Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview in Urdu with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.  

The authenticity of this interview remains to be confirmed. We were informed that It was available in recognized electronic news archives including BBC translation.

click here  Ummat 

The interview tends to demystify the Osama bin Laden persona.

In the Unmat interview, Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden allegedly exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He focusses on CIA support to the narcotics trade.

He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of  the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview.

It is our hope that the text of this interview, published on 28 September 2001 barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

It should be noted that on the day preceding the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden had been admitted for treatment in a Military Hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

This was confirmed by Dan Rather in a CBS News Report. 

This interview is published for informational purposes only.

Global Research does not in any way endorse the statements in this interview. Nor are we in a position to confirm its authenticity.

Michel  Chossudovsky, September 2, 2023, September 11, 2024

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

translated from Urdu by the BBC World Monitoring Service

Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1- 7.

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are the same Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

[Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001]

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

Order Directly from Global Research

America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel Chossudovsky

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Nous faisons face présentement à une problème technique.

Pour accéder à la version mobile de mondialisation.ca, cliquez sur le Menu principal de Globalresearch.ca (version mobile), (en haut à gauche) et ensuite cliquez sur Mondialisation.ca.

A partir de la semaine prochaine le problème technique devrait être résolu.

Amitiés à tous nos lecteurs

The world is globalizing and information has become more accessible to more people than ever before. We are, indeed, in unprecedented times, and we face unprecedented challenges.

The aims of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research are to battle the tidal waves of misinformation and propaganda washing our minds on a daily basis. We have separated ourselves from the corporate controlled mainstream news, whose only objective is to serve their corporate masters. We take no assistance from the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and MacArthur, who act as patrons (and thus pacifiers) of the alternative and critical voices challenging the forces of globalization.

We do this in order to remain an independent voice, challenging all that needs to be challenged and exposing all that remains in the dark. Bringing light to a dimly lit world is no easy task, and though the aim and method is “independence,” we are, in fact, entirely dependent upon YOU, our readers. Without your support, we cannot continue our operations nor expand our horizons and opportunities. Global Research is indebted to our readers, and we are here for you and because of you. If you would like Global Research to continue and to grow, we need your support now more than ever.

By making a donation  to Global Research, you  assist journalists, researchers and contributors who have either lost their jobs with the mainstream media or who have been excluded from employment opportunities as professional journalists for their pledge to the truth. We send our thanks to all who have contributed so far by donating or becoming a member!

The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins. Not only that, but it has been historically and presently infiltrated by covert government agencies, seeking to deceive and propagandize their agendas. The CIA has long had associations with major mainstream news publications. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.”

At Global Research, we seek to not only expose and criticize the larger picture, but to point the finger at the media, itself, and examine who is lying, why they lie, and how they get away with it.

To continue in our endeavours, we need our readers to continue in their support.

One important and helpful thing that all of our readers can do is to help spread our name and information by “sharing and  “liking” our Facebook page here. We post articles daily that will appear in your news feed so that you don’t have to come to us, we can bring our information straight to you. “Like” our page and recommend us to your friends. Every bit helps! You can also subscribe to our RSS feed

You can also support us by continuing to send us your much needed donations which allow us to continue our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content.

Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation.

Thank you.

The Global Research Team

FOR ONLINE DONATIONS

For online donations, please click below:

VISIT THE DONATION PAGE

FOR DONATIONS BY MAIL

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest,

Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

FOR DONATIONS BY FAX
For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 514 656 5294

You can also support us by purchasing books from our store! Click to browse our titles.

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”

….

LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

Part I: Syria comes to the Russian Caucasus

On August 28 Sheikh Said Afandi, acknowledged spiritual leader of the Autonomous Russian Republic of Dagestan, was assassinated. A jihadist female suicide bomber managed to enter his house and detonate an explosive device.

The murder target had been carefully selected. Sheikh Afandi, a seventy-five-year old Sufi Muslim leader, had played the critical role in attempting to bring about reconciliation in Dagestan between jihadist Salafi Sunni Muslims and other factions, many of whom in Dagestan see themselves as followers of Sufi. With no replacement of his moral stature and respect visible, authorities fear possible outbreak of religious war in the tiny Russian autonomous republic.[1]

The police reported that the assassin was an ethnic Russian woman who had converted to Islam and was linked to an Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist insurgency against Russia and regional governments loyal to Moscow in the autonomous republics and across the volatile Muslim-populated North Caucasus region.

Ethnic Muslim populations in this region of Russia and of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and into China’s Xinjiang Province, have been the target of various US and NATO intelligence operations since the Cold War era ended in 1990. Washington sees manipulation of Muslim groups as the vehicle to bring uncontrollable chaos to Russia and Central Asia. It’s being carried out by some of the same organizations engaged in creating chaos and destruction inside Syria against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. In a real sense, as Russian security services clearly understand, if they don’t succeed in stopping the Jihadists insurgency in Syria, it will come home to them via the Caucasus.

The latest Salafist murders of Sufi and other moderate Muslim leaders in the Caucasus are apparently part of what is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most dangerous US intelligence operation ever—playing globally with Muslim fundamentalism.

Previously US and allied intelligence services had played fast and loose with religious organizations or beliefs in one or another country. What makes the present situation particularly dangerous—notably since the decision in Washington to unleash the misnamed Arab Spring upheavals that began in Tunisia late 2010, spreading like a brushfire across the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Morocco—is the incalculable wave upon wave of killing, hatreds, destruction of entire cultures that Washington has unleashed in the name of that elusive dream named “democracy.” They do this using alleged Al-Qaeda groups, Saudi Salafists or Wahhabites, or using disciples of Turkey’s Fethullah Gülen Movement to ignite fires of religious hatred within Islam and against other faiths that could take decades to extinguish. It could easily spill over into a new World War.

Fundamentalism comes to Caucasus

Following the dissolution of the USSR, radical Afghanistani Mujahadeen, Islamists from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Pakistan and other Islamic countries flooded into the Muslim regions of the former USSR. One of the best-organized of these was the Gülen Movement of Fethullah Gülen, leader of a global network of Islamic schools and reported to be the major policy influence on Turkey’s Erdogan AKP party.

Gülen was quick to establish The International Dagestani-Turkish College in Dagestan. During the chaotic days after the Soviet collapse, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation officially registered and permitted unfettered activity for a variety of Islamic foundations and organizations. These included the League of the Islamic World, the World Muslim Youth Assembly, the reportedly Al-Qaeda friendly Saudi foundation ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim.’ The blacklist also included Al-Haramein a Saudi foundation reported tied to Al-Qaeda, and IHH, [2] a Turkish organization banned in Germany, that allegedly raised funds for jihadi fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and was charged by French intelligence of ties to Al Qaeda.[3] Many of these charities were covers for fundamentalist Salafists with their own special agenda.

As many of the foreign Islamists in Chechnya and Dagestan were found involved in fomenting the regional unrest and civil war, Russian authorities withdrew permission of most to run schools and institutions. Throughout the North Caucasus at the time of the Chechyn war in the late 1990’s, there were more than two dozen Islamic institutes, some 200 madrassas and numerous maktabas (Koranic study schools) present at almost all mosques.

The International Dagestani-Turkish College was one that was forced to close its doors in Dagestan. The College was run by the Fethullah Gülen organization.[4]

At the point of the Russian crackdown on the spread of Salafist teaching inside Russia at the end of the 1990’s, there was an exodus of hundreds of young Dagestani and Chechyn Muslim students to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places in The Middle east, reportedly to receive training with the Gülen movement and various Saudi-financed organizations, including Salafists. [5] It is believed in Russia that the students trained by Gülen supporters or Saudi and other Salafist fundamentalist centers then were sent back to Dagestan and the North Caucasus to spread their radical strain of Islam.

By 2005 the situation in the Caucasus was so influenced by this Salafist intervention that the Chechen Salafist, Doku Umarov, cited by the UN Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda,[6] unilaterally declared creation of what he called the Caucasus Emirate, announcing he planned to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law encompassing the entire North Caucasus region including Dagestan. He modestly proclaimed himself Emir of the Caucasus Emirate. [7]

*  *  *

*  *  *

Part II: Salafism at war with Sufi tradition

Salafism, known in Saudi Arabia as Wahhabism, is a fundamentalist strain of Islam which drew world attention and became notorious in March 2001 just weeks before the attacks of September 11. That was when the Salafist Taliban government in Afghanistan willfully dynamited and destroyed the historic gigantic Buddhas of Bamiyan on the ancient Silk Road, religious statues dating from the 6^th Century. The Taliban Salafist leaders also banned as “un-islamic” all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Sharia.

Afghani sources reported that the order to destroy the Buddhas was made by Saudi-born jihadist Wahhabite, Osama bin Laden, who ultimately convinced Mullah Omar, Taliban supreme leader at the time to execute the act.[8]

Before and…After Salafist Taliban …

While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn as idolatry any non-traditional forms of worship. They also call for the establishment of Islamic political rule and strict Sharia law. Sufism is home to the great spiritual and musical heritage of Islam, said by Islamic scholars to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam, going back centuries.

As one Sufi scholar described the core of Sufism, “While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and will become close to God in Paradise–after death and the ‘Final Judgment’– Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness–while one is alive. Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, ‘I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.’ Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God.” [9]

The mystical Islamic current of Sufism and its striving to become close to or one with God is in stark contrast to the Jihadist Salafi or Wahhabi current that is armed with deadly weapons, preaches a false doctrine of jihad, and a perverse sense of martyrdom, committing countless acts of violence. Little wonder that the victims of Salafist Jihads are mostly other pacific forms of Islam including most especially Sufis.

The respected seventy-five year old Afandi had publicly denounced Salafist Islamic fundamentalism. His murder followed a July 19 coordinated attack on two high-ranking muftis in the Russian Volga Republic of Tatarstan. Both victims were state-approved religious leaders who had attacked radical Islam. This latest round of murders opens a new front in the Salafist war against Russia, namely attacks on moderate Sufi Muslim leaders.

Whether or not Dagestan now descends into internal religious civil war that then spreads across the geopolitically sensitive Russian Caucasus is not yet certain. What is almost certain is that the same circles who have been feeding violence and terror inside Syria against the regime of Alawite President Bashar al-Assad are behind the killing of Sheikh Afandi as well as sparking related acts of terror or unrest across Russia’s Muslim-populated Caucasus. In a very real sense it represents Russia’s nightmare scenario of “Syria coming to Russia.” It demonstrates dramatically why Putin has made such a determined effort to stop a descent into a murderous hell in Syria.

Salafism and the CIA

The existence of the so-called jihadist Salafi brand of Islam in Dagestan is quite recent. It has also been deliberately imported. Salafism is sometimes also called the name of the older Saudi-centered Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a minority originally-Bedouin form of the faith originating within Islam, dominant in Saudi Arabia since the 1700’s.

Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism give the following description of Saudi conditions under the rigid Wahhabi brand of Islam:

“Women living under Saudi rule must wear the abaya, or total body cloak, and niqab, the face veil; they have limited opportunities for schooling and careers; they are prohibited from driving vehicles; are banned from social contact with men not relatives, and all personal activity must be supervised including opening bank accounts, by a male family member or “guardian.” These Wahhabi rules are enforced by a mutawiyin, or morals militia, also known as “the religious police,” officially designated the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) who patrol Saudi cities, armed with leather-covered sticks which they freely used against those they considered wayward. They raid homes looking for alcohol and drugs, and harassed non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as believers in other faiths.” [10]

It’s widely reported that the obscenely opulent and morally-perhaps-not-entirely-of- the-highest-standards Saudi Royal Family made a Faustian deal with Wahhabite leaders. The deal supposedly, was that the Wahhabists are free to export their fanatical brand of Islam around to the Islamic populations of the world in return for agreeing to leave the Saudi Royals alone.[11] There are, however, other dark and dirty spoons stirring the Wahhabite-Salafist Saudi stew.

Little known is the fact that the present form of aggressive Saudi Wahhabism, in reality a kind of fusion between imported jihadi Salafists from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabites. Leading Salafist members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into the Saudi Kingdom in the 1950’s by the CIA in a complex series of events, when Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood following an assassination attempt. By the 1960’s an influx of Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia fleeing Nasserite repression, had filled many of the leading teaching posts in Saudi religious schools. One student there was a young well-to-do Saudi, Osama bin Laden.  [12]

During the Third Reich, Hitler Germany had supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Marc Erikson describes the Nazi roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thus:

…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and ’40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and “supreme guide” Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini.[13]

After the defeat of Germany, British Intelligence moved in to take over control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, for financial and other reasons, the British decided to hand their assets within the Muslim Brotherhood over to their CIA colleagues in the 1950s. [14]

According to former US Justice Department Nazi researcher John Loftus,  “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15]

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not,” Loftus continues. “They think that Islam–the Saudi version of Islam–is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia–that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” [16]

Loftus identified the significance of what today is emerging from the shadows to take over Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, and the so-called Syrian National Council, dominated in reality by the Muslim Brotherhood and publicly led by the more “politically correct” or presentable likes of Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, foreign affairs spokesman for the SNC was twice an invited guest at the Bilderberg elite gathering, latest in Chantilly, Virginia earlier this year.[17]

The most bizarre and alarming feature of the US-financed  regime changes set into motion in 2010, which have led to the destruction of the secular Arab regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammar Qaddafi in Libya, and the secular regime of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, and which have wreaked savage destruction across the Middle East, especially in the past eighteen months in Syria, is the pattern of emerging power grabs by representatives of the murky Salafist Muslim Brotherhood.

By informed accounts, a Saudi-financed Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood dominates the members of the exile Syrian National Council that is backed by the US State Department’s Secretary Clinton and by Hollande’s France. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is tied, not surprisingly to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi who recently in a meeting of the Non-Aligned in Iran called openly for the removal of Syria’s Assad, a logical step if his Muslim Brothers in the present Syrian National Council are to take the reins of power. The Saudis are also rumored to have financed the ascent to power in Tunisia of the governing Islamist Ennahda Party,[18] and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Part III: Morsi’s Reign of Salafi Terror

Indicative of the true agenda of this Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadists today is the fact that once they have power, they drop the veil of moderation and reconciliation and reveal their violently intolerant roots. This is visible in Egypt today under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.

Unreported in mainstream Western media to date are alarming direct reports from Christian missionary organizations in Egypt that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has already begun to drop the veil of “moderation and conciliation” and show its brutal totalitarian Salafist colors, much as Khomeini’s radical Sharia forces did in Iran after taking control in 1979-81.

In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]

This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]

Already in 2011 Morsi’s Salafist followers began attacking and destroying Sufi mosques across Egypt. According to the authoritative newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm (Today’s Egyptian), 16 historic mosques in Alexandria belonging to Sufi orders have been marked for destruction by so-called ‘Salafis’. Alexandria has 40 mosques associated with Sufis, and is the headquarters for 36 Sufi groups. Half a million Sufis live in the city, out of a municipal total of four million people. Aggression against the Sufis in Egypt has included a raid on Alexandria’s most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu’l Abbas.[22]

Notably, the so-called “democratically elected” regime in Libya following the toppling of Mohamar Qaddafi by NATO bombs in 2011, has also been zealous in destroying Sufi mosques and places of worhip. In August this year, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova expressed “grave concern” at the destruction by Islamic Jihadists of Sufi sites in Zliten, Misrata and Tripoli and urged perpetrators to “cease the destruction immediately.” [23] Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. [24]

The explosive cocktail of violence inherent in allowing the rise to power of Salafist Islamists across the Middle East was clear to see, symbolically enough on the night of September 11,^th when a mob of angry supporters of the fanatical Salafist group, Ansar Al-Sharia, murdered the US Ambassador to Libya and three US diplomats, burning the US Consulate in Bengazi to the ground in protest over a YouTube release of a film by an American filmmaker showing the Prophet Mohammed indulging in multiple sex affairs and casting doubt on his role as God’s messenger. Ironically that US Ambassador had played a key role in toppling Qaddafi and opening the door to the Salafist takeover in Libya. At the same time angry mobs of thousands of Salafists surrounded the US Embassy in Cairo in protest to the US film. [25]

Ansar Al-Sharia (“Partisans of Islamic law” in Arabic) reportedly is a spinoff of Al-Qaeda and claims organizations across the Middle East from Yemen to Tunisia to Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ansar al-Sharia says it is reproducing the model of Sharia or strict Islamic law espoused by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq. The core of the group are jihadists who came out of an “Islamic state”, either in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, or among jihadists in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.[26]

The deliberate detonation now of a new round of Salafist fundamentalist Jihad terror inside Muslim regions of the Russian Caucasus is exquisitely timed politically to put maximum pressure at home on the government of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin and the Russian Government are the strongest and most essential backer of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and for Russia as well the maintenance of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Syria’s Tartus port is vital strategically. At the same time, Obama’s sly message to Medvedev to wait until Obama’s re-election to evaluate US intent towards Russia and Putin’s cryptic recent comment that a compromise with a re-elected President Obama might be possible, but not with a President Romney, [27] indicate that the Washington “stick-and-carrot” or hard cop-soft cop tactics with Moscow might tempt Russia to sacrifice major geopolitical alliances, perhaps even that special close and recent geopolitical alliance with China.[28] Were that to happen, the World might witness a “reset” in US-Russian relations with catastrophic consequences for world peace.

F. William Engdahl*  is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Notes:

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

We are very proud to launch an updated version of our website, featuring the same timely and analytical content as before, in a display that will be easier for our readers to navigate so that you can get the information you need as quickly and easily as possible.

On this website, you will be able to access an archive of more than 30,000 articles published by Global Research.

We thank all of our readers for the feedback you have sent us over the years and hope you will enjoy your browsing experience.

These changes would not be possible without your support, and for that we extend our sincere appreciation.

To help us cover the costs of important projects and necessary upgrades like this, we kindly ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research.

We also take this opportunity to invite you to become a Member of Global Research

If we stand together, we can fight media lies and expose the truth. There is too much at stake to choose ignorance.

Be aware, stay informed, spread the message of peace far and wide.

Feedback and suggestions regarding our new website are most welcome. To post a comment, kindly visit us on the Global Research facebook page

Sincerely,

The Global Research Team

ossroads:The UK continues to maintain an escalatory stance in the conflict between the West and Russia, trying to advance agendas that could easily lead to an unprecedented wave of violence. In yet another irresponsible move, London suggested ending restrictions on the use of long-range weapons, making it clear that the British plan to take the war to its ultimate consequences.

In a recent speech, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy called on NATO members to show “nerve and guts” in supporting Kiev. Speaking of “courage,” Lammy called for an end to Western restrictions on Ukraine, implicitly advocating for the start of an all-out war against Moscow.

Lammy said it is time to start seriously discussing the possibility of reversing the restrictions and allowing Ukrainian strikes against targets outside the regions recognized by the West as Kiev’s territory. His current stance indicates a change in the UK’s position. Until now, like the US, the UK has maintained a stance against any change in the restrictions – but Lammy appears to have given in to Ukrainian blackmail and started lobbying for the total war plan.

“It is a very real-time discussion across allies (…) This is a critical time for nerve and guts and patience and for fortitude on behalf of allies who stand with Ukraine,” he said, clearly trying to disguise the escalatory nature of the agenda.

