.

Yesterday, however, Trump hugged Abe, saying later that was “because we have a very, very good bond. Very, very good chemistry. I’ll let you know if it changes but I don’t think it will.” During Abe’s visit, the two men are due to dine with each other four times, fly together on Air Force One and play a round of golf at the president’s resort in South Florida.

At their press conference, Trump declared:

“The bonds between our two nations and the friendship between our two peoples is very, very deep. This administration is committed to bringing these ties even closer.”

A joint statement reaffirmed the US-Japan Security Treaty, including its coverage of the disputed Senkaku islets, known as Diaoyu in China, in the East China Sea. It declared that the two countries “oppose any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.” It added that the US was “fully committed to defending its homeland, forces, and allies, through the full range of U.S. military capabilities”—in other words, including nuclear weapons.

US Defence Secretary James Mattis visited South Korea and Japan last week to offer similar reassurances and to strengthen military ties with the two Asian countries.

The lavish praise for the Japanese prime minister and his sumptuous treatment will fool no-one, however, least of all Abe. Given that Trump has elevated “unpredictability” to a principle of foreign policy, a question mark remains over the US-Japan alliance and the threat continues of punitive US trade measures against Japan.

Trump has already dealt a significant blow to Japan by withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This was also a blow to Abe personally. He had expressed great hopes that the TPP would revive the Japanese economy and pushed its ratification through the Japanese Diet.

Speaking in Washington, Abe defended that TTP and also took a shot at Trump’s “America First” demagogy about “unfair trade” and loss of American jobs. He told US business leaders that “a whopping majority” of the Japanese cars running on American roads were manufactured in the US. That included 70 percent of Toyotas, a company that Trump had singled out for criticism in the past. Abe said Japanese corporations provided more than 800,000 jobs in the United States.

Trump, however, has targeted Japan because of its huge trade surplus with the United States, second only to China last year. Having accused both Japan and China of currency manipulation, he declared yesterday that the currencies of all three countries would soon be on a level playing field. “That’s the only way it’s fair. That’s the only way you can fairly compete in trade and other things,” he said.

If Trump has pushed economic disputes with Japan into the background and reaffirmed the US-Japan Security Treaty, it is a tactical move aimed at strengthening Washington as it prepares to confront Beijing.

Just prior to Abe’s arrival in Washington, Trump held a lengthy phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which, according to the official White House readout, was “extremely cordial, and both leaders extended best wishes to the people of each other’s countries.”

In particular, Trump told Xi that he would “honour” the “One China” policy, which forms the bedrock of US-China relations and under which Washington recognises Beijing as the sole legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.

Much has been made in media commentary of Trump’s “concession” to China, but without a formal acknowledgement at least of the One China policy, the already strained relations between the two countries would have deteriorated rapidly.

Trump had already provoked an angry reaction from Beijing by taking a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen following his election victory—the first between leaders of the two countries since 1979.

Speaking to Fox News in December, Trump openly declared: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China policy’ unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.” Trump went on to identify areas where he expected China to make major concessions.

“I mean, look,” he said, “we’re being hurt very badly by China with devaluation; with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don’t tax them; with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing; and frankly, with not helping at all with North Korea.”

Trump has not altered his attitude toward the One China policy, any more than he has changed his mind about demanding that Japan pay more for its military alliance with the United States. As far as Trump is concerned, the One China policy, like the threat of trade war measures, is just a bargaining chip for extracting major concessions from the Beijing regime.

During his press conference with Abe, Trump absurdly declared: “I believe that will all work out very well for everybody, China, Japan, the United States and everybody in the region.” In reality, the US president has set course for a confrontation with China, unless it makes one concession after another, all down the line.

Tensions between China and the US are already sharp as demonstrated by a close encounter on Wednesday between a US P-3C Orion military reconnaissance plane and a Chinese early-warning aircraft in the South China Sea. The Pentagon blamed China for what it branded the “unsafe” encounter.

Whether by accident or design, such incidents can become the trigger for a military clash and conflict. Trump’s aggressive stance toward China, following on from the Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot to Asia” and military build-up throughout the region, only heightens that danger.

Donald Trump’s first concrete decision as commander in chief was a major fiasco that killed nine children, eight women, and a U.S. soldier in a botched raid on al Qaeda in Yemen.

The operation — which Trump reportedly approved over dinner — also failed to catch its reported target and severely damaged a local clinic, mosque, and school.

It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump making the situation worse in Yemen, but he did.

A Yemeni man walks past flames rising from the ruins of buildings destroyed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Feb. 10, 2016 in Sanaa.

Impoverished to begin with, Yemen is two years into a civil war that has killed 10,000 people and displaced millions. A U.S.-supplied bombing campaign has turned schools, hospitals, essential infrastructure, and ancient heritage sites into rubble. And a U.S.-backed blockade is preventing the trade of food and basic goods, starving a country that previously relied on imports for 90 percent of its food.

Armed Yemenis walk on the debris at a wedding hall reportedly hit by a Saudi-led coalition air strike in the capital Sanaa on July 10, 2015. Photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images

As a result, the United Nations this week declared that Yemen is on the brink of famine. Officials held a news conference Wednesday to announce that 19 million Yemenis — more than two-thirds of the country’s population — need some form of humanitarian assistance, 7.3 million people do not know where their next meal will come, and more than half of the country’s medical facilities have closed.

Jan Egeland, a former UN official and chair of the Norwegian Refugee Council, described the situation by saying “if bombs don’t kill you, a slow and painful death by starvation is now an increasing threat.”

Even so, the toll of Trump’s botched raid was so high that it drew criticism from the ousted government-in-exile of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi — the party supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in Yemen’s civil war. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Hadi’s ministers had withdrawn their support for the U.S. to conduct ground missions in Yemen. The Pentagon and the Hadi government quickly denied the report, but Hadi’s foreign minister then said the government is conducting a “reassessment” of the raid.

Trump is evidently so sensitive to the criticism that he has tried to smother it by shamefully smearing critics and trying to stifle dissent.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused critics of being disrespectful of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL Trump sent to his death. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and does a disservice to the life of Chief Owens,” Spicer said.

On Thursday, after Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., described the raid as “a failure,” Trump — who repeatedly insisted it was a success — lashed out on Twitter, saying McCain’s criticism “emboldens the enemy” — likening congressional truth-telling to sedition.

And signs are that Yemen is in for more suffering at Trump’s hands. Trump’s Defense Department is reportedly considering a proposal to designate Yemen a formal battlefield in the war on terror, which would allow for an “intensified pace of operations, rather than one-off raids or drone strikes.”

Yemen is one of seven countries included in Trump’s immigration ban. In New York City, Yemeni-Americans have led strikes and large protests against the ban, which separates many from their extended families.

And the Washington Times reported on Wednesday that the administration is set to approve an arms transfer to Saudi Arabia that the Obama administration denied to them on human rights grounds.

The shipment contains hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons guidance systems that would allow Saudi Arabia to convert dumb bombs into precision missiles.

Saudi soldiers from an artillery unit stand behind a pile of ammunition at a position close to the Saudi-Yemeni border,
in southwestern Saudi Arabia, on April 13, 2015. 

Photo: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images

Targeted bombing is normally safer for civilians than indiscriminate bombing. In fact, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearing that the U.S. should provide Saudi Arabia with “better targeting intelligence” and “better targeting capability” in order to minimize “collateral damage.”

But the Obama administration, despite its reluctance to offend the Saudis, halted the guidance-systems sales after concluding that the Saudi-led coalition was targeting civilians deliberately.

Saudi Arabia began bombing Yemen in March 2015 after Houthi rebels overran the capital and deposed Hadi, the Saudi-backed leader, who now splits his time between the Saudi capital and southern Yemen.  The U.S. has been a silent partner in the kingdom’s campaign against the Houthis, refueling warplanes, supplying targeting intelligence, and resupplying the coalition with more than $20 billion in weapons.

Since the beginning of their campaign, Saudi Arabia has destroyed vital civilian infrastructure including farms, fisheries, water infrastructure, roads, and hospitals. Other targeting decisions have sparked global outrage: the bombing of a children’s school and a school for the blind, and the October attack that turned a funeral at a community center into a “lake of blood.”

Congress has not yet been notified of the weapons shipment, and the Pentagon declined to comment on it.

The Saudi-led bombing campaign has also allowed al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate — the target of Trump’s botched raid — to grow exponentially in personnel and finances. According to State Department reports, the group quadrupled in size the year that Saudi Arabia started bombing. The same year, al Qaeda seized a prominent port city, which netted them an estimated $5 million a day off customs tariffs and smuggled goods. Al Qaeda in Yemen is also fighting the Houthis.

While Trump ramps up U.S. militarism in Yemen, Democrats have largely ignored the plight of the Yemenis. When a Yemeni refugee who had lost her father to Saudi bombing questioned Nancy Pelosi at a CNN town hall on January 31, Pelosi condemned Trump’s Muslim travel ban — but said nothing about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war. “Your family is suffering because our president is reckless” she said.

During the Sedona vortex expedition he had seen her a second time. Of the infinite choices available to him in that moment he had found her in the midst of a crisis. Could it be an accident? What did it really mean? At least it was possible to isolate the moment — November 13, the climax of a series of demonstrations that had been building for months.

The dispossessed of London had begun to protest unemployment. The term was new, just coined. The police response was predictably harsh, often resulting in injuries and arrests. Even the press wasn’t safe.

For those in charge the problem was mainly tactical, a question of how to maintain public order. That meant stopping the protests in Trafalgar Square. Demonstrations had become an almost daily occurrence there. It was the most convenient place in the city for an outdoor gathering, and a central refuge for the homeless. Hundreds of men and women slept in its nooks and crannies, joined in daylight by thousands more, the ragged denizens of the city’s notorious East End.

Annie Besant

Trafalgar was also near Westminster and Buckingham Palace. As a result Lord Salisbury, who often saw threats to pubic safety where there were none, ordered the chief of the Metro Police to take care of it. Perhaps the Square should be ringed with fences, the security conscious Lord advised. That way, if trouble came at least the trouble-makers could more easily be rounded up.

Annie Besant was also thinking about tactics. To that end, she had organized a Socialist Defense Association so those in jail could get legal help. Many of the charges were being trumped up. She also assembled a group of well-to-do supporters who would show up night or day in response to a telegram and bail out anyone unjustly arrested.

The boiling point finally came on November 13. The Radical Federation had called for a major march and rally that Sunday in response to three abuses of power. One was the imprisonment of a Member of Parliament, another was the ongoing repression in Ireland. But the primary focus of the day was the notorious Coercion Act, which had suspended civil rights indefinitely. Annie was invited to speak.

Four days before the rally Sir Charles Warren, the Home Secretary, issued an order forbidding meetings in the Square. However, he simultaneously offered private assurances that “legitimate political gatherings” would not be disrupted. On Saturday he changed his mind again and issued a final order banning all processions.

Delegates from the labor and radical clubs, the Fabians, Social Democratic Federation and Socialist League met that Saturday night. There was little time to deliberate, however, so in the end they opted to move ahead. They would gather at various places around the city in hopes of disorienting the authorities by approaching the Square from several directions. What they didn’t know was that spies had tipped off the police and the place was surrounded before they arrived. Backing up the coppers were squadrons of “life guards” with bayonets. It looked like what it was — a massacre in the making.

He had seen it go down remotely in the desert. Annie wearing her usual outfit, the neckerchief, short skirt and boots that had captured Tonio’s attention, leading a procession from Clerkenwell Green along the city’s narrow streets. Thousands more marching from Holborn, Bermondsey and Deptford.

Before the riot was over thousands of citizens were injured, many of them newcomers to protest and police violence. Just south of Trafalgar, a young writer named Alfred Linnell was fatally injured by a horse.The next morning, still dazed and traumatized, dozens of decent people were sentenced to jail in Bow Street Police Court. William Stead quickly launched his own defense fund and raised enough money within days to free everyone on appeal. Annie defiantly led them out of Millbank Prison, bruised and battered but unbowed.

More cynical than most, G. B. Shaw called it “the most abjectly disgraceful defeat ever suffered by a band of heroes outnumbering their foes a thousand to one.” Then again, no one considered it a rousing success. Three people had died. And what was gained? Nothing as far as Tonio could tell.

Within days it was known as Bloody Sunday.

The riot became a turning point for Annie. Due to her identification with the march she moved from being well-known to famous and, in some circles, notorious. It also confirmed what her old friend Charles Bradlaugh feared and deepened the break between them. Not only had she joined forces with the Socialists, she hadn’t even consulted him before leading the disastrous march. Fighting for freedom was one thing, but to Bradlaugh this looked like an invitation to slaughter.

Annie agreed in one sense. The situation was dire, possibly deadly, and having faith in the legal system felt increasingly naive. But she had reached the conclusion that more radical action was required. At least Stead and the socialists were prepared to fight back. In private moments, however, she wasn’t so certain. Neither socialism nor atheism seemed to offer the real answers the world needed.

London, July 11, 1888

THE HOUSE of Commons was a model of architectural symmetry and political pragmatism. When the chamber was full during parliamentary debates, government supporters took seats to the right of the speaker’s chair. Opponents and others sat on the left. Senior members from both camps, the so-called “front benchers,” occupied seats closest to the center. Separating the opposing sides was a gangway, known as the Floor, measuring the distance of two swords.

The original reason for the gangway was to prevent duels from breaking out.

Located at the north end of Westminster Palace on the banks of the Thames, the ornate chamber was originally called St. Stephen’s Chapel, part of the royal residence until the “lower house” moved in from Westminster Abbey. Over the next few centuries the medieval look faded and finally vanished until the entire palace was remodeled in the early nineteenth. Less than a decade later, an accidental fire destroyed both chambers of parliament and most of the residence.

The next round of renovations took twenty years, this time a controversial mixture of Sir Charles Barry’s conservative Gothic style and the neo-classical approach becoming popular in the States. The work wasn’t done until 1860, just as young Charles Bradlaugh, then emerging as one of the country’s leading freethinkers, launched The National Reformer.

Almost thirty years later, in the same chamber, he and two other MPs were waiting as Annie Besant arrived with a delegation of matchstick girls. Most were under sixteen years old.

After years of resisting the oath of office and repeatedly facing jail and disenfranchisement, Bradlaugh had finally succeeded in winning the right to speak and to vote in parliament in 1886. Since then he and Annie had parted ways over Socialism and Bloody Sunday. But they were on the same page about the matchstick strike.

Matchgirl Strikers 1888

Tonio had selected the moment carefully. For months, in secret, he’d assembled his profile and concluded that this was the best opportunity to see Annie at the peak of her political career in London. In June, after attending a talk by Clementina Black at the Fabian Society, she had interviewed some women who worked at the Bryant & May match factory and published a searing account in The Link. They called the story “White Slavery in London.”

“Born in slums,” Annie wrote, “driven to work while still children, undersized because under-fed, oppressed because helpless, flung aside as soon as worked out. Who cares if they die or go on to the streets, provided that Bryant & May shareholders get their 23 per cent and Mr. Theodore Bryant can erect statues and buy parks?

“Girls are used to carry boxes on their heads until the hair is rubbed off and the young heads are bald at fifteen years of age. Country clergymen with shares in Bryant & May’s, draw down on your knee your fifteen year old daughter; pass your hand tenderly over the silky clustering curls. Rejoice in the dainty beauty of the thick, shiny tresses.”

Using hard facts and compelling imagery she drove home the extreme working conditions and the severe, often deadly effects of the phosphorous used to make matches. Hair loss was just the start. The skin of many girls turned yellow over time, then green and black as they succumbed to a deadly form of bone cancer known as phossy jaw. The use of phosphorous in manufacturing was banned in the US and Sweden, but Britain’s government considered such a restriction a dangerous restraint of trade.

The girls at Bryant & May worked fourteen hours a day for less than five shillings a week. At times they didn’t even get that due to a draconian system of fines that covered things like talking or taking a toilet break without permission. The fine for arriving late was half a day’s wage.

Shortly after her article appeared Bryant & May management circulated a statement along with a demand that workers sign. The statement basically said that the undersigned were satisfied with their conditions. Several workers refused, organizers were fired, and before the end of June more than a thousand girls were out on strike. The Salvation Army soon joined in the call for better factory conditions.

The Times blamed Annie and other agitators for the labor “unrest.”

On July 4 she received an anonymous note. “Dear Lady,” it began, “they have been trying to get the poor girls to say that it is all lies that has been printed and trying to make us sign papers that it is all lies; dear Lady nobody knows what it is we have to put up with and we will not sign them. We thank you very much for the kindness you have shown to us. My dear Lady we hope you will not get into any trouble on our behalf as what you have spoken is quite true.”
Annie was moved to tears, and soon action.

Two days after the letter arrived, all work at the Bryant & May factory ground to a halt and a delegation of one hundred women approached her for help. A strike fund was quickly established, with Shaw, Beatrice Potter and Sidney Webb distributing the funds collected. Stead and others used their newspaper outlets to increase the pressure and launch a boycott.

But the striking girls also wanted a union and Annie was their first choice to lead it.

BRADLAUGH BROUGHT two allies with him to the meeting. Samuel Montagu, a member representing Whitechapel, was the son of a Liverpool watchmaker who had become a successful banker and philanthropist. He was also an Orthodox Jew and had recently founded a Federation of Synagogues in the East End. The third MP was James Bryce, a liberal jurist and historian who represented the city’s Tower Hamlets before moving to South Aberdeen.

Once the girls sat, Annie reviewed the issues involved in the strike, her role and their demands. “After my story appeared I was threatened with libel,” she recalled, “but it was easier to strike at the girls. That’s why we are here. Although we appreciate Mr. Bradlaugh’s support and the questions he is asking, this won’t be settled until we can sit down with management.”

“Mr. Bryant is a reasonable man,” offered Bryce. “What’s his response?”

“He don’t like publicity,” one girl snorted. “But he ain’t said a thing.”

“What could he do?”

“Improve the air is one thing, sir,” an older girl replied bluntly. “After they added that upper floor to the place, the ventilation didn’t work no more. The fumes is so thick you can barely breathe. That’s the real reason we get sick.”

Annie pointed out that since the girls took meals inside the factory, phosphorous was also being ingested with their food. If someone complained about the pain as their teeth rotted from the poison, foremen had them pulled, often by brute force and without permission.

“We need Mr. Bryant to stop listening to his foremen and meet with us,” she said.

Bradlaugh called the company’s actions intolerable, but admitted that, no matter how many speeches he and others made, a legislative solution would take far too long, if it came at all. “Your power is the public’s good opinion,” he advised, “more effective and timely in this case than any action by this chamber of cowards.”
Some of the girls gasped, shocked by his candor and condemnation of both colleagues and his class. None except Annie had ever been inside the intimidating room before or witnessed a parliamentary debate.

After listening quietly for twenty minutes Montagu joined the discussion by posing a larger question. “What concerns me, beyond addressing the egregious conditions you have brought to the nation’s attention, is the ultimate goal of the movement that appears to be underway. As I see it, there are two schools of thought — gradualism or revolution.

“So, is it to be the Fabian’s path or Marx and Morris?”

“If not the one it will be the other,” Annie replied. “Are we asking so much? The right to organize collectively, to take meals in a separate room to prevent contamination and illness, the reinstatement of those who have been fired, an end to the arbitrary fines and unfair deductions from wages. All of that, yes! We also want to bypass the foremen and bring the grievances directly to management. If they hadn’t prevented complaints from being heard for so long,” she scolded, “many girls could have been saved.”

Although Tonio had insisted on this precise time and place, the matchgirls’ strike, even the opportunity to witness this unique encounter, wasn’t the ultimate reason for his timing. It was a destination of opportunity. Even with a device that could take you to virtually any place or time you still needed to choose exactly when and where. You could visit London through the Jump Room forever and never run into the person you wanted to see. But on this particular day, Tonio knew where Annie would be.

She strode toward the gangway to address the girls huddled to one side and the old men on the other. “Where is the real cure for our sorrow? How will we rescue the world? Do we seek more? Absolutely! But the road is long and has many turns. Today we fight for health and fairness, tomorrow perhaps for a common room, a refuge for girls who never had a proper home, a welcoming atmosphere and a bit of comradeship. If necessary, Mr. Montagu, yes, we are ready for revolution. The poor, after all, have little to lose. But at this point I still hold onto hope for gradual improvement, a peaceful path to liberate the enslaved and change the world.

“What we need is a movement of love and self-sacrifice,” she said, “inspiring us to give rather than take.”

These moments are excerpted from Dons of Time, Chapters 22 (Doubts) and 25 (Struggle). From Fomite Press, also available from Amazon 

After three weeks as president, Donald Trump has turned out to be “same as the old boss,” definitely when it comes to US foreign policy. The short explanation is every US president merely plays a puppet figurehead role, taking his orders directly from the New World Order elite and their neocon surrogates, fast moving us towards one world government tyranny that will be the ultimate outcome of a simultaneous collapse of the global economy timed with the launch of another world war.

Just as there was no difference between the same neocon interventionist aggression displayed under Obama and the war crime-ridden Bush-Cheney administration, President Trump is now also marching quickstep down that same seamless path towards world war as did Obama. Regardless of who or what party occupies the White House, the one constant is an aggressive foreign policy delivered by deep state neocons entrenched in Washington power for many decades now. And the neocons take their orders from the ruling elite.

Trump the candidate promised a major shift in US foreign policy towards a far more sensible, even planet-saving, non-interventionist, “America first” approach, avoiding the constant meddling entanglements in other nations’ internal affairs that only polarizes the geopolitical chessboard towards increasing global conflict.

It appeared as though the United States might finally be free of the near four decade long bipartisan neo-conned control bent on maintaining US Empire at all cost, insisting on the status quo of unipolar sole world superpower hegemony and full frontal military dominance. The neocons refuse to live in a world where power is shared with emerging regional players Russia and China.

And since neocons are still in control in Washington, after just three weeks in the White House, it’s already disturbingly clear that the Trump presidency will be no different from the rest, racing full speed ahead, plunging the earth straight into a homicidal if not suicidal course toward World War III. Be it through escalating existing wars in Syria and Ukraine that lead to bigger wars with Iran, China and Russia, the Bush-Obama-Trump regime seems hell bent on world destruction. Meanwhile even at home, Washington’s ever-rising authoritarian control and the violent anti-Trump mania are creating conditions ripe for even a domestic civil war to break out.

Evidence of this disastrous road we’re already traveling at breakneck speed on is overwhelming. Just the fact that Elliot Abrams, a neocon from way back to the Reagan-Bush senior-Iran Contra days is currently up for consideration as deputy secretary of state, speaks volumes that we’re about to be pushed off the doomsday cliff.

This presentation will focus on specific actions that the Trump administration has already completed that provide more than enough proof that we’re perhaps just weeks if not months away from escalating yet more catastrophic war. This analysis addresses the likelihood of imminent global war based on the three year old violent conflict in Ukraine ratcheting up now, and how that hotspot is being used to undermine, neutralize and effectively reverse promises that Trump the candidate made to cooperate with Putin. The bottom line is neocon forces greater than the president still hold the agenda to continue to demonize Putin in their race to global war.

Reminiscent of the tag team duo of the corporate press working in tandem with the federal government, first we had Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham over in Ukraine egging on the US illegally installed puppet neo-Nazi regime in Kiev to launch yet another offensive into the former Ukraine eastern provinces, now the Donbass region on January 2^nd as a new year’s prelude of what’s to come in 2017. Then like predictable, synchronized clockwork, US mainstream media as typically represented by a February 1^st Foreign Policy article was quick to claim that Putin delivered the Trump administration its first foreign policy test. The hit piece falsely charged Russia with firing off countless rocket and artillery rounds at Ukrainian forces, killing a dozen Kiev soldiers the last few days of January. Another MSM war propaganda headline, this time Newsweek’s, read “While Trump Fiddles, Putin Steps Up The War In Ukraine.”