Lammy’s words came shortly after his joint visit with Antony Blinken to the Ukrainian capital, during which Zelensky’s team personally asked the British official to end the restrictions. At the time, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmyhal stated that only by striking targets in the “deep” territory of the Russian Federation will it be possible to achieve Ukraine’s strategic objectives, preventing Moscow from carrying out maneuvers in the conflict zone by destroying enemy military bases.

“We [Ukrainians] hope that long-range equipment for strikes on the territory of our enemy will be reached and we will have it. And we hope for your help and support in this issue,” Shmyhal said at the time.

In Kiev, Lammy acted timidly, as if embarrassed by the Ukrainians’ request. He told reporters that the purpose of the trip was not to make decisions, but only to listen to the needs of Ukrainian “partners.” Apparently, after hearing the calls to change the current rules, he agreed that the best thing to do is to revise the policy of restrictions and finally allow the use of long-range missiles against Russian non-disputed areas.

“It’s hugely important that we (Lammy and Blinken) are travelling together to hear from our Ukrainian counterparts and President Zelensky their assessment of the situation on the ground and their needs on the ground (…) It would, however, be quite wrong to comment on the detail of operational issues in a forum such as this, because the only person who could benefit is Putin, and we will do nothing to give him any advantage in his illegal invasion,” Lammy told Ukrainian journalist during a press conference in Kiev.

Lammy’s move is not an isolated act. International lobby for the use of long-range missiles has been increasing in recent times. For example, the European Parliament recently passed a resolution recommending the end of restrictions – which has clearly worsened the atmosphere of tension on the world arena. The UK’s position is especially relevant because it is the US’ biggest ally among all NATO states, having a more active participation in the alliance’s decision-making process. London could be paving the way for a future change in the position of the US itself.

Russia has repeatedly stated that any long-range attack on its non-disputed territories would be seen as a declaration of war. It is well known that only NATO military personnel are qualified to use long-range systems, which is why such an attack would be seen as a maneuver by the alliance itself against the Russian Federation. The consequences of such a scenario could be catastrophic, including an open world war or nuclear clash.

The UK is acting thinking that Moscow would once again ignore its own red lines, thus not responding to such an attack just to avoid escalation. But this is a dangerous game that the West may regret. Moscow is making it clear that its patience is running out, not willing to tolerate any more enemy provocations.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Lammy with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on 10 July 2024 (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

A política irresponsável de ajuda à Ucrânia está a prejudicar a Europa de todas as formas possíveis. Não são apenas os carregamentos de armas que estão a causar danos aos países da UE, mas também as atuais regras comerciais que dão prioridade aos produtos ucranianos, a fim de expandir a “cooperação econômica” com Kiev. A insatisfação dos agricultores só vai piorar cada vez mais, abrindo caminho para uma grande crise no futuro.

A Bulgária começou a mostrar a sua insatisfação com as políticas comerciais pró-ucranianas da UE. O governo do país pediu à Comissão Europeia que adotasse uma nova resolução propondo a proibição dos ovos de galinha ucranianos do mercado europeu. A medida visa proteger o mercado europeu dos produtos ucranianos baratos, garantindo a participação dos agricultores nativos na competição comercial.

O Ministro da Agricultura búlgaro, Georgi Tahov, disse durante uma reunião com o Conselho de Agricultura e Pescas da UE em Bruxelas que os agricultores búlgaros estão a ter graves dificuldades em competir com os produtos ucranianos, uma vez que estes últimos “invadiram” o mercado europeu a preços baixos e em grandes quantidades. Isto não só põe em perigo a estabilidade econômica do setor agrícola búlgaro, mas também ameaça levar à falência milhares de agricultores, conduzindo ao desemprego e a crises sociais.

Os ovos ucranianos estão a causar polémica e são um tema particularmente sensível no atual cenário europeu. A produção de ovos é uma das principais atividades dos agricultores búlgaros, que sempre tiveram um forte apoio do Estado e do mercado local para manter níveis de produção estáveis. No entanto, desde o início da operação militar especial, a UE adotou uma política irresponsável de fácil importação de produtos ucranianos com o alegado objetivo de impulsionar a economia de Kiev. Como resultado, os ovos ucranianos, que são 30% mais baratos que os búlgaros, simplesmente “invadiram” o mercado europeu.

A Ucrânia exportou mais de 2.600 toneladas de ovos somente no primeiro semestre de 2024. Este valor já é cinco vezes superior ao do período homólogo do ano passado, prevendo-se um aumento ainda maior para os próximos meses. Como resultado, os produtores de aves búlgaras estão a falir e um grande número de agricultores está a abandonar as suas atividades por falta de lucro.

“[Esta situação] coloca séria pressão sobre os preços no mercado interno (…) Apoiamos firmemente o povo da Ucrânia, mas isto não deve de forma alguma causar falências e violar os direitos dos nossos agricultores”, disse o ministro búlgaro.

Esta não é a primeira vez que são feitas exigências por mudanças na política europeia de importação de produtos ucranianos. Desde 2022, tem havido uma forte pressão dos agricultores europeus para rever as regras que facilitam a compra de produtos alimentares ucranianos. No momento em que o setor búlgaro dos ovos está a ser afetado, os produtores de cereais, carne, leite e outros produtos estão a falir em vários países europeus. A crise afeta países desde as zonas mais orientais, como a Polônia e a Bulgária, até às mais ocidentais, como os Países Baixos, a Alemanha e a França. Os agricultores de todo o continente europeu estão a sofrer com a atitude irresponsável da UE de favorecer a Ucrânia.

Os fortes protestos dos agricultores geraram expectativas de mudanças na situação comercial. Um relatório publicado pelo Financial Times em Junho previa que o bloco retomaria as obrigações fiscais sobre os produtos ucranianos. No entanto, as atuais regras de isenção fiscal permanecerão em vigor pelo menos até ao segundo semestre do próximo ano – o que é tempo suficiente para levar à falência milhares de agricultores europeus.

Na mesma linha, é improvável que a Comissão Europeia aprove o pedido búlgaro, dado que a maioria dos líderes ​​europeus são atualmente a favor da manutenção de todas as políticas de apoio à Ucrânia, por mais irresponsáveis ​​que sejam. Para a UE, o impacto das políticas anti-russas e pró-ucranianas nos cidadãos europeus não é importante. A única coisa que realmente importa é a manutenção dos níveis de ajuda a Kiev, independentemente das consequências.

Deve também ser sublinhado que este processo é uma verdadeira “bomba-relógio” para toda a estabilidade alimentar europeia. Enquanto os agricultores europeus vão à falência para favorecer o agronegócio ucraniano, as próprias terras aráveis ​​ucranianas estão a ser entregues a fundos de investimento privados ocidentais, como o Blackrock, como método de pagamento pelo apoio de milhares de milhões de dólares da OTAN. Dentro de alguns anos, a Europa não poderá contar nem com a sua própria produção nem com produtos ucranianos, entrando numa grande crise de abastecimento e dependência de importações – ao mesmo tempo que terá de impor sanções que limitem as importações.

Conscientemente ou não, os tomadores de decisões da UE estão a criar um problema que não será resolvido tão facilmente.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Article original en anglais : Irresponsible pro-Ukrainian trade policy destroying Bulgarian agribusiness, InfoBrics,

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

There are very few countries that have suffered truly unprovoked Western aggression as much as Serbia. For centuries, the world’s most vile power pole has been trying to destroy the small Southeast European country, sending an invasion force after an invasion force, killing millions of Serbian civilians. Estimates vary significantly, but some historians and demographers argue there would’ve been upwards of 20 million Serbs had there been no world wars, when German invaders and their allies (including Nazi Ustashe Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians during WW2) murdered around three million Serbs. After Nazism was finally defeated, Belgrade thought it would never again need to worry about Western aggression.

Unfortunately, this proved to be a false hope, as German imperialism returned in full force in the early 1990s, this time supported by NATO, the geopolitical outgrowth of Nazi German-led Axis powers. Berlin’s policies toward Serbia (and Serbs in general) remain unchanged and boil down to reducing Serbian ethnic space as much as possible, starting with what today are Croatia and Bosnia, and finishing with Kosovo and Metohia, now a NATO-occupied region partially governed by an illegal Albanian narco-terrorist entity. Expectedly, Germany used the exact same allies and satellite states it had during WW2, making the argument about the so-called “denazification” of the country laughable to most Serbs.

What’s more, as of recently, the rest of the world got the chance to see this as well, because the Bundeswehr is effectively going through a process of quiet (re)nazification. Luckily, Berlin’s suicidal subservience to Washington DC essentially destroyed much of its power, so it no longer has as many resources to make Belgrade’s life as difficult as possible. Unfortunately, where German imperialism stops, the Anglo-American one continues. Through its NATO satellites, the United States and United Kingdom keep pushing rabidly anti-Serb policies. The principal reason for this is that Serbs are seen as a pro-Russian element, so in a new Western crawling aggression on Russia, NATO wants to make sure it firmly holds all of Europe under its imperialist jackboot.

As a result, there’s an accelerated process of the so-called “Euro-Atlantic integration” of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a dysfunctional NATO satellite state that was cobbled together to ensure the Serbs living there cannot join Serbia. Although the country itself is internationally recognized as “independent”, the reality is that it’s anything but, as there’s the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Sarajevo. Namely, this institution is effectively the office of the (neo)colonial governor of the country, officially appointed by the UN, although their legitimacy is questionable at best. OHR is currently headed by Christian Schmidt, a German (shocking, isn’t it?), although he’s effectively illegitimate, as his appointment was never agreed by the UN Security Council.

However, this isn’t really important to NATO, as its leaders regularly laugh at the idea of so-called “international law” and only use it when it’s convenient to their interests. Thus, the political West will cry wolf when Russia reacts to the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, but will insist that the question of former Yugoslavia is a “special case”. This is particularly apparent in the case of the illegal, self-proclaimed Albanian narco-terrorist entity existing in the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. The position of the Albanian narco-terrorists is even more complicated than that of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the NATO-occupied Serbian region is not recognized by around 70-80% of the global population.

Recognizing the Albanian narco-terrorists is a matter of (geo)political independence and it could be argued that it serves as some sort of a litmus test of which countries have at least a fraction of sovereignty. Obviously, Western-led so-called “international organizations” (particularly in sports) are a laughable excuse for “impartiality”, as they’d often ban sovereigntist countries and even global superpowers, while pushing for the participation of the Albanian narco-terrorist entity. However, this is nothing in comparison to the treatment of native Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohia, as there’s currently a crawling ethnic cleansing of those who still remain in their ancestral lands. Obviously, all this is being done with full NATO support.

Of course, this is in no way surprising, as the world’s most vile racketeering cartel is infamous for its close cooperation with terrorists and extremists in general, regardless of whether they’re Islamic radicals or Neo-Nazis. In other words, the exact same people Nazi Germany allied itself with. If I were a “conspiracy theorist”, I’d say that’s certainly not coincidental. The frozen NATO-orchestrated conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo and Metohia (both NATO-occupied) remain the principal security issues in former Yugoslavia. Republika Srpska, by far the most independent part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (forcibly integrated into it by the political West), is known for its fierce resistance to the illegal NATO occupation.

The same could be said for Serbs still remaining in Kosovo and Metohia, although their position is far worse, as their basic human rights are regularly being infringed upon by NATO and its Albanian narco-terrorist allies. In the cases of both Bosnia and Kosovo, the political West wants to get rid of Serbs, as they actively oppose the official integration of the two areas into NATO, an entity that most Serbs invariably see as a Nazi American Terrorist Organization. However, as Serbia itself is completely surrounded by the world’s most vile racketeering cartel and also entirely cut off from the multipolar/sovereign world, the official Belgrade is forced to keep walking on this highly dangerous geopolitical tightrope in hopes of surviving.

This is extremely complicated, as the government fully understands that the populace is decidedly anti-NATO. The vast majority of Serbs don’t only detest the world’s most vile racketeering cartel for the decade-long siege that destroyed most of their country and resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees, but also find the so-called Western “values” absolutely repulsive. NATO itself is one of the most prominent promoters of moral degeneracy and societal decay, further cementing Serbian animosity. In addition, Serbs invariably support Russia and hope to see the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict resolved in the interest of Moscow (meaning Ukraine reincorporated into Russia or at least with a pro-Kremlin government).

Part of the reason is certainly historical and emotional, but part of it is also practical, as stronger Russian positions in Europe also means there’s hope for Serbia’s survival. However, until then, the country needs to endure, which is why its government often makes moves that are extremely unpopular with the majority of the populace, but might actually buy precious time for Belgrade to rekindle its ties with the multipolar world. Serbia has excellent relations with every founding member of BRICS. These countries have not only never done anything against its interests, but have actually supported Belgrade in virtually every way. This is the complete opposite of what the political West has been doing. Expectedly, NATO is frustrated by Serbia’s position.

Namely, it sees Belgrade’s ties with the multipolar world as “problematic” (to put it mildly) and wants to ensure the country at least stays isolated. In addition, the political West likely has plans to attack Serbia by forcing its reaction to the violence Serbs in Kosovo and Metohia are subjected to. To that end, NATO is using its Albanian narco-terrorist allies to foment tensions. The world’s most vile racketeering cartel already suffered a crushing and humiliating defeat in Afghanistan after 20 years of truly unprovoked aggression. As it can’t defeat Russia in Ukraine, it’s desperate to achieve at least one victory and tiny Serbia seems like the perfect target. This is hardly surprising, as NATO is largely composed of vultures and cowards who’d never dare to directly attack a near-peer adversary.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly used US military assets to campaign for Vice President Kamala Harris during a visit to a munitions plant in Pennsylvania, The Federalist magazine reported. He visited the factory in the swing state with supporters of Kamala Harris, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and other Democrats and promoted the visit with photos and a speech aboard a US Air Force plane.

“Zelensky is in Pennsylvania today, signing bombs with Gov. Shapiro. Zelensky is also attacking J.D. Vance in the biggest, most important battleground state in the country during an election year.  Folks, if that ain’t foreign election interference, I don’t know what is,” Sean Parnell, a former Republican candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania, said in the article published on September 23.

.

Screenshot from The Federalist

.

The magazine also emphasised that the Pentagon did not deny that Zelensky used US military resources for the trip but declined to comment on Zelensky’s possible efforts to support a specific candidate.

Zelensky began his visit to the United States on September 22 by visiting an ammunition factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, that produces ammunition for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He immediately asked for more projectiles.

Earlier, Zelensky said in an interview with The New Yorker that vice presidential candidate Vance’s possible rise to power sends “dangerous signals” to Kiev, as the latter declared that Ukraine’s hopes of returning to its 1991 borders with Russia are absurd. The Ukrainian leader said he fears Vance’s rise to power because he is too hardline on the Ukraine issue.

“For us, these are dangerous signals, coming as they do from a potential Vice-President. I don’t take Vance’s words seriously because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict,” Zelensky said before comparing any negotiations with Russia to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II.

While not directly mentioning Trump by name, Zelensky criticised the Republican candidate in the interview by slamming world leaders for seeking working relationships with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which the former president cites as key to his foreign policy successes during his presidency.

“A lot of world leaders want to have some sort of dealings with Putin, to reach agreements, to conduct some business with him. I look at such leaders and realise that they are very interested in playing this game — and for them, unfortunately, it really is a game,” Zelensky said. “But what makes a real leader? A leader is someone whom Putin needs for something, not a person who needs Putin. Flirting with him is not a sign of strength. Sitting across the table from him might make you believe you’re making important decisions about the world.”

These very words and actions lead to Zelensky being accused of directly interfering in the upcoming US election.

“The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents,” Dan Caldwell, public policy advisor at Defense Priorities, posted on social media.

Yet, despite these accusations, Zelensky ironically said,

“I think Ukraine has demonstrated the wisdom of not becoming captured by American domestic politics.”

Although most polls show Kamala Harris in a narrow lead over Trump, some of her supporters are unnerved by the small margin of her advantage in three northern battlegrounds—Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—reported The Guardian. This puts a greater perspective on why Zelensky is directly interfering in the US election by visiting Pennsylvania, hoping to rally the people to vote for the Democratic candidate.

“Some polls have shown the vice-president with leads of between four and six points in Pennsylvania – generally judged the most important swing state – others show Trump trailing by smaller deficits,” the outlet reported.

John Fetterman, the Democratic senator for Pennsylvania, told The Hill that the former president threatened Kamala Harris despite the current vice president leading in the battleground state.

“Polling has really been seriously damaged since 2016 … Trump is going to be tough in Pennsylvania, and that’s absolutely the truth,” he said.

Zelensky hopes that by the Democrats winning the election, the futile war against Russia can be prolonged as his ego does not allow him to accept that Ukraine cannot win and that he will need to accept the loss of vast territory after promising Ukrainians that even Crimea would be recaptured.

Trump has already famously said that he would resolve the conflict in 24 hours, and although this is doubtful, it does signal that his presidency aims to achieve a resolution swiftly. Due to this fact, it is obvious why Zelensky is directly interfering in the US election, as a Trump victory would be catastrophic to his power and the Kiev regime.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from COMMONWEALTH MEDIA SERVICE / COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

An alarming and profoundly troubling story in the medical community has recently sparked national attention and has trained yet another spotlight on the current state of affairs in hospital systems across the United States.

This harrowing story concerns 23-year-old Alexis Lorenze and her experience after being admitted to University of California, Irvine Medical Center (UCIMC) in Orange, California, on September 10 for treatment of what was diagnosed as paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).

What is PNH? Respected writer Marcella Piper-Terry, an expert on vaccines and vaccine injuries, simplified and summarized the Cleveland Clinic’s explanation of PNH in one of her recent Substack posts:

Paroxysmal noctural hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare blood disorder that happens when part of your immune system attacks and damages red blood cells and platelets. Fewer than 20 years ago, PNH was a debilitating disease treated with blood transfusions. Even so, PNH put people at risk for serious and sometimes life-threatening illnesses. Most people lived 10 to 22 years after their diagnosis. But today, people with PNH receive innovative treatment that protects their blood cells and reduces their risk of serious illness. People with PNH can expect to live as long as someone who doesn’t have the disease.

In a Facebook video that Alexis Lorenze made and posted on September 15 and that Piper-Terry embedded in her aforementioned Substack article, Lorenze said she was diagnosed with PNH last January. She also said the blood disorder “was triggered by a cough syrup she was prescribed,” to quote Piper-Terry.

While there is no solid evidence corroborating or denying that a prescription cough medicine caused this rare disease, that explanation seems rather implausible. This raises the question as to how PNH is diagnosed in the first place.

PNH is generally diagnosed by examining blood cells to see if they lack the surface proteins that are characteristically absent in people with the disease. The examination is done in a laboratory test called flow cytometry.

The disease is primarily treated with medications that “block the activation of the complement system” in order to ease symptoms and reduce the risk of life-threatening complications.

There are currently six complement-blocking medications approved to treat PNH in the US. The Cleveland Clinic website lists the six:

• Soliris (eculizumab)
• Ultomiris (ravulizumab-cwvz)
• PiaSky (crovalimab-akkz)
• Empaveli (pegcetacoplan)
• Fabhalta (iptacopan)
• Voydeya (danicopan)

In her video, Lorenze said the hospital required that she take the meningitis vaccine in order to receive treatment for the PNH. She also alleged that doctors then ordered that she not only be given the vaccine for meningitis but also vaccinated against pneumonia and tetanus. She said the doctors coerced her into taking all three shots simultaneously. 