These articles emphasize that the renewed volley of Russian “aggression” came just one day after Trump and Putin’s hour long first phone conversation agreeing to work peaceably together as partners fighting the common ISIS/al Qaeda enemy as well as forging a plan to diminish hostilities in Ukraine. As is typical of Western press to vilify Putin, Foreign Policy conspicuously plants the notion that Putin launching artillery strikes in Ukraine has already proven he is betraying Trump’s trust.

The piece goes on to report that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) contends that Russia unilaterally stepped up its shelling against Kiev forces to the extent that after 2600 counted rounds fired on January 29^th, so many came later that OSCE lost track. As far back as a decade ago Putin exposed OSCE as a propaganda front for Western aggression in Ukraine as well as throughout Eastern Europe to further its own imperialistic and geopolitical interests to encircle, isolate and weaken Russia. Of course that has been the US foreign policy all along with both Russia and China.

The 2014 conflict erupted in eastern Ukraine after the Russian ethnic majority residing in Donetsk and Lugansk voted in a spring referendum for their independence from Ukraine, prompting the Kiev government to invade the Donbass region to oppose the freedom fighting separatists. Once again the West backing Ukraine is lined up on the wrong side of history as Kiev has engaged in ethnic cleansing and as of two years ago killed over 10,000 civilians in Donbass. In the meantime Kiev has made repeated accusations that OSCE is failing its assigned task as a neutral monitoring observer but instead favors the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) military. This underlying dynamic may contribute to OSCE now pointing the finger at Putin as the latest aggressor, as a demonstration to Kiev and the West that it can act “impartially.”

In any case, an anonymous defense official reiterated the Pentagon’s position that it was anticipating Putin aggression in Ukraine designed to assess what he could get away with early on in the Trump administration. The US defense propagandist stated to FP:

This is all very calculated to have this open, bleeding sore on Ukraine’s body politic that will allow [Russia] to manipulate the situation and the politics of the country, and thereby keep Ukraine in this post-Soviet kleptocratic orbit.

The FP article goes on to innocuously slip in a sentence that’s clearly intended to soften Ukraine’s long planned Donbass offensive backed by US war hawks McCain and Graham, clearly violating the 2014 Minsk cease-fire agreement:

Ukrainian forces also appear to be advancing into the no-man’s land separating government-controlled territory from rebel-held areas…

Reports from on the ground indicate that the real aggressor on January 28^th was the Ukrainian army that began shelling DPR forces. The Kiev military moved on the offensive south of Donetsk, only to encounter minefields, in large part accounting for the couple dozen fatalities. Accusing DPR of a false flag attack was mainly to recruit Western sympathy, material support and more mercenaries for the unstable Poroshenko regime that’s steeped in political corruption and economic upheaval.

Earlier in the month the McCain-Graham envoy had promised additional support for another campaign into Donbass despite never having any legal authority, as still acting President Obama at least officially did not send them abroad. Thus, the bobsy twins may have in effect violated the Logan Act of 1799 which prohibits Americans in foreign countries operating outside presidential authority to interfere with foreign policy as set by the president. For their undermining the Trump presidency and ceaseless warmongering, even Trump called them out for their latest devious ploy to trigger World War III.

The fact that Trump has made statements during his campaign indicating that he would be open to normalizing relations with Moscow, lifting sanctions and advocates disbanding NATO poses a serious threat to the likes of the two treasonous senators and their nucleus of neocon policymakers who’ve been consistently aiming to provoke war against Russia for over three years now. Ever since the February 2014 US induced Kiev coup and a month later Putin’s legal annexation of Crimea after the ethnic Russians in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia (which from 1783-1954 Crimea had always been part of Russia). And then even from 1954-1990, Crimea was part of the Soviet Union as a USSR state within Ukraine, but still belonged to the nation that was the USSR.

While Obama was still president and the chicken hawk senators snuck over to Ukraine, Kiev then waited till after Trump’s inauguration before unleashing its greenlighted invasion further into Donbass. The Kiev military incursion has far more to do with testing what Western backed Ukraine can get away with on both Trump and Putin’s watch than any Putin testing of Trump waters. After all, Putin once again is not the aggressor. The offensive was solely executed so Empire neocons could sabotage the Trump-Putin relationship and prevent peace from breaking out. Only war is permitted by the Washington evildoers.

As part of the anti-Moscow propaganda to justify the latest Kiev military campaign, the Ukraine defense minister accused a Russian oil rig in the Black Sea of firing upon and damaging a Ukraine Navy transport plane. A Russian defense ministry spokesperson denies any Russian ground fire occurred, reporting that the Ukrainian plane was merely warned with four flash signals by rig security that the plane was flying too low, endangering Russian personnel working on two oil rig platforms and nearly hitting a rig tower in two simulated fly-overs.

These types of aerial aggression stunts are common forms of intimidation and provocation used for propaganda purposes as yet another false flag to further justify war escalation and retaliation. The just retired NATO deputy secretary general pounced on it, claiming the incident proves that Russia is not at all interested in peace with Ukraine. In his words:

[The Kremlin] may be trying to test the new administration to see if they distance themselves from Kiev, and tell [Ukraine President] Petro Poroshenko that he has to make the best deal with Russia, which of course would destroy him politically.

Last week formerly disgraced CIA director General David Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services Committee. It’s a bad sign when Congress seeks the “expert” testimony from a top US spy who lied to the FBI after violating the Espionage Act, breeching national security by handing over highly classified material to his mistress. Prior to that crime, the war criminal was a military war commander on two fronts. Petraeus was singularly the most responsible general for causing the sectarian civil war in Iraq that eventually led to the ISIS Sunni invasion as well as contributed to the US still ongoing military defeat in Afghanistan. Petraeus trained Shiite death squads that killed thousands of Sunnis who later became Islamic State terrorists.

And it was Petraeus who wrote the war bible – the US Army Counter Insurgency (COIN) manual – that strategically defined how America’s twenty-first century wars would be fought and lost, at enormous costs and wastes replacing many military functions with private civilian security contractors (such as hired mercenaries like Blackwater) in a failed “nation-building” attempt to imperialistically “democratize” the Middle East, proving a complete humiliating disaster in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But Petraeus’ notorious career of abject failures has now apparently earned him the status of a foreign policy guru. On February 1^st the guru warned the House:

[Putin] understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU.

You can see where all this is going. Petraeus reporting that Russia, China, Iran as well as the terrorists all pose an “unprecedented threat” is part of the staged war prepping narrative. The Washington political war machine is in full swing, ensuring that an alliance with Russia can never happen, despite whatever Trump the candidate may have uttered. That was then, this is now. So war in Ukraine once again becomes the bogus rallying cry to ensure the US-EU-NATO glue sticks together against those “imperialistic, warring” Russians bent on splintering centuries’ old allies. The elite and their neocons will not allow Brexit, strained Washington-Brussels relations or Trump nationalism ever get in their way.

Western press explains the enormous troop buildup of US-NATO forces complete with US-German-NATO tanks amassed along the Baltic state-Russian border to “protect” NATO allies from big bad Russian expansion. This again is all fabricated prewar propaganda prepping us for the war to come. Trump the candidate grumbled how once he becomes president, Europe will need to pay for its own defense. The former secretary general of NATO called that “a breach of solidarity” with Europe, warning:

The Russians would see that as a bonanza that they would try and exploit by convincing countries like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that the US couldn’t be counted on.

Another lockdown to prevent thawed Russia-US relations is the rigid adherence to extending economic sanctions against Russia over Crimea and Donbass. After Trump the candidate had hinted to lift the sanctions, UK Prime Minister Theresa May rushed to Washington to ensure they stay in place and that Trump renews US commitment to NATO. GOP faithful like McCain threatened to pass laws to codify the sanctions should Trump let up. So you can see that the anti-Putin vilification and cold war still rage on with the latest lying rhetoric and external threats brought to bear against the US president to stay with status quo or else.

And to prove that Trump the president has succumbed to holding the anti-Russian hardline, Trump’s brand new UN ambassador Nikki Haley on her very first day at the office sounded the alarm at the UN Security Council, mimicking the same broken record as her neocon predecessor Samantha Power:

I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia. It is unfortunate because it is a replay of far too many instances over many years in which Unites States representatives have needed to do that… Unites States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

In response a Russian senator tweeted:

It looks like the new US representative at the UN came with remarks that were written by Power.

Nikki Haley obviously received her orders from above to slam Russia despite the US-Kiev collusion to recently renew aggression towards the citizens of Donbass. She also showed ignorance in failing to know that Crimea’s Ukrainian history was short. It was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1990, thus the Black Sea peninsula was forcibly part of Ukraine for less than a quarter century. Yet the entire pretext for US condemning Russia over Ukraine is completely based upon a lie. So are the sanctions, and so will the coming war. Again, this entire anti-Russian false narrative is such a nauseatingly tiresome US theme.

American exceptionalism means the murderous world bully can continue operating with total impunity while wrongly accusing Russia constantly, or any other nation in its crosshairs, of the exact same sinful crimes that Empire perpetrates every single day of the year. Empire’s European vassals and smaller intimidated countries must silently toe the line or else they too will be unjustly targeted with lies and punishment in the form of illegal invasions and wars (be it US boots on the ground or proxy allied mercenary terrorists), inhumane economic sanctions, trade embargoes, regime change coups and assassinations.

The only guilty nation that remains judge, jury and executioner in this world of other countries is the United States.

And Trump has already demonstrated as the White House figurehead that he is not in control but follows his globalist marching orders. Thus Trump is powerless to change rigid foreign policy still being dictated by the neocons. Nothing will change in Ukraine except more death and violence will escalate to the larger arena. Russia is still the West’s scapegoat as is every other nation that asserts its own will and independence free of the killing Empire. Only the US has invaded dozens of sovereign nations, initiated more wars and maintained the most aggressive foreign policy of any nation on earth over the last century. But it’s always Russia that’s the falsely accused aggressor that Washington and its corporate media endlessly hype in order to further justify Empire aggression and violence. After all, war has always been an American agenda.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

The Russia Review Act: Senate Aims to Block Trump From Lifting Sanctions on Russia

By Stephen Lendman, February 10 2017

Called the “Russia Review Act,” it establishes a review process, giving congressional members oversight over whether to maintain or lift sanctions, preventing unilateral Trump action. It requires the White House to submit a report, explaining why it seeks sanctions removal, a 120-day review period following, giving Congress final say on whether to maintain or ease sanctions in question.

Iran has been “Implacable in the Rejection of Washington’s Destructive Role in Syria”

By Prof. Tim Anderson, February 10 2017

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.  In an interview with Khamenei.ir, he answers questions about the Syrian crisis, the Astana peace talks as well as the role of Iran, Russia and Turkey in the peace process.

Calexit: Should California Secede?

By David Swanson and Ann Garrison, February 10 2017

On November 21st, California secessionists calling themselves “Yes California” filed papers with the California Secretary of State proposing a November 2018 ballot measure that would ask registered voters whether California should secede from the US and become its own nation. If passed, the measure would strike language from California’s constitution that says the state is “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

Dakota Access Pipeline Approved a Week After Co-Owner’s Pipeline Spilled 600,000 Gallons of Oil in Texas

By Steve Horn, February 10 2017

On January 30, 600,000 gallons (14,285 barrels) of oil spewed out of Enbridge’s Seaway Pipeline in Blue Ridge, Texas, the second spill since the pipeline opened for business in mid-2016. Seaway is half owned by Enbridge and serves as the final leg of a pipeline system DeSmog has called the “Keystone XLClone,” which carries mostly tar sands extracted from Alberta, Canada, across the U.S. at a rate of 400,000 barrels per day down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Triumphing over Reality: China, Australia and Free Trade

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 10 2017

The suspended reality across the Pacific took hold as the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, conversed with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in a state of mild delusion. Assuming the air of a clairvoyant, Bishop insisted that she knew that the United States would not repudiate its own free trade agreement with Australia. Knowledge, however, soon changed to disbelief.

The suspended reality across the Pacific took hold as the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, conversed with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in a state of mild delusion. Assuming the air of a clairvoyant, Bishop insisted that she knew that the United States would not repudiate its own free trade agreement with Australia.

Knowledge, however, soon changed to disbelief. “I can’t believe it,” she is reported to have said. “I don’t take it credibly.” Surely, the United States would not withdraw from the Australian-US free trade agreement, its own brainchild and inspiration. The trade balance favoured the US in any case. The paternal figure would eventually make sense, and step back from the precipice of madness.

Observers should have immediately noted the perverse scenario. Australia had been shown up by the agreement to be distinctly outplayed and outdone in its trade with the US. (Some states simply have a freer regime than others.)

It was a lesson in diplomatic failure: poorly briefed officials facing far more experienced teams nourished by international trade conventions; a chronic inability on the part of Canberra to identify a coherent interest in even having such an arrangement with Washington.

Touted as the great producer of jobs and an economic boost, the agreement has served Washington’s interests far more than Canberra’s, who could probably do with its scrapping. The US trade surplus has ballooned from $14 billion a year to $25 billion a decade after it came into force.

The air of unreality was also to be found across in Washington, where a form of medicated denial had taken hold of Australia’s officials. In Washington, Australia’s ambassador, the lumbering Joe Hockey, could merely observe with bewilderment that, “By ratifying the TPP, the United States will ensure it will continue to have a major leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region…. The cost of failure may well be too great to imagine.” Always lacking imagination, Hockey’s apocalyptic scenarios were left open and unspecific.

With more than a hint of irony, the TPP was the very same trade bloc that was designed as a buffer against a belligerently confident China, despite Beijing’s willingness to join it. “When more than 95 per cent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy.” So claimed that picture of modest imperialism, President Barack Obama. “We should write those rules…” Australia, trapped between marauding interests, could only squirm in both directions, hoping its elasticity would hold out.

Bishop was certainly in the mood to please, courting a more sympathetic China. “At a time of economic transition and uncertainty around the world, Australia reassures China that we are a reliable partner and that we shall continue to place a strong trade and economic relationship as one of our highest priorities.”[1]

Thinking what President Trump will do next is not the same as knowing it. At the moment, he has been good to his word in placing countries on a bilateral footing – in order of importance. The TPP has already had an ignominious funeral, and Trump’s officials are seeking a lucrative deal with Japan.

These movements are lost on Bishop. What matters is which golden bottom to sniff next, which cavity of power to survey. This self-inflicted Australian dilemma necessitates the snake-like crawl across diplomatic tables: what can we do for you, sir, comes the sibilant inquiry?

In the case of the United States, Australia remains a military and satellite installation of some importance, a ready-made Gurkha outfit happy to dive in with US forces into any distant theatre of operation. But in terms of economic worth, China tends to be the power to please with prostate willingness, the consumer of Australian commodities and driver of demand for iron ore.

Navigating between these two geopolitical hegemons is never easy, though the spectacle, when it involves officials from Canberra, tends to be embarrassing. Discussing free trade with a Communist state, while deciding to discount the views of a newly elected presidential administration in the US, was one of the more peculiar ones.

Wang showed continued interest in keeping the globalisation bandwagon moving, despite populist reactions in Europe and the United States. “It is important to steer economic globalisation towards greater inclusiveness, broader shared benefit and in a more sustainable way.” China, in other words, was edging towards global leadership.

Taking every cue from the US trade mission philosophy, Wang was keen that every state “firmly uphold the international trading regime with the WTO at the core and we need to promote trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation and we need to take a firm stand against all forms of protectionism.” Beijing, it would seem, hopes for the last laugh.

Sources on the reaction of Wang to Bishop would make any alert critic cringe. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, “Mr Wang concluded his day with Ms Bishop by kissing her on both cheeks after dinner, an unprecedented gesture, much remarked upon by accompanying officials.”[2]

That is not all. Benevolent Beijing was informing Australia that it could have a cake of sorts and eat it too, continuing “to be an ally of the US, at the same time to be [a] comprehensive strategic partner for China.”[3] The Australian foreign minister would have been delighted at that. Dispensation from strategic neurosis – at long last granted.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/07/australias-relationship-china-could-not-be-stronger-bishop-says
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-dismisses-donald-trumps-threat-to-tear-up-free-trade-agreement-20170209-gu9kb9.html
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-dismisses-donald-trumps-threat-to-tear-up-free-trade-agreement-20170209-gu9kb9.html

The furor unleashed by the remarks of President Donald Trump in response to Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly’s calling Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer” during an interview broadcast Sunday has continued to reverberate, drawing hypocritical condemnations from leading figures in both the Republican and Democratic parities.

In response to O’Reilly’s denunciation of Putin, Trump stated: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump went on to cite Iraq in support of his statement. O’Reilly’s face went slack. He clearly did not know what to say. The new leader of the “Free World” had wandered seriously off message.

As far as the capitalist politicians of both parties and the media are concerned, Trump committed an unpardonable offense: he—in this one instance, and for purely pragmatic reasons related to his immediate political needs—had said something true about US imperialism’s role in the world.

The official posture of outrage over Trump’s off-hand comment will have little effect on the broader public. Do the politicians and media really believe that the public is so naïve and its memory so short? The United States is a country where The Bourne Identity­ and its innumerable sequels–whose basic premise is that the US government is run by murderers–are among the most popular movies of the last twenty years. This premise is well grounded in fact. Over the past 70 years, presidents and other high government officials have been implicated in the authorization and implementation of countless atrocities. Many of these crimes have been substantiated in official government reports and congressional hearings.

In a review of Joshua Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War: America in Laos and the Birth of the Military CIA, reviewer Scott Shane wrote in the February 3 edition of The New York Times :

“Speaking last September in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, Barack Obama mentioned a staggering fact: that the United States had between 1963 and 1974 dropped two million tons of bombs on the country, more than the total loosed on Germany and Japan together during World War II. That made Laos, which is slightly smaller than Michigan, the most heavily bombed nation in history, the president said. More than four decades after the end of the war, unexploded ordnance is still killing and maiming Laotians, and Obama announced that he was doubling American funding to remove it.”

Calling attention to information in Kurlantzick’s book, Shane noted: “In his first presidential term, Richard M. Nixon escalated the bombing from about 15 sorties per day to 300 per day. ‘How many did we kill in Laos?’ Nixon asked Henry Kissinger one day in a conversation caught on tape. Kissinger replied: ‘In the Laotian thing, we killed about 10, 15’–10,000 or 15,000 people, he meant. The eventual death toll would be 200,000.”

When it comes to killing, the US Government is without equal. In multiple wars of aggression, from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the proxy war for regime-change in Syria, US imperialism has killed and maimed tens of millions.

The chief accusation being leveled against Trump–by both supposed liberals in the Democratic Party and right-wing Republicans–is that he implied a “moral equivalence” between Russia and the US. This was a phrase used during the Cold War to justify every crime committed by the US and its allies, from Latin America’s bloody dictatorships to the Apartheid regime in South Africa, on the grounds that there could be no “moral equivalence” between the leader of the “Free World” and the Soviet “Evil Empire.”

There is, in fact, no equivalence. When it comes to killing and global thuggery, Putin is a small fry compared to the leaders of the United States.

That the Democratic Party jumps on this reactionary bandwagon only proves that there is nothing progressive whatsoever in its purported opposition to Trump. This was exemplified Monday by the remarks of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a supposed “left” Democrat and leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who suggested that Trump should be impeached for “wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea [sic].”

Underlying the furor over Trump’s remarks are fierce divisions over US imperialist strategy and Washington’s preparations for war that have been brought into the open with the change of administrations.

These differences have been exacerbated by recent events in Syria. The Syrian government’s retaking in December of eastern Aleppo, the last urban stronghold of the US-backed “rebels,” represented a colossal setback for US policy in the Middle East.

There are bitter recriminations within the foreign policy establishment over the Obama administration’s backing off of its “red line” in 2013, when it nearly went to war over false charges of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. Within these circles, there are many who feel that a military intervention would have been better for US interests, no matter what new catastrophe it unleashed.

An article published in the Washington Post Monday, warning that the US faces “a far stronger Iran” after “years of turmoil in the Arab world,” spelled out the situation that Washington now confronts in stark terms:

“Iran and Russia together have fought to ensure the survival of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and they are now pursuing a peace settlement in alliance with Turkey that excludes a role for the United States. America has been left with few friends and little leverage, apart from the Kurds in the northeast of the country.

“Russia controls the skies over Syria, and Turkey wields influence over the rebels, but Iran holds sway on the ground …”

Talk of “respecting” Putin, possible collaboration with Russia against ISIS in Syria, and an easing of sanctions is not, as the Democrats have suggested, evidence of some secret control exercised by the Kremlin over Trump. It is, rather, part of a definite strategy of peeling Russia off from Iran in order to pave the way for a new war in the Middle East, while sharply escalating provocations against China.

Citing unnamed administration officials, the Wall Street Journal spelled this policy out on Monday: “The administration is exploring ways to break Russia’s military and diplomatic alliance with Iran… The emerging strategy seeks to reconcile President Donald Trump’s seemingly contradictory vows to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and to aggressively challenge the military presence of Iran.”

Trump’s chief White House strategist and adviser, Stephen Bannon, a student and admirer of Adolf Hitler, no doubt views the administration’s pivot toward Moscow through the historical prism of the Stalin-Hitler pact, which set the stage for the Second World War, a war that ultimately claimed 20 million Soviet lives.

Putin’s government is susceptible to such maneuvers. It shares all of the stupidity, backwardness and shortsightedness of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy headed by Stalin. Putin sits atop a regime that represents a rapacious clique of oligarchs who enriched themselves through theft of state property and the extraction and sale of the resources of the former Soviet Union. They are anxious to see US sanctions lifted so that they can accelerate their accumulation of wealth at the expense of the Russian working class.

Within the US political establishment and Washington’s vast military and intelligence apparatus, there exists sharp opposition to Trump’s turn in foreign policy. Immense political, military and financial resources have been invested in the buildup against Russia, from the coup in Ukraine to the deployment of thousands of US and NATO troops on Russia’s western border. There are concerns within ruling circles that a shift in imperialist strategy is reckless and poses serious dangers.

While popular attention and outrage have been focused on Trump’s anti-democratic executive orders imposing a ban on Muslims and refugees, ordering a wall built on the southern border, and laying the groundwork for a mass dragnet against undocumented immigrant workers, within the ruling class a serious fight is being waged over global imperialist strategy.

This fight over policy is between two bands of cutthroats, each of which is committed to an escalation of US militarism to further the profit interests of the US-based banks and transnational corporations. Whichever one wins out, the threat of world war, rooted in the crisis of global capitalism, will only grow.

In her last book before she died, UK author Jennifer Diski wrote, “Under no circumstances is anyone to say that I lost a battle with cancer. … [I] will have nothing whatever to do with any notion of desert, punishment, fairness or unfairness, or any kind of moral causality.”

Two friends say they don’t like the “battle” because it makes winners and losers. They just got lucky, they say.

Of course, luck makes winners and losers. My own dislike is for how we win or lose. When I have no choice but to stare at the lights of an oncoming train, I’m a loser. When I again embrace the false belief in a guaranteed future, I win.

In truth, we are all on the train tracks, just as portrayed in Alex Colville’s famous painting. When cancer withdraws its threat, and my prognosis improves, annihilation is still speeding toward me.

Ah, but we mustn’t talk that way.

In Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, Settembrini, the sunny liberal optimist, despises “the tie that binds [us] … to disease and death”. Yet Settembrini is dying. Lauding Progress and Science, and denying his own condition, he’s like “ancient Gauls who shot their arrows against Heaven”.

Part of Mann’s point to post-war Europe was that Liberalism was taking human beings out of nature, forgetting that we’re subject to laws of nature, like everything else in the universe. Indviduals have power to seize their destiny, the slogan went (and goes). Settembrini couldn’t seize his. More significant, he didn’t know it.

Sensitive thinkers say the art of dying and the art of living are the same. The reason is simple: All life, including human life, involves decay. Every moment involves change, which is loss. We live better, with less fear, if we see things as they are. Illusions create false expectations, which fail, causing misery.

We don’t teach such philosophers. They are usually Asian, Indigenous, African or Latin American. Philosophy departments across Canada teach only the wisdom of white, mostly English-speaking philosophers of North Atlantic descent and/or education. Every two or ten years, a course on African or First Nations philosophy is taught but as an elective, with little impact.

And so we shore up the battle imagery. Like Settembrini, we want no truck with nature’s “evil, irrational power”.

German playwright, Bertoldt Brecht , found in ancient Chinese theatre his lifelong strategy for hard times: the best resistance is no resistance. It doesn’t mean to cave. It means to go along with open eyes, finding unexpected opportunity. Brecht contrasted this idea with one common in European theatre: the individual “standing tall” against the storm, beating the wind, declaring it shouldn’t happen.

The problem with the “cancer battle” is that it obscures another struggle: that to come to terms with essential vulnerability and the ultimate unpredictability of existence, despite science. Acknowledging existential insecurity is an achievement because it is shared by all, cancer or no cancer.

It is shared by rich white southern Ontarians and the people of Attawapiskat. Activists following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission urge non-native Canadians not to “help” but to recognize our personal stake in the well-being of the country’s first citizens. This is hard to do if we see ourselves as “lucky” and “privileged” in self-satisfied ignorance of mutual dependence.

I don’t blame medical practitioners. I blame Humanities scholars paid to provide society’s conceptual tools. They’re shooting arrows at the Heavens, seduced by Liberalism’s false freedoms. We need a conception of health that looks squarely at the lights down the tracks and tells us how to live with that reality, freely and well.

It’d be a more durable victory, and more interesting.

Susan Babbitt is author (most recently) of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014) and José Martí, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Global Development Ethics (Palgrave Macmilan 2014).

Trump is considering him for the department’s number two position – perhaps an especially powerful one while Rex Tillerson transitions from Big Oil to diplomacy.

Trump transition advisor James Carafano believes Abrams is “pretty close to being named” – best known for his role in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair.

It involved covertly selling arms to Iran to fund Contra anti-Sandinista terrorists in Nicaragua. The Boland Amendment prohibited it.

For his role in the scheme, Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress, pled guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information from Congress to avoid a trial, possible conviction and imprisonment.

On Christmas night 1992, GHW Bush pardoned him and other Iran-Contra defendants – their high crimes forgiven, not forgotten.

In 1998, Abrams and other PNAC members urged “decisive action” to replace Federal Republic of Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic with pro-Western leadership. The nation’s 1999 rape followed, one of many Clinton administration high crimes.

The same year, Abrams was one of 18 PNAC signatories in a letter to Clinton, urging war on Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein, calling him a “hazard (to) a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.”

In the GW Bush administration, he was one of its architects. He drafted a proposal for seizing Iraq’s oil fields. The US installed puppet regime maintained control.

During Reagan’s two terms, Abrams held three State Department positions, including Assistant secretary for Inter-American Affairs from July 17, 1985 – January 20, 1989.

He later served as GW Bush’s Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor, supervising White House Middle East policy.

He was instrumental in the aborted two-day coup attempt to replace Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez with puppet leadership serving US interests.

In 2007, he was part of a black operation to destabilize Iran, using disinformation and manipulation of its currency, aiming for regime change.

He was a Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory (now called the Foreign Policy Initiative), established in 1997, comprised of neocon extremists, dedicated to seeking US global dominance through endless wars of aggression.

He’s currently connected to the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and various other hardline groups.

He’s a notorious Zionist zealot, opposed to sympathies toward Palestinians, fundamentally against Israeli concessions to achieve conflict resolution.

He’s interventionist, pro-endless wars of aggression, advocating nation-building, what Trump said he opposes.

If appointed State’s number two, will neocon foreign policy continue unabated? Will endless imperial wars rage?

Will confrontation with China and Iran follow, risking possible nuclear war? Will hope for improved relations with Russia be dashed? Will Congress prevent it anyway?

Will dirty business as usual remain unchanged, especially US imperial madness, or will Trump manage to go another way?

America needs more peacemakers, fewer warriors. It’s not the way things usually work out.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

In the past week, the press complained that the White House never published a detailed read out of the Jan. 28 Trump-Putin phone call, one of the first held by the new US president, because allegedly the staff had disabled recording equipment. Today, it was Reuters’ turn to be the latest to leak the full details of a Trump high level phone call (as reported yesterday, leaking within the Trump administration has become a major issue) this time, the highly anticipated if unrecorded call with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Reuters cited two unnamed U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

The leak, while unconfirmed – in today’s press briefing Spicer refused to comment saying it was a private call – revealed several interesting facts, first that Trump denounced the START treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads “as a bad deal for the United States.”

More notable was the disclosure that “when Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.” During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.

As Reuters adds”it has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.”

Under the terms of the New START the two countries have until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.

Previously the new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.

 During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”

The latest leak will lead to concerns that Trump “is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders”, which may or may not be favorable in future negotiations, as it keeps foreign heads of state very much off balance.

Another unique aspect of this call: Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, Reuters’ two sources said.

Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.

Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral “pre-briefing” from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.

In the phone call, Reuters also reports that Putin raised the possibility of reviving talks on a range of disputes and suggested extending New START, the sources said.

 New START can be extended for another five years, beyond 2021, by mutual agreement. Unless they agree to do that or negotiate new cuts, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers would be freed from the treaty’s limits, potentially setting the stage for a new arms race.

New START was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2010 by a vote of 71 to 26. Thirteen Republican senators joined all of the Senate’s Democrats in voting for the treaty, although Republican opponents derided it as naive.

During a prior phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which infamously turned heated and led to Trump prematurely ending the call just 20 minutes in, the US president questioned an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept 1,250 refugees now being held by Australia in offshore detention centers. It was one of many such conversations in which Trump turned to denounce deals negotiated by previous administrations on trade, acceptance of refugees and arms control.

In late January, Senate Republicans John McCain and Rob Portman strongly opposed lifting sanctions on Russia, McCain saying:

“I hope President Trump will put an end to this speculation and reject such a reckless course. If he does not, I will work with my colleagues to codify sanctions against Russia into law.”

Portman claimed lifting them would damage US leadership and credibility. After 24 years under the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama, they’re damaged beyond repair.

US sanctions on Russia were illegally imposed for political reasons, no others – part of longstanding US Russia bashing, with strong bipartisan support.

On Wednesday, bipartisan Senate sanctions oversight legislation on Russia was introduced – sponsored by neocons Lindsey Graham (R. SC) and Ben Cardin (D. MD), co-sponsored by a rogue’s gallery of bipartisan senators, including GOP and Democrat leaders.

Called the “Russia Review Act,” it establishes a review process, giving congressional members oversight over whether to maintain or lift sanctions, preventing unilateral Trump action.

It requires the White House to submit a report, explaining why it seeks sanctions removal, a 120-day review period following, giving Congress final say on whether to maintain or ease sanctions in question.

The new measure follows earlier introduced legislation, titled “Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017,” introduced by McCain and Graham. If enacted, likely tough new sanctions on Russia will be imposed.

Perhaps other anti-Russia legislation will follow, whether veto-proof remains to be seen. Clearly, Congress is going all-out to obstruct any attempts by Trump to improve relations with Moscow.

If he ignores congressional action and acts unilaterally, an unlikely prospect, he could be impeached and removed from office – a first in US history if occurs. The closest example was Nixon’s resignation to avoid impeachment.

Separately, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calling Putin “a killer,” saying:

“We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company.”

O’Reilly responded dismissively, saying he’s “working on that apology, but it may take a little time. You might want to check with me around…2023.”

Putin is no “killer.” He’s a preeminent world leader, a peacemaker, polar opposite a long line of US warrior presidents, waging endless wars on humanity, responsible for millions of casualties.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.  In an interview with Khamenei.ir, he answers questions about the Syrian crisis, the Astana peace talks as well as the role of Iran, Russia and Turkey in the peace process.

The following is the full text of the interview:

How would the “Astana Talks” help solve the crisis in Syria?

I believe the Astana talks provide another opportunity for the terrorist groups and their backers to give up their useless and destructive path. What has been most significant is that those armed groups which have chosen to attend must confront Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey, with the USA, al Saud, Qatar, Britain and France excluded. That is a step closer to reality, as the latter group has only played a destructive role, up until now, while the former group is dominated by those in alliance with the Syrian alliance. Turkey alone at Astana represents the sponsors of the al Qaeda groups. Further, the NATO-GCC terrorists come as armed groups and not with the pretence of being a political ‘opposition’. If the armed groups (e.g. ‘Jaysh al Islam’) agree to put down their arms, that will leave the banned terrorist groups more isolated. If they do not agree, no-one can say they were not given an opportunity. What I call the Syrian Alliance (principally Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia) will be seen to have made every effort to avoid bloodshed.

Has Turkish involvement been helpful in recent months?

A. The practical benefit of Turkey’s recent engagement was seen in the relatively orderly evacuation of east Aleppo. That helped a more rapid liberation of that part of the city, with the deportation of several thousand terrorists and their families to their temporary position in Idlib, and the freeing of around 90 thousand civilian hostages. Turkey’s role in that effective surrender was important, as the Turkish state had become the chief sponsor of the armed groups. On the other hand, it seems likely that Turkey’s leadership also backed subsequent attacks on Syria by DAESH (for example in Deir Ezzor) and the al Nusra-led groups (though they have been busy killing themselves in Idlib, as a result of recriminations over their defeat in Aleppo), in an attempt to strengthen Mr. Erdogan’s hand against Russia, Syria and Iran at the Astana talks. Turkey’s leadership has been forced to the diplomatic table, both by military defeats of its proxy armies on the ground and through the important strategic relationships Turkey maintains with Russia and Iran. The Syrian Government, at this stage, has no real relationship with Turkey’s Government; but some sort of relationship between these neighbors must be rebuilt. Unfortunately for the people of Turkey, the violent recriminations seen in Idlib (it is said that almost 2,000 have been killed by the sectarian infighting) seem likely to keep passing into Turkey, as the terror groups are driven out of Syria.

Click to order

Why do Syrian negotiators in “Astana Talks” want rebels to lay down their arms in exchange for an amnesty deal? Is it legitimate?

A. It is certainly true that many Syrian resent the amnesties given to former Syrian fighters, whom they regard as mercenaries and terrorists. We know that the [Persian] Gulf monarchies and some NATO states have paid them higher salaries than Syrian soldiers, with DAESH fighters on the highest salaries. Many Syrians regard these traitors as no better than their foreign terrorist partners. However the Syrian Government’s practice, at least since 2012, has been to remove as many Syrians as possible from the conflict through a ‘reconciliation’ process, recognizing that they must address a post-war legacy of bitterness. Many thousands have already taken advantage of this process. For the same ‘reconciliation’ reasons the Syrian Army has not ‘carpet bombed’ al Qaeda held areas such as Douma in rural east Damascus. The bloodshed must be minimized. The post war ‘reconciliation’ challenge that the government of President Bashar al Assad must face is similar to, but much greater than, the healing process attempted by his father after the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed insurrection in Hama, back in 1982.

A member of the rebel delegation in “Astana Talks” told AFP on Monday that the group would agree to have Russia serve as a guarantor of the current ceasefire but not Iran; why are they so hostile toward Iran?

A. This seems a combination of the recognition of simple power politics, combined with al Saud style sectarian ideology. The sectarian groups, with little skill in politics or diplomacy, must recognize the military power of Russia, while hoping that Russia will eventually withdraw. Iran, on the other hand, is seen as central to the region and is constantly demonized in pseudo-religious terms by al Saud’s Wahhabi clerics.

There is another factor. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 1978, has been implacable in its support of Syria and in the rejection of the destructive role of Washington in the region. The Government of Russia, on the other hand, while maintaining support for international law and the rejection of terrorism, has seemed more diplomatically flexible. Russia constantly refers to the USA – the chief architect of all the Middle East wars and the massive terrorism – as its ‘partner’, in an attempt to resolve wider issues of geo-politics. As part of this approach Moscow has paid perhaps exaggerated attention to armed groups which have very little support within Syria. The latest version of that effort includes the circulation of a text (apparently created with very little Syrian involvement) which appears to suggest some drastic changes to Syria’s constitution. While such ideas (removal of the Presidential system, federalization, removal of the ‘Arab’ status of the Republic) may come to nothing, if and when they subjected to a Syrian vote, the process does seem to be testing the limits of diplomacy. It is not clear to what extent the Syrian Government would accept any such proposals. At worst this might maintain unrealistic expectations on the part of the armed groups and their sponsors; at best it might encourage a face saving retreat, helping resolution of the conflict.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. 

Government propaganda and NGO misinformation have coloured the story of the war on Syria from its inception. Stepping in to set the record straight, Dr. Tim Anderson explores the real beginnings of the conflict, the players behind it, and their agenda in his new book, “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance.”

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00 

Click to order

President Donald Trump suffered a legal blow on Thursday when a federal appeals court refused to reinstate a temporary travel ban he had ordered on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Trump administration failed to offer “any evidence” that national security concerns justified the ban he launched with an executive order on Jan. 27.

Shortly after the court issued its 29-page ruling, Trump tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He told reporters his administration ultimately would win the case and dismissed the ruling as “political.”

The Justice Department, which spoke for the government at oral argument on Tuesday, said it was reviewing the decision and considering its options.

The states of Washington and Minnesota challenged the order, which had sparked protests and chaos at US and overseas airports on the weekend after it was issued. The two states argued that Trump’s ban violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination.

The court declined to evaluate those specific claims at this point, but said the government had failed to show that any person from the seven countries had perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

The 9th Circuit ruling, upholding the Feb. 3 decision of US District Judge James Robart, does not resolve the lawsuit, but related only to whether Trump’s order should be suspended while litigation proceeds. The ruling upholds the suspension.

Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order barred entry for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and imposed a 120-day halt on all refugees, except refugees from Syria who are barred indefinitely.

The three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm.

In the ruling, they acknowledged the competing public interests of national security and free flow of travel but that the US government had not offered “any evidence” of national security concerns to justify banning the seven countries.

Curbing entry to the United States as a national security measure was a central premise of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, originally proposed as a temporary ban on all Muslims. He has voiced frustration at the legal challenge to his order.

US presidents have in the past claimed sweeping powers to fight terrorism, but individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence it answered a threat.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges were appointees of former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican like Trump.

The government could ask the 9th Circuit to have a larger panel of judges review the decision “en banc,” or appeal directly to the US Supreme Court, which will likely determine the case’s final outcome.

Ten-thousands, and soon hundred-thousands die in Yemen as result of zealotry, greed and bureaucratic infighting of foreign countries. The Wahhabi Saudis fight in Yemen against Iranian Shia that ain’t there. Under the eyes of the CIA they nurture local al-Qaeda forces to do their bidding. The UAE seeks new ports in Yemen thereby disturbing Saudi pipeline dreams.

The Pentagon tussles with the CIA over budgets of special operations.  The minor local Yemeni conflicts between the various tribes develop into a war due to foreign interference and financing. Bombing campaigns have replaced tribal mediation.

The executive branch of the United Nations is under pressure from the U.S.-Saudi coalition. It is not allowed to report on the real consequences of the devastating war on Yemen. The leads to rather comical assertions.

On August 31 2016 the UN coordinator on Yemen Jamie McGoldrick said that 10,000 people had died due to the war on Yemen:

Speaking from the capital Sanaa on Tuesday, Jamie McGoldrick, the UN humanitarian coordinator said the new figure was based on official information from medical facilities in Yemen.The number could rise further, McGoldrick said, as some areas had no medical facilities, and people were often buried without any official record being made.

“We know the numbers are much higher but we can’t tell you by how much,” McGoldrick told reporters

On January 17 2017 the UN coordinator on Yemen Jamie McGoldrick said that 10,000 people had died due to the war on Yemen:

“[T]he estimates are that over 10,000 people have been killed in this conflict and almost 40,000 people injured”, UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Yemen Jamie McGoldrick told reporters in the capital Sanaa on Monday.He did not provide a breakdown between civilians and combatants.

The UN numbers did not change from August 2016 to January 2017. Despite intense bombing and ravaging famine no one seems to have died. But those numbers are of course mere fantasies. The real death toll due to the war on Yemen is at least ten times higher. The numbers the UN envoy claims are political. He is not allowed to reveal the real ones.

In mid 2016 the Saudis pressured the then UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon to take it off a list of countries that are harming children:

Muslim allies of Saudi Arabia piled pressure on UN chief Ban Ki-moon over the blacklisting of a Saudi-led coalition for killing children in Yemen, with Riyadh threatening to cut Palestinian aid and funds to other UN programs, according to diplomatic sources.

A UN Secretary General with some backbone would not have relented but would have publicly shamed the Saudis and their allies at each possible occasion. Not so Ban Ki-moon:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he temporarily removed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen from a U.N. blacklist for violating child rights because its supporters threatened to stop funding many U.N. programs.Ban said he had to consider “the very real prospect” that millions of other children in the Palestinian territories, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and many other places “would suffer grievously” if U.N. programs were defunded.

The United States and Britain actively supported Saudi Arabia in getting its way at the UN and within the UN Security Council.

But the UN giving in to blackmail did not save any children. UNICEF, somewhat independent from the General Secretary, reports much higher (though still incomplete) numbers that come nearer to the truth:

Yemen has lost a decade’s worth of gains in public health as a result of war and economic crisis, with an estimated 63,000 children dying last year of preventable causes often linked to malnutrition, the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said on Tuesday.
…
A decade has been lost in health gains,” she said, with 63 out of every 1,000 live births now dying before their fifth birthday, against 53 children in 2014.
…
Releno later told a news briefing that the rate of severe acute malnutrition had “tripled” between 2014 and 2016 to 460,000 children.”The under-5 mortality rate has increased to the point that we estimate that in 2016 at least 10,000 more children died of preventable diseases,” she said.

In medical statistic terms these are “excess death”. They would not have occurred without the war waged on the country. It is unlikely that these  UNICEF numbers are complete.

The mountainous north-west of Yemen is the core area of the Zaidi Shia population from which the Houthi militia fighting the Saudis and their proxies derive. It is now mostly cut off from communication and supply channels. Hospitals and schools in the area have been heavily bombed and its main northern city Sadah has been completely destroyed by Saudi air attacks. The Zaidi comprise about 45% of Yemen’s 24 million people and up to 1962 Zaidi caliph ruled the country for over 1,000 years. For the Saudi Wahhabi zealots the Zaidi are not real Muslims and deserve to die.

Many people in the north west have fled to Yemen’s capital Sanaa. But even there food is running out. Hungry children roam the streets begging for food.

The Yemenis, and especially the Zaidi, have always been independent minded. They will not give in to Saudi pressure. The Saudis can not defeat them. Together with their U.S. and British allies they have therefore decided on a follow a genocidal strategy. They cut off the country, which usually imports up to 90% of its basic food needs, from the outside world. Saudi ships patrol the coast and the land borders are mostly under Saudi control. Only smugglers and the few official UN convoys provide some relief. But this is obviously far from enough. The ten-thousands “excess death” are a direct consequence of the U.S.-Saudi blockade.

Besides the war on the Zaidi, geo-political conflicts are waged in Yemen. The Saudis accuse the Zaidi of being proxy forces of Iran. But there is no evidence for this. No Iranian weapons or Iranian advisor have been seen in Yemen. Iran had warned the Houthi not to expend their rule. Contacts between the Houthi and Iran are now few and superficial. The U.S. navy caught a few smuggling Dau on the way from maybe Iran to Somalia. It claims that the old and few weapons they carried were destined for Yemen which is already overflowing with weapons. No evidence for this claim has been provided.

The real geo-political fight is taking place within the U.S.-Saudi coalition. The United Arab Emirates is nominally part of the coalition. They have  provided forces and hired mercenaries to fight the Houthi in Yemen. But it is mainly interested in the southern ports of Aden (containers and general cargo) and Mukalla (oil and gas) and supports a southern independence movement. The UAE owned port management company DP World had its exclusive concessions for the ports canceled when the Houthi kicked out the former government. First the Houthi, then al-Qaeda took control over the ports. The UAE now occupies the port cities with the help of south-Yemeni mercenaries and again manages and controls the ports.

The Saudis have their own interest in those ports. They have plans for pipelines from their main oilfields up north to Mukalla. The pipelines would allow the Saudi oil exports to circumvent the vulnerable sea lane through the street of Hormuz. But for that they need a port on the Yemeni coast.

The Saudis have supported and allied themselves with radical Salafi groups in Yemen. One of these runs under the name al-Qaeda but it is not as tightly joined to the global al-Qaeda organization as it seems. The Saudi supported al-Qaeda groups, originally hired to fight the Houthi, “liberated” the southern ports. They were ordered out when UAE supported forces arrived but intermittently attacks the UAE occupied Aden and, as Yemeni sources claim, also attacks Mukalla under the label ISIS or Islamic State.

This murky conflict is again coming to the fore because UAE special forces took part in a recent U.S. raid on an alleged al-Qaeda camp in Yemen. It has been confirmed that 25 civilians, at least 9 of them children, were killed in the raid. The main U.S. target, an alleged al-Qaeda big wig, escaped. The Saudi proxy government in Yemen protested against the raid. It banned further U.S. ground operation in the country (later taken back). Its ambassador explained that al-Qaeda is part of its fight against the Houthi and not a priority enemy. He repeatedly said that the “highest levels” of the U.S. government were informed of this.

The raid in Yemen was carried out by the Pentagon, not by the CIA. The U.S. special forces were accompanied by UAE forces. After the raid al-Qaeda in Yemen retook three southern towns and is again threatening the UAE controlled port cities.

My recent discussions with Yemeni sources developed around the following speculative picture. In the war on Yemen the Pentagon is mainly allied with UAE and supports its plans for southern Yemen. The CIA is mainly allied with the Saudis, supports their plans and condones their alliance with al-Qaeda. The main target of the U.S. military raid was warned by the Saudis and escaped. The necessary information came from CIA channels.

A similar split between the CIA which supports Jihadis like al-Qaeda and the Pentagon which has to fight them occurred in Syria. The CIA provided weapons, paid by the Saudis, to various militant Islamist groups which the Pentagon knows it will later have to fight. The Pentagon tried to sabotage those CIA operations.

This conflict is between U.S. Budget Title 10 (the Pentagon) and U.S. Budget Title 50 (the Intelligence Services/the CIA) which has been waged for years. The responsibilities and authorities under these titles are disputed and discussed (pdf) over and over again. Has the CIA the lead in special operations or the Pentagon? Who will be able to claim the victories and who can be blamed for the losses?

The Yemeni children, dying of hunger, are the sorry victims of such idiotic fights. Bureaucracy infighting in the U.S. and pissing contests of Arab sheiks over transports routes around the Gulf are deciding their fates.