As there is currently no single tetanus shot, this means that if in fact she was given a shot for “tetanus,” the inoculation she most likely received was the three-in-one Tdap vaccine or the Td vaccine.

Speaking on camera, Lorenz and her family verified that within minutes of receiving the vaccines, she experienced severe adverse reactions. She lost vision in both her eyes. She experienced internal bleeding and numbness. She coughed up blood and shook uncontrollably. Meanwhile, painful dark purple patches quickly developed and spread across much of her body. Her family claimed that the entire time her condition was rapidly deteriorating, hospital staff delayed treatment for her adverse reactions.  

In a more recent report—which differs from what Alexis and her sister said they were told— registered nurse Angela Wulbrecht, who was brought in to advocate for the patient, said she was informed that “Alexis received the Meningococcal ACWY vaccine (This type of vaccine is a quadrivalent, meningococcal vaccine) the Meningococcal B vaccine, along with the Haemophilus B vaccine.”

News reports on her case have, understandably, focused on the possibility that Lorenze experienced vaccine damage. After all, there were already documented medical concerns about prescribing the meningitis vaccine to PNH patients.

Whichever exact vaccines were given, it should be noted that vaccines are not tested for how safe it is to co-administer them nor are they tested for how they interact when integrated with other drugs. Without a full assessment for combined or cumulative toxicities and possible reactogenicity, a comprehensive medical evaluation is unattainable.

However, it appears there may be more to this tragic story than simply an adverse—albeit massive—reaction to a series of vaccines.

Indeed, the most concerning question being asked is: Could other experimental drugs or treatments have been given to Lorenze? And, if so, could these drugs or treatments have caused or exacerbated her condition?

Of particular note is the fact that UCIMC attending physician Dr. Zahra Pakbaz is currently involved in a clinical trial for a new drug being promoted as “the first single oral therapy available for PNH.” 

That new drug is Novartis’ FABHALTA® (iptacopan). It received FDA fast track approval on August 8—roughly a month before Lorenze was admitted to the hospital. 

The risk profile for FABHALTA is suspect, though. The product’s own website warns, “It is not known if FABHALTA is safe and effective in children with PNH.”

Another notable feature of FABHALTA is that vaccinations against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitidis are “required at least 2 weeks before the first dose.” But, the website goes on to say, if you have not completed your vaccinations and FABHALTA must be started right away, “you should receive the required vaccinations as soon as possible.”

FABHALTA is no ordinary daily medication. Rather, it is the first of Novartis’ trio of IgA nephropathy (IgAN) drugs. Novartis projects FABHALTA is on course to be a blockbuster product. 

Analysts at the investment banking firm Jefferies seem to agree. They predicted that FABHALTA could hit $3.6 billion in peak annual sales “[i]f it gets approved for all its target indications, which along with PNH and IgAN include atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), C3 glomerulopathy (C3G), and idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN).”

Not only is FABHALTA expected to play a big role in Novartis’ financial portfolio, but it turns out that UCIMC’s Dr. Pakbaz plays a significant role in the drug’s marketability.

“Over a two-year span,” reports an article on Oncology Tube, “Pakbaz’s clinic, which served solely benign hematology patients, registered a significant demand that crossed various zip codes and cities.” 

The same article reported on a presentation Dr. Pakbaz gave at the March 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH). She described the advancements being made in benign hematology, highlighted the role that Non-Malignant Hematology Clinics play in enhancing patient outcomes, and spoke of “the remarkable potential of gene therapies to heal diseases that were once deemed incurable.” 

During her presentation, Dr. Pakbaz spent significant time touting the benefits of FABHALTA® (iptacopan) praising its performance compared to other similar drugs. 

Perhaps her promotion of Novartis’ prized cash cow merits further scrutiny. Not so long ago—July 2020, to be exact—Novartis paid out $678 million to settle a fraud lawsuit for operating sham speaker programs. It turns out the drug company had paid over $100 million to doctors to unlawfully induce them to prescribe Novartis drugs.

A recent article in The Defender cited a study published on September 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine which showed that “among 5,533 U.S. cardiology fellows, 73% received ‘industry marketing payments’ in the year before graduating and 88% received payments in the first few years after they graduated.”

Unfortunately, such conflicts of interest and questionable ethical behavior in the medical, scientific, and regulatory communities are all too common and have been widely documented.

In light of the many conflicts of interest that reside in doctors’ offices, university medical systems, regulatory bodies, and pharmaceutical companies, a few tough questions must be asked in the case of Dr. Pakbaz and the Novartis drug her clinic is testing:

(1) Is it possible Dr. Pakbaz was looking to shape diagnoses in order to create more subjects who would fit the objectives of the drug trials? 

(2) Is it possible that Alexis Lorenze was caught in a dragnet search for patients to participate in this trial? 

(3) Is it possible Lorenze was unwittingly involved in a clinical trial without her consent?

In an interview with Polly Tommey at CHD-TV, Lorenze’s sister, Samantha Lorenze, told Tommey that a nurse at the UCI hospital mentioned that Alexis had been given a different medication outside of the vaccine vials. The sister also alleged that hospital staff called Lorenze “a science experiment.”

In the online publication Intelligencer, Alexis Lorenze was quoted as saying, “When I learned of the cost of the treatment, Iptacopan ($47,000.00 per month), I expressed concern to the hospital staff that I couldn’t afford it, and then they pushed me to go home, even though my health was unstable.”

If this is true, the problem may well extend beyond the possibility that poor decisions are being made by members of the medical community. Indeed, it appears the problem is more deeply rooted, widespread, and systemic. Indeed, Lorenze’s advocate, Angela Wulbrecht, RN, characterizes the medical system as an enterprise that “caters to the perverse relationship doctors have with vaccine manufacturers that result in financial conflicts of interest at the expense of patients like Alexis.”

At present, there appear to be more questions than answers. What is immediately and desperately needed, in our opinion, is a fully independent investigation into potential hospital/doctor misconduct, including possible conflicts of interest.

Full disclosure must be made to the Lorenze family. That disclosure must include the timeline and the procedures involved in Alexis Lorenze’s diagnosis as well as all the medications and treatments she was given.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on Health Freedom Defense Fund.

Michael Bryant is a freelance journalist/activist and researcher who presently focuses primarily on issues surrounding health freedom. His work has appeared on HealthFreedomDefense.org. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

1960 was considered the “Year of Africa” as 18 colonial territories on the continent gained their national independence.

Mali was one of those states which declared its sovereignty from France under the leadership of President Modibo Keita, a Pan-Africanist who developed close ties with Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and President Ahmed Sekou Toure of Guinea-Conakry.

Following the steps made by Accra and Conakry in 1958, Mali aligned with the concepts of African unity when Keita joined these other West African states in forming the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union during 1960. These events represented a trend across Africa leading to the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on May 25, 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with 33 member-states.

Even though these developments represented a profound advancement from the eras of enslavement and colonialism, divisions arose in the early phase of the independence movement within individual states and between various governments over the direction of domestic and foreign policies. Some political parties and leaders sought a decisive break with the legacy of European domination and the burgeoning collective imperialism headed by the United States. At the same time others wanted to remain within the political orbit of the former colonial powers and Washington, D.C.

A series of military coups in Ghana, Mali, Guinea-Conakry and many other states ushered in a period of political instability and economic decline. The promise held out by the ascendancy of the Congolese National Movement (MNC) led by Patrice Lumumba in June 1960 soon dissolved as a result of the interference of the former Belgian colonial powers and the U.S. government under then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The State Department and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were unleashed to ensure that the ideals of genuine independence and sovereignty would not be realized.

Image: Goïta with American diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield in 2021 (From the Public Domain)

Malian Transitional President Assimi Goita delivered his 64th independence anniversary speech on September 21 saying that the security of the country is paramount during this period of its history. Just four days earlier, rebels carried out an attack outside the capital of Bamako at the international airport housing an Air Force base and a police training academy. Reports indicate that approximately 77 people died and 256 were injured in the operations. See this.

The rebel assault on the Malian airport was carried out by the Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wa al-Muslimeen (JNIM), a purportedly Islamist grouping which has been fighting the central government in Bamako for more than a decade. After the Pentagon and NATO-led destruction of Libya under Col. Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, instability spread throughout the entire North and West Africa regions. Similar rebel organizations which were utilized by the U.S. and its NATO allies in Libya to give the appearance of an internal counter-revolution, later surfaced in nearby states.

Under the guise of combating “Islamic terrorism”, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) along with the French Foreign Legion, which were labelled the Group of Five Sahel (G5 Sahel) and Operation Barkhane, escalated their deployment of troops into Mali and several West African states in the Sahel. However, since 2020, a series of military seizures of power began to reject imperialist military interventions claiming that their presence had only worsened the security crisis in these West African states including Burkina Faso and Niger as well.

The requested withdrawal of French and U.S. troops from Niger signaled a shift in geostrategic alliances in the West Africa region. Russian advisors from the Wagner Group, now known as the Africa Corps, have entered several Sahal countries where they are working with the military-led administrations to improve the security situations.

Mali Transitional President Assesses Status of the Country

Goita in his September 21 speech noted that there have been advances in eradicating the rebel groupings in Mali. A recent revelation regarding the role of the Washington-backed Ukrainian regime in assisting the insurgents prompted the breaking of diplomatic relations with Kiev.

In a report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the U.S. has allocated more than $175 billion to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian Special Military Operation in February 2022. Obviously, these funds are not only being utilized in Eastern Europe they are designed to undermine the Russian Federation both inside and outside the region.

Moscow has enhanced its relations with various African states on a bilateral level and through the Russia-Africa Summit. In response, the administration of President Joe Biden has sought to weaken the military capacity of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) and their Russian counterparts. The AES was formed during late 2023 as a means to guard against imperialist destabilization in the region. After the seizure of power by the Committee to Safeguard the Homeland (CNSP) military administration in Niger on July 26, 2023, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was pressured into threatening a military intervention to reinstall the French and U.S.-backed President Mohamed Bazoum. However, this plot did not materialize although the efforts to clandestinely overthrow the governments in Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali are ongoing.

In a Xinhua news agency report on the 64th anniversary of Malian independence address by Goita, its says that:

“Goita also took the opportunity to highlight the constant efforts of the Malian Armed Forces (FAMa) to secure the country in the face of the terrorist threat, and their professionalism in reclaiming strategic territories. ‘The armed and security forces have conducted stabilization and reconstruction operations in the reclaimed regions,’ he added. This year’s national holiday is being celebrated in a ‘context marked by the large-scale strategic operation to reclaim territory’ carried out by the FAMa, aimed at ‘restoring the country’s territorial integrity and permanently eliminating the terrorist threat, said Goita. The country’s defense and security forces have conducted ‘stabilization and reconstruction operations’ in the reclaimed regions, allowing for the gradual return of public services, schools, and essential infrastructure. These ‘remarkable successes’ are the result of the coordination of military operations and the redeployment of forces in five cities of Ber, Tessalit, Anefis, Kidal, and Aguelhoc.” 

These developments in Mali further reveal the role of imperialism in maintaining its dominance over the post-colonial African states. Therefore, AU member-states are justified in seeking allies which will assist them in guaranteeing their security, unity and national sovereignty.

U.S. Attempts to Deceive the AU in the Upcoming United Nations General Assembly

On the eve of the 79th United Nations General Assembly debates, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, made an announcement saying Washington would support the placing of two African states as permanent members of the Security Council. Nonetheless, these two AU member-states would not have veto power over the decisions made by the highest body of the organization.

In reality such a proposal coming from the U.S. is only a ploy to make it appear as if Washington and Wall Street have something to offer the African continent. The growing relations between the AU, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation has alarmed the imperialist states.

International institutions such as BRICS Plus and the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) are attempting to prefigure the future world system where multipolarity will overturn the unipolar domination of the U.S. and allied NATO governments. Africa with its vast natural resources and geostrategic significance is a major source of competition for total control by international finance capital.

This year’s UNGA will be the center of the continuing debate over the status and policies of the State of Israel. Since the last gathering the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed more than 41,000 people in the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands have been injured and displaced. No one living in Gaza remains safe from the atrocities being committed by the Zionist regime which is funded and diplomatically covered by the U.S.

Several of the African states will address the UNGA on behalf of their struggling and oppressed masses. They can easily make a case for not only veto power within the UN Security Council notwithstanding the necessity of ending the unequal distribution of economic and political power on a global scale.

The processes unfolding in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are reflective of the widening international class divisions which threatened the peace and security of the entire planet. These escalating attacks in Mali must be viewed within the same geopolitical context as the Israeli military strikes against the people of Lebanon who are in solidarity with the Palestinians.

U.S. imperialism is clearly behind the expansion of the wars in West Asia and in West Africa. Both geopolitical regions are populated by hundreds of millions seeking to win total liberation which would definitely portend much for the inevitable decline in western hegemony.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

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

On Tuesday the dementia-addled meat puppet who is still officially the President of the United States told the UN that he is working to bring a “greater measure of peace and stability to the middle east,” even as the US government pumps weapons into Israel so that it can continue its bloody massacres in Lebanon and Gaza.

On Wednesday Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told the press that “we don’t want to see this escalate” in Lebanon and that the US is working to “avoid a regional war”.

Only an idiot would believe these claims. They are self-evidently false. Nobody who seeks peace finds themselves in a constant state of war. This is true of Israel, and it is true of the US-centralized empire as a whole.

Biden Claims He’s Working for Peace in the Middle East But Continues to Back Israel
Biden made the claim in a speech at the UN General Assembly
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Biden #Gaza #Israel #Palestinians #UNGA79 #UNGA #MiddleEast https://t.co/uXCqVl8csk pic.twitter.com/lBcfUGrd5K

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) September 24, 2024

It is obviously false to say the US seeks peace in the middle east, but it’s not really accurate to say it seeks war either. To me that would be like saying water seeks wetness or fire seeks heat. War is just what the US empire is made of. It’s the thing that it is.

Everything about the US-centralized power structure is pointed at continuous military expansionism and mass military violence. Once you’ve decided that it’s your job to try to bring the entire population of your whole planet under the rule of a single power umbrella at any cost, you’ve accepted that you will be using violent force in perpetuity, because that’s the only way to subdue populations who have no interest in such an arrangement. You might tell yourself that you want peace, and at times you might even actively try to avoid war, but everything about the way you’ve arranged your operation makes war inevitable.

This is the kind of environment that western empire managers spend their careers being groomed into accepting as normal. So they might actually believe they are telling the truth when they say their government wants peace, but this is the same as a fire saying it’s doing everything it can to cool down the firewood.

It is the fire’s nature to burn, and it is the US empire’s nature to make war. War is interwoven into every fiber of its existence. It’s written into every part of its code. As soon as the mass-scale use of violence ends, the globe-spanning power structure that’s loosely centralized around Washington will end. War is the glue that holds that power structure together.

Look at this graph to see how Gaza has changed everything.

Israel is emboldened to carry out indiscriminate slaughter in Lebanon after almost a year of live-streamed genocide—backed fully by the U.S.—with zero consequences. pic.twitter.com/plhTU0oU8Z

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) September 25, 2024

Both the mainstream “progressivism” of Bernie Sanders and the right wing “populism” of Donald Trump try in their own ways to argue for a kinder, gentler empire which avoids unnecessary conflicts and abuses, but these arguments are deceptions in and of themselves, because the empire is made of conflict and abuse.

The less war, militarism, economic strangulation and proxy interventionism there is, the less US empire there is. The empire can’t roll back its violence any more than a shark can swim backwards. The only way to end the forward movement of a shark is to end its life.

The wars will not end until the US empire itself ends. This doesn’t mean ending the US as a country, it means ending the globe-spanning power structure comprised of allies, assets and subjects that’s held together by endless violence. Every foreign policy official in Washington, London, Paris and Canberra has been groomed to view this as the worst possible outcome and to avoid it at all cost, and to spend their careers fiendishly dedicated to the project of ensuring that the fire keeps burning and the shark keeps moving forward. Only ordinary members of the public with normal healthy human values will ever be able to see this.

The problem isn’t that western officials keep making bad individual decisions at each individual juncture in foreign conflicts of interest, the problem is that the existence of the western empire guarantees foreign conflicts of interest, and ensures that violent force will be used to control their outcomes.

At some point in the future "They're bluffing, cross that red line" is going to be one step too far. If we continue along this trajectory, at some point Russia is going to do something horrifying to re-establish credible deterrence. The question we need to ask is: is it worth it? https://t.co/SVJV2ACN9m

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 26, 2024

Those who support the US empire will occasionally look back on history and acknowledge that in hindsight there were some bad individual decisions made with regard to Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, but they’ll never admit there is an innately murderous structure in place that guarantees Vietnams and Iraqs will continue to happen in the future. But that is the reality, and you’ll never hear it acknowledged in the state propaganda services known as the mainstream western press.

Our rulers are too far absorbed into the imperial machine to recognize this as true, so you will reliably hear them babbling about seeking peace and avoiding civilian suffering — even as they take steps ensuring that peace will not happen and civilians continue to suffer. These are the only moves they can see on the chessboard. The options that would lead to real peace are not even recognized as legal moves in the game. So they keep moving the pieces around in accordance with the rules of empire, and saying “Oh how sad” when families are incinerated and children are ripped to shreds, but saying that it was the only move available on the board.

Our world is on fire, and the US-centralized empire is the flame. We ordinary people must find some way to extinguish it, before it torches us all.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Is the US Convinced That We Can Win a Nuclear War?

In an article published at the Quincy Institute entitled “Reflection on Nuclear War, Biden’s new nuclear strategy and the super-fuse that activates it,” MIT Dr. Theodore Postol states that

“It is now possible, at least according to nuclear war fighting strategies, that the US will attack the more than 300 silo-based ICBMs that China has been building since about 2020 with the copious number of 100 kt Trident II W-76 warheads available. The rapid expansion of the W-76’s 100 kt hard-target killing capability also makes it possible for the United States to simultaneously attack the approximately 300 Russian ICBM based in silos”.

So, “the superwarheads now being loaded into US missiles would be specifically designed for a simultaneous, first-strike, lightning nuclear attack on Russia, China and North Korea, to eliminate its capacity for retaliation and thus win a Third World War and then take control of the entire world”, to proceed then to the implementation of the New World Order following the doctrine of Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

According to Hal Turner Radio Show, the 101^st US Airborne Division has been flown to Europe.

At least four C-17 Air Force cargo planes landed on a Cyprus UK military base, meaning the operation is a NATO operation. It is suspected and highly likely that they are preparing to fight with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) against Hezbollah, the intensification of a tacit but ever ongoing war since 2006.

See this for more details: 

Hal Turner Radio Show – 101st Airborne Division of U.S. Army Arrives in Middle East.

If NATO troops were to fight alongside IDF against Hezbollah – basically Lebanon’s Defense Forces, European NATO members would become involved in the conflict.

If NATO supports Israel, Iran would likely side with Hezbollah, and enter the war.

If Iran were to become involved in the war – Iran being a BRICS-plus member, a close ally of Russia and China, would these two superpowers engage or stay out of the conflict?

It could become a multi-party proxy war, with the proxies of Palestine, Lebanon / Hezbollah, and Ukraine, i.e., the forces of US/NATO and IDF, against Russia, China and Iran.

If so, would it go nuclear?

Chances are it would, but maybe not in the traditional sense of mass destruction atomic bombs à la Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but rather a tactical nuclear war, where strategic military, finance and political decision-making centers might be targeted.

But to be sure, no western country would be spared, with Europe again in the center. But this time the hegemon’s illusion of protection since between two shining seas would not work.

To add to these speculations, the recent pager explosions in Lebanon, killing hundreds and injuring thousands, may have been the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Though no proof has been established yet, there is hardly a doubt that Zionist-Israel / Mossad are behind the crime.

The same who have been decimating and starving the Palestinians of Gaza – and more recently also the Palestinians of the West Bank — for almost a year, who have bombed hospitals and refugee camps, who have killed tens of thousands of children and women, who have bombed hospitals and refugee camps, who have raped prisoners, and when chastised, rioted for the right to rape prisoners.

They are the same, who are on trial at the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity, genocide, and who have otherwise breached, on camera, any number of the so-called red lines of international humanitarian law.

This week is also the 2^nd anniversary of the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline – likely attributed to US / UK Secret Services. It was the final straw for Europe’s economic suicide – led by Germany’s Chancellor in cohort with the unelected President of the European Council.

See “Going Underground” video below.

Also, simultaneously, the IDF is calling up reservists, officially to strengthen Israel’s northern border against Hezbollah – or maybe to strengthen the IDF-NATO troops in preparation of the suspected war against Hezbollah-Iran? See this.

And coincidentally – as if there were any coincidences – members of US Congress are debating but have yet to come to an agreement on how to deal with mass casualties, to replace Congress people “killed in conflict” without waiting for an election. See this.

Lots of indices for an all-out war.

If such a conflict or war would break out, US President Biden could call for a State of Emergency, suspend the Constitution and cancel the planned Presidential Elections on 5 November 2024.

And what better opportunity for the UN, after just having passed the Pact for the Future – to declare a One World Government with an all-digitized control mechanism for the survivors; a tyranny with WHO as the new GESTAPO, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the policy czar, naturally all ordered by the “invisibles”: the financial, IT and social media billionaires block.

We are not there yet.

There is hope. People are waking up – and the sense of resistance, as in “together we can”, is growing.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

The irresponsible policy of aid to Ukraine is hurting Europe in every possible way. It is not only the arms shipments that are causing harm to EU nations, but also the current trade rules that prioritize Ukrainian products in order to expand “economic cooperation” with Kiev. Farmers’ dissatisfaction is only going to get worse and worse, paving the way for a major crisis in the future.

Bulgaria has begun to show its dissatisfaction with the EU’s pro-Ukrainian trade policies. The country’s government has asked the European Commission to adopt a new resolution proposing to ban Ukrainian chicken eggs from the European market. The measure is intended to protect the European market from cheap Ukrainian products, ensuring the participation of native farmers in the commercial competition.

Bulgarian Agriculture Minister Georgi Tahov said during a meeting with the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels that Bulgarian farmers are having severe difficulties competing with Ukrainian products, as the latter have “invaded” the European market at low prices and in massive quantities. This not only jeopardizes the economic stability of the Bulgarian agricultural sector, but also threatens to bankrupt thousands of farmers, leading to unemployment and social crises.

Ukrainian eggs are causing controversy and are a particularly sensitive topic in the current European scenario. Egg production is one of the main activities of Bulgarian farmers, who have always had strong support from the state and the local market to maintain stable production levels. However, since the beginning of the special military operation, the EU has adopted an irresponsible policy of easy import of Ukrainian products with the alleged aim of boosting Kiev’s economy. As a result, Ukrainian eggs, which are 30% cheaper than Bulgarian ones, have simply “invaded” the European market.

Ukraine exported more than 2,600 tons of eggs in the first half of 2024 alone. This figure is already five times higher than in the corresponding period last year, and an even greater rise is expected for the coming months. As a result, Bulgarian poultry producers are going bankrupt, and a big number of farmers are abandoning their activities due to lack of profit.

“[This situation] puts serious pressure on prices on the domestic market (…) We firmly support the people of Ukraine, but this should in no way cause bankruptcies and violate the rights of our farmers,” the Bulgarian minister said.

This is not the first time that demands have been made for changes in European import policy for Ukrainian goods. Since 2022, there has been strong pressure from European farmers to review the rules that facilitate the purchase of Ukrainian food products. Just as the Bulgarian egg sector is being affected, producers of grains, meat, milk and other items are going bankrupt in several European countries. The crisis affects countries from the most eastern areas, such as Poland and Bulgaria, to the most Western, such as the Netherlands, Germany and France. Farmers across the entire European continent are suffering from the EU’s irresponsible attitude of favoring Ukraine.

The strong protests by farmers have led to expectations of changes in the trade situation. A report published by the Financial Times in June predicted that the bloc would resume tax obligations on Ukrainian products. However, the current tax exemption rules will remain in place until at least the second half of next year – which is enough time to bankrupt thousands of European farmers.

In the same vein, it is unlikely that the European Commission will approve the Bulgarian request, given that most European officials are currently in favor of maintaining all policies supporting Ukraine, no matter how irresponsible they are. For the EU, the impact of anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian policies on European citizens is not important. The only thing that really matters is maintaining the levels of aid to Kiev, regardless of the consequences.

It must also be emphasized that this process is a real “ticking timebomb” for the entire European food stability.

While European farmers are going bankrupt to favor Ukrainian agribusiness, Ukrainian arable land itself is being handed over to Western private investment funds, such as Blackrock, as a method of payment for NATO’s billion-dollar support. In a few years, Europe will not be able to count on either its own production or Ukrainian products, entering a major supply crisis and dependence on imports – while having to impose sanctions that limit imports.

Consciously or not, EU decision-makers are creating a problem that will not be solved so easily.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

The United States and its allies are increasingly concerned about the speed and intensity with which Iran, China, Russia and North Korea are deepening ties to challenge American dominance despite facing some of the most sweeping sanctions the West has ever imposed, Bloomberg writes. The agency’s analysis comes after interviewing officials who asked not to be identified, as the discussion of the topic is not public.

The challenge fits a pattern that experts — and increasingly, US and allied officials — see as the growing struggle Washington faces as it continues pursuing what it wants worldwide. Sources say there are numerous examples of such difficulties.

Officials cited the situation in Venezuela, where Caracas has ignored months of electoral pressure, while also pointing to the Washington-led naval coalition in the Red Sea, which has so far failed to slow Houthi attacks on commercial ships. The US and its allies have been driven out of bases in Africa as China and Russia expand their reach, and in the South China Sea, Beijing has become more aggressive over waters it claims.

Then, the outlet writes, there are the allies. In one example, Washington finds itself unable to persuade Israel to a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.

“US influence is waning, and it’s waning rapidly,” said Mr Martin Kimani, former Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations and director of New York University’s Centre on International Cooperation. “There are rising powers that want to assert themselves more within the multilateral space – from China to others – and the Global South increasingly has a voice.”

The newspaper writes that that’s the reality US President Joe Biden faces as he joins more than 140 other world leaders in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting.

About 40 nations that voted to condemn Russia over its operation in Ukraine last year decided to abstain on a similar motion in July.

Most of the countries have been vocal in the Palestinian cause, including Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Washington’s strong support for Israel’s war against Hamas is draining its diplomatic currency, Kimani said. US pressure for a ceasefire has yielded little results despite the regular trips to the region by senior government officials.

Officials from BRICS, which has grown to nine members, including some US allies, are meeting in New York this week. More countries are applying to join the grouping, which is explicitly called to create an alternative centre of global influence to the dominance of the US dollar.

Countries outside the orbits of the US and its rivals “are seeing this new node of power emerging. It probably contributes to them staying in between both poles, contributing to a multipolarity in the world,” said Ms Nadia Schadlow, a former top official in the administration of Donald Trump and now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “The US now has to manage that more effectively, which is hard.”

Wave after wave of sanctions have failed to halt trade. According to the Hudson Institute, as cited by Bloomberg, China is finding ways to supply Russia with 90 percent of the chips it needs to make missiles, tanks and aircraft. At the same time, the outlet points out that even as the US has rekindled ties with allies to support Ukraine, it is also increasingly difficult to get European allies to participate with additional sets of measures against heavily sanctioned countries.

Italy, for example, has yet to agree to implement sanctions on Iran Air despite being pressed by the US in response to its alleged shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia, according to a senior diplomat familiar with the matter.

While Brussels has taken a tougher line on China, heavier sanctions in response to aid to Moscow could be challenging to agree on, given that European companies have deep business ties there.

Russia and China’s alignment with North Korea and Iran “is of a completely profoundly different quality to the type of relationship that we have,” Mr Richard Moore, head of Britain’s MI6 Secret Intelligence Service, said in early September, speaking of British collaboration with the US and Europe.

“The thing that’s driving it – the cooperation between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – is not based on shared values,” he said. “It’s on a sort of rather dark and more pragmatic basis.”

Eurostat data showed that trade between Russia and the European Union increased in July 2024 for the first time since November 2023, exceeding €6 billion. Effectively, the EU’s collective economy cannot survive being cut off from Moscow, and this is seen in the fact that industries and companies are collapsing since the imposing of reckless anti-Russia sanctions. Nonetheless, this is also something the US is now beginning to experience after being initially immune to the effects of sanctions on Russia, unlike the EU, which was immediately impacted after their imposition.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from belfercenter.org

As the Ukraine crisis continues to escalate and the possibility of a direct confrontation between Russia and USA/NATO also increases, it is important that some facts not generally raised in western mass media should be more widely known in the west and also internationally. 

The controversy over Ukraine’s membership of NATO has been perhaps the most important issue leading up to the present crisis. Hence it should be better known that an important understanding reached between Gorbachev and Bush around 1990 was that the USA will not expand NATO membership eastwards close to Russian borders. Jack F. Matlock, then US ambassador to the Soviet Union and a leading expert on Soviet policy for years, had a ringside view of crucial talks. He has stated (February 15 2022 , Responsible Statecraft),

“Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO’s jurisdiction to the east, not one inch.”  

However the USA soon started moving away from such assurances. 1997 was a landmark year in this context. On June 26 1997 as many as 50 prominent foreign policy experts, including former senators, retired military officers, diplomats and academicians sent an open letter to President Clinton, outlining their opposition to NATO expansion (See full statement at Arms Control Association, Opposition to NATO Expansion). They wrote,

“We, the undersigned, believe that the current US led effort to expand NATO, … is a policy error of historic proportions. In Russia NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the non-democratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post- cold war settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties.”

This letter of 50 experts concluded—

“We strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are explored.” The alternatives suggested by these experts included “supporting a NATO-Russia relationship.”

Around the same time in 1997 Ambassador Matlock was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stated that NATO expansion would be the most strategic blunder since the end of the Cold War.

Ignoring such sage advice of ensuring peace, the US government went ahead with several waves of adding new NATO members. At the same time, the USA was also withdrawing from important arms control treaties. During Yeltsin leadership years of Russia, the USA used its strong position to push economic policies which impoverished a large number of Russians, leading even to a steep fall in life expectancy. The hopes of many Russians for economic help and accommodation of essential security concerns were neglected.  In 2014 the USA intervened decisively in Ukraine, playing an important role in instigating a coup installing an anti-Russian regime. 

In 2019 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a study titled ‘30 Years of US Policy Toward Russia—Can the Vicious Circle be Broken’ which expressed regret at the many problems created by hostile US policy. To break the impasse, the study concluded, the USA will have to–for its part—make several key adjustments to its Russia policy, including halting NATO expansion eastward, clarifying to Ukraine and Georgia that they should not base their foreign policy on the assumption that they will be joining NATO ( while establishing robust security cooperation in other ways), reviewing and restraining sanctions policy towards Russia and leaving Russia’s internal affairs to itself ( not interfering in them).

Such suggestions were ignored by US policy makers who continued to indulge in provocations. Just before war broke out, Matlock posed a question (see Responsible Statecraft, 15 February 2022—I was there—NATO and the origins of the Ukraine Crisis)—Was the crisis avoidable? His answer was –Yes. He explained,

“Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there could have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.”

In 2008 when the USA promoted the issue of Ukraine’s membership of NATO at the NATO summit at Bucharest, the leaders of two leading European countries present there, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Sarkozy of France had opposed this but they were pressurized to accept the USA position. 

In Ukraine several opinion polls during 1991 to 2014 had revealed that the overwhelming majority of the people of Ukraine did not support the membership of NATO. This was admitted even in NATO documents.

Before the coup in 2014, there was a broad agreement among the leaders of the ruling party and most opposition leaders of Ukraine that a policy of neutrality is much better and NATO membership should be avoided.

These facts should be widely known so that more people realize that the agenda of NATO membership was imposed by some aggressive leaders of the USA against the advice of leaders and senior experts and diplomats who value peace. 

Another question is why this agenda of NATO membership for Ukraine was pushed so much by aggressive leaders of the USA. Initially it was to encircle Russia with hostile countries and place highly destructive weapons very close to its borders. However eventually this led to engaging Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia, with all the destructive results.

If these facts are more widely realized, hopefully this can help to get more support for a policy of de-escalation and peace which gives up the insistence on NATO membership of Ukraine and thereby one of the main hurdles in the path of peace is removed.  

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Protecting Earth for Children. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SERGEI SUPINSKY/Sputnik

After several years of mounting fierce criticisms over the operations and performance of International Monetary Fund [IMF] and consistently advocated for its structural reforms, Russia has reversed its position to get back into and strengthen its position with this “reputable” multilateral financial organization. With the current geopolitical shift which is reshaping the world’s economic architecture, Russia has been [re]prioritising its association by a fresh announcement over an appointment of a representative with IMF.

In February 2024, the International Monetary Fund [IMF] endorsed Russia’s macroeconomic programmes, further describing it as admirable steps, and primarily with pivotal development initiatives which is integral to its broader strategy for transforming an ambitious modern economy. In fact, IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, upgraded the forecast for Russia’s growth. Reports have also indicated that Russia was on the right pathway to achieve more to maintain its 4th position on the rankings. The IMF doubled its forecast for Russian growth in 2024, boosting its prediction from 1.1% to 2.6% in January. And that marks the biggest jump for the former Soviet republic, Russia.

But on the other hand, Russian economic conditions are starting to look more and more like the country’s 20th-century predecessor, where high production levels clashed with weak demand.

“That is pretty much what the Soviet Union used to look like,” Kristalina Ivanova Georgieva-Kinova, who is a Bulgarian economist serving as the 12th managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2019, said at the World Governments Summit in Dubai. “High level of production, low level of consumption. I actually think that the Russian economy is [in] for very tough times, because of the outflow of people and because of the reduced access to technology that comes with the sanctions.”

Recognizing the importance of multinationals, in late September 2024, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, by signing an executive order, instructed Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who is International Monetary Fund Governor for the Russian Federation, to nominate Ksenia Yudaeva for election as Russia’s Executive Director at the IMF. Without doubts, the sanctioned former central banker will now become Russia’s IMF representative.

Local Russian media reported that Yudaeva, a former Central Bank of Russia first deputy governor, could become Russia’s Executive Director at the IMF. It further said Alexei Mozhin had been Russia’s permanent representative at the IMF since the 1990s. Back in 1991, when Yegor Gaidar led the government, he headed a new department for liaison with international financial organizations, and he became Russia’s Executive Director at the IMF in 1996. Data shows that Russia joined the IMF on June 1, 1992.

Mozhin has served as the Dean of the IMF Executive Board since 2014 as the Fund’s oldest active member. This status carries with it certain functions, for example, the Dean makes announcements on behalf of the board on the selection and appointment of the IMF Managing Director. The IMF Board of Governors suspended the role of Dean in March 2022, in connection with the events in Ukraine.

In a related development in establishing working relationship between Russia and the IMF, the September 2024 media briefing of the IMF report indicated that Article IV Consultations with Russia would resume in line with the obligations and would hold bilateral discussions with the Russian authorities. This would include meeting with a number of different stakeholders to discuss the country’s economic developments, prospects, and policies.

During the upcoming visit to Russia, there are arrangements to meet with Ksenia Yudaeva, the next Executive Director from Russia in the IMF. “Actually, in the case of Russia, since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the economic situation has been exceptionally unsettled, which has made it difficult to anchor Article IV Consultations, especially thinking about the outlook and policy frameworks for both the near- and the medium-term.  Now that the economic situation is more settled, Article IV Consultations with Russia are resuming, in line with the obligations of both the Fund and the member country,” Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department, IMF, told the media briefing on September 12, 2024.

Quite a bit in the past time, Russia’s made an irreversible decision to suspend its membership and future participation in a number of multinational organizations and institutions, and highly disparaging them instead of mutually cooperating on needed reforms within the context of the emerging multipolar system. With the dominance of United States and its concept of democracy, Russia has also spearheaded the formation of the anti-western antagonistic tendencies and trends across the world. The world largely now drawn into either for creating an interactive, a fairer multipolar world or the group against western hegemony.

Reports monitored by this author indicated that Russia has already exited, following the historic fall of the Soviet era, from international organizations and multinational institutions. It has urged many leaders in Latin America, Asia and Africa to vehemently oppose conservative western-style rules-based order and hegemony. Remarkable, during these past few years, many countries from these regions are increasingly showing diverse interests in joining BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), an informal association with a virtual secretariat, attempting to institutionalize South-South cooperation and taking radical steps entirely working towards improving the situation in the Global South.

BRICS+ established its New Development Bank in 2015, as an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank. Its primary aim is to compete with these multinational financial institutions, offer interest-free loans and invest heavily in developing countries. At the 6th BRICS summit in July 2014 the BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) announced the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of $100 billion, a framework to provide liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance-of-payments pressures. It is yet to measure or assess the visible impact it has made since its establishment in 2015.

The IMF works to stabilize and foster the economies of its member countries by its use of the fund, as well as other activities such as gathering and analyzing economic statistics and surveillance of its members’ economies. The recurrent challenge has been to promote and implement a policy that reduced the frequency of crises among emerging market countries, especially the middle-income countries which are vulnerable to massive capital outflows. It supported Russia during the 1998 Russian financial crisis, from spreading and threatening the entire global financial and currency system. According to official reports, four emerging market countries (Brazil, China, India, and Russia) are among the ten largest members of the IMF. Other top 10 members are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. First published in June 2024. 

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

On June 6, 2024, the leaders of North America and Western Europe flocked to the beaches of Normandy, France to pay tribute to the historic battle fought between the allied forces and the Nazis for control of France and to eventually overthrow the Nazis.

This battle took its toll, but the Allies emerged victorious. However, at the ceremonies, no mention whatsoever was extended to the role of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, in which the casualty rate was far greater, the Nazi presence far greater, and the victory a key to the success in the West. In fact, the only reference to Russia was in State leader’s speeches equating Vladmir Putin to the next Adolf Hitler!

The facts of the defeat of Germany mainly at the hands of the Soviet Union are laid out in a conversation with Canadian-Belgian historian Jacques Pauwels in the recent episode of the Global Research News Hour.

Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His books include The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015), Big Business and Hitler (2017), and Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events (2022).

The following incisive interview with Michael Welch was recorded on June 25, 2024.

Global Research: You must have caught some of the footage of earlier this month of D-Day.

What struck you most about what was said and what was not said during the day of festivities 80 years later?

Jacques Pauwels: Well, Michael, I’ve been to Normandy quite a few times. And I’ve actually was there in 1995. And it was then the 40th, the 50th anniversary of the landings in Normandy.