Yesterday the New York Times editors, again drunk on cool aid, revealed their self-delusions to the world:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, …

That lie will surely be solace for the relatives of the kids killed in the special force raid in Yemen which was planned and ordered by two U.S. presidents. It will nourish the millions of children who hunger and ten-thousands who die in Yemen due to lack of food. Freedom and democracy will be valued by those dying from U.S. bombs dropped from U.S. build planes by U.S. trained Saudi pilots with the help of U.S. intelligence. The new U.S. administration plans to double down on such support.

As so often in such conflicts the locals are mere pawns in games played by foreign countries. If the foreign powers stayed out, the local conflicts would be solved within weeks and the healing could begin. It would, in the end, be the best solution for all. At the end of the 30 year war in Europe that insight was enshrined in international law. But the valuable experience, paid with blood and devastation, has been discarded. How can it be regained?

The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating.

On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment.

A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent.

Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country.

Under the Trump presidency, defending a wide range of past gains is both necessary and insufficient. Fighting for impeachment is a way to go on the offensive, directly challenging the huge corruption that Trump has brought to the White House.

From the outset, President Trump has been violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution — its foreign and domestic “emoluments” clauses. In a nutshell, both clauses forbid personally profiting from presidential service beyond receiving a government salary.

Some believe that the Republican-controlled Congress is incapable of impeaching Trump, but history tells us what’s possible when a president falls into wide disrepute. On July 27, 1974, seven GOP representatives on the 38-member House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach a fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon.

As for objections that impeaching and removing Trump from office would make Mike Pence the president, that concern is apt to bypass one set of key considerations after another. Along the way, in political terms, people need to think through the implications of the fact that Trump could only be removed from office with the help of many votes from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Even if every Democrat in the House voted in unison to impeach Trump, impeachment would only be possible if at least two-dozen Republican members of the House voted in favor. Likewise, a vote in the Senate (requiring two-thirds) to remove Trump from the presidency would only be successful if at least 19 Republican senators voted for conviction. Such events would badly splinter and damage the Republican Party — causing divisive bitterness, putting GOP leaders back on their heels and hobbling a Pence presidency.

Arguably most important of all, democracy requires that no one be above the law — a principle that’s most crucially applied to the holder of the most powerful office in the U.S. government. Extreme abuse of power from the top of the government must be seen and treated as intolerable.

The Constitution that Trump continues to flagrantly violate is supposed to be “the supreme law of the land.” To give Trump a pass would be to wink at his merger of vast personal wealth and corporate holdings with vast governmental power.

From the grassroots, it’s crucial for constituents to push back with determination. As the Impeach Donald Trump Now campaign’s website documents in detail, Trump’s personal riches are entangled with countless policy options for his administration. That precedent must be resisted and defeated.

So far, the Democratic Party’s leadership in Congress has shown scant interest in impeaching Trump. With escalating pressure from constituents, that may soon change.

Congressman Nadler’s unusual resolution of inquiry will be able to avoid some of the standard roadblocks in the House. As his website explains,

“A Resolution of Inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.”

Nadler has just put a big toe in the impeachment water. Yet no members of the House have taken the plunge to introduce an actual resolution for impeachment. They will have to be pushed.

Norman Solomon is national coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which is co-sponsoring with Free Speech For People the grassroots impeachment campaign at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday said anyone questioning the success of a U.S. military raid in Yemen last month, which resulted in dozens of deaths, is doing “a disservice” to the American soldier who was killed in the operation.

Spicer’s comments came just after Yemen reportedly withdrew permission for the U.S. to conduct ground operations in the country in response to the botched raid.

Criticism of the operation has been widespread. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told NBC News, “When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost…I don’t believe you can call it a success.”

During Spicer’s daily briefing on Wednesday—where he has been known to make Orwellian comments on recent events—NBC News‘ White House correspondent Kristen Welker asked, “Yemen has withdrawn permission for the United States to run special operations and ground missions against suspected terrorists in the wake of the recent raid there that claimed so many civilian lives. Do you stand by your assessment that it is a success?”

“It’s absolutely a success, and I think anyone that would suggest it’s not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens,” Spicer said.

“But even Senator John McCain—” Welker began.

“I understand that. I think my statement’s very clear on that, Kristen,” Spicer said. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and… [it’s] a disservice to the life of Chief Owens.”

Watch the exchange below:

The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Dan Froomkin described the comments as “despicable” and “the single most repulsive and dangerous thing this moron has ever said,” respectively.

“So you’re saying that Senator John McCain owes him an apology?” Welker continued.

“I’m answering the question, please let me finish. The raid, the action that was taken in Yemen was a huge success,” Spicer said.

“American lives will be saved because of it. Future attacks will be prevented. The life of Chief Ryan Owens was done in service to this country and we owe him and his family a great debt for the information that we received during that raid. I think any suggestion otherwise is a disservice to his courageous life and the actions he took, full stop.”

“Is that your message to Senator John McCain?” Welker said. “He’s called it a failure.”

“That’s my message to anybody who says that, anybody,” Spicer said. “I don’t know how much clearer I can be.”

On Thursday morning, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was sworn in by Donald Trump as attorney general, marking the ascendance of an avowed opponent of democratic rights to the office ostensibly tasked with protecting them.

The US Senate confirmed Sessions on Wednesday in a 52-47 vote, with Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia joining Republicans to see the nomination through.

After being sworn in, Sessions said he would direct his offices to end immigrant “lawlessness,” counter “an increased threat from terrorism,” and beat back an alleged growth of violent crime. He described the latter as a “dangerous permanent trend,” though data on violent crime demonstrates that it is at its lowest level in decades.

This is code language for a major increase in US police powers to target the entire working class. Immediately after Sessions’ swearing-in ceremony, Trump signed three more executive orders directed at further increasing the role of police in US society. The first, Trump said, will “break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation.” The second creates a task force on violent crime in America. The third calls for the creation of “a plan to stop…violence against police.”

Sessions will have a major hand in executing these and the many other orders issued from the Trump White House. The attorney general heads the Department of Justice and is both the leading US law enforcement officer and the primary legal counsel to the US government.

These actions follow a speech by Trump before the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association on Wednesday, during which Trump denounced the courts for ruling against his anti-Muslim travel ban. Trump also told the assembled police chiefs that they have a “true friend in the White House.” Every year, police in the United States kill more than 1,000 people, many of them unarmed.

Sessions’ vacated Senate seat was taken Thursday by the attorney general of Alabama, Luther Strange, an appointment made by the state’s Republican governor, Robert Bentley. Two months ago, Strange intervened to block impeachment proceedings against Bentley. He then petitioned Bentley for Sessions’ senate seat. “The air of corruption is thick,” admitted another Alabama Republican politician, Ed Henry.

One of Sessions’ first tasks will be to defend Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries ravaged by US imperialism, including Iraq and Syria. Trump last week fired acting attorney general Sally Yates for refusing to defend the travel ban, which breaks up families and blocks students from attending college and workers from taking jobs.

On Thursday night, a US district court upheld a lower-court ruling blocking Trump’s order. Trump responded with a Tweet: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

As head of the Department of Justice, the US attorney general oversees a number of what are, in effect, national police agencies, among them the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the United States Marshalls Service; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. These agencies account for about 90,000 of the roughly 113,000 DOJ employees, and consume the lion’s share of its $27 billion budget.

In addition to these are offices that have occasionally been tasked with defending workers, minorities and the environment from federal law breaking carried out by corporations and state governments. The best known of these is the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

There is considerable historical irony in Session’s elevation to protect civil rights, a fact he seemed to acknowledge at his swearing-in. “It’s something I never expected would happen in my life,” he admitted.

Sessions is a longstanding advocate of so-called “states’ rights”—a historical euphemism for the “right” of southern state governments to trample the rights of oppressed sections of their population—first slaves, then sharecroppers, and now workers of all races. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has at times been tasked with defending the oppressed against such claims to “states’ rights.”

The Department of Justice was created in 1870, under President Ulysses S. Grant, with the express intent of protecting the civil rights of freed slaves and their white allies in the American South after the Civil War. Grant nominated as attorney general former Confederate officer Amos Akerman, who brought more than 3,000 indictments against members of the Ku Klux Klan within two years. Akerman’s removal later in the Grant administration contributed to the end of Reconstruction and the retrenchment of the old slaveholding oligarchy.

Nearly a century later, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, under the pressure of the mass Civil Rights movement, once again used the Justice Department to enforce federal civil rights legislation and Supreme Court rulings against the violent opposition of the southern ruling class. In response, leading segregationist politicians, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, abandoned the Democratic Party and went over to the Republican Party. The young Jefferson Beauregard Sessions—who lived in Selma and Montgomery at the time of the civil rights struggles there—followed this exodus, joining the College Republicans at Huntington College around 1965.

Sessions represents a faction of the Southern ruling elite that has never reconciled itself to legal equality for African Americans. He used his career as US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama from 1981 until 1994, in the words of the Coretta Scott King speech whose reading by Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced by Senate Republicans, “to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.” That record helped defeat Sessions’ nomination to US District Court by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Sessions has not changed in the intervening years. As Alabama Attorney General (1994-1996) and then US senator (1996-2017) he established a reputation that has consistently placed him on the right of the Republican Party. He has invariably advocated for war and militarism, greater police powers, and the untrammeled prerogative of corporations, and has opposed protections for basic democratic rights for workers, women, minorities, gays and lesbians, and, most vociferously, immigrants. It is this last category that appears to explain Sessions’ gravitation to Trump—the Alabama senator was among the first national Republicans to endorse the real estate tycoon in his bid for the presidency.

If Sessions has not changed, his ascension to attorney general can only be seen as the outcome of the shift rightward of the entire American political establishment, which prefigures still deeper attacks on democratic rights.

Sessions will inherit an office that has long since abandoned any active defense of democratic rights. It is especially notable that the DOJ under Barack Obama failed to bring federal civil rights charges against a single killer cop in eight years, a span during which numerous such murders were captured on video. And Attorney General Eric Holder, who served under Obama from 2009 until 2015, left behind for Sessions the pseudo-legal rationale for the arrogation to the president of the “right” to assassinate anyone, anywhere, without judicial review—a power that Donald Trump doubtless intends to frequently use.

The toolkit Holder leaves for Sessions also includes, as the WSWS previously noted,

“persecuting whistleblowers and journalists; targeting protesters and antiwar activists under antiterror laws; asserting unlimited executive powers; justifying government secrecy; deporting immigrants en masse; abetting the expansion of illegal domestic spying; slashing wages and benefits for workers; and infiltrating authoritarian and fascistic legal doctrines into American jurisprudence.”

Like opposition to Trump’s pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, Democratic handwringing against Sessions is aimed at dressing up the Democrats as an actual opposition party. In fact, every Trump nominee so far presented has passed through senate committees and chamber-wide votes, most of them with considerable Democratic support.

As for Warren, she did not defy the gag order imposed on her, and neither did any other Democratic senator. Instead, they immediately seized on it to portray the Massachusetts senator as a principled opponent of Trump’s policies.

She is no such thing. Repeatedly, Democratic Senators—Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders included—have stressed their readiness to “work with” the new administration on its central policy thrust—economic nationalism. Their main line of attack on Trump has been from the right—demanding a more warlike stance against Russia.

The New York Times, in its recent rebuff of comments President Donald Trump made about Russia, seems not to have evolved its understanding of US geopolitics past an 8th grade level. Trump had been asked by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (2/5/17) why he wouldn’t condemn Vladimir Putin, whom O’Reilly called a “killer.”

“You got a lot of killers,” Trump told O’Reilly. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Naturally, this prompted a torrent of pearl-clutching from liberal patriots aghast that the president could equate the moral worth of the United States with that of the dastardly Russians. Most prominent among these was the New York Times, whose editorial board published a flag-waving scolding called “Blaming America First” (2/7/17):

Asserting the moral and political superiority of the United States over Russia has not traditionally been a difficult maneuver for American presidents. But rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality—which includes bombing civilians in Syria and, his accusers allege, responsibility for a trail of dead political opponents and journalists at home—and suggested America acts the same way.

Oh my, the horror.

A rough look at the actions in question since Putin has been in office reveals this outrage to be, at best, misplaced. One tally by Airwars, a Western nonprofit, puts the total number of Syrian civilians killed by Russia since it entered the war in September 2015 at just over 4,000, or 0.8–0.4 percent of the 500,000 to 1 million civilians who died due to George W. Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. Add to this the thousands of other civilians killed in other theaters of the “War on Terror” under the Bush and Obama administrations, including Afghanistan, Libya and Syria itself, and the idea of pointing to respect for civilian lives as something that elevates the United States above Russia seems a little absurd.

But the addition of stifling dissent and allegedly killing journalists takes Russia over the line into Bad Guy territory, the Times suggests—ignoring the US’s own harsh punishment for whistleblowers, infiltration of dissident groups and bombing of foreign journalists. Not to mention the US’s sprawling, unprecedented incarceration system, or its unmatched institutional racism–all human right abuses leveled at home.

The Times goes on to insist that “no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done,” including “invading Ukraine” and “interfering in the American election.” Of course, American presidents have invaded other countries and intervened in other elections, but for reasons unclear, the Times suggests that those two cases are the ones that indicate the US’s moral superiority over Russia.

The New York Times briefly mentions the Iraq War and torture, but whistles past these episodes by insisting they were “terrible mistakes.” The Times seems to be under the impression that Russia kills innocents for laughs, while the United States does so only with the best of intentions:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.

That US invasions “have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy” is not argued, let alone proved; it’s presented as an article of faith. As the Times’ “recent decades” go back to World War II, the United States presumably killed an estimated 3.8 million in Vietnam “to promote freedom and democracy”—despite President Dwight Eisenhower admitting that given the chance, 80 percent of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the leader whose government the US opposed. Implicitly, the US’s use of covert terror to try to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua, and US military support for death squad regimes elsewhere in Central America, were likewise motivated by a longing for freedom and democracy.

As FAIR (9/30/16) has noted, the most important function of major editorial boards is to be gatekeepers of national security orthodoxy. And there is no more axiomatic orthodoxy than American exceptionalism. One can handwring over “mistakes,” even occasionally do harsh reporting on American war crimes—so long as one arrives back at the position of American moral superiority. “Yes, America has made mistakes,” the good liberal insists, “but at least we don’t do this other bad thing that is, unaccountably, uniquely disqualifying.”

Clearly, Trump’s motives in questioning American innocence were anything but liberal or noble. He was evoking America’s own sins not to challenge them, but to apologize for those of the Russian president and, preemptively, his own. But the outrage over Trump’s comments from pundits and editorial boards did not seek to spotlight his cynicism and its dark implications, but rather to insist that the United States is, in fact, on a higher moral plane than Russia. This is a childish assertion that serves to flatter the ego of American readers while legitimizing their government’s crimes.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.

After Iran conducted a long-range ballistic missile test, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wasted no time accusing Iran of “flagrant violation” of the UN Security Council resolution 2231. BBC news reported that “Benjamin Netanyahu said he would raise renewing sanctions when he meets US President Donald Trump in February.” BBC news did say that “It is not yet clear what type of missile was launched, or if it explicitly violated the UN resolution.” Netanyahu did not have to wait until February to discuss sanctions on Iran as the Trump administration’s NSA advisor ret. Lt Michael Flynn announced in a press conference that “Iran was on notice”, which constitutes a direct threat to Iran. The Trump administration wasted no time by immediately responding to Iran’s missile test by imposing new sanctions. ABC news reported what the latest sanctions entail:

The economic restrictions will target 13 individuals and 12 entities in what senior administration officials described today as a direct response to Iran’s missile test and its “provocative” behavior. Specifically, actions against these companies and individuals were made, officials said, based on “their support to Iran’s ballistic missile program or for their support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (Quds Force).” Trump administration officials, who briefed reporters over the phone Friday, made specific mention of the IRGC’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, who recently attacked a Saudi frigate.

The new sanctions were also careful not to violate the 2015 international nuclear agreement with Iran, which Trump has called “terrible”

Trump tweeted “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!” making it known that there would be consequences to Iran’s actions under his administration. Trump’s 2016 Speech at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made it clear on where he stood on Iran:

Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen and will be a very, very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to support their puppet states. Hezbollah, Lebanon received — and I’ll tell you what, it has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and GPS systems and rockets like very few people anywhere in the world and certainly very few countries have. Now they’re in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights

Trump even believes that Iran is a “major problem” for Saudi Arabia, one of the worst dictatorships in the world with a deplorable human rights record who happens to be a well-known state sponsor of terrorism. Trump’s policy in the war against terror without Saudi Arabia on the list contradicts his entire strategy. According to Trump’s military chief, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Flynn went on to say that Obama’s response to Iran’s actions was weak:

“he Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk

Netanyahu said that he “listened with appreciation to the remarks of General [Michael] Flynn on the need to counter Iran’s aggression” during a speech at the West Bank settlement of Ariel in memory of its founder and late mayor Ron Nachman according to The Times of Israel. Netanyahu is set to meet Trump in mid-February regarding a number of issues including Iran, Israeli settlements and possibly moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. One day after Trump’s inauguration speech, Netanyahu spoke on social media in regards to Iran’s threat to Israel as The Jerusalem Post reported:

I plan to speak soon with President Trump about how to counter the threat of the Iranian regime, which calls for Israel’s destruction,” Netanyahu said in the two-and-a-half minute video addressed directly to the Iranian people.

This ruthless regime continues to deny you your freedom,” Netanyahu said in the English video, accompanied by Farsi subtitles. “It prevents thousands of candidates form competing in elections, it steals money from your poor to fund a mass murderer like [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. By calling daily for Israel’s destruction, the regime hopes to instill hostility between us. This is wrong. We are your friend, not your enemy.”

As for Trump’s tweet claiming that Iran was “playing with fire” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif responded with his own twitter message by saying that “Iran unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people. We’ll never initiate war, but we can only rely on our own means of defense.” Zarif also said “will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.” Iran says that the missile tests were not in violation of the nuclear deal reached on July 2015. At a joint news conference with French politician Jean-Marc Ayrault, Zarif told reporters that “The missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal. As all signatories to the nuclear deal have announced, the missile issue is not a part of nuclear deal.” Zarif pointed out the fact that according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, it does not prohibit Iran from testing missiles or a “medium-range ballistic missile” which was used for the recent test. Zarif also said that the missiles were “not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead… Our ballistic missile was designed to carry a normal warhead in the field of legitimate defense.” Flynn also blamed an attempted missile attack on U.S. Navy destroyer parked off the coast of Yemen in mid-October of last year supposedly by the Houthi Rebels on Iran.

From Obama to Trump: Iran in the Crosshairs

In mid-September 2016, Reuters reported that Obama approved the largest military aid package in U.S. history to Israel as it headlined with ‘U.S., Israel sign $38 Billion Military Aid Package.’ The report said “The deal, whose details were reported by Reuters earlier, will allow Washington’s chief Middle East ally to upgrade most of its fighter aircraft, improve its ground forces’ mobility and strengthen its missile defense systems, a senior U.S. official said”

Netanyahu will push Trump to become more aggressive with Iran as Trump himself promised during his campaign. Will Trump lead the U.S. into a war with Iran? Will Trump’s proposal to reduce sanctions, boost economic trade and fight ISIS with Russia remain in place? Putin will proceed with caution when he meets with Trump in the near future. RT News reported in 2012 what Russia’s deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin had said if Iran were attacked:

Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security

China would also not tolerate an attack against Iran as Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong warned in 2011 that “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War.” When the Taiwanese President called Trump after he was elected, it sparked a diplomatic dispute between Beijing and Washington which did not help matters. The Trump administration also has spoken about China’s so-called “take over” of the South China Sea, a strategic trade route that accounts for more than $4.5 trillion in trade per year. Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson claimed that China’s ‘Island-building’ in the South China Sea were “akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea” (another lie) during his confirmation hearings. China has warned Washington to “speak and act cautiously.” The South China Sea is an important transportation and trade route for China and historically speaking, the South China Sea has been China’s for over 2,000 years as the China news source ‘Xinhuanet.com’ stated:

However, the truth is China’s activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago, The People’s Daily article said. China has been the first to discover, name and develop the group of islands in the South China Sea, which have been known as the Nanhai Islands in China. For centuries, the Chinese government had been the administrator of the islands by putting them under the administration of local governments, conducting military patrols and providing rescue services.

The Nansha and Xisha Islands, occupied by Japan during World War II, were returned to China as part of the territories stolen from China. This has been clearly set out in international documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. China sent government and military officials to recover the islands and deployed troops there

Tensions in the South China Sea will continue under the Trump administration. It is most likely that Russia and China will back Iran against any form of aggression by Washington or Tel Aviv.

From Obama’s $38 Billion Aid to Israel to Trump’s Saber-Rattling in the Middle East

The $38 Billion aid package for Israel’s security was signed off just in time for the Trump administration. The aid package allows Israel to prepare for a full-scale war against Iran and other adversaries in the region as Trump continues to ignite tensions in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf and of course for its natural resources. How can we forget what Trump said during his campaign on September 7, 2016 “We go in, we spend $3tn, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then … what happens is we get nothing. You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils.” He went on to say that “One of the benefits we would have had if we took the oil is Isis would not have been able to take oil and use that oil to fuel themselves.” That is true. But here is where Trump complicates matters as in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2011 with reporter Kelly Evans when he said “You heard me, I would take the oil,” he said. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil”. And he insisted to ABC News that this did not amount to national theft. “You’re not stealing anything,” Trump said. “We’re reimbursing ourselves … at a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5tn to reimburse ourselves.” Trump also suggested that if the U.S. gets involved in Libya it was only to “take the oil.” Trump is in-line with big oil corporations. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former Exxon Mobil executive will also make matters worse for oil-producing countries in the Middle East and to an extent Venezuela.

To Israel’s benefit, Trump has filled his administration with people who are pro-Israel (and in some cases are Zionists themselves) supporters. In regards to the Palestinians, Trump recently stated that his administration will take “severe punitive measures” if the Palestine Authority goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to petition the court to halt Israel’s settlement expansion. The Trump administration would cut the financial aid to the Palestinians, close down the offices of the PLO and reinstate them to terrorist group status along with Al Qaeda, an appeasement to the Israelis. Trump recently warned the Israeli government that building new settlements “may not be helpful” to Israel-Palestinian peace efforts although he made it clear that his administration “has not taken an official position on settlement activity” according to The Chicago Tribune. Trump’s senior advisor and son-in law, Jared Kushner whose family has donated “tens of thousands of dollars” to Bet El, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank is a direct conflict of interest in the peace process. Reuter’s article clarifies Kushner’s role in the settlement activity ‘For hardline West Bank settlers, Jared Kushner’s their man’ which states:

For many in the Israeli settlement of Bet El, deep in the occupied West Bank, Donald Trump’s choice of Jared Kushner as his senior adviser on the Middle East is a sign of politics shifting in their favor.

They regard Kushner, whose family’s charitable foundation has donated tens of thousands of dollars to their settlement, as part of a diplomatic rebalancing after what they view as eight years of anti-Israel bias under the U.S. administration of Barack Obama

Trump cannot and will not be able to broker an honest peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians with his threats and pro-Israel cabinet members within his administration. Trump’s policies towards Iran and the Palestinians shows that he will follow the same agenda of previous administrations of creating chaos and war in the Middle East as Israel continues to expand its territories by building illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. So far, it looks like a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians will be unlikely. Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would also anger not only the Palestinians but the majority of the Muslim world. Any deal by the Trump administration will favor the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

Will the U.S. Declare War on Iran in March?

Iran’s plan to ditch the U.S. dollar this coming March is not only due to Trump’s Muslim ban, but the difficulty in dealing with continued sanctions and threats by Washington. Will Iran’s proposal to stop using the U.S. dollar push the Trump administration to declare war on the Islamic Republic? Congressional approval from both Republicans and Democrats (both parties are in the pockets of Israel) will give Trump the green light. The Financial Tribune based in Tehran (www.financialtribune.com), an economic daily news source confirmed that the Central Bank of Iran will stop using the US Dollar:

Iran will stop using the US dollar as its currency of choice in its financial and foreign exchange reports from the new fiscal year that begins in March, announced the governor of the Central Bank of Iran late Saturday.

Iran’s difficulties [in dealing] with the dollar were in place from the time of the primary sanctions and this trend is continuing, but we face no limitations regarding other currencies,” Valiollah Seif also said in a televised interview as reported by CBI’s official news website

Iran is an obstacle to the U.S. and Israeli supremacy in the Middle East since Iraq and Syria have been systematically destroyed by war and Western-sponsored sanctions. Iran is the prize for Israel, if they destroy Iran; Israel will be the dominant nation with a military financed by the U.S. government with an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal at their disposal. Israel would be considered a Zionist Empire or what Netanyahu would call the “Jewish State” supported by the Anglo-American establishment. Trump’s actions thus far prove that he will be Israel’s president, Netanyahu knows it, Iran knows it, and the Palestinians, Russia and China know it.

Russia, China and the rest of the world must stop the U.S. and Israel’s war rhetoric against Iran and establish a peaceful solution to this developing crisis. The outcome of this foreseeable war will lead the world into a perilous path of uncertainty unless Trump makes a deal where all parties including Iran, Israel, the Palestinians and the Saudis can come to an agreement and peace can become a reality. Will Trump surprise us and make a peace deal happen? With Trump’s hard-line approach to Iran and the Palestinians before and after he was elected, peace will remain unlikely.

It should be evident to all objective observers by now that “America First” doesn’t equate to international isolationism or peace. Rather, just as the author predicted in his Sputnik analysis on Trump’s foreign policy right after his election, the 45^th President is taking a firm stand against Iran and China, and even making overtures to Turkey in seeking to tempt it away from the Tripartite of Great Powers that it’s presently a part of together with Moscow and Tehran.

It’s this second element of geopolitical grand strategy which occupies the focus of the present article, and it’ll be revealed that Trump not only has a few cards up his sleeve, but that he’s already playing his opening hand quite well in advancing his country’s interests.

Without getting too deep into the background behind it (which is explained in the above hyperlinked article about the Tripartite), Turkey decisively pivoted away from the West midway through 2016 and started to embrace its Eurasian neighbors. This dramatically culminated not only in the Moscow Declaration of late-December and subsequent Astana gathering the month afterwards, but even in the first-ever joint anti-terrorist mission between Russia and a NATO country. The US clearly realized that it’s on the verge of “losing Turkey”, to use “deep state” parlance, and that something urgently had to be done to rein in its rogue “ally”. The Obama Administration’s policies towards Turkey – the failed Gezi Park Color Revolution, supporting the PYD-YPG Kurds despite Ankara’s objections that they’re PKK-linked terrorists, and the failed pro-American coup attempt – were so disastrous that they seriously risked making the country an American adversary in the near future.

Erdogan is much too wily to burn bridges with the US despite all that it’s done in undermining his rule and his country, which is why he has yet to seriously contemplate the “nuclear option” of opting out of NATO and openly disowning his former long-held dream of joining the EU. Ankara has indeed stalled on the latter and was behaving as an ‘independent’ ‘Gaullist’ member of the former over the past half a year, but it never did anything to publicly break with either of them, at least not yet. Still, the situation is dire, at least according to the American perspective, which is why Trump’s team knew they had to move quickly in trying to win back Turkey. Luckily for them, the US’ cyclical change of administrations (especially between rivaling parties this time) gave them the plausible grounds needed for justifying their volte face towards Ankara, and thus far, it appears to be very promising.

Before proceeding, it’s important to review the most important points of geopolitical disagreement and potential problems between the US and Turkey. In any given order, they are:

* The US’ hosting of Gulen and patronage of his terrorist network;

* The US backing the PYD-YPG Kurds in Syria despite Ankara viewing them as PKK-linked terrorists;

* The unresolved territorial dispute in Cyprus;

* and Turkey temporarily hosting millions of immigrants per the now-fraying deal which it earlier reached with Brussels.

In response to these four pressures, each of which are driving Turkey’s Eurasianist reorientation, the Trump Administration decided to act quickly in making the following moves:

* Paying lip service to Erdogan by promising to “take Turkey’s request to extradite Gulen very seriously”;

* Officially denying reports (whether in sincerity or as a Machiavellian lie) that the US sent armored vehicles to the PYD-YPG Kurds, clarifying that they were given to the Arab members of the Kurd-dominated “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF);

* Pursuant to the above, scrapping the SDF-dependent “Race For Raqqa” from the Obama Era and inviting Turkey to partake in joint operations on Al-Bab and Raqqa;

* Jumpstarting Cypriot reunification talks which aim to achieve the favorable pro-Turkish solution of “federalization”;

* and seriously discussing the prospect of “safe zones” in Syria, which would essentially internationalize Turkey’s hoped-for “buffer zone” in the north and create a ‘dumping space’ for the millions of immigrants that it’s hosting.

The quickness with which the Trump Administration has sought to win back Turkey seems to have come as a surprise for Russia, which is now all of a sudden reminding the public that – in spite of Moscow officially acknowledging that “Russia is coordinating both Syria’s and Turkey’s efforts in Aleppo province, heading off any provocations and clashes between the sides” – the two sides “still have many differences”. This last statement was issued after all of the abovementioned American moves were made and it became obvious what Washington was up to. Even so, Russian strategists and decision makers don’t usually resort to overreactions, which is why the reminder of differences was almost immediately followed up by a separate statement emphasizing that Moscow doesn’t believe that Ankara is creating a “buffer zone” in northern Syria.

The whole point behind this “good cop, bad cop” approach is to signal to Turkey that Russia understands what games the US is up to, but is trustingly giving Ankara the benefit of the doubt and not rushing to render judgement on its leadership solely based on the obvious ulterior motives of the American administration. This explains the reminder that both sides have differences (“bad cop”, pointing to Russia’s acknowledgement that the US is trying to woo back Turkey), but that Turkey isn’t setting up a “buffer zone” (“good cop”, demonstrating that Ankara and Moscow still trust each other). What’s interesting, however, is that the Russian statement denying Turkey’s intentions to create a “buffer zone” was followed by the caveat that “Ankara, just as us, speaks in favor of preserving the territorial integrity of the country and inadmissibility of its partition.” This suggests that Russia is equating a “buffer zone” with separatism or annexation, though such a Turkish-desired end could still theoretically and inadvertently be achieved by the de-facto “federalization” contained within the unamended Russian-written “draft constitution” for Syria.

Although the Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership is getting stronger by the day, the historic gains of the past six months shouldn’t be taken for granted by Moscow. The US is noticeably trying to drive wedges between the two sides in a classic display of divide and conquer, this time declaring that it’ll back Turkey in its anti-terrorist operations around Al-Bab while knowing full well that this could possibly set the ground for Washington-Ankara vs Moscow-Damascus if Russian diplomacy isn’t successful in preempting this scenario. Moscow needs to be careful that it’s not perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) as making ‘concessions’ to Turkey in northern Syria in order to keep Ankara on its side and away from Washington, as this might fuel speculation that Russia is exploiting Syria’s sovereignty as a bargaining chip in gambling for geopolitical gains in the New Cold War.

Whether such a policy would be a masterstroke or a mishap is a separate matter of debate, but the point is that Russia might ultimately be compelled to show ‘flexibility’ towards some limited Turkish interests in northern Syria if it’s to simultaneously protect its rapprochement with Ankara, deflect American advances in trying to turn Turkey away from Eurasia, and promote pragmatic steps in furthering the desire for joint anti-terrorist operations with the US. The strategic situation is therefore extremely complicated and moving at a rapid pace, and the decisions undertaken in the coming months will be pivotal in shaping the end game to the War on Syria. As Moscow continues to make its chess moves all across the Mideast and tries to bring American strategy there into a checkmate, it would do well to keep an extra cautious eye on Ankara amidst Washington’s renewed efforts to woo it back to the unipolar camp, and Russia might even have to countenance throwing Erdogan a few symbolic bones in order to maintain Turkey’s loyalty.

Andrew Korybko is the American political analyst currently residing in Moscow, writing for ORIENTAL REVIEW in his private capacity.

On January 30, 600,000 gallons (14,285 barrels) of oil spewed out of Enbridge’s Seaway Pipeline in Blue Ridge, Texas, the second spill since the pipeline opened for business in mid-2016.

Seaway is half owned by Enbridge and serves as the final leg of a pipeline system DeSmog has called the “Keystone XLClone,” which carries mostly tar sands extracted from Alberta, Canada, across the U.S. at a rate of 400,000 barrels per day down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Enbridge is an equity co-owner of the Dakota Access pipeline, which received its final permit needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 7 to construct the pipeline across the Missouri River and construction has resumed.

Screenshot from KXII News Fox 12

The alignment of Native American tribes, environmentalists, and others involved in the fight against Dakota Access have called themselves “water protectors,” rather than “activists,” out of concern that a pipeline spill could contaminate their drinking water source, the Missouri River.

“Just Spewing”

Brittany Clayton, who works at a nearby gas station in Blue Ridge, which is 50 miles from Dallas, Texas, was close to the scene of the spill when it occurred.

“You could just smell this oil smell. A customer walks in and says ‘nobody smoke.’ You could see it just spewing,” Clayton told KDFW-TV, the local Fox News affiliate in the area. “It was just super huge. It was like a big cloud. The fire marshal said, ‘This is like a danger zone. You guys have to evacuate immediately.’ I was totally freaked out. I kept texting the boss man.”

Enbridge and co-owner Enterprise Products Partners said in press release that the spill had been contained and it resumed service on February 5.

“The incident … resulted in no fire or injuries and the pipeline has been shut down and isolated,” the companies said. “Seaway has mobilized personnel and equipment to the site and is working closely with emergency responders, law enforcement and regulatory authorities to conduct clean-up operations and develop a plan to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.”

Government Reaction

According to KDFW, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to do water and environmental testing in the coming days. TxDOT also told the local National Public Radio affiliate, KETR-FM, that it would take “several weeks” to complete a full cleanup.

“It remains too early in the investigation to know where final blame lies for the accident,” wrote KETR, also noting that “it is also too early to tell how much the cleanup and loss of product will cost.”

TxDOT referred DeSmog to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for details on the spill, cleanup, and related issues. We have reached out to TCEQ and will update the article as details come in and have also filed open records requests to learn more about the spill.

Chris Havey, Lieutenant Sheriff for the Collin County Sheriff’s Office, confirmed with DeSmog that a spill investigation is ongoing under the umbrella of the EPA and the Texas Railroad Commission, which is the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency.

“The Sheriff’s office is not conducting any parallel investigation,” said Havey. “As to whether or not the line has been shut off/capped, it’s my understanding that within an hour after the line ruptured it was successfully shut off.”

Neither the EPA Region 6 Office nor the Texas Railroad Commission responded to a request for comment. EPA, though, has been ordered not to speak to media by President Donald Trump‘s White House until the agency has a new administrator, likely nominee Scott Pruitt, and senior-level staff in place.

As momentum and tensions alike mount surrounding oil and gas pipeline projects around the country, this oil spill is a reminder of the risks and consequences that come with them.

Image Credit: Screenshot from KXII News Fox 12

Cuando pensamos en los grandes causantes del cambio climático, con frecuencia pensamos en automóviles y transporte aéreo. Pero los cambios producidos durante el siglo pasado en el modo en que son producidos y consumidos  los alimentos, ha resultado en emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero mayores que las procedentes del transporte. ¿El principal culpable? La producción industrial de carne y lácteos.

La estimación oficial citada con más frecuencia sostiene que el sistema alimentario es responsable de hasta un 30 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero.[1] Algunas de estas emisiones se deben al aumento de los alimentos empacados y congelados, a las mayores distancias que los alimentos deben ser transportados y al aumento de los desechos alimentarios. Pero la fuente más importante de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero relacionadas con los sistemas de producción alimentaria es el aumento del consumo de carnes y lácteos —ocurrido por la expansión de la ganadería industrial y de cultivos para alimentación animal con uso intensivo de agroquímicos. La Organización para la Alimentación y la Agricultura de Las Naciones Unidas (FAO) señala que sólo la producción de carne genera  mayor emisión de gases con efecto de invernadero que todo el transporte mundial combinado.[2]

No es posible continuar por este camino sin rebasar el objetivo establecido por los gobiernos en París en 2015, de dos grados Celsius para el año 2050.[3] Reducir el consumo de carnes y lácteos es un imperativo, especialmente en EUA, Europa y otras naciones ricas que llevan décadas subsidiando la producción industrial de carnes y lácteos. Las leyes en estos países han generado ganancias astronómicas para las corporaciones erosionando la salud de sus poblaciones mientras dañaron as condiciones climáticas el planeta.

Figura 1. Mapa: ¿Cuánta carne comen las personas en todo el  mundo?

Adaptada de: Skye Gould/Business Insider, “How much meat people eat around the world” (infographic), 29 de septiembre, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/where-do-people-eat-the-most-meat-2016-10

Disminuir este consumo requiere primero entender qué sistemas de producción de carne y lácteos son los que provocan los mayores daños y los mecanismos y políticas que los impulsaron. Los pequeños ganaderos en los países pobres y los campesinos que ejercen una agricultura diversificada, no son el problema. El verdadero crimen climático es la producción industrial en agro-factorías —promovida por el presión ejercida por las corporaciones de la carne, los subsidios que reciben y los acuerdos de libre comercio.

 ¿Reducir el consumo de carne realmente frenaría el cambio climático?

La respuesta es, muy simple: sí. Disminuir el consumo de carnes y lácteos, especialmente en Norteamérica y Europa, tendría un impacto significativo. Al igual que el consumo de combustibles fósiles, el consumo de carne no sustentable sobre todo es promovido por los países ricos. Países como Estados Unidos y Australia son los mayores consumidores de carne a nivel mundial con unos 90 kilos por persona anuales, seguido de cerca por algunos países de América Latina y la Unión Europea, Canadá y Rusia. En India son apenas 3 kilos (ver figura uno).[8] Para aumentar la disparidad, está el hecho de que una gran tajada del consumo de carne estadounidense y europeo contiene más carne de res, que emite más gases con efecto de invernadero que el puerco y los pollos. Norteamérica, la Unión Europea y Brasil juntos dan cuenta de la mitad de toda la res consumida en el mundo.[9]

Las emisiones procedentes de la carne también aumentan en China (hoy el consumo de carne es 58.2 kg por persona por año), en Vietnam y otros países donde los restaurantes de comida rápida, las importaciones de carne y las agro factorías se están expandiendo rápidamente. Si esta tendencia continúa, el consumo de carne mundial aumentará  76 por ciento hacia 2050, mientras que las emisiones procedentes de los lácteos, otra gran fuente de emisiones del sector productor de alimentos, aumentará en 65 por ciento.[10]

Figura 2. Aumento proyectado en el consumo de carne por región* (kilos per capita)

*Incluye carne de vacunos, porcinos, aves y ovinos. Adaptada de: IFPRI, “How many kilograms per person”, Insights, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2012, p. 23, http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/127219

Un estudio reciente señala: “si las personas mantuvieran el consumo de carne según recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el mundo reduciría un 40 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero actuales.[11]

Los beneficios se harían sentir bastante rápido. El metano, el principal gas de invernadero, procedente de la ganadería, permanece en la atmósfera durante diez años solamente, mientras que el dióxido de carbono dura 200 años. El metano captura  28 veces más calor que el CO2. En consecuencia, disminuir la producción de metano puede tener un efecto relativamente rápido. Además, reducir el desecho de alimentos —especialmente carne— puede tener un impacto importante. Un tercio de los alimentos que producimos es desechado, generando alrededor de 4.4 giga toneladas de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero anuales. La carne da cuenta de menos de un 4 por ciento del desecho alimentario según el peso, pero provoca 20 por ciento de la huella de carbono del desperdicio alimentario.[12]

Vacas tradicionales pastando a la orilla de un camino en Ruanda. Doscientos millones de pastores y ganaderos en el mundo pastan sus animales en áreas donde los cultivos frecuentemente no pueden plantarse. (Foto: Adam Cohn)

Las agrofactorías son el problema, no los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos

Los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos no tienen nada que perder ante una disminución del consumo global de carne y lácteos. En la mayor parte del Sur Global —donde el consumo de carne y lácteos tiene un nivel sustentable – el ganado o crían 630 millones de campesinos con prácticas de emisión baja, como la agricultura mixta, más 200 millones de pastores y pequeños ganaderos  que frecuentemente dejan pastar a sus animales en áreas donde los cultivos no pueden desarrollarse.[13] Estos sistemas de producción y consumo no sólo contribuyen muy poco al cambio climático, sino que la diversidad de sus sistemas crea relaciones positivas entre los cultivos y el ganado (como el reciclaje del deshecho animal y los residuos de los cultivos) y un uso “multifuncional” de su ganado (para tracción, energía, trabajo, cueros y obtención de dinero efectivo). La producción ganadera en pequeña escala mejora la nutrición familiar, permitiendo que las personas accedan a alimentos de origen animal y vegetal. En estos sistemas, el ganado es una parte esencial del sustento familiar, de la seguridad alimentaria y la salud, y es parte integral de las tradiciones culturales y religiosas.

La producción industrial de carne y lácteos se ubica al otro extremo del espectro. Se basa en la producción altamente concentrada de carne a bajo costo y de excedentes de leche en polvo, los cuales son transados como materias primas. Este excedente de producción sostiene el crecimiento no sustentable del consumo global —y el espectacular aumento de las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero.

Las granjas industriales o agrofactorías son el segmento de más rápido crecimiento de la producción de carne y lácteos. Constituyen  el 80 por ciento del crecimiento de la producción de carnes y lácteos a nivel global en los años recientes.[14] La producción industrial de ganado ha crecido a una tasa anual igual al doble de la velocidad de crecimiento de los sistemas de agricultura tradicional y agricultura mixta, y seis veces más rápido  que la producción basada en pastoreo. Esto es el caso de los cerdos y las aves:  hoy las agrofactorías dan cuenta de 74 por ciento del total mundial de la producción avícola, 40 por ciento de la carne de cerdo y 68 por ciento de los huevos.[15]

Una gran parte de las emisiones generadas por la ganadería industrial ocurre indirectamente, a través de la producción de alimento para animales. En 2010, cerca de un tercio de los cereales producidos se destinaron a alimento animal y FAO predice que estas cifras se elevará a 50% para 2050.[16] Más alimentos para animales significa más tierra cultivada. Unos 56 millones de hectáreas de tierra adicionales fueron cultivadas con soja y maíz para alimento animal en los primeros diez años del siglo XXI, resultando en la liberación de abundantes cantidades de dióxido de carbono por los cambios de uso de la tierra y la deforestación.[17] Los cultivos para alimento animal son producidos usualmente con fertilizantes químicos, otra poderosa fuente de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero. Debido a la expansión de las agrofactorías, la producción y procesamiento de alimento para animales actualmente da cuenta de casi la mitad de las emisiones de gases de invernadero procedentes de la ganadería, y se supone que esto aumente.[18]

Otra importante fuente de emisiones de gases de invernadero procedente de las agrofactorías es el estiércol. La industrialización de la ganadería significa concentración: menos agricultores y más animales por finca. La gran escala de las operaciones convierte el estiércol, valioso fertilizante natural, en un problema tóxico. En EUA, donde el proceso está muy avanzado, a comienzos de los años 90 menos de una décima parte de las vacas lecheras estaba en planteles de más de mil vacas. Hacia 2007, esta cifra había aumentado a un tercio. El mismo año,  los planteles de engorda para carne de más de 16 mil cabezas manejaban 60 por ciento del mercado del ganado alimentado en establos estadounidenses.[19] Lo mismo, o peor, está ocurriendo con los sectores de cerdos y aves.

Según la FAO, el almacenamiento y procesado de estiércol es responsable de 10 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero relacionadas con la ganadería mundial.[20] Gran parte de eso proviene de las operaciones de alimentación de grandes rebaños de animales estabulados. El estiércol depositado por animales en las praderas produce de seis a nueve veces menos amonio volatilizado que el estiércol aplicado al suelo proveniente de los grandes planteles alimentados en establos.[21] Alex Turner, investigador de la Universidad de Harvard que investiga las lagunas  de estiércol (sistema de manejo de residuos utilizado en las agrofactorías), encontró que emiten unas 35 veces más metano que el estiércol aplicado en campo. [22] Por el tremendo crecimiento de las agrofactorías y las lagunas de desechos en EUA, el total de las emisiones de metano del estiércol crecieron en más de dos tercios entre 1990 y 2012.[23]

Un factor muy importante que afecta al clima, pero que se ignora con frecuencia, es la dependencia del ganado de los combustibles fósiles. Según la FAO, 20 por ciento de las emisiones generadas para producir carnes y lácteos proviene de combustibles fósiles[24] La mayor parte viene de las agrofactorías, por su necesidad de alimento para animales y de los fertilizantes usados para producirlo. También son los sistemas de distribución y venta al público, de los cuales depende la agricultura industrial, que demanda electricidad, calefacción, transporte y refrigeración.

El cabildeo por la carne socava la acción en favor del clima

La producción agropecuaria industrial y nuestro apetito por la carne y los lácteos no sólo son mortales para el clima de la tierra; también crea un amplio espectro de trastornos ambientales y sociales. Los científicos no dejan de advertirnos de este problema por lo menos de diez años a la fecha. Pero los esfuerzos por atacar el problema invariablemente chocan con una agresiva resistencia de parte de las productoras de carne y lácteos, que son las que más pueden perder de las acciones que reduzcan el consumo y frenen la agricultura industrial.

“Me han golpeado en la cabeza innumerables veces por sugerir que las personas consuman menos carne”, señala Rajendra Pachauri, presidente de el Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático entre 2002 y 2015. “Fui  blanco de varios intentos por desacreditarme”.[25]

Un niño pastor ordeña una vaca en Etiopía. Los pastores contribuyen un mínimo al cambio climático y sus animales proporcionan muchos usos y beneficios (Foto: Dietmar Temps)

FAO fue criticada por la industria de la carne tras publicar un informe en 2006 señalando que la ganadería participa con 18 por ciento de las emisiones globales de gases con efecto de invernadero. “Ustedes no creerían cuánto nos atacaron”, señala Samuel Jutzi, director de la división de producción y salud animal de FAO.[26] Pronto FAO cedió ante la presión y acordó establecer una asociación con los principales grupos de cabildeo de la industria de la carne para, en conjunto, volver a calcular las emisiones de la ganadería.[27] Tanto el Comité Directivo como los Grupos Asesores Técnicos de la asociación están dominados por los representantes de las compañías productoras de carne, sus grupos de cabildeo y los científicos financiados por las compañías de la carne y lácteos.