And it’s quite, of course, a moving experience to be there as all these World War commemorations tend to be. One cannot help being impressed. And I have always had an ambivalent feeling about that, because on the one hand, it is only fair to recognize the efforts of the men and some women also that sacrificed themselves over there.

And I by no means would want to underestimate the importance and the valor of everybody involved, as well as the planning of the operation. A big bravo is indeed due. So I have no problem with honoring the men and women that were involved in this operation.

And I certainly wouldn’t recognize that it ended up the landings in Normandy did make a contribution to the victory by a coalition of countries that all needed to put in a very, very big effort to defeat that huge military monster that Nazi Germany happened to be. Because there’s no doubt about that in the early 40s, and from 1939 on to 1944, approximately, Nazi Germany was the biggest, the most powerful military machine in the world. And to defeat that machine took an effort by all the allies, every little effort counted.

So there’s no way that we can or should possibly underestimate what happened. Having said that, it’s also sad, I found, as the other side of the coin, that these celebrations have been manipulated, I should say, by the powers that be that organized them, and that are basically providing the big speakers over there, you know, to minimize, if not obfuscate, the efforts of the most important of all the members of the coalition, which was the Soviet Union, and of which, of course, Russia is today the successor country. And it is undoubtedly the case, as I as an historian have learned over the years, having been brought up in a country, Belgium, where we also believe that the landings of Normandy made all the difference.

I have learned through my long studies about the First, Second World War, and the First World War too, that the biggest contribution in the victory against Nazism was made by the Soviet Union. By the many countries of the Soviet Union, and we should not say the Russians, because the Ukrainians, the Estonians, the Latvians, the Kazakhs, you know, the Uzbeks, you know, they were all there as parts of this country, this multinational state called the Soviet Union. So the Soviet Union basically made by far the biggest contribution, and by far the greatest sacrifices.

And it’s fair to say that the war was decided on the Eastern Front, not the Eastern Bank, on the Eastern Front, and not in Normandy.

GR: Yeah. So could you maybe just talk about, like, we’ve heard so much about, you know, the D-Day, and all the sacrifices, and certainly, you know, hard fought and everything.

Could you tell us a little bit, you know, just to kind of complete the list of some of, just briefly, if you can, about some of the epic battles fought by the Russians, or, you know, in defense of the land from the Nazis. Just briefly.

JP: Well, when you compare the magnitude of the battles that followed, or started with D-Day, which is generally called the Battle of Normandy, which lasted from the D-Day itself, June 6, 1944, until the end of August, you know, so there was quite a few months of fighting.

That battle, that was a big battle, but it was not nearly as big a battle, for example, as the Battle of Stalingrad, which was a much bigger battle involving many, many more men on both sides, and enormously higher casualties on both sides. And as such, that in terms of the big battle, Normandy was, in fact, not the big battle of the war. But more importantly, there were another, there was even another battle on the Eastern Front that was actually just as big as Normandy, and was really the turning point of the war.

And that was not even Stalingrad, which was fought between, from the September 1942 to early February 1943. But I mean the Battle of Moscow, which was already fought in late 1941. In fact, it, the big offensive that was launched then by the Red Army against the invading German army was launched on December 5. And that day, the Germans had to withdraw many kilometers and give up their idea of a quick and easy victory in the Soviet Union, which they had planned and foreseen and predicted and confidently expected when they started the war against the Soviet Union on the 22nd of June 1941.

So that battle, really, that was the turning of the tide, and not Normandy. So if you consider that, that was in late 1941. And that is actually years before the landings of Normandy, you know.

And actually, interestingly enough, it was already a done deal. And on the 5th of December 1941, Hitler’s generals reported to him that he could no longer win the war. And that was even before the United States became involved in the war.

And that was when only Britain really was fighting in the West, because France had been knocked out. Belgium and the Netherlands had been knocked out. Greece and Yugoslavia had been knocked out.

Germany was the mistress of Europe, essentially. And it looked, when they invaded the Soviet Union, that that was going to be only a matter of about a couple of months before that victory there would be achieved. And that would have been basically pretty well the end of the war.

Because, and this is important to remember, had the Nazis, or had the Soviets, had the Red Army not managed to stop the German advance in front of Moscow, you know, very close, very close to victory, so to speak, in December 1941, you know. And had the Nazis been able to take Moscow, and had they defeated the Soviet Union, as was expected not only in Berlin, but also in London and in Washington, where the experts predicted that the German army would go to the Red Army like a warm knife through butter, had the success of the Nazis constantly expected, and that pretty well the whole world expected, had it been achieved, you know. And that would have meant that the Soviet, that Nazi Germany would have had at its disposal the huge resources of the Soviet Union, including, for example, the rich agricultural land of the Ukraine and the petroleum of the Caucasus.

And in that case, there would never have been a landing in Normandy, because that would have meant that in 1944, when the Allies would have tried to land, they would have faced not less than 10 percent of the German army, as was the case in June 1944, you know. And hardly any Luftwaffe airplanes in the sky, because of a total dramatic lack of fuel. So if indeed Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, would have been successful, there would never have been a landing in Normandy.

GR: Yeah.

JP: That is really one way, that one thing that is never mentioned, of course, that is simply totally forgotten, totally ignored, because, of course, Russia today, as in the case of the Soviet Union before, is not a country that we love a lot. We have reasons of our own, you know, in the West to not like them, and therefore, in fact, to minimize their contribution. And in fact, it’s fair to say that when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1944, that many leaders of Great Britain, for example, in the United States were hoping that the Nazis would destroy the Soviet Union, because that was something that they had actually hoped that Hitler would do from the very start.

GR: Yeah, I’m just going to mention, I mean, first of all, when Barbarossa was coming to a close after fighting for about six months, and they were, the Russians, the Soviets were quite forceful. And then there was the attack by Japan on, well, the so-called attack on Pearl Harbor. So, I guess the Germans, like, as you related last time, in our previous conversation, it was Germany that launched, they said they were at war with the United States.

That kind of threw the United States off balance. And so, it was back in 1941, that the United States was allied with, you know, France and England and so on. And so, I was just going to get to the point where, you know, why wait for so long before you actually open up a second front, like almost three years before they opened up that second front, which proved to be the Operation Overlord, which and then the Normandy situation D-Day that sort of led to the end of…

JP: Well, what’s happened is that when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, and there was only one country really that still was fighting Nazi Germany, that was Britain, because the United States was not involved in the war yet, it was neutral.

Now, some people say, well, they sympathize with Britain, and they supply them with weapons and all that stuff. That’s all very, very true. In fact, they made a lot of money in the process.

And that’s what wars sometimes are all about. Not only sometimes, but very often, all about. But the United States had no desire to go to war with Nazi Germany.

In many ways, they sympathize with them. They had nothing against fascism. They had nothing against the German variety of fascism, which we call Nazism.

In fact, many members of the British and the American elite liked Nazism and fascism a lot. They were fellow fascists, as the right term goes. Because the reason being, the fascists were anti-communists, anti-socialists.

They were fascist systems, were capitalist systems. And as such, the capitalist elite of Britain and of the United States much preferred a fascist capitalist system to a socialist, communist, non-capitalist, anti-capitalist system. Especially since the Soviet Union, and this is extremely important and too often neglected in our history books, since the Soviet Union was the champion of the countries that were colonized by Western countries.

The Soviet Union, ever since it was set up, even before it was officially set up, under Lenin already, revolutionary Russia, before the Soviet Union officially came to be as a state, they supported the struggle of countries in the colonies against their colonial masters. And they did so big time. And in fact, it’s fair to say that many countries in Africa and Asia, owe their independence, managed to become independent from Western countries, thanks to help they got from the Soviet Union.

We know, for example, that the Soviets helped the Vietnamese to win the American war, as they call it, right? And we know that, for example, today, in many countries like Africa, especially South Africa, that they refuse to go along with sanctions against Russia, because they say, when we were fighting Apartheid, who was on our side and who was against us? You, the West, you helped the Apartheid system. And we were supported by the Soviet Union, which is basically the predecessor of the Russian. So we are still grateful to the Soviet Union, now Russia, and we still suspect, you know, that we don’t know that grateful, we have no reason to be grateful to you, because you were on the side of our oppressors.

So don’t expect us today to join you in your problems that you may have with Russia. We’re not on that side. And that is the result of that.

But to go back to what your question then, the United States was not involved in the war, even when the Soviet Union attacked, sorry, when the Soviet Union was attacked by Germany. And in the United States, many members of the elite, meaning the political and of course, the economic elite, were looking forward to the destruction of the Soviet Union at the hands of the Nazis. That didn’t quite work out.

Many of them would have been disappointed that the Nazis actually were beaten back by the Soviets. But at that stage, the United States still had no desire to get involved in a war with Germany. But they did have a desire, they did plan a war against Japan.

And they actually, you might say, arranged for Pearl Harbor to be attacked. You know, it was basically a provocation, you know, and that led to war with Japan, a war that was expected, that was wanted, and that was planned. Plans existed for war against Japan.

And by the way, these plans reflected a racist attitude, totally underestimating the Japanese. The Americans thought the war against Japan would be very, very easy, would take a few months, it would be game over, you know. And by the way, why that is, I don’t have time to explain now, I want to go back to the problem of Germany.

But against Germany, in the United States, there were no plans whatsoever for warfare against Nazi Germany. The United States in 1941 had plans for war against three countries. And I’m not making this up.

You know, I can give you the sources if you want to. There’s been studies of that. And this is a secret, it’s a known fact, but you’ll never hear about it in our media.

It’s a fact that the United States in 1941 had plans for war against Japan, Mexico, against which previous wars had produced big wins, like for example, big gains like California, Arizona, New Mexico, big chunks of Texas in the 1840s, mind you, a long time ago. But the plans were still there. And the third set of plans for warfare were against Great Britain and Canada, including actually attacks, the plans for warfare against attacks in Britain, basically foresaw bombings from the air of Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver, right? And by the way, with poison gas.

And these plans existed. And against Nazi Germany in 1941, the plans for Nazi Germany did not exist. There weren’t any.

Now, when you have plans to fight a country, as the United States did, plans for war against Mexico and against Britain, it doesn’t mean that you want to have that war right now. But it means that you’re taking it into account as a possibility. But if you have no plans whatsoever, it means that you have no desire to go to war against them.

You don’t see a reason for having war against the country. So in 1941, in December 1941, the United States had no plans for war against Germany. But Germany, Hitler himself on the 11th of December of 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor, and basically, basically, oh, not even a week after the big turnaround of the fighting in the Eastern Front, with the Battle of Moscow starting with a big major counter offensive being launched by the Red Army on the in front of Moscow, you know, at that stage, Hitler, out of desperation, declared war on the United States, not because he had to, because his alliance with Japan only called for the ally to come to the rescue of the other guy, if the other guy gets gets attacked, and not does it self attack another country.

So the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor did not commit Hitler to declare the war on Japan’s enemy, you know, but he did it in the hope that somehow Japan might then declare war on his enemy, namely the Soviet Union. And then his thinking was, then when the Soviet Union is forced to fight a two front war against us on the Western Front, and against Japan and Siberia, then maybe maybe I still have a chance to win the war.

GR: Yeah.

JP: Well, to come back to the United States, this meant that the declaration of war by Hitler on the 11th of December came as a total surprise. Because the day after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had asked Congress to declare war on Germany, which they did, but not on, sorry, on Japan, but not on Germany, because Germany was not involved in the in the attack on Pearl Harbor, right. And actually, when the news came in four days later, that Germany had declared war, that was a big surprise.

That was not expected. Yeah, that was unexpected. And that brings us to your question, why did it take so long, then, suddenly, now the United States had to make plans for a war on two fronts against Japan, for which plans were ready, but shouldn’t work out, but as nearly as well as they thought, and against Germany.

And there they had, of course, an ally. Now they found themselves to be an ally of the sort of Britain, with whom they would have to coordinate the fighting. And by the way, they were suddenly an ally of a country that was definitely seen to be an enemy of the Soviet Union.

I mean, American generals, including guys like Patton, at the end of the war would say, we fought the wrong war with the wrong ally against the wrong enemy. We should have fought, you know, against the Soviet Union with the right enemy, with the right ally, namely Nazi Germany, because they had much more sympathy for the Nazis. And the sympathy, by the way, for Nazism and fascism in general, is reflected in the fact that when the war ended, that nothing was done to get Franco, the nasty fascist ruler of Spain, out of power.

It could easily have been done. You know, essentially, in 1945, when Germany was defeated, if London and Washington would simply have called Madrid and say, tell the old guy there, Francisco, to get the hell out of there and retire now, or else he would have had to do it. But he didn’t.

And Franco could be dictator for, was allowed to be dictator of Spain until 1975 still. So that shows that the United States had no, nothing against fascists really. But what happened then was that now they faced the problem of having to fight a war against Japan, and also a war against Germany.

And that’s why they decided that they would deal with Germany first, which they really wouldn’t do, because they both found it convenient that the war on the Eastern Front would drag on as long as possible, so that the Nazis and the Soviets would kill each other for a long time and exhaust each other, so that when the moment would come, the Allies, the British and Americans would be able to intervene, you know, and basically make the decisions, you know. Come in, fresh, so to speak, and then..

GR: The United States and the Allies just…

JP: They could dictate the terms of peace.

GR: But that’s not what happened. I mean, Russia was too good.

JP: No, well, exactly. They sat on the fence for a long time. They refused to open a second front in France, as they could have done in 1942 already, but they didn’t.

They were quite happy to let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. But then after Pearl Harbor, sorry, after Stalingrad, in very early 1943, it suddenly became obvious that Germany was kaput, and that the Red Army would move the long distance and slowly, of course, all the way to Berlin, and it would be the end of Nazi Germany. That’s when the plans were suddenly made for landings in Normandy.

The landings in Normandy were not planned nor executed to liberate France. They were planned and executed to prevent the Soviet Union from defeating Germany alone, and in the end, liberating all of Western Europe without intervention, without any input from the Western powers. That’s why they were landed.

Charles de Gaulle knew that very well. Charles de Gaulle described the landings in Normandy as the beginning of a second occupation of France, where the German occupation was replaced by an American occupation. And Charles de Gaulle always refused to attend the ceremonies on D-Day, the commemorations of D-Day, throughout his long rule as President of France.

GR: I want to bring it up to the present now, because certain aspects of World War II basically feature the United States actually helping the Nazis with weapons and with oil early on. But I mean, I do see a similarity with what’s happening with Ukraine and Russia, because they’re supplying, and NATO is supplying them, the fighters. History has a pattern of repeating itself. Is that what we’re witnessing now? Or are there some differences you got to highlight?

JP: Well, there’s two things we have to keep in mind here, Michael.

Why did Hitler attack the Soviet Union? And when we say, why did Hitler, we should be careful here. It’s not as if Hitler decided everything for himself. Hitler acted on behalf of the German elite, of German bankers and industrialists, and large landowners, and so forth, who all had a keen interest in attacking the Soviet Union.

Attacking the Soviet Union had a double objective. One was to destroy communism. The idea was that the Soviet Union was the cradle, the wellspring of communism in the world, who supported basically our colonials, our colonial subjects in their struggle to become independent of us, God forbid.

So we have to destroy the Soviet Union to destroy communism, and basically to keep our colonies. That’s one thing. And secondly, and so the biggest, the bigger an anti-communist you were in Nazi Germany, and of course, the elites were mostly anti-communist, the more you wanted the destruction of the Soviet Union.

But the anti-communists in Germany were typically the industrialists, and the large landowners, and the elites. That, of course, also had another interest other than simply the destruction of an ideology, namely making, turning Russia into a super colony of Germany. Because Germany is a great industrialized power, but a fairly small kind of agricultural sector to feed all these industrial workers.

And Germany was always jealous of Britain and the United States, that they had these huge colonies. Britain had India to exploit, you know, and Britain became rich by making India poor. And the United States became rich and big by taming the Wild West, wiping out the people, the Native people, and taking their land.

So Hitler himself, this book’s written about that, I can give you the references to that. Hitler himself wanted for Germany and India a Wild West. He wanted for Germany a super colony, as India had been the super colony for Britain, and as the Wild West had been the super colony, land to be exploited for the United States.

And that was the idea, because if indeed the Soviet Union would have been destroyed by Nazi Germany, there would have been no independent countries over there. Basically, Germany would have colonized the land, with the help of some local dictators, of course, of which Ukraine had quite a number. But I mean, they wanted the rich land of Ukraine for themselves, not for the benefit of the Ukrainians.

They wanted to oil the Caucasus for themselves, right? And indeed, if that would have worked, Germany would have been a super, super, superpower. The Allies, if indeed Nazi Germany would have managed to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941, it would have become a huge superpower, every bit as powerful as Britain, definitely, and the United States, even the two together. And we could never have beaten it.

Today, you know, as I write jokingly in my books, you know, the fashionistas on the Champs-Élysées would walk around in Lederhosen, you know, German style. And today, in all of Europe, the young kids would not learn English, they would be speaking German, because that would be the country that would dominate culturally, linguistically, economically, politically, all of Europe. And that is really what it was all about.

So what we’re saying is that Russia, in the minds of people like the ones that backed, like the industrialists that backed Hitler, you know, like the large landowners, was the land that would bring them riches. Agricultural land in Ukraine, the oil wells of the Caucasus, all these wonderful things. The fall of communism, you know, in Russia, in the Soviet Union, the end of the Soviet Union, means that there’s no longer a reason to fight, an ideological reason to fight the Soviet Union.

Communism is gone over there, right? It’s no longer in power, right? It still exists as an idea. But it’s no longer, it no longer is embodied in a state that Russia today is a capitalist country. But Russia still presents that those riches, those raw materials, that rich agricultural land of Ukraine, the oil wells of the Caucasus, near Georgia, by the way, you know, these and that’s why, that’s why the idea is still there in the minds of the powerful people, the elites in Germany, but also the United States now, you know, that if we could lay our hands on these goodies, you know, that’s what we really want.

And indeed, as we now know, the Zelensky regime has done exactly what the big corporations and banks in the United States and the Western world want. You mean, they already own most of the agricultural land in Ukraine, you know, and the same would happen when, if ever, Russia would break up, which is undoubtedly the idea that the oil wells of the Caucasus and other kinds of other resources all the way to Siberia would basically become the property, you know, of Western corporations or Western banks. That is why, that is why the West liked Yeltsin, because he was such a corrupt oligarch that he was willing to let the West take over as long as there was something in it for him and his family, by the way, today is one of the richest families in Russia.

But and that’s why they hate Putin, because Putin was a successor of Yeltsin, was supposed to basically go along with that, the, you might say, the opening up of Russia and making the resources, the riches of the Soviet Union, the ex-Soviet Union, available to the Western corporations, banks, and so forth. But Putin did not play that game. And that’s why he was suddenly transformed into the big enemy and demonized, as is the case today.

So essentially, then, now as then, what’s at stake is also the great riches of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union. In Ukraine, the rich agricultural land, and in the rest of Russia, the minerals in the mines of the Urals and Siberia, and the resources, the oil, the petroleum of the Caucasus, you name it, there’s still lots of wonderful goodies there waiting to be appropriated by Western, you know, by Western, basically firms by Western corporations and banks.

GR: I really want to thank you, Jacques, for presenting your views on this topic at this critical time.

JP: Wars are also generating huge profits for the arms manufacturers, for the military-industrial complex.

And you don’t even have to win the war. Right now, it doesn’t look, in my mind, as if Ukraine will win the war, as if the West will win. But in the meantime, the Western military-industrial complex has made a lot of money already. By flipping over all these weapons to Ukraine, and that means forcing NATO members to buy new material. So it’s a wonderful war in that respect as well.

What would you do to save Democracy? To save America? To save the world? How will you vote in November?

If you’re not thinking about the end of the world by now, you’re either braindead or stuck in some remote corner of the world, totally removed from access to news.

Last week we came closer to a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Today we are even closer.

Most scenarios being bandied about in the western mainstream media that involve a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States have Russia initiating the exchange by using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in response to deteriorating military, economic, and/or political conditions brought on by the US and NATO successfully leveraging Ukraine as a proxy to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.

Understand, this is what both Ukraine and the Biden administration mean when they speak of Ukraine “winning the war.”

This is a continuation of the policy objective set forth by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April 2022, “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” meaning that Russia should “not have the capability to very quickly reproduce” the forces and equipment that it loses in Ukraine.

This policy has failed; Russia has absorbed four new territories—Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk—into the Russian Federation, and the Russian defense industry has not only replaced losses sustained in the Ukrainian conflict, but is currently arming and equipping an additional 600,000 troops that have been added to the Russian military since February 2022.

It is the United States and its NATO allies that find themselves on their back feet, with Europe facing economic hardship as a result of the extreme blowback that has transpired because of its sanctioning of Russian energy, and the United States watching helplessly as Russia, together with China, turns the once passive BRICS economic forum into a geopolitical juggernaut capable of challenging and surpassing the US-led G7 as the world’s most influential non-governmental organization.

As a result of this abysmal failure, policymakers in both the US and Europe are undertaking increasingly brazen acts of escalation designed to bring Russia to the breaking point, all premised on the assumption that all so-called “red lines” established by Russia regarding escalation are illusionary—Russia, they believe, is bluffing.

And if Russia is not bluffing?

Then, the western-generated scenario paints an apocalyptic picture which has a weak, defeated Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in a last, desperate act of vengeance.

According to this scenario, which the US and NATO not only war-gamed out but made ready to implement when these entities imagined that Russia was preparing to employ nuclear weapons back in late 2022-early 2023, the US and NATO would launch a devastating response against Russian targets deep inside Russia designed to punitively degrade Russian command and control, logistics, and warfighting capacity.

This would be done using conventional weapons.

Image: USAF F-16 drops a Joint Air Surface Standoff (JASSM) missile

If Russia opted to retaliate against NATO targets, then the US would have to make a decision—continue to climb the escalation ladder, matching Russia punch for punch until one side became exhausted, or preemptively using nuclear weapons as a means of escalating to de-escalate—launch a limited nuclear strike using low-yield nuclear weapons in hopes that Russia would back down out of fear of what would come next—a general nuclear war.

The Pentagon has integrated such a scenario into the range of nuclear pre-emption options available to the President of the United States. Indeed, in early 2020 US Strategic Command conducted an exercise where the Secretary of Defense gave the launch instructions for a US Ohio class submarine to launch a Trident missile carrying W-76-2 low yield nuclear warheads against a Russian target in a scenario involving Russian aggression against the Baltics in which Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon to strike a NATO target.

The insanity of this scenario is that it ignores published Russian nuclear doctrine, which holds that Russia will respond with the full power of its strategic nuclear arsenal in the case of a nuclear attack against Russian soil.

Once again, US nuclear war planners believe that Russia is bluffing.

There is another twist to this discussion.

While the US might assess that Russia would not seek a general nuclear war following the use by the US of low yield nuclear warheads, the problem is that the means of employment of the W-76-2 warhead is the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile.

While the February 2020 scenario had Russia using nuclear weapons first (something which, at the time, represented a gross deviation from published Russian nuclear doctrine and the declaratory policy statements of the Russian President), the fact is the US will not necessarily wait for Russia to kick things off on the nuclear front.

The United States has long embraced a nuclear posture which not only incorporates the potential of a nuclear first strike, but, through declaratory policy statements, actively encourages America’s potential nuclear adversaries to believe such an action is, in fact, possible. David J. Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy during the Trump administration, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019 that a key aspect to the US nuclear posture was “keeping adversaries such as Russia and China guessing whether the US would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”

But the US takes the guesswork out of the equation. Theodore Postol points out, in a recent article in Responsible Statecraft, that a new fuse used on the W-76 nuclear warhead (not the low yield W-76-2, but rather the 100 kiloton version) has turned the 890 W-76 warheads loaded on the Trident missiles carried onboard the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into weapons capable of destroying hardened Russian and Chinese missile silos with a single warhead.

.

Screenshot from Responsible Statecraft

.

This means that, firing in a reduced trajectory profile from a position close to the shores of either Russia or China, the United States possesses the ability to launch a nuclear first strike that has a good chance of knocking out the entire ground-based component of both the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. As a result, Russia has been compelled to embrace a “launch on detect” nuclear posture where it would employ the totality of its silo-based arsenal the moment it detected any potential first strike by the United States.

.

Screenshot of a National Nuclear Security Administration video showing the casing of a W76-1 (From the Public Domain)

.

Return, for a moment, to the scenario-driven employment of the W-76-2 low yield nuclear weapon as part of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that underpins the entire reason for the W-76-2 weapon to exist in the first place.

When the United States launches the Trident missile carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this act?

The fact is, if the US ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in response.

All because the United States has embraced a policy of “first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing about American nuclear intentions.

And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the US to actually launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive nuclear strike designed to eliminate the US land-based nuclear deterrent force.

In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.

But we no longer live in a sane world.

Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle guiding US policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in existing US nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian paranoia about a potential US nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to pre-empt.

Russia isn’t bluffing.

And our refusal to acknowledge this has embarked us on a path where we appear more than willing to pre-empt life itself.

We need to pre-empt nuclear preemption by embracing a policy of strict no first use principles.

By choosing deterrence over warfighting.

By deemphasizing nuclear war.

By controlling nuclear weapons through verifiable arms control treaties.

And by eliminating nuclear weapons.

It truly is an existential choice—nuclear weapons or life.

Because they are incompatible with one another.

The author will be speaking on the danger of nuclear war and the need for policies that seek to avoid confrontation between the United States and Russia at the Peace & Freedom Rally this Saturday, September 28, in Kingston, New York.

.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image: A trident 11 D5 missile being launched from a US submarine. Photo: US Army/Wikipeadia

Three days into a murderous Israeli offensive against Lebanon, and following the killing of two Canadians in Lebanon by an Israeli airstrike, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is scandalized that Canada has still failed to call for a ceasefire. CJPME points out that under the UN Charter there is no provision that allows for a country to bombard its neighbour. And while both Israel and Hezbollah have launched attacks against one another, the BBC reported in July that between 8 October 2023 and 5 July 2024, Israel had carried out over 6000 attacks in Lebanon, about five times the number of Hezbollah attacks on Israel. CJPME considers that unless the Trudeau government is happy to see growing casualty numbers in Lebanon – currently at more than 600 dead – it should immediately pressure our allies the US and Israel bring an end to the violence.

“Canada’s failure to condemn Israel’s belligerence as it drags the region deeper into war is outrageous and morally despicable,” asserted Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. CJPME points out that, following Oct. 7, 2023, it took Canada months before calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. “The past year has revealed the Trudeau government’s indifference to wanton slaughter and destruction, first with Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and now with its devastating bombardment of Lebanon.”

Two days into the bombardment, Israel said it had already struck 1600 sites in Lebanon. Yet in the government’s only pronouncement on the situation, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly tweeted, “We need urgent de-escalation at the border between Israel and Lebanon to prevent a devastating catastrophe.” And while she suggested that the “protection of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and across the region must be priority,” there was no evidence she had pushed for a ceasefire with her counterparts in Lebanon and Israel.

2/2 I am in contact with both Lebanese & Israeli counterparts.

We need urgent deescalation at the border between Israel and Lebanon to prevent a devastating catastrophe.

— Mélanie Joly (@melaniejoly) September 23, 2024

CJPME is also concerned that any ceasefire resolution that eventually makes it to the floor of the UN Security Council will be vetoed by the US. Israel’s allies – including Canada under both the Harper and Trudeau governments – have frequently undermined calls on Israel for a ceasefire, preferring to let Israel’s bellicosity run its course and destroy lives and livelihoods. CJPME suggests that even if Canada is not at the table for a possible Security Council vote on a ceasefire, it must pressure its US allies to let such a vote pass.

“Even if Israel will not heed the condemnation of international opinion, its aggression against its neighbours must not be ignored or condoned,” added Woodley.

CJPME also reiterates its call for Canada to immediately impose a full Arms Embargo on Israel using the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). SEMA was created to enable Canada to take economic measures against states which commit grave breaches of international peace, and/or gross and systematic human rights violations. Since January, Canada claims to have paused the approval of all new arms export permits to Israel, and has suspended about 30 existing permits. However, as of August, nearly $95m of military goods had been approved to ship to Israel by the end of 2025. CJPME urges Canada to implement a full two-way arms embargo to ensure that Canadian military goods and technology are not used by Israel to target civilians in Gaza or Lebanon.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image: Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly on April 27, 2023. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

How Israel Torpedoed Washington’s Global Strategy

By Mike Whitney, September 25, 2024

Israel is neither a friend nor ally of the United States. Israel looks out for Israel 100 percent of the time and really doesn’t care what happens to anyone else. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that Israel is “our pit-bull in the Middle East” who keeps the natives in line. But this simply isn’t true. Israel’s activities in the region undermine US interests and inflict severe damage to America’s public image.

Video: Hiroshima-Nagasaki Dress Rehearsal. The Dangers of Nuclear War. Michel Chossudovsky with James Corbett

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett, September 25, 2024

We talk about the original, genocidal plan of the US War Department for a genocidal nuclear slaughter of the Soviets, how that plan has continued to the present day, the existential threat of nuclear holocaust and the prospects for an anti-war movement that can actually stand up to the military-industrial complex.

New Book Investigates the Trudeau Government Response to the Freedom Convoy, by Using the Emergencies Act

By Ray McGinnis and Elizabeth Woodworth, September 25, 2024

In January 2022, protesters travelled to Ottawa seeking to debate the Canadian government’s pandemic measures that had caused widespread bankruptcies, suicides, domestic abuse, addictions, and overdoses. They challenged the alarmist depiction of the virus as a clear and present danger to all. 

Biden’s Address at the UN General Assembly: Billions of Dollars to Israel and Ukraine. U.S. Is Outnumbered on the Palestinian Question

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 25, 2024

Although Biden spoke about his supposed desire to see a ceasefire in Gaza and for the now expanding war in West Asia to end, it is his government and the ruling class which he serves that is fueling the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people and their neighbors in the region.

Hidden Agendas: Beware of the Government’s Push for a Digital Currency

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, September 25, 2024

The government’s schemes to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars have run the gamut from wasteful pork barrel legislation, cronyism and graft to asset forfeiture, costly stimulus packages, and a national security complex that continues to undermine our freedoms while failing to making us any safer.

Israeli Terror in Lebanon

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, September 25, 2024

What the Israeli government had purportedly done to civilians in Lebanon on the 16th of September 2024 was a blatant, dastardly act of terrorism. Detonating bombs placed in pagers and other communication devices used by innocent civilians was an attempt to spread fear and tension within the populace, apart from its more obvious goal of killing or maiming individuals.

The Vanishing Contrarian Spirit: A World Deceived by the Powers that Be. Manufactured Consensus and the Cult of Uniformity. Prof Ruel F. Pepa

By Prof. Ruel F. Pepa, September 25, 2024

The Western mainstream media, in lockstep with governmental and corporate interests, has masterfully curtailed dissenting voices, leading to a society duped, conned, and deceived by the very institutions that claim to inform and protect it.

O Reino Unido continua a manter uma posição beligerante no conflito entre o Ocidente e a Rússia, tentando avançar agendas que poderiam facilmente levar a uma onda de violência sem precedentes. Numa outra medida irresponsável, Londres sugeriu acabar com as restrições à utilização de armas de longo alcance, deixando claro que os britânicos planejam levar a guerra às suas últimas consequências.

Num discurso recente, o secretário dos Negócios Estrangeiros do Reino Unido, David Lammy, apelou aos membros da OTAN para que demonstrassem coragem no apoio a Kiev. Falando em “coragem”, Lammy apelou ao fim das restrições ocidentais à Ucrânia, defendendo implicitamente o início de uma guerra total contra Moscou.

Lammy disse que é hora de começar a discutir seriamente a possibilidade de reverter as restrições e permitir ataques ucranianos contra alvos fora das regiões reconhecidas pelo Ocidente como território de Kiev. A sua posição atual indica uma mudança na posição do Reino Unido. Até agora, tal como os EUA, o Reino Unido manteve uma posição contra qualquer mudança nas restrições – mas Lammy parece ter cedido à chantagem ucraniana e começou a fazer lobby a favor do plano de guerra total.

“É uma discussão em tempo real entre aliados (…) Este é um momento crítico, precisamos de coragem em nome dos aliados que estão ao lado da Ucrânia”, disse ele, tentando claramente disfarçar a natureza beligerante da agenda.

As palavras de Lammy vieram logo após a sua visita conjunta com Antony Blinken à capital ucraniana, durante a qual a equipe de Zelensky pediu pessoalmente ao responsável britânico que acabasse com as restrições. Na altura, o primeiro-ministro ucraniano, Denis Shmyhal, afirmou que só atacando alvos no território “profundo” da Federação Russa será possível atingir os objetivos estratégicos da Ucrânia, evitando que Moscou realize manobras na zona de conflito, destruindo bases militares inimigas.

“Nós [ucranianos] esperamos que o equipamento de longo alcance para ataques no território do nosso inimigo nos seja dado. E esperamos sua ajuda e apoio nesta questão”, disse Shmyhal na época.

Em Kiev, Lammy agiu com timidez, como se estivesse envergonhado pelo pedido dos ucranianos. Ele disse aos repórteres que o objetivo da viagem não era tomar decisões, mas apenas ouvir as necessidades dos “parceiros” ucranianos. Aparentemente, depois de ouvir os apelos para alterar as regras atuais, concordou que a melhor coisa a fazer é rever a política de restrições e finalmente permitir a utilização de mísseis de longo alcance contra áreas russas não disputadas.

“É extremamente importante que nós (Lammy e Blinken) viajemos juntos para ouvir dos nossos homólogos ucranianos e do Presidente Zelensky a sua avaliação da situação e das suas necessidades no terreno (…) Seria, no entanto, bastante errado comentar os detalhes das questões operacionais num fórum como este, porque a única pessoa que poderia beneficiar é Putin, e não faremos nada para lhe dar qualquer vantagem na sua invasão ilegal”, disse Lammy a um jornalista ucraniano durante uma conferência de imprensa em Kiev.

A decisão de Lammy não é um ato isolado. O lobby internacional para o uso de mísseis de longo alcance tem aumentado nos últimos tempos. Por exemplo, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou recentemente uma resolução recomendando o fim das restrições – o que piorou claramente a atmosfera de tensão na arena mundial. A posição do Reino Unido é especialmente relevante porque é o maior aliado dos EUA entre todos os estados da OTAN, tendo uma participação mais ativa no processo de tomada de decisões da aliança. Londres poderá estar a preparar o caminho para uma mudança futura na posição dos próprios EUA.

A Rússia afirmou repetidamente que qualquer ataque de longo alcance aos seus territórios não disputados seria visto como uma declaração de guerra. É bem sabido que apenas o pessoal militar da OTAN está qualificado para utilizar sistemas de longo alcance, razão pela qual tal ataque seria visto como uma manobra da própria aliança contra a Federação Russa. As consequências desse cenário poderiam ser catastróficas, incluindo uma guerra mundial aberta ou um confronto nuclear.

O Reino Unido está a agir pensando que Moscou iria mais uma vez ignorar as suas próprias linhas vermelhas, não respondendo assim a tal ataque apenas para evitar uma escalada. Mas este é um jogo perigoso do qual o Ocidente poderá se arrepender. Moscou está a deixar claro que a sua paciência está a esgotar-se e não está disposta a tolerar mais provocações inimigas.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : UK starts lobbying for lifting Western restrictions on Ukraine, InfoBrics, 24 de Setembro de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Today, Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch.ca joins us to discuss his recent article: “The Hiroshima Nagasaki ‘Dress Rehearsal’: Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s Secret September 15, 1945 ‘Doomsday Blueprint’ to ‘Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map.’”

We talk about the original, genocidal plan of the US War Department for a genocidal nuclear slaughter of the Soviets, how that plan has continued to the present day, the existential threat of nuclear holocaust and the prospects for an anti-war movement that can actually stand up to the military-industrial complex.

For more details see:

The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”: Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2024

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This was originally published on The Corbett Report.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

The whole Horn could become engulfed in conflict if this proxy war spirals out of control.

Somalian Foreign Minister Ahmed Moalim Fiqi recently told local media that his country might back anti-government groups in Ethiopia if Addis goes through with recognizing Somaliland’s independence in exchange for military-commercial port rights per their Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This builds upon the observation from early January that Somalia wants to ally with Eritrea and especially Egypt for waging Hybrid War against Ethiopia and Somaliland. Here are Fiqi’s exact words:

“The option to have contacts with armed rebels in Ethiopia or rebels that are fighting against the Ethiopia regime — if it continues this, to have contact with them is an option open to Somalia, it’s a door open to us.

We have not reached that stage, there is a hope there will be a solution. But it is a path open to us … it’s the correct thing to go there, to take that path to meet them, to support them, to stand by them (the rebels). But that will come when they continue their hostility, and attempt to implement the so-called agreement.

We discussed (ties with the TPLF), but at this time the collapse of Ethiopia is not in the interest of Somalia and the Horn of Africa region. But if they continue to [support] those opposing Somalia and with the secessionist groups [that] they have signed [an] agreement with, it’s an option for us.”

To begin with, there’s no comparison between Ethiopia’s relations with Somaliland and Somalia’s envisaged ones with anti-government Ethiopian groups. Somaliland actually achieved independence right before Somalia but then agreed to an ultimately failed unity project that ended in 1991. It then redeclared its independence and has been functioning as an unrecognized sovereign state since then. Somaliland just wants to be left alone to develop in peace and doesn’t support anti-Somalian groups.

Anti-government Ethiopian groups are completely different since some of them have carried out acts of terrorism and have been designated by the state accordingly (though some have since had this designation lifted to facilitate peace talks). Regardless of whether or not they had genuinely homegrown beginnings, they’ve all since come to function as foreign states’ proxies. None of these groups can claim any level of sovereignty akin to Somaliland either. They’re basically local warlords, nothing more.

Another point is that Ethiopia is Africa’s second-largest country with approximately 130 million people, and the external exacerbation of this cosmopolitan civilization-state’s ethno-regional conflicts could reverberate throughout the region and beyond. Fiqi tacitly recognizes this, ergo his remark about how “at this time” his country doesn’t want to try catalyzing Ethiopia’s collapse, but he left open the possibility that these calculations could change. In reality, the decision has already likely been made.