Como resultado de la asociación de FAO con la industria,  FAO cambió su enfoque y hoy hace evaluaciones más estrechas sobre la “intensidad de emisión”, y estas emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero son analizadas con base a unidades de producción (por kilo de carne, litro de leche o unidad de proteína). Midiendo así, los animales criados de manera intensiva para una máxima producción de carne y leche —por unos cuantos millones de agricultores, de EUA, Europa, Brasil, Nueva Zelandia y otros pocos países ricos— tienen una menor “intensidad de emisiones” que los animales de los campesinos, criados para muchos más usos y sin acceso a la alimentación de alto contenido proteico, ni antibióticos, estimuladores de crecimiento y hormonas usadas por la industria ganadera intensiva. De esta manera se dice que los pequeños agricultores  sufren de una “brecha en intensidad de emisión” y deben migrar hacia lo que es conocido por “intensificación sustentable” o, de manera más amplia, “agricultura climáticamente inteligente”.[28]

Cuando se trata de ganado vacuno, el sesgo hacia la industrialización es peor, pues es frecuente que los científicos y los encargados de diseñar políticas no tomen en cuenta en sus cálculos la capacidad de almacenamiento de carbono de las praderas naturales.

En su informe de 2013 sobre ganado y clima, FAO admite que no puede calcular los cambios en el volumen del carbono en el suelo en praderas permanentes “debido a la falta de bases de datos y modelos globales”.[29] Más aún, se subestima el hecho de que la capacidad de absorber carbono del aire en las praderas bien manejadas puede ser significativa, sobre todo en los trópicos donde las praderas permanentes son comunes y la fijación del carbono es alta.

Hoy las praderas cubren un cuarto de la superficie de la Tierra y dan cuenta de dos tercios de nuestra tierra agrícola, así que las consecuencias son enormes en especial si uno considera las consecuencias climáticas y ecológicas de ararlas para desarrollar cultivos para alimento animal para la ganadería industrial. Entre 2009 y 2015, 21 millones de hectáreas de praderas, solamente en los EUA, fueron convertidas a la producción de cultivos y muchas de ellas se destinaron a alimentar la ganadería industrial —liberando suficiente carbono hacia la atmósfera, como para equiparar ¡670 millones adicionales de autos en las autopistas![30]

El problema mayor es que el modelo de cálculo de “intensidad de emisiones”, que ahora es incentivado por las compañías productoras de carne y lácteos como base para las políticas nacionales,  deja completamente de lado la conexión entre los sistema de producción y los niveles de consumo, así como los numerosos beneficios ambientales, sociales, de salud y bienestar de los animales de la agricultura mixta y la ganadería a pequeña escala (ver Figura 4. Vaca buena, vaca mala). Es un modelo que favorece solamente la realización de retoques técnicos al status quo, más que el cambio mayor requerido urgentemente para alejarse de la producción industrial de carne y lácteos. Finalmente, coloca de manera injusta la carga de la reducción de las emisiones sobre los pequeños propietarios de ganado de los países pobres que no tienen responsabilidad en la crisis climática.

¡Ya es hora de entrar en acción!

Si queremos tener un impacto significativo sobre el cambio climático, tenemos que estar claros que la carne y los lácteos industriales son el verdadero problema. Mientras que es importante y bienvenido el apoyo a los productores y ganaderos a pequeña escala para que adopten métodos más sustentables donde se requiera, el crecimiento de los sistemas de producción industrial de carne y lácteos, es lo primero y más importante que hay que revertir. El esfuerzo por reducir el consumo de carne y lácteos debe dirigirse contra los grandes responsables: Norteamérica y Europa, más unos cuantos países en América Latina, como Brasil. Algunos gobiernos en estas regiones comienzan a tomar medidas y dan pasos por conseguir que la gente coma menos carne, como en China, el país con el crecimiento más acelerado en el consumo de carne (ver Recuadro 2. ¿Qué están haciendo ya los países?).

La producción industrial de carne no sólo contribuye al cambio climático, también es altamente vulnerable a eventos climáticos extremos. (Foto: Rick Dove, Waterkeeper Alliance)

Otros gobiernos estudian un rango de medidas fiscales para aumentar el precio de la carne y los lácteos en una manera responsable, y que esto disminuya el consumo, así como se hace ahora con el azúcar, las grasas, las bebidas gaseosas y el tabaco. Una medida es eliminar el bajo impuesto al valor agregado que muchos países aplican a la carne, para mantenerla artificialmente barata. Otra es imponer un impuesto a la carne, en especial la de vacuno. Esto es discutible, ya que algunos se preocupan de que podría afectar de manera desproporcionada a los hogares de más bajos ingresos. Otro riesgo es que podría hacer que las personas consuman cerdos y aves industriales en lugar de carne de vacuno, lo que podría aminorar los efectos climáticos pero podría llevar a otros problemas ambientales y de salud.

Por ello hay personas que están buscando cómo establecer un impuesto socialmente positivo, un impuesto diferenciado, sobre la carne industrial o un impuesto que esté unido a los subsidios u otras medidas de redistribución del ingreso, para lograr carne producida localmente y de manera sustentable y alternativas no cárneas disponibles y baratas, en particular donde las comunidades son de bajos ingresos. Los difíciles debates en torno a los impuestos al carbono demuestran que se requiere que estas discusiones sean participativas, para que sea equitativo y efectivo.

Pequeña granja con animales en Ceará, Brasil. La producción de ganado a pequeña escala mejora la nutrición y la seguridad alimentaria familiar. (Foto: [email protected])

De hecho, casi dos tercios de todos los subsidios agrícolas de Estados Unidos van a la carne y los lácteos, gran parte a través de la producción de alimento animal.[41] En lugar de impulsar los agronegocios, el apoyo debería darse a los agricultores para reducir sus rebaños  y reconvertirse a métodos de producción agroecológica de ganado, como parte de un cambio más amplio en las finanzas públicas y las políticas alimentarias.

Por el lado de los negocios y la comercialización, con urgencia necesitamos revertir la imposición de las “cadenas de valor” globales de carne y lácteos, como lo consagran en los grandes acuerdos comerciales, entre los principales bloques comerciales (ver Recuadro 4. Cómo impulsan los acuerdos comerciales la expansión de la producción industrial de carne y lácteos).

Estos acuerdos promueven artificialmente la producción y el consumo, al promover la exportación subsidiada de carne y lácteos baratos, hacia las economías de países de bajos recursos. Esto no sólo significa aniquilar los modos de subsistencia locales, también implica destruir nuestro clima. Necesitamos reconocerlo y redirigir  la inversión y las políticas hacia el apoyo de los mercados locales, nacionales y regionales para el ganado producido de manera sustentable.

Podremos resolver la crisis climática sólo si damos pasos significativos que conduzcan hacia la agroecología y la soberanía alimentaria. Esto no sólo ayudaría a estabilizar nuestro clima de manera significativa,  sino que alimentaría de mejor manera a las personas, produciría alimentos más saludables y permitiría tratar a los animales de una manera más humana.

Cambiarse del modo de producción industrial a la agroecología, permitirá a los agricultores, pastores y ganaderos volver a retener el carbono en los maltratados suelos y mejorar la producción de alimentos en el largo plazo. También ayudará a los pastores a adaptarse al cambio climático. Para lograrlo, necesitamos cambios audaces que desincentiven la producción y el consumo de carne y lácteos industriales. Necesitamos detener los acuerdos comerciales que impulsan el comercio internacional masivo de productos cárneos y lácteos. Debe ser apoyada la producción y comercialización de carnes y lácteos en pequeña escala.

En este proceso, la ganadería volverá a estar integrada a los sistemas de producción agrícola diversificados, a la vez que la carne y los lácteos volverán a ocupar un lugar adecuado  en la dieta de las personas. Éste es un enfoque necesario para mantener al mundo habitable para las futuras generaciones. La tarea es inmensa, pero nunca ha sido tanto lo que está en juego.

Grain

Grain: Pequeña organización internacional que trabaja apoyando a campesinos y a movimientos sociales en sus luchas por lograr sistemas alimentarios basados en la biodiversidad y controlados comunitariamente.

Notas:

Frente a cada uno de los atentados en occidente: Estados Unidos, España, Reino Unido, Francia, Bélgica o Alemania, la gente  ha podido expresar su solidaridad de manera contundente, o bien asistiendo a los múltiples homenajes o bien llevando un flor al lugar del hecho, encendiendo una vela en su ventana o mínimamente expresando su dolor y su repudio en las redes sociales. Hemos visto miles de fotografías de las víctimas, entonces vitales con sus familias, sus mascotas o que atestiguan un logro: un título, una jubilación, un casamiento, una vacación. Miles de esas fotografías tan iguales y tan próximas a las que cada uno de nosotros hoy puede atesorar en un cajón del armario o en la memoria de su celular.

Sin duda en sociedades habituadas al confort extremo, no están preparadas para que un par de fanáticos entre a la redacción de una revista y limpie el honor de su Profeta, a disparos de Kaláshnikov, o les rieguen de bombas una línea de metro o le lancen encima un camión mientras se festeja algo.

El dolor, la ofensa, el odio, las preguntas de ¿por qué? estallan en la conciencia de cada uno que se sabe potencial víctima, porque que no estuvo allí por casualidad. Esos lugares cotidianos que se convirtieron repentinamente en cámaras de muerte, de la que un hijo se fue un rato antes o a la que su hermano llegó un rato después.

La sociedad europea parece haber olvidado que fue capaz de generar, ya no poco más de 70 años, una formidable maquinaria de muerte que se había instalado, justamente, a la vuelta de la esquina, ni se reclamó nunca por tolerar los genocidios balcánicos apenas antes de ayer.

Pablo Neruda decía “no hay espacio más ancho que el dolor, no hay universo como aquel que sangra” ese dolor no se explica, se conoce, porque todos en algún momento fuimos y volveremos a ser sus víctimas.

Pero todas esas palabras, todas esas imágenes son propiedad de occidente, a nadie por ejemplo en Sudán del Sur, se le ocurriría encender una vela, colocar una flor, o un cartel que diga “Je suis John Gatluak”, porque no habría ni flores, ni velas, ni crayones para homenajear a tantas víctimas, tan inocentes como las de Atocha, para recordar sus nombres. Esos muertos, son cadáveres, que pronto deben desaparecer, o a fuego o en fosas comunes, claro esos montones de muertos y los calores podrían disparar epidemias y responsabilidades. Hay que deshacerse de las víctimas, sin flores, sin velas sin homenajes. Son demasiados y no hay mucho tiempo para ocultar a los culpables.

Sudán del Sur, la última nación que obtuvo el derecho a considerarse tal en 2011, desde diciembre del 2013, se encuentra en un virtual estado de Guerra Civil, cuando el presidente Salva Kiir, de la etnia dinka, pretendió quitarse de encima al vicepresidente Riek Machar de la etnia nuer, lo que dio lugar a algunos para llamar burdamente a estar guerra “étnica” cuando se sabe que es claramente un conflicto de interés de potencias y empresas occidentales, que se están disputando no solo el petróleo, sino también el uranio, de uno de los pueblos más pobres del mundo, que han tenido la “torpeza” de estacionarse sobre un mar de importantes y ricos yacimientos.

Al independizarse Sudán del Sur, se quedó con el 75% de las reservas totales del antiguo Sudán, aunque la mayoría de los oleoductos para exportar el petróleo y las refinerías se ubican en Sudán. Lo que implica una interdependencia entre ambas naciones que esta generado cada vez más tensiones.

Sudán del Sur cuenta con la tercera reserva petrolera más importante de África Subsahariana, el 90% de sus ingresos provenía de la explotación petrolera, hasta el inicio de la guerra. Desde entonces los yacimientos en producción, han sido bloqueados por los combates entre los bandos rivales y sumar más tensión con su vecino del norte Sudán, de quien se independizó después de décadas de espasmódicas guerras, que tiene la función de llevar el petróleo hasta los puertos del mar Rojo, por lo que recibe importantes comisiones.

La crisis económica, producto de la guerra ha generado una escalada en los precios, con una inflación 900%, que ha terminado dejando a la población al borde de la hambruna, lo que la obliga también a constantes desplazamientos empujada por los combates y las matanzas étnicas, que no han podido impedir las permanentes y vulneradas treguas.

El aumento del combustible ha obligado a que las pocas industrias del país, detengan su actividad, entre ellas una tan clave como la embotelladora de agua.

Las donaciones internacionales para construir fuente potabilizadora han desaparecido, sin que nadie pueda dar razón de su destino. Lo que está obligando a la población a utilizar o agua contaminada, o a asaltar los pocos hoteles para extranjeros que todavía funcionan y robar el agua en baldes y bidones, de las piscinas. Los hospitales carecen de todos los insumos para seguir funcionando, mientras que el estado solo sigue invirtiendo en armamento.

Los combates más importantes se producen justamente en los estados petrolíferos del norte del país Alto Nilo y de Unidad, aunque últimamente la guerra se ha extendido al sur hacia llegando a la frontera con Kenia Uganda y el Congo.

Los desplazados ya suman más de 2.5 millones de personas. Poniendo a medio millón en un estado de vulnerabilidad absoluta, lo que implica que de manera urgente la asistencia sanitaria y alimenticia, se ponga en marcha.

Crónica de  un genocidio anunciado

El presidente Salva Kiir, acaba de habilitar a varias empresas libanesas para establecer una planta de fabricación de proyectiles en Juba, la capital del país, además de haber incrementado de manera exponencial la compra de armamento.

Tras el fin de la temporada de lluvias, al tiempo que los caminos se hacen más transitables y el suministro de armas a los distintos destacamentos es más fluido, como ya ha pasado en años anteriores se prevén nuevas y grandes matanzas. Esta situación ha hecho  que el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas, denunciara la posibilidad de que se produzca un genocidio que rememoré el ocurrido en Ruanda en 1994, que dejó un millón de muertos en tal solo tres meses.

Por su parte los grandes productores de armamento han presionado a las autoridades internacionales para evitar que se declarara algún tipo de embargo a ambos bandos, para la adquisición de sus productos.

Como para preparar el terreno para el genocidio y su posterior ocultamiento el Servicio de Seguridad Nacional, bajo las órdenes directas del presidente Kiir, ha iniciado  una operación para expulsar y deportar, tanto a periodistas, como personal de las diferentes ongs. En el caso de los periodistas locales, la suerte es muy diferente, desde 2012 ya son doce los hombres de prensa asesinados por sicarios de Kiir. Como lo marca el secuestro de  Joseph Abandi, desaparecido en marzo de 2016, cuyo cuerpo fue encontrado tiempo después en un cementerio con incontrastables signos de torturas.

El 11 de julio del años pasado en Juba, después de un combate que dejó más de 300 muertos entre los bandos, unos 100 hombres del presidente Kiir, tomaron el hotel Terrain y además de violar a durante horas a cinco colaboradoras extranjeras de una ong, algunas relataron que fueron abusadas por más de quince hombres, la violación es de hecho moneda de pago del gobierno a su tropa.

La tropa también torturó y asesinó a docenas de personas, en las propias instalaciones del Terrain, entre  ellos el periodista radial John Gatluak, para después lanzarse a saquear todo lo que se pudo.

Por su parte Unicef ha denunciado que desde el inicio del conflicto se han  reclutado unos 17 mil niños, 1600 durante 2016, para las diferentes facciones en pugna. Según la denuncia: “En algunas escuelas, los soldados del Gobierno han sacado a grupos de 50 niños de clase para ponerlos a combatir de forma inmediata”. La mayoría de los menores son secuestrados al ser sorprendidos fuera de sus casas o convencidos por comida, algo de ropa,  ya que enrolarse en alguna fuerza es la única posibilidad de sobrevivir a la pobreza. También existen denuncias acerca del asesinato de menores, con el solo efecto de evitar venganzas posteriores

La guerra que ya ha provocado más de 50 mil muertos mal contados, arrasa aldeas y ciudades, sus habitantes al igual que sus propiedades son incinerados, la sofisticación del odio espeluzna, muchos son obligados a tomar la sangre y a comer los cuerpos de sus familiares o miembros de la misma etnia.

Un solo saqueo a un depósito del Programa Mundial de Alimentos, significó la pérdida de 23 millones de euros en provisiones, además de vehículos y distintos materiales, sin reparar en los ciento de miles de personas al borde de morir de hambre.

Quizás la próxima vez que suceda un ataque en occidente, porque todo está dado para que ello suceda, entre tanta ingeniosa pancarta quizás a alguien se le ocurra levantar una que diga: “Je suis, Sudán del Sur”.

Guadi Calvo 

Guadi Calvo: Escritor y periodista argentino, analista Internacional especializado en África, Medio Oriente y Asia Central. 

El presidente Donald Trump ha dejado claro que su presidencia tendrá una posición sobre todo y en todas partes. También dejó claro que él solo tomará la decisión final sobre las políticas que seguirá su gobierno. Él ha escogido dos áreas prioritarias para implementar sus políticas: México y Siria/Irak, que es la zona de fuerza del Califato o Estado Islámico (EI). Podríamos llamar a estas dos áreas puntos álgidos (hotspots), donde el magnate está actuando en su modo más provocador.

En su surgimiento, el modelo neoliberal traía promesas atrayentes. Antes de todo, contener los gastos excesivos del Estado, diagnosticado como la fuente de la inflación. Por otra parte, imponer a la economía el dinamismo centrado en las empresas privadas y en el mercado. Por el discurso liberal que lo acompañaba, se fortalecerían la sociedad civil y la ciudadanía, libres de las trabas y de la opresión del Estado.

No fue lo que pasó, pero por lo menos en algunos casos, y por algún tiempo, hubo control de la inflación, aunque multiplicando la deuda pública. Cuando sus efectos positivos se habían agotado, vino el discurso de que, si no era el mejor modelo, era el único posible en la era de la globalización.

Hoy, cuando la crisis recesiva se perpetúa en Europa ya desde 2008, mientras ese efecto se extiende por toda la economía internacional, ya no se ven rasgos positivos y tampoco es obligatorio mantener el modelo neoliberal, eje de la crisis a escalas nacional e internacional. Los partidos tradicionales, conservadores y socialdemócratas, que han asumido la política de austeridad –la forma que asume el neoliberalismo en ese continente–, se ven castigados por los electores y cada elección se vuelve una desesperación para ellos.

En ningún lado la aplicación de los duros ajustes fiscales –eje de los modelos neoliberales– cumplió sus promesas. Ni control de las cuentas públicas ni de la inflación, menos aún retomar el desarrollo económico. Su desempeño es globalmente considerado un fracaso, causante de la perpetuación de la recesión en la economía mundial.

En América Latina eso es igualmente evidente. Comparecen las economías de Argentina y de Brasil en los gobiernos antineoliberales y en el retorno del modelo neoliberal, y el resultado es escandalosamente claro en favor de los primeros. Mírese todo lo que han mejorado países como Ecuador, Bolivia y Brasil en comparación con la situación de México y Perú.

Es evidente que el escenario internacional está sufriendo transformaciones que obligan a las regiones y a los países a repensar y ajustar sus estrategias en casi todos los campos. La pregunta consiguiente para nosotros sería:  ¿está Latinoamérica preparada o tiene la suficiente identidad para generar una acción de conjunto, frente a una coyuntura que por lo menos podemos definir como desafiante?

La misma pregunta se podría formular de otro modo:  ¿puede Latinoamérica a pesar de su heterogeneidad, asimetrías y complejidades, desarrollar una iniciativa como comunidad política, de valores e intereses compartidos?

La respuesta nos remite, a la necesidad de poner en valor y dinamizar una construcción política-institucional, que acumula muchísimos años y que si bien ha atravesado ciclos de avances y retrocesos, de ilusión y desencanto, mantiene capacidades muy útiles  para colaborar con una propuesta que ayude a darle visibilidad, cohesión y presencia a América Latina, tanto en el plano interno como región, como en el internacional, como actor global.

La ALADI  (Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración) podría jugar un importante rol para viabilizar una alternativa válida y eficaz como es la profundización de la integración regional.

En este camino, sería necesario  comenzar a diseñar un Acuerdo Económico Comercial Integral; es decir un tratado  de nueva generación que ayude a fortalecer el mercado ampliado, permita aumentar el comercio intrarregional, potencie las complementariedades productivas y sectoriales e incorpore todos los avances que se han llevado adelante en los organismos subregionales (MERCOSUR – Alianza del Pacífico, ALBA, Comunidad Andina, SICA, etc.) en términos políticos, económicos, comerciales, sociales y culturales.

Un Acuerdo Latinoamericano de este tipo nos ayudaría a disminuir nuestras vulnerabilidades como región, promover un mayor nivel de inversiones, asociar empresas, mejorar la competitividad de los países, ganar más autonomía relativa y posicionarnos mejor en el marco de las negociaciones multilaterales.

Se trata de avanzar en dos grandes objetivos que recorren la trayectoria de la región. El primero, que viene desde los años 60 del siglo pasado, es la necesidad de construir un entramado más fuerte en lo económico, comercial y productivo que incorpore valor a nuestras producciones y nos permita achicar la brecha que nos separa con el mundo desarrollado. Es decir, conformar un mercado latinoamericano que refuerce y complemente las enormes potencialidades de la región que aisladas en cada país ya se demostraron históricamente insuficientes para garantizar un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable en el tiempo, tanto a la región como en cada uno de los países.

El segundo objetivo es dotar a América Latina de un mayor protagonismo político global, lo que significa que alguna vez  Latinoamérica pueda hablar con una sola voz. Este propósito solo puede alcanzarse desde una voluntad política compartida, paciencia estratégica, construcción de confianzas, pragmatismo, flexibilidad y decisión de que solo desde la diversidad, el respeto y el pluralismo se puede ir articulando una mirada común sobre los grandes temas de la agenda global.

Estamos convencidos que si no emerge, por parte de algunos países, una decisión política en la dirección apuntada, América Latina seguirá siendo una región solo para las estadísticas, la geografía, los diagnósticos y estudios generalistas o las retóricas emancipatorias sobre el pasado pero seguiremos muy lejos de parecernos a una comunidad que no solo comparte la historia sino el presente y más aún el amenazante devenir.

Carlos Chacho Álvarez

Carlos Chacho Álvarez: Secretario General de la ALADI (Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración).

Dos puntos de partida. Uno, los cambios de fondo nunca se procesan en períodos de calma chicha sino en medio de tempestades que ponen todo patas arriba. Es en esos momentos cuando las fuerzas antisistémicas, forjadas en largos períodos en los sótanos de las sociedades, pueden aprovechar la debilidad y la crueldad del capital para mostrar a las mayorías que hay otros caminos más allá de la subordinación al sistema. 

Dos, que uno de los más importantes problemas que enfrenta hoy lucha emancipatoria es la subordinación de los movimientos antisistémicos al capital financiero y a los estados, como lo señala Nancy Fraser en el memorable artículo “Trump o el fin de neoliberalismo progresista” (Rebelion, 23 de enero de 2017).

El aturdidor cacareo de los más poderosos medios del sistema, encabezado por The New York Times y seguido dócilmente por la inmensa mayoría de los medios del mundo, tiene un objetivo muy claro: reforzar la alianza Wall Street-Sillicon Valley-Hollywood con los nuevos movimientos sociales (feminismo, antirracismo, multiculturalismo y LGBTQ), como señala Fraser.

Esta alianza es un cortafuegos levantado por Bill Clinton en 1992, lo que la feminista estadunidense denomina “neoliberalismo progresista”, como forma de aislar a la clase obrera –vapuleada por el capital financiero y la globalización- de los movimientos sociales. Donde hubo exitosas luchas contra el neoliberalismo, fue donde se tejieron alianzas de hecho entre ambos sectores. El Argentinazo de diciembre de 2001 fue la convergencia de “piquete y cacerola”, o sea los obreros desocupados y las clases medias empobrecidas, algo que los de arriba buscan evitar de cualquier modo.

Ese neoliberalismo progresista es el que ha gobernado buena parte de Sudamérica en la última década. Salvando las distancias, hay también entre nosotros la intención de cooptar a los nuevos movimientos, de un modo que Fraser describe de modo sencillo y potente: “Al identificar progreso con meritocracia, en lugar de igualdad, se equiparaba la emancipación con el ascenso de una pequeña elite de mujeres, minorías y gays “con talento” en la jerarquía empresarial basada en la noción de “quien gana se queda con todo” (validando la jerarquía en lugar de abolirla)”.

Estas minorías juegan el mismo papel que tuvieron las direcciones sindicales y de la socialdemocracia europea durante la primera guerra mundial, frenando las aspiraciones revolucionarias de una parte importante del proletariado. En casos extremos como en Alemania en 1919, esa socialdemocracia llegó a asesinar a dirigentes como Rosa Luxemburg, mostrando así la verdadera cara de su proyecto de sostener el sistema capitalista enfrentando a la izquierda rebelde.

Dicho de otro modo, sin el apoyo de ese sector el sistema estaría tambaleándose. Al comienzo de la globalización, conscientes de que afectaría a la clase obrera industrial, las elites del mundo tejieron una amplia alianza con los nuevos movimientos, que Fraser describe como “alianza entre emancipación y financierización”. La rabia de Wall Street y de los medios del sistema es que la victoria de Trump deja dicha alianza en estado de máxima debilidad, por eso su empeño en movilizar a los jóvenes para evitar fracturas.

Apenas dos ejemplos. El muro de Trump ya existe y fue levantado por diversas administraciones, “programado por Bill Clinton y construido en su tercera parte por Baby Bush”, según Alfredo Jalife-Rahme (La Jornada, 3 de febrero de 2017). Sin embargo, presentan el muro como una novedad, ignominiosa por cierto, cuando deberían decir que Trump se propone terminar el muro que comenzaron los neoliberales republicanos y demócratas.

Lo segundo es la vergonzosa propaganda en defensa de los derechos humanos y de los musulmanes. Paul Craig Roberts critica con dureza el oportunismo de la representante de la ONG Human Rights First, quien atacó las medidas contra los musulmanes: “¿Dónde estaba Human Rights First cuando el régimen Bush/Cheney/Obama mataba, mutilaba y desplazaba a millones de musulmanes en siete países en el transcurso de cuatro presidencias?” (paulcraigroberts.org, 3 de febrero de 2017).

El doble rasero de los lobbistas de los movimientos no hace más que enlodar los derechos humanos, el feminismo, las causas antirracista y LGBTQ, mientras guarda silencio sobre criminales de guerra como Hillary Clinton, responsable directa de la invasión de Libia y de la masacre de la Primavera Árabe.

Es evidente que el gobierno de Trump será muy agresivo y violento contra los sectores populares de todo el mundo, y sus efectos ya se hacen sentir en países como México y en breve en toda la región latinoamericana. Sin embargo, no son pocos los que aseguran que se llegará al mundo nuevo a través de procesos serenos y calmos, cuando sabemos que la estabilidad es el mejor caldo de cultivo para la reproducción del sistema. Quienes necesitan la estabilidad son precisamente las elites de los movimientos, incrustadas en el poder, desde donde pretenden evitar que la opresión las afecte en un camino de salvación individualista.

Para los de abajo, la llegada del energúmeno Trump al gobierno de la mayor potencia del mundo, es síntoma de descomposición del sistema que nos afecta como los latigazos de una tormenta. Es en medio del caos sistémico como nos empeñamos en construir lo nuevo, con todos los riesgos que eso implica, pero con la voluntad intacta.

Raúl Zibechi

Raúl Zibechi: Periodista e investigador uruguayo, especialista en movimientos sociales, escribe para Brecha de Uruguay, Gara del País Vasco y La Jornada de México.

Desde que Donald Trump asumió la presidencia de Estados Unidos el 20 de enero último, el gobierno de China insistió en despejar la incertidumbre sobre las relaciones entre las dos mayores economías del mundo.

Los nexos constructivos entre Estados Unidos y China se mantendrán fuertes y florecerán en el largo plazo, pese a que Trump, uno de los mandatarios estadounidenses con menos experiencia en cargos públicos, necesita tiempo para familiarizarse con los asuntos de política exterior incluso conocer más del gigante asiático, según indican expertos.

Sin embargo, encuestas dan a conocer que las relaciones entre Washington y Beijing son de vital importancia e influencia no sólo para ellas mismas, sino para el mundo en general como lo ha reiterado el presidente chino, Xi Jinping.

Este jueves, China agradeció una carta de felicitación enviada por el presidente norteamericano a Xi, con motivo del próximo Festival de las Linternas.

En rueda de prensa, el portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores Lu Kang, confirmó que Trump había remitido un mensaje a Xi deseándole a él y a todo el pueblo chino un feliz Festival de las Linternas, que se celebra mañana y es una de las fiestas más importantes en este milenario territorio.

En el escrito también expresaba su interés de trabajar con China para desarrollar una relación constructiva.

Concedemos una gran importancia al desarrollo de los nexos con Estados Unidos, manifestó el vocero.

China está preparada para trabajar con la parte estadounidense a fin de ampliar la cooperación y gestionar cualquier diferencia guiándose por los principios de apoyar el no conflicto y la no confrontación, el respeto mutuo y la colaboración de beneficio mutuo, de forma que los lazos bilaterales se desarrollen de una manera sana y estable, afirmó Lu.

Recordó que como ha dicho el presidente Xi, China y Estados Unidos tienen ambos la responsabilidad de salvaguardar la paz y la estabilidad mundiales, así como promover el desarrollo y la prosperidad globales.

Acentuó que la cooperación es la única elección correcta para Beijing y Washington.

Tanto analistas chinos como extranjeros coinciden en criterios sobre las tan necesitadas relaciones de respeto entre las dos grandes potencias.

Ezra Feivel Vogel, profesor emérito de ciencias sociales de la Universidad de Harvard, opinó que Trump tiene que elegir la cooperación con China en temas relevantes de importancia nacional y global como el comercio, la inversión y la lucha contra el terrorismo, por solo mencionar unos cuantos.

Por su parte el ex secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Henry Kissinger, no podría estar más de acuerdo al decir: ‘Soy optimista en cuanto a que prevalecerá el camino de la cooperación. Tengan en cuenta que si China y Estados Unidos están en conflicto, todo el mundo será dividido’.

Igualmente la adhesión a la política de Una Sola China es crucial y en ese sentido reconocidos especialistas en temas chinos se ha unido a la oposición sobre el cuestionamiento de Trump a la referida estrategia, asumida por Washington antes que el actual mandatario llegara a la presidencia.

Innumerables son los ejemplos de que hoy, las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y China se encuentran en una encrucijada que deben solucionar las dos potencias mundiales.

No obstante, es válido resaltar que China reitera y apuesta por la solución cualquier disputa sobre la base del diálogo, el entendimiento y la no confrontación.

También es de destacar que la inversión directa china acumulada en la economía estadounidense desde el 2000 supera los 100 mil millones de dólares, y que los intercambios entre pueblos entre las dos naciones han seguido fortaleciéndose por lo que sobran razones para apostar por una relación bilateral constructiva.

Prensa Latina

Today in the US and a growing number of other countries, the official policy is that any scientific study, regardless of its methodology, quality, author credentials, and peer-reviewed process is summarily dismissed as incomplete, irrelevant or unsupported if it finds a connection between any vaccine or combination of vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. Even when the CDC’s own immunologist, Dr. William Thompson, whistle-blows and provides thousands of pages of scientific data and research proving a vaccine-autism connection, the matter is rapidly shoved under the table.

In the case of Dr. Thompson’s release of confidential documents to a Congressional subcommittee, the CDC intentionally concealed their evidence that African American boys under 36 months had a higher risk of autism after receiving the MMR vaccine.  The documents also proved the CDC has know for a long time that neurological tics, indicating brain disturbances, were associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines, such as the influenza vaccine.

We have also known for over fifteen years, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act filing, that CDC officials, vaccine scientists on the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, the WHO and private pharmaceutical executives met secretly for two days at the Simpsonwood retreat center near Atlanta to deliberate on the Verstraeten research’s findings proving thimerosal’s role in the rise of autism. The meeting was held for the specific purpose to find ways to prevent the findings from reaching the public, and spin and manipulate the data to disprove a vaccine-autism connection.

More recently a private medical consultant, Barry Rumack MD, was hired by the FDA to review that status of mercury levels in children with an emphasis on childhood vaccines. According to his findings, “at no point from birth to 16-18 months of age that infants were mercury levels below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure…. In fact, according to the models, blood and body burden levels of mercury peaked at six months of age at a shocking high level of 120 ng/L. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/L.”  Dr. Rumack notes that the FDA chose to hide this finding from the public and higher health officials.[1]

Another damning case of government-industry knowledge about a vaccine-autism connection is a leaked December 16, 2011 document from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers. The text admits the corporation has been aware of the autistic risks associated with its Infanrix vaccine, which combines diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated polio and haemophilus influenza viruses. The report details adverse effects associated with autism, including encephalitis, developmental delays, altered states of consciousness, speech delays and other adverse reactions.[2]

While these events might be considered criminal activities that directly threaten public health, they have had little effect on changing national policy over vaccine safety. Rather, the official denial of any possible association between vaccines and autism has hardened into an absolute dogma. And to date, there is not a single gold standard publication to refute with certainty a vaccine-autism connection.

Unfortunately, the American media has accepted the federal denial as absolute too. Never do we hear the media questioning the veracity and scientific legitimacy of the official doctrine. In fact, the media goes even further, embracing the principles of fake news, to attack scientists, physicians and parents who provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, what follows is for readers’ discretion to review and reflect upon the proof being presented to show an unequivocal relationship between vaccination and autistic disorders.

Unlike the US, the UK and Australia, the majority of the governmental health ministries in the modern industrialized world do not take an official national stance on the vaccine-autism controversy and other serious vaccine-related injuries. Only nineteen countries, including the US, have no-fault policies to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine injury compensation programs. This is partially due to the American and British health agencies being heavily compromised by private vaccine business interests. The revolving doors and conflict of interests between these federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry have been well documented.

In the US, the CDC’s vaccine advisory community are in the deep pockets of pharmaceutical firms. This is not the case for most nations where independent and scientific integrity in ruling compensation for vaccine adverse events remain the norm. In 2014, French authorities ruled there was a direct relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and a sudden rise in multiple sclerosis.[3] In 2012, after a long investigative trial, an Italian court ruled that the MMR vaccine caused brain injury leading to autism in the case of Valentino Bocca.[4]

This ruling was intentionally blacked out by the American media. The Japanese government halted the MMR in 1993 due to rising autism rates.

To date, the US vaccine injury compensation court has paid out approximately $3.1 billion to families of vaccine-victimized children. The actual number of awarded cases nevertheless is very small compared to the large number of claims filed and subsequently denied. Among these are cases related to autism, such as Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Ryan Mojabi, Emily Moller, and several others. Many more compensations have been awarded to cases of vaccine-induced encephalitis or brain inflammation, a common event associated with regressive autism. Therefore, within the legal record, contrary to the adamant denials of the CDC and pro-vaxxers such as Paul Offit, vaccines can cause autism.

Thimerosal, the ethylmercury preservative commonly found in vaccines, is perhaps the ingredient with the longest history of controversy. The pharmaceutical company Eli Lily tested thimerosal back in 1930, giving it a clean record of safety even though its own trials had shown it caused serious neurological damage and even death in both animals and humans.  During that decade, a competitor vaccine maker, Pittman-Moore, had also conducted toxicological studies with dogs and concluded the preservative was “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

During the Second World War, vaccines with thimerosal were required to be labeled as “poison,” and later in 1972, Eli Lily itself discovered that thimerosal in doses a hundred times weaker than in a typical vaccine at that time, was “toxic to tissue cells.”  Nevertheless, the drug maker continued to promote the illusion that thimerosal was safe and highly suitable as a vaccine preservative.  Government health officials and vaccine manufacturers to this day have known of the long history of research confirming thimerosal as a toxic poison unsuitable for human delivery. A former leading vaccine developer for Merck had once warned his firm of the dangers of administering mercury-laced vaccines to newborns and infants and declared that the industry knows very well there are “nontoxic alternatives” that were equally effective and could be used to replace thimerosal.

The scientific literature relied upon to discredit thimerosal risks contain serious flaws in trial design and the quality of science. When the father of the modern pro-vaccine ideology, Dr. Paul Offit, goes on the attack to condemn anyone who would suggest a thimerosal-autism association, it is difficult for a rational, objective person to take him seriously. None of the most commonly cited twenty-plus primary flagship studies referenced to discredit thimerosal risks is a biological study.  Instead each is either an ecologic or cohort report.

Most of these studies have been independently reviewed and trashed for gross bias, serious design flaws and scientific negligence. The chief author of the ever-popular Danish thimerosal-autism survey is under criminal investigation for embezzling vast funds from the CDC to finance the study. A review of the Danish study’s collection methods reveals immediately it was a complete sham. Since these studies are only statistical analyses using a variety of massaged parameters to compare select populations or sub groups within a population, they are highly predisposed to intentional design defects and data manipulation in order to reach a desired result. For this reason ecologic and cohort studies are politically desirable within the vaccine industry and the CDC. Data can be massaged in numerous ways to reach a chosen conclusion.

However, in the real world of hard science, such observational, non-biological studies lack the methodological rigor to establish trustworthy scientific assumptions. In fact, the only conclusion we can draw from the arsenal of studies cited incessantly by the deniers of thimerosal’s neurotoxicty is that more comprehensive and rigorous research is demanded.

This is not to say that all ecologic and cohort studies are worthless. There are also many important cohort studies showing a vaccine-autism relationship. Some of these also suffer from poor design. Nevertheless, population studies are inconclusive and should never be used as substantial proof nor the final word to posit nor negate biomolecular activity and adverse effects of any toxic chemical or substance. Only double-blind, placebo controlled biologic research can determine a probable medical certainty.  In the case of thimerosal and other vaccine ingredients this requires accurate detection and measurement of toxic activity and its consequences at the cellular level. This is accomplished by observing neurotoxic effects in either of two methods. One is by in vivo studies, which observe the entire living organism. For example, in vivo studies conducted at the University of Pittsburgh report that when macaque monkey infants were injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines equivalent to a human infant’s vaccine schedule, they exhibited neurotoxic disorders characteristic of autism. For the first time, an animal model examined behavioral and neuromorpometric consequences of the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule and primates mimicking autistic abnormalities.

The Pittsburgh studied was attacked viciously by the vaccination community. Consequently it never got past peer-review for publication in a leading medical journal. Every manner of attempt was made to discredit the findings by alleging flaws in the research. Yet, even if there are flaws in the study’s design or execution, a biologic trial should have alerted federal health authorities that further investigation and funding is essential to convincingly duplicate Pittsburgh’s results or negate them. Instead the study has been denied outright and no efforts have been by the CDC or through NIH grants to launch a more thorough biologic primate study to bring greater clarity to the vaccine-autism debate.

The second method is in vitro studies that investigate a substance’s toxicity to cells or tissue in an artificial environment, such as a cultured medium, which are factually known to be related to a serious health or neurological. One critically important in vitro study observed thimerosal’s direct association with the deterioration of mitochondria in human brain cells.

In a 2012 issue of the Journal of Toxicology, neuroscientists at the prestigious Methodist Hospital Medical Center in Houston published their investigation into thimerosal’s toxicological effects upon mitochondria in human astrocyte cells. Astrocytes are the most abundant cells found in the human brain and are critical for maintaining normal, healthy blood-brain barrier function.  The researchers observed that vaccine ethylmercury, which is more lipophilic (able to cross the blood-brain barrier) than methylmercury, is readily taken up by the astrocyte’s mitochondria, thereby disrupting the cell’s respiratory functions and eventually leading to cell death. The researchers observed that astrocytes, when exposed to thimerosal, exhibited extreme signs of oxidation and “highly damaged mitochondrial DNA.”[5] This study seems to provide biological evidence to support claims that thimerosal is very likely associated with some incidences of autism.

The influenza vaccine, which continues to use a high mercury level, and the MMR are the two most cited vaccines associated with autism. Yet studies point to other vaccines as well.  Doctors at Stony Brook University’s Medical Center determined that male infants vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 have a three-fold higher autism rather. The risk was greater among non-white boys. During the first four year period of the study—between 1997 and 2000—thimerosal was stilled used as a preservative in the Hepatitis vaccine.[6]

Although significant attention is being placed upon the presence of thimerosal in vaccines, most vaccines no longer contain the mercury preservative.  By 2001, except for the influenza vaccine, mercury has been either completely removed or present only in trace amounts for all other vaccines given to children under the age 6 months. One would therefore expect that autism rates would noticeably decrease; however, the opposite has been the case. Since 2001, autism continues to steadily rise annually.

The CDC argues that this proves thimerosal is not the culprit. It ignores a 2012 Australian study published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry that there is a direct maternal transfer of ethylmercury from pregnant mothers to the embryo/fetus.[7] It remains American federal health policy for pregnant women to receive the flu shot that contains 25 mg of mercury.  But vaccinations’ association with neurodegenerative conditions was never solely about thimerosal. Another culpable ingredient now conventionally used in most childhood vaccinations, and also associated with adverse neurological effects is the adjuvant aluminum.  Since 2000, as thimerosal was being phased out, the aluminum adjuvant burden has increased.[8]

Similar to thimerosal, aluminum is a heavy metal that contributes to oxidative stress leading to neuroinflammation and microgliosis, an intense adverse reaction of the central nervous system microglia that leads to a pathogenic results characteristic in some ASD conditions.[9] The National Library of Medicine lists over 2,000 references about aluminum’s toxicity to human biochemistry.  Aluminum’s dangers, often found as alum or aluminum hydroxide in vaccines and food preparations, have been known since 1912, when the first director of the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, later resigned in disgust over its commercial use in food canning; he was also among the first government officials to ever warn about tobacco’s cancer risks back in 1927.[10]

A common argument against vaccine opponents who blame aluminum for a variety of health conditions, including autism, is that the metal is the third most prevalent element found on earth.  What they fail to acknowledge is our gastric-intestinal system is rather impervious to aluminum absorption.  About 2% of orally consumed aluminum from the environment is actually absorbed and much of this is later expelled from the body by other means.  However, injectable and intravenous aluminum compounds directly entering the bloodstream are a completely different matter. And this is why the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carries a high neurodegenerative and autism risk.  Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants after intravenous feeding, which then contained alum, was observed back in 1997 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.[11] Thirty-nine percent of infants receiving aluminum-containing solutions developed learning problems upon entering schools compared to those receiving aluminum-free solutions.

Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the Neural Dynamics group at the University of British Columbia have conducted the most extensive research to date in order to determine the neurotoxicological effects of vaccine aluminum, and its correlation with the rise of autism spectrum disorders. There is already a strong correlation between children in countries with the highest autism rates and the amount of vaccine aluminum exposure. The maximum amount of aluminum permitted in a single vaccine dose is 850 mg. However the FDA established this measurement based upon the amount necessary to trigger the vaccine’s antigenicity rather than toxic concerns about safety. In an earlier study published in the journal of Neuromolecular Medicine, Dr. Shaw and his team demonstrated that the extreme toxicity of aluminum adjuvant contributed to motor neuron death associated with Gulf War illness.[12]

Another recent 2012 study carried out at MIT and published in the journal Entropy that requires serious further investigation is potentially a combination of aluminum adjuvant and acetaminophen, or tylenol, and the onset of autism. This was noted especially in children receiving the MMR and Hepatitis B vaccines. Both of these vaccines have high incidence of spiking high fevers following administration.  It is common practice for parents to administer children’s Tylenol to counter vaccine-induced fevers. Although this study was not biologic, rather a review and analysis of vaccine injury data from the CDC’s VAERS database. Remaining inconclusive, the study does identify raise an important observation that may explain why autism rates show no sign of decline.[13]

Some of the research to discover aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines toxic levels and their adverse effects have found the following:

• Aluminum inflicts strong neurotoxicity on primary neurons.[14]
• Aluminum-laced vaccines increase the aluminum levels in murine brain tissue leading to neurotoxicity.[15]
• Aluminum hydroxide, the most common form of adjuvant used in vaccines deposits mostly in the kidney, liver and brain.[16]
• Long term exposure to vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide (which is today an ingredient in almost all vaccines) results in macrophagic myofastitis lesions.[17]

Vaccine opponents for a long time have focused upon non viral ingredients in vaccines. This has led to a sizeable faction within this community claiming to be pro-vaccine but demanding safer vaccines. According to this argument, simply removing the toxic ingredients such as thimerosal, aluminum, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and others will make vaccination safe. However this denies other vaccine risks.  Significant contamination of vaccine formulas during the manufacturing process is one serious threat that the vaccine industry has no solution to prevent. Today, the fact that a vaccine is likely contaminated with foreign DNA and genetic fragments is a given.  The biomolecular and neuronal risks from genetic contamination remains a no-man’s land and federal officials have barely begun to tackle this problem.

In addition, since 2000, advancements in virology are now identifying serious risks to the viruses and viral components in the vaccines themselves. Other factors increasing vaccination risk include abnormal immunological reactions in response to vaccination.  In 2002, researchers at Utah State University conducted a serological study of elevated measles antibodies and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies from 125 autistic children and 92 children in a normal control group. MBP has been identified as playing a significant  role in the onset of autism. Ninety percent of the MMR antibody positive autistic children were also positive for MBP autoantibodies. The researchers concluded that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to the pathogenesis of autism.[18] It is well known that in addition to metals such as mercury and aluminum, viral infections also cause oxidative stress that decreases methylation capacity common in autism.[19]

Although not an extended longitudinal study and with a limited number of participants, Dr. J Bradstreet el al detected genomic RNA from the vaccine’s measles virus in the cerebrospinal fluid of children with regressive autism or autistic encephalopathy (AE). In addition each child had concomitant gastrointestinal symptoms previously observed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Hospital London in the 1990s.[20]

According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 39^th in the overall health of its population. A large proportion of this ranking is contributed to the failing health American children, with autistic and neuro-developmental disorders soon reaching 1 in 50.

The public needs to demand a national debate between those who advocate for mandatory vaccination and those who challenge them. More than ever before it is imperative to have this dialogue as privately controlled interests infiltrate the halls of state legislators to lobby for state-wide mandates. It is highly predictable that autism rates will escalate as more vaccines come to market and states mandate the CDC’s vaccination schedule. The public needs to be educated about the science and ultimately decide for themselves. In a real democracy, an informed patient should have the freedom of choice in making his or her own health decisions. Today, there is no honest debate, no informed consent, no real science, no transparency of vaccine research, and no accurate statistics. Instead, we have federal health agencies, such as the CDC, on its own website, making false claims, advocating fake news. Finally, it is worse that the powers of federal and state governments are being used to mandate the enforcement of vaccination in a totalitarian manner upon its citizens. This is not democracy, this is medical tyranny.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Autism: Made in the USA, War on Health: The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny and Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccination.