Somalia’s newfound military alliance with Egypt, which has seen that Arab Republic pour weapons and reportedly also troops into this East African nation, has placed Mogadishu under Cairo’s control. Egypt has historically sought to divide-and-rule Ethiopia since it fears this regional giant’s rise and harbors hegemonic intentions in this part of the continent. This explains the drama that it artificially manufactured over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam so as to create the pretext for destabilizing it.

The only proxy war asset under the Federal Government of Somalia’s suspected partial control is Al-Shabaab, which is on the same side as it in opposition to the MoU as explained here, but Ethiopia is already fighting against that UN-designated group in Somalia. Their forces have been there for years as part of an approved mission and might not depart even if Mogadishu demands such by year’s end like was earlier threatened since some of that host country’s regions want it to stay to protect them.

Impoverished Somalia can ill-afford to purchase arms on the international market even after the three-decade-long UN embargo was finally lifted last December so it’ll have to rely on its Egyptian patron, though Cairo is also struggling due to the Red Sea Crisis slashing its revenue from the Suez Canal. Nevertheless, Egypt might have enough military reserves to lend some to Somalia with strings attached, which could then be funneled to Al-Shabaab and possibly also to anti-government Ethiopian groups too.

Neither of those two have much experience in waging Hybrid Wars, however, which is where Eritrea could come in. It was previously under UN sanctions for arming, equipping, and training Al-Shabaab so the precedent exists for Asmara to revive these relations if the price is right. All three are in difficult financial straits, but Eritrea has once again reverted to its traditionally anti-Ethiopian policy as a result of the regional security dilemma worsening, which is why it might be willing to do this on the cheap.

Regardless of whatever happens, Somalia is hellbent on waging Hybrid War on Ethiopia, which in the worst-case and extremely fringe scenario could provoke an unprecedented migrant crisis that makes the Syrian one from a decade ago look like child’s play. It’s therefore imperative that all responsible members of the international community strongly condemn Somalia and act against those of its allies who assist it in this scheme. The whole Horn could become engulfed in conflict if this proxy war spirals out of control.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

Featured image is from the author

In an age dominated by unprecedented access to information, one would assume that the collective consciousness has sharpened its critical faculties. Yet paradoxically, we are witnessing the erosion of contrarianism—a vital force that challenges the status quo and holds power to account. The Western mainstream media, in lockstep with governmental and corporate interests, has masterfully curtailed dissenting voices, leading to a society duped, conned, and deceived by the very institutions that claim to inform and protect it.

The Role of the Media: Gatekeepers or Guardians?

The mainstream media, once regarded as the Fourth Estate, historically served as a watchdog over governments and elites. However, over time, it has become an extension of the same power structures it was meant to scrutinize. The Western media, especially, has evolved into a finely-tuned apparatus that controls narratives, filters dissent, and reinforces a homogeneous worldview. By framing political, economic, and cultural discussions in narrow terms, it creates an illusion of debate while suppressing meaningful discourse that might challenge the deeper status quo.

One only needs to look at coverage of war, corporate misconduct, or global inequalities to understand how this dynamic works. The media amplifies official narratives, often without critique. In the Iraq War, for instance, the mainstream press largely parroted government talking points about weapons of mass destruction, helping to justify an invasion that was later revealed to be based on false premises. Similarly, during financial crises, media outlets rarely spotlight the systemic problems within capitalism; instead, they attribute economic failures to isolated “bad actors” or external shocks, while leaving the larger structures unexamined.

The Suppression of Contrarian Voices

Contrarianism, at its core, is not merely about opposing popular opinion. It is about probing deeper truths, questioning consensus, and resisting the easy answers that institutions hand down. Historically, contrarian thinkers and whistleblowers have driven some of the most important social changes—from abolitionists who challenged the moral fabric of slavery, to investigative journalists who exposed corruption at the highest levels. But in today’s media landscape, such voices are increasingly marginalized, if not outright silenced.

This is not to say that no dissent exists, but rather that it has been ghettoized into “alternative” media or drowned out by the cacophony of celebrity culture, manufactured outrage, and trivialities that dominate the mainstream. Figures like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who revealed uncomfortable truths about state surveillance and government malfeasance, have been demonized or ignored by much of the mainstream press. Instead of being heralded as champions of transparency, they are painted as traitors, their contributions buried beneath legal battles and personal smears.

Moreover, the rise of social media—once thought to be a bastion of free speech—has not filled the void left by the mainstream. Algorithms and corporate censorship increasingly curtail voices that deviate from accepted narratives. Thus, even in the digital age, true contrarianism has become more difficult to sustain.

Manufactured Consensus and the Cult of Uniformity

The contemporary political landscape is defined by a veneer of ideological diversity, but in truth, it is a carefully orchestrated consensus. Political parties, whether left or right, largely operate within the same neoliberal framework, offering only cosmetic differences in policy or rhetoric. Media pundits perpetuate this illusion of choice, drawing lines between supposed “progressive” and “conservative” viewpoints, when in fact both sides often defer to corporate power, military expansionism, and market fundamentalism.

This manufactured consensus has significant consequences for public discourse. It creates a climate where questioning core assumptions—about capitalism, foreign policy, or technology—is met with derision or dismissal. Genuine challenges to economic inequality, environmental degradation, or military intervention are reframed as “radical” or “fringe” ideas, outside the boundaries of “respectable” debate. The result is a society lulled into passivity, where deep systemic issues remain unaddressed, and where the contrarian spirit, so crucial for societal progress, has all but vanished.

The Psychological Impact: Deference to Authority

Beyond the structural issues with the media, there is a deeper psychological trend that has facilitated the decline of contrarianism: the deference to authority. Decades of sophisticated propaganda, public relations efforts, and fear-based narratives have conditioned people to trust the very institutions that consistently fail them. Whether it’s the government, the financial system, or health authorities, people have been trained to believe that questioning official narratives is akin to conspiracy theorizing or irrationality.

This is especially evident in the context of crises. Whether it’s a pandemic, a financial collapse, or a terrorist attack, people tend to gravitate towards “official” sources of information, often eschewing critical analysis in favor of comforting narratives. The fear of being labeled a contrarian—a term now laced with pejorative undertones—further discourages dissent. As a result, we become complicit in our own manipulation, willingly adopting the narratives spun by the powers that be, even when they serve interests far removed from our own.

Reclaiming the Contrarian Spirit

To combat this, society must reclaim the contrarian spirit. This requires more than a casual skepticism; it demands a rigorous, fearless questioning of the systems and narratives that shape our world. It calls for a recognition that the mainstream media is not a neutral arbiter of truth, but an institution embedded in the same power structures it claims to oversee.

Contrarianism, at its best, is an antidote to groupthink. It is the force that challenges unjust wars, questions corrupt governments, and exposes corporate exploitation. It is the spirit that drives scientific discovery, social reform, and artistic innovation. Without it, we become a society content with the superficial and comfortable, blind to the deeper currents of control and exploitation that shape our lives.

The absence of contrarianism in today’s world is not merely a symptom of media control—it reflects a deeper crisis of consciousness. As long as we allow ourselves to be lulled by easy answers and comforting illusions, the powers that be will continue to con, deceive, and exploit. To reclaim the contrarian spirit is to reclaim our agency, our capacity for independent thought, and our right to question the world as it is presented to us.

And in a world so thoroughly manipulated, that might just be the most radical act of all.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S. Herman (2010). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Random House.

Greenwald, Glenn (2014). No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Henry Holt & Co.

Hedges, Chris (2009). Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. Hachette UK.

Klein, Naomi (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Henry Holt & Co.

Parry, Robert (1992). Fooling America: How Washington Insiders Twist the Truth and Manufacture the Conventional Wisdom. Morrow.

Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

Vitamin B6 plays a crucial role in blood sugar regulation through “first responder” beta cells in the pancreas. Some cases of diabetes may be linked to vitamin B6 deficiency or dysfunction

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. Maintaining adequate vitamin D levels may improve glucose metabolism and reduce diabetes risk

B vitamins, especially B6, B12 and folate, are important for both blood sugar control and mental health. They can help manage diabetes symptoms and reduce anxiety and depression

Minerals like zinc, magnesium and chromium are essential for glycemic regulation and mental well-being. Deficiencies in these minerals are linked to diabetes progression and mood disorders

Mitochondrial health is crucial for preventing chronic diseases like diabetes. Reducing exposure to toxins like seed oils, endocrine disruptors and EMFs can improve cellular energy production and overall health

*

Your body’s ability to regulate blood sugar relies on a complex dance between different cells in your pancreas. Research has uncovered a fascinating new player in this intricate process — “first responder” beta cells.¹ These special cells are the quickest to react when glucose levels rise, triggering a cascade of activity throughout your pancreas.

Scientists have found that these first responders have a unique molecular signature, setting them apart from other beta cells.² Intriguingly, they express higher levels of an enzyme called pyridoxamine 5′-phosphate oxidase (PNPO), which is crucial for producing vitamin B6.³

You may have heard of pyridoxal 5′-phosphate (PLP) which differs from pyridoxamine 5′-phosphate oxidase (PNPO). They both are vital for vitamin B6 metabolism, serving different and distinct roles. PNPO is an enzyme that converts other B6 forms into PLP, the active vitamin B6. PLP acts as a coenzyme in many metabolic processes like amino acid metabolism and neurotransmitter synthesis.

PNPO deficiency can lead to vitamin B6-dependent epilepsy, while PLP deficiency causes various neurological and metabolic issues. PLP is commonly used as a supplement due to its direct involvement in metabolism, whereas PNPO is not supplemented. PLP is light-sensitive and needs careful storage, unlike the stable PNPO enzyme.

This discovery suggests that vitamin B6 may play a more significant role in insulin secretion and blood sugar control than previously thought. By understanding the importance of these first responder cells and their reliance on vitamin B6, researchers are opening up new avenues for diabetes prevention and treatment.

Vitamin B6: The Unsung Hero of Blood Sugar Regulation

The study’s findings highlight the critical importance of vitamin B6 in maintaining healthy blood sugar levels. When researchers interfered with vitamin B6 production or function, they observed a dramatic impairment in the pancreas’s ability to respond to rising glucose levels.⁴

This effect was seen not only in zebrafish but also in mouse pancreatic tissue, suggesting that the mechanism is likely conserved across species, including humans. The implications of this discovery are profound. It raises the possibility that some cases of diabetes or prediabetes might be rooted in a deficiency or dysfunction related to vitamin B6 metabolism.

This new perspective could lead to more targeted and effective treatments for certain individuals struggling with blood sugar control. Rather than focusing solely on insulin or glucose metabolism, addressing vitamin B6 status could restore normal pancreatic function in some patients.

A New Understanding of Pancreatic Coordination

Your pancreas doesn’t just release insulin in a simple, uniform manner. Instead, it relies on a sophisticated hierarchy of cell communication. The research reveals that first responder cells act as leaders, coordinating the activity of surrounding beta cells. This organization allows for a rapid, synchronized response to rising blood sugar levels.

The study used cutting-edge techniques, including optogenetics, to manipulate individual cells within the pancreas of living zebrafish. By activating or silencing specific cells, the scientists could observe how the entire system responded. Remarkably, they found that interfering with just a single first responder cell could disrupt the entire pancreatic response to glucose.⁵

This demonstrates how crucial these vitamin B6-rich cells are to the overall function of your pancreas. Understanding this cellular hierarchy provides new insights into how diabetes might develop and offers potential targets for future treatments. While more research is needed, these findings suggest that ensuring adequate vitamin B6 status could be an important strategy for maintaining healthy blood sugar levels.

For some individuals, addressing a vitamin B6 deficiency might even be enough to restore normal pancreatic function and glucose regulation. Vitamin B6 is found abundantly in animal foods such as organic, pastured beef as well as dark leafy greens, papaya, oranges, cantaloupe and bananas.⁶Nutritional yeast is another source.

Vitamin D Deficiency: A Hidden Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes

Research has also shed light on a fascinating connection between vitamin D levels and Type 2 diabetes.⁷ A study conducted in India examined the relationship between vitamin D and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), a key marker of long-term blood sugar control. The findings reveal that individuals with Type 2 diabetes tend to have significantly lower vitamin D levels compared to those without the condition.⁸

Further, there’s an inverse relationship between vitamin D and HbA1c levels — as vitamin D increases, HbA1c decreases. This suggests that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels may play a crucial role in managing blood sugar and reducing your risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Sunlight exposure is a primary source of vitamin D, but many people struggle to maintain sufficient levels, even in tropical regions.

Factors such as indoor lifestyles, darker skin pigmentation and limited dietary sources contribute to widespread vitamin D deficiency, making it a global health concern. Vitamin D’s importance extends far beyond bone health.

This essential hormone influences many of your bodily functions, including cellular processes, neuromuscular activity and immune function. Deficiency in vitamin D has been linked to a host of health issues, ranging from rickets in children to osteoporosis, cancer⁹ and autism¹⁰ in adults.

While the exact mechanisms linking vitamin D to glucose metabolism are still being explored, emerging evidence suggests several potential pathways. Vitamin D may improve insulin sensitivity and reduce inflammation, both of which are crucial for maintaining healthy blood sugar levels.¹¹

Vitamin D and Diabetes: Unraveling the Connection

By maintaining optimal vitamin D levels, you may be able to improve your glucose metabolism and reduce your risk of developing this chronic condition. Research has also shown that vitamin D deficiency negatively impacts insulin sensitivity and can directly influence insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells.¹² Supplementation with vitamin D has been found to significantly improve fasting blood glucose, insulin levels and insulin resistance in diabetic patients.¹³

Moreover, vitamin D’s role in modulating inflammation and oxidative stress makes it a key player in both diabetes and mental health in diabetics. In diabetes, vitamin D helps reduce systemic inflammation by hindering nuclear transcription and decreasing cytokine production. This anti-inflammatory effect is crucial, as inflammation is a significant factor in insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction.¹⁴

People with diabetes are at an increased risk of mental disorders such as depression and anxiety, as well as cognitive decline.¹⁵ Vitamin D’s ability to downregulate oxidative stress-related events and influence antioxidant defense mechanisms is beneficial in this respect.

Studies have revealed a shared nutraceutical-gene network module between insulin resistance and depression, suggesting that addressing vitamin D deficiency could potentially prevent both conditions.¹⁶ Regular monitoring of vitamin D levels and appropriate sun exposure and supplementation, if necessary, may be beneficial for individuals at risk of or already dealing with diabetes and mental health issues.

The global prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (defined as a level of less than 20 ng/mL) and insufficiency (defined as a level of 20 to less than 30 ng/mL) is 40% to 100%,¹⁷ so many people are lacking. Globally, 76.6% of adults have vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/l).¹⁸

Further, 20 ng/mL has repeatedly been shown to be grossly insufficient for good health and disease prevention, which means the true prevalence of people without optimal levels of vitamin D is even greater. The only way to determine how much sun exposure is enough and/or how much vitamin D3 you need to take is to measure your vitamin D level, ideally twice a year.

Once you’ve confirmed your vitamin D levels by blood testing, it is important to adjust your sun exposure and/or vitamin D3 supplementation accordingly. Then, remember to retest in three to four months to make sure you’ve reached your target level.

The optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (150 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L), while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.

The Power of B Vitamins: More Than Just Blood Sugar Control

While vitamin B6 takes center stage in diabetes management, the entire B vitamin complex plays an important role in both blood sugar regulation and mental health. Recent studies have shown that B vitamins, particularly B6, B12 and folate, are essential for optimal brain function and the production of neurotransmitters like dopamine and GABA.¹⁹

A deficiency in these micronutrients has been linked to neurological disorders, including anxiety and depression,²⁰ while high doses of vitamin B6 supplements have been found to significantly reduce anxiety, stress and depression symptoms. One study reported that adults supplementing with 25 milligrams (mg) of vitamin B6 twice daily for six months experienced improved mental well-being.²¹

Additionally, vitamin B6 has been found to effectively lower blood glucose levels in gestational diabetes and reduce postprandial blood glucose levels after consuming carbohydrates by inhibiting small-intestinal α-glucosidase enzyme activity.²² Furthermore, B vitamin complex supplementation has demonstrated the ability to enhance glycemic control and renal function in diabetic patients by reducing homocysteine levels.²³

The Balancing Act of Minerals: Zinc, Magnesium and Chromium

Minerals play a vital role in maintaining both blood sugar balance and mental health. Zinc, for instance, is crucial for glycemic regulation and immune function. Studies have shown that zinc supplementation can improve fasting glucose concentrations and protect against oxidative damage in diabetes.²⁴ Additionally, zinc deficiency has been linked to depression and anxiety, as zinc-containing neurons are found in brain regions affecting mood and cognitive ability.²⁵

Magnesium, another essential mineral, is involved in over 300 enzymatic reactions, including those related to glucose metabolism. Hypomagnesemia, or low levels of magnesium, is strongly associated with Type 2 diabetes and can lead to more rapid disease progression. Magnesium supplementation, meanwhile, has been shown to enhance insulin sensitivity in diabetic patients and improve symptoms of depression and anxiety.²⁶

Chromium, while less studied, has also shown promise in both diabetes management and mental health. Low chromium levels are associated with an increased risk of diabetes and elevated inflammation.²⁷

Supplementation with chromium has been found to improve glycemic control and reduce carbohydrate cravings and mood swings in individuals with depressive symptoms.²⁸ By ensuring adequate intake of these trace minerals through diet or targeted supplementation, you may be able to support both your blood sugar control and mental well-being.

Mitochondrial Health Is an Overlooked Key to Preventing Chronic Diseases Like Diabetes

The rise in chronic diseases, including diabetes, may be linked to more than just nutrient deficiencies like vitamin B6 and vitamin D. Three major mitochondrial toxins — linoleic acid in seed oils, endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in plastics and other consumer products, and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) — play a significant role in compromising cellular energy production.

These toxins create an environment in the gut that favors endotoxin-producing bacteria, potentially contributing to a wide range of diseases including heart disease, cancer and obesity. The key to addressing these issues lies in restoring healthy energy production at the cellular level, which in turn helps maintain proper gut flora balance.

Contrary to popular belief, glucose is actually a superior fuel for your body compared to dietary fat. While refined sugar in large quantities is unhealthy, it’s less harmful than polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) found in seed oils. Eliminating these oils, which are prevalent in ultraprocessed foods, is crucial for optimal health.

Excessive fat intake can lead your body to favor fat metabolism over glucose metabolism, resulting in suboptimal energy production. This is significant because every bodily process relies on adequate energy availability. By focusing on increasing mitochondrial energy production, many health issues can be addressed naturally.

Industrial toxins, like omega-6 fats from vegetable and seed oils, plastics with estrogen-like additives and EMFs, severely impact mitochondrial energy production. Addressing these factors, along with nutrient deficiencies like vitamin B6, vitamin D and trace minerals, may be key in preventing and managing chronic diseases, including diabetes.

Tired of Guessing About Your Health? Your Path to Clarity Starts with HOMA-IR

Are you insulin resistant? The HOMA-IR test is a powerful tool to determine this. Developed in 1985, the HOMA-IR test combines fasting glucose and insulin levels to give us a clear picture of how well your body responds to insulin. It’s a reliable and practical test for insulin resistance and prediabetes.