Notes

[1] http://cdc.news/2017-02-02-americas-taxpayer-funded-bureaucracies-lie-about-vaccine-safety.html

[2] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jYsdHZuRhCVXZUbFFlUzdfNGM/edit?pli=1

[3] https://healthimpactnews.com/2014/new-study-hepatitis-b-vaccination-in-france-sparked-a-wave-of-new-cases-of-ms/

[4] https://www.undergroundhealth.com/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

[5] Sharpe MA, Livingston AD, Baskin DS. Thimerosal-derived ethylmercury is a mitochondrial toxin in human astrocytes: possible role of Fenton chemistry in the oxidation and breakage of mtDNA. Jounral of Toxicology vol. 2012, (2012)

[6] J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

[7] Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 94, Issue 8, 2012

[8] Brown IA, Austin DW. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

[9] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

[10] http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/centennialoffda/harveyw.wiley/default.html

[11] Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New England Journal Medicine. May 29, 1997 336(22):1557-61

[12] Shaw C. Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Medicine, 2007

[13] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

[14] Kawahara M et al. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicity of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 2001, 55, 211-217

[15] Redhead K et al. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue.Pharacol. Toxico. 1992, 70, 278-280

[16] Sahin G et al. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide.Biol. Trace. Elem Res. 1994. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2): 129-35

[17] Gherardi M et al. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term. Brain. 2001. Vol. 124, No. 9, 1821-1831

[18] Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autrism. J. Biomed Science. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.[19]James J, Culter P, Melnyk S, Jernigan S, Janak L, Gaylor DW. Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism. Am J Clin Nutr December 2004 vol. 80 no. 6 1611-1617

[20] http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

On November 21st, California secessionists calling themselves “Yes California” filed papers with the California Secretary of State proposing a November 2018 ballot measure that would ask registered voters whether California should secede from the US and become its own nation. If passed, the measure would strike language from California’s constitution that says the state is “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

It would also require a special election in March 2019 for the sole purpose of asking voters whether they’re really sure they want to secede. The measure has been dubbed Calexit after Brexit, which is shorthand for Britain’s vote to withdraw from the European Union. Its author answers a long list of questions about how California’s institutions might adapt on their website yescalifornia.org. I spoke to David Swanson, Executive Director of World Beyond War and one of the first writer-activists to come out in favor of Calexit.

Ann Garrison: David, you saw the Calexit coming back on March 17th when you wrote the essay “Secession, Trump, and the Avoidability of Civil War” after California Governor Jerry Brown joked about building a wall around California if Trump were elected. Similar movements emerged, most visibly in California and Vermont, after George Bush’s second election, but both quickly faded from media attention. Do you think this is a historical moment in which they might have more staying power?

David Swanson: Well, I hope so and that’s all this is – a desire and a hope and advocacy on my part. I wasn’t making any accurate or inaccurate prediction that a secession movement would happen. I’m just encouraging that there be one and that it grow and that it be supported by those of us in the rest of the United States. It need not be a step toward chaos and balkanization; it could instead be a step toward actual integration with the rest of the world. As it is, the United States is a rogue state violating international law in many, many ways that California wouldn’t have to if it seceded and became a nation.

AG: Yes California, the campaign, needs 600,000 signatures or a two-thirds vote by the state legislature to put its California constitutional amendment on the ballot. The two-thirds vote in the state legislature is all but unimaginable, so that means it needs an almost equally unimaginable volunteer effort or somewhere between 5 and 10 million dollars to pay signature gatherers. Then, if it did get on the ballot and pass, two-thirds of Congress would have to vote to let California go. None of this is taking clear shape on the horizon yet, so why do you think it’s worth talking about?

DS: Well, I think almost everything important that’s ever happened was unimaginable shortly before it happened. Good things and bad things: ending slavery, ending child labor, women voting, etc. I think the election of Donald Trump, if you want to call it an election, was unimaginable to most people, which is part of how it happened. I think the current state of US foreign policy with seven simultaneous wars, and the President going through a list of men, women, and children every Tuesday and picking who to murder with drones, was unimaginable. It still is unimaginable to most people even as it happens.

Climate change is so unimaginable that most Americans deny it’s happening, so I think we have to work for the unimaginable and push for a referendum, an initiative, and passage of it. California, like anywhere else on Earth, should have the right to secede whether the United States likes it or not. The preferences of the other 49 states and Washington DC is not relevant. That was the position of the United States government on Yugoslavia and other places around the world but not on Ukraine. However, morality and the law as I understand it are that any people should have the right to leave, just as explained in the initial words of the US Declaration of Independence.

AG: You’re an out-of-state supporter doing your writing and organizing work in Charlottesville, Virginia. If California were to secede, do you imagine that the rest of the United States might then break up into smaller, less violent, and more democratic states?

DS: I’m not that good at predictions, but I think that the status quo is not acceptable. It’s absolute, guaranteed disaster for the climate and for war and peace. This, however, has a decent chance of succeeding and is therefore worth trying. It has to be done carefully, but breaking the United States up into a number of pieces could be very good for the integration of those new nations with the rest of the world and the international law whose primary enemy is now the United States government. I think that it would be very good for democracy, for people to be within some hundreds of miles of their nation’s capital, as they are in many other countries, so that they didn’t have to travel thousands of miles to protest, to exercise their First Amendment rights, but that is the current state of affairs in this overly large, imperial nation.

AG: Do you think the Pentagon would be particularly resistant to secession, which would, of course, reduce the tax base and recruiting pool for its seven aerial bombing wars, its 800 military bases, and all its covert operations?

DS: Well, I think the Pentagon would love to fight a war over it, just as the United States government fought a war over it in the 1860s, but the Pentagon is supposed to be under civilian control and it ought to be up to the people of the United States, not the profiteers. However, many militarists would like to see California’s votes vanish from the national electoral system, which would then become more Republican, so I can’t predict.

AG: Okay, let’s talk about the downsides. In this essay you published on November 11th, ‘Calexit Yes,’ you note that the arguments against secession are Jim Crow and Arizona apartheid. Black citizens in a reborn confederacy, which would be about 55% of Black citizens of the USA as it is now, might face a President Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, not just an Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.  Citizens of Arizona might face a President Joe Arpaio, and both would have lost the protection of the US Constitution. What’s your answer to that?

DS: Well, anything can become worse. The United States has been becoming worse year after year after year for decades, and it’s guaranteed to continue down that path if we don’t change something. I’m not convinced that the people of Arizona as a nation couldn’t do better to protect equal rights for all than the people of Arizona as part of the United States, which is actually not helping them much.

California as a nation or part of a larger West Coast nation, should other states join with California, would be a good influence on the rest of the United States. It could be a model, especially if it chose to go the route that I’m proposing which is to actually become a signer of the convention on the rights of the child, a member of the International Criminal Court, and on and on through the dozens of treaties and international standards that I go through in the article. I think that would be a good influence on the rest of the United States, and I think we would see immigration from one of these new nations to others based on which was more enlightened and progressive than the others.

AG: Okay, one of the most controversial aspects of your first essay is your argument that slavery might have ended sooner if the north had simply let the south go without the devastating Civil War. Wouldn’t that have simply created two competing powers on the frontier, one slave and one free, probably leading to war just as inevitably?

DS: Well, that’s essentially what did happen. There was no argument over the existing states before the Civil War was over. There was universal agreement to expand westward and disagreement over which new states to make slave and which to make free. The southern states, in fact, insisted that the Constitution required the return of so-called fugitive slaves, and they wanted to deny the states’ rights to the northern states that had chosen not to return people escaped from slavery. Over that issue, the government of the northern states, the federal government, chose to say, “We will not let you leave, we will fight a war for the Union.” That later became a war for freedom of those enslaved, but it didn’t succeed. Slavery remained in the Deep South by other names – in prison programs with charges over nothing and eternal debt that threatened every African-American in the South right up through World War II.  And that was after killing three-quarters of a million people, destroying cities, and creating hostility that exists to this day over the the Confederate flag and the racism it symbolizes, all brewing out of bitterness over a war that didn’t have to happen.

I can’t say with certainty that slavery would have ended more quickly and more completely if the South had been allowed to leave and escaped former slaves had been allowed to remain free, and the North and the rest of the world had been a positive influence on the South.  However, it’s certainly a possibility that it would have ended sooner if the southern slave owners had agreed to a system of compensated emancipation and freed the slaves without a war and without secession, as most nations that ended slavery did. That absolutely would have been preferable to the Civil War as it happened. No other nation killed people the way the United States did to end slavery.

AG: Isn’t there at least one exception – Haiti – which killed people to end slavery?

DS: Well, there was an uprising of primarily enslaved people on Haiti and that happened in Jamaica and numerous other places, but nations didn’t split and have a civil war and kill three-quarters of a million people and then pass the legislation that they should have passed on day one to end slavery. That was not the norm. Most nations continued to exist as the same nation that had slavery and abolished it without a war.

AG: Okay, in both of your two essays on this, you say that it’s anything but an easy moral question whether four million people should be left enslaved another moment, or whether a nation should launch a war that might benefit them. However, with the US military might and its greenhouse gasses threatening the future of life on Earth, is secession still a difficult moral choice?

DS: Well, we have to do something. If we think that we can somehow gain control of the US government, bring it under popular, enlightened progressive control, preserve a habitable climate, and rein in the dangers of nuclear and other warfare, then we should. However, if we think it’s more likely that we can achieve those goals by secession, then we should go down that path. There’s no question. It’s an absolute moral imperative.

I think it’s more likely that we can make positive changes happen on environment and military issues if states begin to secede. I don’t think it’s question of personal lifestyle preference or some sort of parochial identification with your state. I think it’s an absolute moral demand that something be done to create a government with some power that can be controlled by the residents of its territory. That was supposedly the idea in creating the United States, but it doesn’t exist now and we have to make it exist even if it’s piece by piece, part of the United States at a time.

David Swanson, is the Founder of World Beyond War and the author of War Is a Lie and War Is Never Just. He can be reached at davidswanson.org or worldbeyondwar.org.

Despite certain economic and social setbacks, the Western Empire is doing remarkably well. That is, if we measure success by the ability to control the world, to condition the brains of human beings on all continents, and to crush almost all substantial dissent, at home and abroad.

What has almost entirely disappeared from life, at least in such places as New York, London or Paris, is that simple human joy, which is so obvious and evident when it exists. Paradoxically, in the very centers of power, most people seem to be living anxious, unfulfilled, almost frightened lives.

It all somehow doesn’t feel right. Shouldn’t citizens of the conquering part of the world, of the victorious regime, be at least confident and optimistic?

Of course there are many reasons why they are not, and some of my comrades have already outlined in detail and in colorful language at least the main causes of depression and dissatisfaction with life, which are literally devouring alive those hundreds of millions of European and North American citizens.

The situation is mostly analyzed from a socioeconomic angle. However, I think that the most important causes for the present state of things are much simpler: the West and its colonies almost entirely destroyed the most essential human instincts: people’s ability to dream, to feel passionate about things, to rebel and to ‘get involved’.

Single-mindedness, optimism, naiveté are almost entirely gone. But those are exactly the qualities that used to move our human race forward!

*

Despite what is now commonly perceived in the West, it is not ‘knowledge’ and definitely not ‘science’ that were behind the greatest leaps forward achieved by civilization.

It has always been a deep and instinctive humanism, accompanied by faith (and here I’m not talking about some religious faith) and by tremendous dedication and loyalty to the cause. Without naïveté, without innocence, nothing great could have ever been attained.

Science was always there, and it was important for improving many practical aspects of human life, but it was never the main engine propelling a nation towards some just, balanced, and ‘livable’ society. When employed by an enlightened system, science has played an important role in building a much better world, but it was never the other way around.

Progress was always triggered and fueled by human emotions, by seemingly irrational and unachievable dreams, by poetry and wide scale burning of passions. The finest concepts for improvement of civilization were frequently not even logical; they were simply born out of some beautiful human instincts, intuitions and desires (logic was applied later, when practical details had to be nailed down).

Now ‘knowledge’, rationality and ‘logic’, at least in the West, are forcing human feelings into a corner. ‘Logic’ is now even replacing traditional religions. Obsession with ‘facts’, with ‘understanding’ everything, is actually becoming absurdly extreme, dogmatic, even fundamentalist.

All this fanatical fact collecting often feels unreal, ‘metallic’, cold and to many of those who are coming from ‘the outside’ (geographically or intellectually), extremely unnatural.

Let’s not forget that ‘facts’ consumed by the masses and even by the relatively educated Westerners, are generally coming from identical sources.  The same type of logic is being used, and several undistinguishable tools of analyses applied. Consuming excessive amount of news, ‘facts’ and ‘analyses’ usually doesn’t lead to understanding anything in depth, or to truly critical thoughts, quite the contrary – it very effectively murders one’s ability to consider totally new concepts, and especially to rebel against the intellectual clichés and stereotypes. No wonder that the European and North American middle classes are among the most conformist people on earth!

Collecting mountains of data and ‘information’ in most cases leads absolutely nowhere. For millions, it is becoming just a hobby, like any other one, including videogames and PlayStation. It keeps a person ‘on top of things’, so he or she can impress acquaintances, or it simply satisfies that neurotic need to constantly consume news.

To make things worse, most Westerners are incessantly locked in a complex ‘information’ and perceptions web with their families, friends and co-workers. There is constant pressure to conform while extremely little space and almost no rewards for true intellectual courage or originality.

*

Regimes have managed to a great extent to standardize ‘knowledge’, mainly by utilizing pop culture and indoctrinating people through its ‘educational’ institutions.

People are actually voluntarily locking themselves for years in schools and universities, wasting their time, paying their own money, even getting into debt, just in order to make it easier for the regime to indoctrinate them and turn them into good and obedient subjects of the Empire!

Already for decades the system has been successfully producing entire generations of emotionally dead and confused individuals.

These people are so damaged that they cannot fight for anything, anymore (except, sometimes, for their own personal and selfish interests); they cannot take sides, and cannot even identify their own goals and desires. They constantly try (and fail) to ‘find something meaningful’ and ‘fulfilling’ they could do in life. It is always about them finding something, not about joining meaningful struggles or inventing something thoroughly new for the sake of humanity! They keep going ‘back to school’, they keep crying for ‘lost opportunities’ because they ‘didn’t study what they think they really should have’ (no matter what they actually study or do in life, they mostly feel dissatisfied, anyway).

They are constantly scared of being rejected, they are petrified that their ignorance and inability to do anything truly meaningful would be discovered and ridiculed (many of them actually sense how empty their lives are).

They are unhappy, some thoroughly miserable, and even suicidal. Yet their desperation does not propel them into action. Most of them never rebel; never truly confront the regime, never challenge their immediate milieu.

These hundreds of millions of broken and idle people (some of them actually not stupid at all) are a tremendous loss to the world. Instead of erecting barricades, writing outraged novels or openly ridiculing this entire Western charade, they are mostly suffering in silence.

If the opportunity to thoroughly change their lives really arrives, they cannot identify it, anymore; cannot grasp it. It is because they cannot fight; they were ‘pacified’ since an early age, since school.

That is exactly where the regime wants to have its citizens. It’s where it got them!

Shockingly, almost no one calls this entire nightmare by its real name – a monstrous crime!

*

People buy books in order to make sense of it all, but they hardly manage to read them to the end. They are too preoccupied; they are lacking concentration and determination. And a great majority of books available in the stores are giving no meaningful answers, anyway.

Still, many are trying: they are analyzing and analyzing, aimlessly. They ‘don’t understand and want to know’. They don’t realize that this path of constantly thinking, while applying certain prescribed tools of the analyses, is one huge trap.

There is really nothing much to understand. People were actually robbed of life, robbed of natural human feelings, of warmth, of passion, even of love itself (what they call ‘love’ is often a surrogate, and nothing more).

All this is never pronounced not even in fiction books anymore, unless you read in Russian or Spanish. The success of the Empire to produce obedient, scared and unimaginative beings is now complete!

Big corporations are thriving; elites are collecting enormous booty, while a great majority of people in the West are gradually losing their ability to dream and to feel. Without those preconditions, no rebellion is possible. Lack of imagination, accompanied by emotional numbness, is the most effective formula for stagnation, even regression.

This is why the West is finished.

*

The grotesque obsession with science, with medical practices, and with ‘facts’, is helping to divert attention from real and horrific issues.

Constant debates, analyses, and ‘looking at things from different angles’, leads to nothing but passivity. But taking action is too scary, and people are not used to making dramatic decisions, anymore, or even gestures.

This also leads to the fact that almost no one in the West is now ready to gather under any ideological banner, or to embrace full heartedly what is called derogatorily ‘labels’.

For millennia, people flocked intuitively into various movements, political parties and groups. No significant change was ever achieved by one single individual (although a strong leader at the head of a movement, party or even government could definitely achieve a lot).

To be part of something important and revolutionary was symbolizing often a true meaning of life. People were (and in many parts of the world still are) fully committed, dedicated to important and heroic struggles. Trying to build a better world, fighting for a better world, even dying for it: that was often considered the most glorious thing that a human being could achieve in his or her lifetime.

In the West, such an approach is dead, thoroughly destroyed. There, cynicism reigns. You have to challenge everything, trust nothing, and commit to nothing.

You are expected to mistrust any government. You should ridicule everyone who believes in something, especially if that something is pure and noble. You simply have to drag through filth any grandiose attempt to improve the world, whether it is happening in Ecuador, Philippines, China, Russia or South Africa.

To show strong feeling for some leader, for a political party or government in a country that is still capable of some fire and passion, is met with mocking sarcasm in places like London or New York. “We are all thieves, and all human beings and therefore governments, are similar”, goes the deadly and toxic ‘wisdom’.

How lovely, really! What a way forward.

Yes, of course: if hours and hours are spent analyzing some fiery leader or movement, for instance in Latin America, at least some ‘dirt’ would always emerge, as no place and no group of people are perfect. This gives Westerners a great alibi for not getting involved in anything. That’s how it is designed. ‘Give up on the hope for a perfect world, say that you simply cannot believe in anything anymore’. Then, go back to school or get yourself some meaningless job.

It is actually much easier than to work extremely hard to save the world or your country! It is much easier than to risk your life and to fight for justice. It is easier than trying to really think, to attempt to invent something thoroughly new, for this beloved and scarred planet of ours!

*

An old Russian ballad says: “It is so hard to love… But it is so easy to leave…”

And with the revolution, with the movements, struggles, even governments that one full heartedly supports, it is, to a great extent, very similar to love.

Love can never be fully scrutinized, fully analyzed, or it is not really love. There is nothing, and should be nothing logical or rational about it. Only when it is dying one begins analyzing, while looking for excuses to slam the door.

But while it is there, while it exists, alive, warm and pulsating, to apply ‘objectivity’ regarding the other person would be brutal, disrespectful; in a way it would be a betrayal.

Only “new Westerners” can commit such travesty, by analyzing love, by writing ‘guides’ about how to deal with human feelings, how to maximize profits from their emotional investments!

How could a man who loves a woman just sit on a sofa and analyze: “I love her but maybe I should think twice, because her nose is too big, and her behind is too large?” That’s absolute nonsense! A woman who is loved, truly loved, is the most beautiful being on earth.

And so is the struggle!

Otherwise, without true dedication and single-mindedness, nothing will ever change; never improve.

But let’s not forget – the Empire doesn’t want anything to improve. That’s why it is spreading limitless cynicism and nihilism. That’s why it is smearing everything pure and natural, while implanting bizarre ‘perfection models’, so the people always compare, always judge, always have doubts, never feel satisfied, and as a result, abstain from all serious involvements.

The empire wants people to think, but think in a way it programs them to do. It wants them to analyze, but only by using its methods. And it wants people to discard, even reject their natural instincts and emotions.

The results are clear: grotesque individualism and self-centrism, confused, broken societies, collapsed relationships between people, and total spite for higher aspirations.

It is not only about the Marxist or revolutionary political parties, about the rebellions or internationalist, anti-imperialist struggles.

Have you noticed how shallow, how unstable most inter-human relationships in the West have become? Nobody wants to get truly ‘involved’. People are testing each other. They constantly think, hardly feel. Powerful passions are looked down on (emotional outbursts are considered ‘indecent’, even shameful): now it is suddenly all about one’s ‘feeling good’, always ‘calm’, but paradoxically, almost no one is actually feeling good or calm in this “new West”, anymore.

It all, of course, mutated into the exact opposite of what love, or a true revolutionary work (political, or artistic) used to be, and just to remind you, it used to be the most beautiful, the most insane turmoil, a total departure from dismal normalcy.

In the West, almost no one could even write great poetry, anymore. No haunting melodies, no powerful lyrics are created there.

Life has become suddenly shallow, predictable and programmed.

Without the ability to love passionately, without the capacity to give, to sacrifice everything unconditionally, one cannot expect to become a great revolutionary.

Of course in the passionless West, obsessed with a type of knowledge that somehow keeps failing to enlighten, with the applied sciences and deeply rooted egocentricity, there is no fertile ground for powerful passions left, and therefore no chance for true revolution.

“I rebel: therefore we exist”, declared Albert Camus, correctly.

Collective rebellion culminates into revolution. Without a revolution, or without constant aspiration for it, there is no life.

The West has lost the ability to love and to rebel.

And that is why it is finished!

*

There is a good saying: “You can never understand Russia with your brain. You can only believe in it”. The same goes for China, Japan and so many other places.

To come to Asia or Russia and begin the journey by trying to ‘understand’ these places is nothing short of insanity. There is no reason for it, and no chance that it could be achieved in a few months, even years.

The neurotic and thoroughly Western approach of constantly trying to ‘understand’ everything with one’s brain, can actually ruin all irreversibly and right from the beginning. The best way to start to truly comprehend Asia is by absorbing, by being gently guided by others, by seeing, feeling, discarding all preconceptions and clichés. Understanding doesn’t come necessarily with logic. Actually, it almost never does. It involves senses and emotions, and it usually arrives suddenly, unexpectedly.

The revolution, in fact the most sacred and honorable struggles – they also brew for a long time, and they also come unexpectedly, and straight from the heart.

Whenever I come to New York but especially to London or Paris, and whenever I encounter those ‘theoretical leftists’, I have to smile bitterly when I follow their pointless but long discussions about some theory, which is totally separated from reality. And it is almost exclusively about them: are they Trotskyists and why? Or perhaps they are anarcho-syndicalists? Or Maoists? Whatever they are, they always begin on the couch or a bar stool, and that’s where they end up, late in the evening.

In case you are just coming from Venezuela or Bolivia, where people are fighting true battles for the survival of their revolutions, it is quite a shocking experience! Most of them, in Altiplano, have never even heard about Lev Trotsky, or anarcho-syndicalism. What they know is that they are at war, they are fighting for all of us, for a much better world, and they need immediate and concrete support for their struggle: petitions, demonstrations, money, and cadres. All they get is words. They get nothing from the West: almost nothing at all, and they never will.

It is because they are not good enough for the Brits and French. They are too ‘real’, not ‘pure enough’. They make mistakes. They are too human, not sterile, and not ‘well-behaved’. They ‘violate some rights here or there’. They are too emotional. They are this or that, but definitely ‘one could not fully throw his or her weight fully behind them’.

‘Scientifically’, they are wrong. If one spends ten hours in the pub or living room, discussing them, there would definitely arise enough arguments for withdrawing all support. The same applies for the revolutionaries and for the revolutionary changes in the Philippines, and in so many other places.

The West cannot connect to this way of thinking. It doesn’t see absurdity in its own behavior and attitudes. It lost its spirit; it lost its heart, its feelings, from the right and now even from the left. In exchange for what, brain? But there is nothing significant that comes from that area either!

And that is why it is finished!

People are now unwilling to get themselves behind anything real; behind any true revolution, any movement, any government, unless they are like those plastic and toxic looking women from glossy fashion magazines: perfect for men who lost all their imagination and individuality, but thoroughly boring and mass-produced for the rest of us.

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.