What sets the HOMA-IR apart is its accessibility and reliability. Unlike complex, invasive procedures, this test needs only a blood draw. This makes it convenient for patients and practical for use in clinics. The HOMA-IR gives a clear measure of insulin resistance. It helps people and doctors spot metabolic issues early and track improvements over time. The HOMA-IR formula is as follows:

HOMA-IR = (Fasting Glucose x Fasting Insulin) / 405, where

• Fasting glucose is measured in mg/dL
• Fasting insulin is measured in μIU/mL (microinternational units per milliliter), and
• 405 is a constant that normalizes the values

If you’re using mmol/L for glucose instead of mg/dL, the formula changes slightly:

HOMA-IR = (Fasting Glucose x Fasting Insulin) / 22.5, where

• Fasting glucose is measured in mmol/L
• Fasting insulin is measured in μIU/mL, and
• 22.5 is the normalizing factor for this unit of measurement

So, what’s considered a healthy HOMA-IR score? Anything below 1.0. If you’re above that, you’re considered insulin resistant. The higher your values, the greater your insulin resistance. Conversely the lower your HOMA-IR score, the less insulin resistance you have, assuming you are not a Type 1 diabetic who makes no insulin. Insulin resistance often exists long before obvious signs of trouble, silently disrupting your body’s balance and setting the stage for serious conditions later.

Incidentally, my personal HOMA-IR score is 0.2, which is incredibly low. In fact, it’s the lowest Dr. Cate Shanahan, who introduced me to HOMA-IR, has ever seen. The reason for this is that my body became more efficient at burning fuel, due to the increased availability of glucose. I consumed extra carbohydrates, which gave my cells energy. They could function better, which improved my metabolic health.

The Revolutionary Path to Healing and Longevity

For the last 50 years, I have been in a relentless pursuit of how to optimize health and wellness and prevent disease. Every year I get closer to the truth. But this time, I am convinced I have finally uncovered the kernels of truth that will help nearly everyone recover from whatever physical illness they are suffering with.

I’ve uncovered a groundbreaking revelation that has the astounding capacity to transform global health and that is the power of cellular energy. This isn’t just another health trend; it’s the fundamental key to unlocking your body’s innate healing abilities and achieving lasting vitality.

The Hidden Health Crisis

Nearly everyone reading this is only making about one-third of the energy they require to reverse disease and power their body to regenerate and repair damaged cells. Nearly all of us are in the black hole of self-perpetuating destruction of our gut bacteria that are crucial to help us regain our full energy potential.

Here’s a startling fact: A very sensitive and inexpensive blood test shows us that over 99% of us have insulin resistance, and as a result, are unknowingly living with compromised cellular energy. This silent epidemic explains why millions struggle with persistent health issues, feeling trapped in a cycle of treatments that never quite solves the problem. But there’s hope, and it lies within your very cells.

Imagine a life where your body hums with energy, where healing happens naturally, and where age is just a number. This isn’t a far-off dream — it’s the reality that I have been experiencing for over a year now and awaits when you master the art of cellular health.

Introducing ‘Your Guide to Cellular Health’

My newest book, “Your Guide to Cellular Health: Unlocking the Science of Longevity and Joy” is not just a manual — it’s your passport to a revolution in personal wellness. This comprehensive guide will empower you with life-changing knowledge:

• Discover how to fuel your mitochondria for boundless energy and rapid healing
• Uncover the secrets of metabolism that keep you vibrant and resilient against aging and disease
• Identify and eliminate the three primary mitochondrial saboteurs lurking in your environment
• Master innovative cutting-edge lifestyle and dietary strategies that supercharge your cellular energy production

This isn’t about quick fixes or temporary solutions. It’s about fundamentally transforming your health at its very foundation — your cells.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Notes

^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5} Science Advances, June 26, 2024

⁶ Harvard TH Chan, The Nutrition Source: Vitamin B6

^7, 8, 11 Apollo Medicine, April 2024

⁹ World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2024 Jun 15;16(6):2394-2403. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v16.i6.2394

¹⁰ Cureus. 2023 Oct 26;15(10):e47716. doi: 10.7759/cureus.47716. eCollection 2023 Oct

^{12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28} Nutrients. 2023 Sep; 15(18): 3929

¹⁷ Endocr Pract. 2021 May; 27(5): 484–493, Introduction

¹⁸ Frontiers in Nutrition, March 16, 2023 

Featured image is from Flickr

Canadians who followed the Freedom Convoy and the government resorting to the Emergencies Act will be very interested to read this new book by Ray McGinnis, who has followed this story closely and went to Ottawa to observe the charade known as the Emergencies Act Inquiry.

Mr. McGinnis can be contacted for interviews via myself, at [email protected].

*

.

.

.

.

.

.

Unjustified: The Freedom Convoy, The Emergencies Act, And The Inquiry That Got It Wrong

by Ray McGinnis

Publisher: ‎Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Sept. 17 2024)

Paperback: ‎222 pages

ISBN-10: ‎1998365026

ISBN-13: 978-1998365029

In January 2022, protesters travelled to Ottawa seeking to debate the Canadian government’s pandemic measures that had caused widespread bankruptcies, suicides, domestic abuse, addictions, and overdoses. They challenged the alarmist depiction of the virus as a clear and present danger to all. Media and politicians smeared the protesters as insurrectionists, homophobes, Nazis, anti-vaxxers, and arsonists. But was any of this true?

In Unjustified, Ray McGinnis examines testimony at the PublicOrder Emergency Commission that confirms the protesters were never dangerous as depicted. He chronicles court cases unfolding since the protests that raise questions about our judicial system, and details a recent federal court ruling that concluded the Emergencies Act invocation was unconstitutional and illegal. Unjustified is a call to readers to revisit assumptions about what happened at the Freedom Convoy. McGinnis invites us to question who benefits when media narratives are scaring us to death, and what is the cost to our democracy?

Reviews

“Often, when momentous national events of questionable motivation occur, people simply want a down-to-earth common-sense assessment. Just give me the facts. In today’s world, objective[CE1]  facts are hard to come by as society spirals toward a totalitarian, hazy moral future.

Enter Ray McGinnis to the rescue. In a fast-paced yet methodical manner, Ray sifts through the political spin and facts and exposes the falsity of the Canadian federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to quell a fictitious national emergency supposedly created by a peaceful truckers’ protest. Along the way, he astutely implies and describes how the public were duped and science and our Constitution were hijacked by the high priests of leadership in government, health research and policy, big tech, and big media.

Ray’s credibility is enhanced by his own experience of being at the beginning on the ‘other side,’ and that he had already written a book on the 9/11 Commission Report entitled ‘Unanswered Questions.’

This book is a valuable contribution to the truth, hopefully assisting in restoring Canada’s democracy.”

—Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C., last living first minister who signed The Patriation Agreement, the basis of The Constitution Act 1982, which includes The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

“McGinnis has crafted the ultimate expose on the West’s campaign against dissent. With careful reporting, he blows up the false propaganda narrative that the trucker convoy was dangerous. But he also reveals a whitewash clean-up by the POEC on behalf of the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors.”

—Trish Wood, an award-winning investigative journalist with CBC’s The Fifth Estate and As It Happens, author of a critically acclaimed book on the Iraq War, and host of the podcast Trish Wood Is Critical.  

“I first met Ray in Ottawa during the POEC. We spoke at length about the things we had heard during the testimony, compared to what really happened during the Freedom Convoy. I’ve been following Ray’s work and sharing it on all of my social media. He has consistently captured the truth with an in-depth comparison of those in the federal government apparatus, who have painted a very different picture of the actual reality that happened on the ground in Ottawa last year. Ray’s work serves as a historical record of the catastrophic thinking of government officials, who from the very beginning of the Convoy aimed to demonize Canadians. The Convoy was filled by ordinary Canadians who only wanted to peacefully assemble and have their objections counted in a way envisioned by the Constitution and as members of a law-abiding citizenry.”

—Tom Marazzo was a Freedom Convoy volunteer in daily contact with the Ottawa Police Service Police Liaison Teams during the protest. He testified at the POEC. His forthcoming book is The People’s Emergency Act: The Freedom Convoy. 

“Ray brilliantly illustrates how ordinary Canadians went to Ottawa to hold their government to account because the institutions designed to protect them, including the mainstream media, failed them. He further provides many examples where the government did everything in its power to divide, vilify, and crush its own citizens rather than speaking with them. He leaves the reader with many important questions that need to be answered about the strength of our democracy. He still has me questioning, ‘When did the government become so afraid of its own citizens?’”

—Eva Chipiuk is a Canadian civil liberties lawyer who represented a number of the lead Freedom Convoy participants in Ottawa and at the Public Order Emergency Commission, where she cross-examined Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

“Ray McGinnis has done a great service in documenting the truth about the Canadian trucker’s convoy and Trudeau’s unjustified invocation of the Emergencies Act to forcefully suppress it. The picture that emerges from his careful analysis of the facts bears little resemblance to the propaganda deployed to vilify the truckers’ protest. This peaceful protest continued for weeks without a single violent incident. That is, until Canadian police roughed up some of the truckers in Ottawa when Trudeau sent in his shock troops to force the truckers out of the city. Corporatist and statist Canadian media labored to vilify the truckers, slandering them as at worst neo-Nazis and at best the unwashed refuse of society. The reality on the ground, as McGinnis documents here, belied these libelous smears. Even as authoritarian police confiscated fuel that the truckers were using to stay warm at night, the protestors’ responses remained uniformly nonviolent.

The protestors and their allies showed exceptional fortitude and restraint in response to the massive state and corporate powers arrayed against them. Unwilling to face the truckers himself and meet with his own aggrieved citizens, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act for the first time in Canadian history. Armed thereby with unprecedented powers, he sent in police to forcibly remove the truckers from the city. In a move of astonishing hubris and overweening authoritarian control, without a court order Trudeau also froze the bank accounts of the protestors, and even of Canadians who donated money to the convoy.  Private banking and investment firms complied with this directive, not grudgingly but eagerly, turning on their own clients to do the government’s bidding and rid society of these “unclean” elements.

The true story of what happened to the truckers should not be forgotten. McGinnis’ Unjustified sets the record straight on an event that was of extraordinary importance not only for Canada but for the entire world. I warmly recommend this book to all who care about the protection of our civil liberties from authoritarian encroachments.”

—Aaron Kheriaty, MD, Fellow and Director, Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. He formerly taught psychiatry at the UCI School of Medicine, was the director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health, and was the chairman of the ethics committee at the California Department of State Hospitals. He is the author of The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State. 

“20 years from now, when we look back on this moment in history, we will wish that more people wrote about what they were seeing, not just the facts of government collusion, institutional corruption, and our deep culture of silence, but how those things translated into our lived experiences as citizens, spouses, parents, and friends. Unjustified makes a valuable contribution to the record of events related to the Freedom Convoy. By offering a day-by-day, blow-by-blow account of the events of a month in 2022 that refused to be ignored, McGinnis brings to life the indomitable truth that freedom might be able to be suppressed for a while but there will always be people who are willing hold it in their hearts until the world is ready to listen.”

—Julie Ponesse, PhD, is the author of My Choice: The Ethical Case Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. For 20 years was a professor of ethics at Huron University College. She was placed on leave and banned from accessing her campus due to the vaccine mandate.

“Ray McGinnis was not convinced by the legacy media portrayal of the Trucker Convoy as a sinister crusade by seditious, ignorant racists. Disturbed by the inflammatory rhetoric, McGinnis made the decision to travel from his home in Vancouver to attend the November 2022 hearings of the Public Order Emergency Commission in person. McGinnis has written a comprehensive synopsis of the Commission hearings. In particular, he shines a spotlight on the testimony of the government agents responsible for intelligence gathering and public security during the weeks of the Convoy. That testimony, by the Ottawa Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, and Canadian Security Intelligence Service[CE7] [RM8] , corresponded to the experience of so many of us who were present in Ottawa in those days. The representation of the Convoy by politicians and journalists as violent and dangerous bore no resemblance to the reality on the ground.”

—Anna Farrow is a columnist-correspondent for The Catholic Register. She has written for the C2C Journal and several other publications, including Catholic World Report and Convivium magazine. 

“The confrontation between the Freedom Convoy and Canadian authorities in 2022 is a seminal event in the Covid-biosecurity regime saga. Powerfully and intelligently, McGinnis details the smears and the lies leveled at the protesters, the antidemocratic and disingenuous stance of the authorities, and the whitewashing of the Canadian government during the follow-up inquiry. Always rigorous and carefully argued, and always empathetic toward the people involved in these tumultuous events, McGinnis’ Unjustified tells the compelling story of what happens when democracy fails and the people rise. An essential contribution to the historical record and a warning as to where our democracies are heading.”

—Dr. Piers Robinson, Organisation for Propaganda Studies, is lead author of Pockets of Resistance: British News Media, War and Theory in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

“During the pandemic, politicians around the world saw an opportunity to turn a legitimate public health emergency into an abuse of political power. Nowhere was this more evident than in Canada, where the Trudeau Government decided to stigmatize the Canadian Trucker Convoy. A spontaneous movement whose members protested forced vaccinations and violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms … McGinnis’s work during the pandemic is vital to bring to public attention the lies that were being told in Canada under the guise of media cover, the abuse of political power, the consequence of catastrophizing in politics, and the subsequent farce that was the Public Order Emergency Commission.”

—Hügo Krüger is a structural nuclear engineer who has worked on nuclear, oil and gas, and renewable energy infrastructure projects. A Paris-based writer and YouTube podcaster, Hügo comments and interviews guests about engineering, energy, climate, propaganda, and geopolitics. His writing has appeared in Rapport, Newsweek, Unherd, Spiked, Quilette, and Rational Standard. 

“If you’re looking for an authoritative account of the Freedom Convoy protest, and what the testimony at the Public Order Emergency Commission revealed regarding the government’s flawed justification for invoking the Emergencies Act, you’ve found it!”

—Keith Wilson is an Alberta litigator who deals with cases involving land, the environment, oil and gas, water, compensation, and constitutional law. He testified before the Public Order Emergencies Commission and was part of the Freedom Corp. legal team at the inquiry. 

This brilliantly researched analysis of the propaganda surrounding the 2022 trucker freedom convoy shows how badly Canadians were misled by the bullying and cover-ups of the Trudeau administration.

When, in the depths of their January winter, Canadians lined the country’s major national highway to cheer on the beleaguered truck drivers who had been subjected to singularly punitive Covid-19 mandates, “the mainstream media told Canadians the protesters were white supremacist, Nazi, insurrectionists and hillbillies. Politicians claimed the protesters were converging in Ottawa to overthrow the government. The CBC told its viewers that “Russian actors” were instigating the protest.”

When the trucks arrived in Ottawa, the federal government, instead of rising to the occasion and negotiating with the organized, disciplined, and safety-conscious convoy leaders, chose to invoke and mis-apply the Emergencies Act, which is authorized to deal with threats to national security and sovereignty.

By statute, the use of the Emergencies Act legally requires a public inquiry after the fact. Author Ray McGinnis travelled to Ottawa to directly witness testimony of the extensive evidence of administrative cowardice and incompetence during the six weeks of the hearing.

McGinnis’s book belatedly reveals to Canadians the unreported facts of the whole disgraceful saga:  the shameful disregard for Canadian political traditions, and the failure of Trudeau’s bought-off media — especially the CBC — to investigate and report both sides of the protest.

—Elizabeth Woodworth is a former medical librarian, and author/co-author of books and articles on nuclear disarmament, climate policy, 9/11 evidence, Covid-19 policy, and corporate control of the media.

“Unjustified is one of the most important books of our time.  Ray does a deep dive into the false narratives created and perpetrated by the Canadian ruling Liberal Party in partnership with the legacy media, and shows how the judiciary system is being weaponized against everyday Canadian citizens who voice their concerns. It’s a must read for anyone seeking the jaw dropping truth around the Freedom Convoy, the POEC, and the ongoing persecution of Canadian political prisoners.”

—Tamara Lich is author of Hold The Line: My story from the heart of the Freedom Convoy. As a volunteer with the Freedom Convoy Tamara was in frequent contact with members of the Ottawa Police Service.

Click here to purchase.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

“First of all, I don’t want this to be hidden from the world,” Alexis Lorenze, who is currently hospitalized in California with a severe reaction to multiple vaccines, told CHD.TV in an interview on Monday. “And second of all, I don’t want this to ever happen to anyone else ever again.”

For over a week, the 23-year-old has been suffering serious and possibly life-threatening side effects — including temporary blindness, swelling, bruising and sores over her entire body, and severe chest pain — after a hospital required her to receive three vaccines before giving her a blood transfusion to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).

Alexis was diagnosed in January with PNH, a rare autoimmune disorder that causes the immune system to attack and damage the body’s red blood cells. She traveled from her home in Florida to a UCI Medical Center in Orange County for the treatment.

She said doctors there required her to get three shots — rather than the one shot she anticipated — before they would treat her.

Within 10 minutes of receiving the vaccines, Alexis reported that she lost her vision, her jaw locked and she began vomiting. Other symptoms followed.

The Vaccine Safety Research Foundation sent an advocate, Angela Wulbrecht, a registered nurse, to help Alexis and her family negotiate the medical system. CHD.TV has been doing live interview updates with Alexis and Wulbrecht.

In the latest update, Wulbrecht told CHD.TV the last several days have been challenging as Alexis negotiates infection issues. Wulbrecht described Alexis’ health as “touch-and-go.”

She also said the hospital has experienced 10 bomb threats and has had to heighten security. “That has put the staff under a lot of stress and is not helpful,” Wulbrecht said. She said she didn’t know who was behind it, but that “it’s obviously not in our vaccine injury community.”

Wulbrecht said they are frustrated with some of the doctors who won’t concede that Alexis’ condition— which began 10 minutes post-vaccination — is a result of the vaccines, and instead blame her condition solely on the PNH.

It is frustrating, she said, because as Alexis’ story has circulated, doctors from “all over the world” have confirmed that “giving somebody who’s this immunocompromised, her condition was not stable at the time to do this to her was too much for her immune system.”

Several doctors told The Daily Mail that a patient with a serious autoimmune condition shouldn’t be given multiple vaccines at once, because it could lead to complications that a healthy person would not likely experience.

“It really hurts my heart,” Wulbrecht said, “because when you walk through this hospital everywhere, there are signs that say ‘discover, teach, and heal.’ That’s their motto. And they are not discovering, they’re not teaching.”

She said they should be trying to figure out what happened. Instead, both Alexis and Wulbrecht said it’s unclear which vaccines were administered.

Alexis said she was told by her doctor in Florida that she would need to get the meningitis vaccine before treatment, and that was her expectation.

However, when she got to the California hospital, she said she and her sister were told she actually needed three vaccines — meningitis (meningococcal), pneumonia (pneumococcal) and tetanus — and the specialist read the names to her and explained the vaccines. When they were administered the next day, her symptoms began immediately.

Wulbrecht told CHD.TV that she checked Alexis’ medical records and they instead list meningococcal A, meningococcal B and haemophilus B (tetanus toxoid conjugate) as the vaccines administered.

They have been unable to get clarity on the situation and the provider that administered the vaccines has “completely disappeared,” she said.

Alexis told CHD.TV she wants her story to be a warning to people that they need to research and understand what doctors are proposing to put in their bodies, rather than simply trusting them.

Watch CHD.TV’s update on Alexis Lorenze here:

Click here to watch the video

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image is from CHD

United States President Joe Biden addressed the United Nations General Assembly 79th Session on Tuesday September 24 noting this would be his last speech before the international body founded in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II.

Although Biden spoke about his supposed desire to see a ceasefire in Gaza and for the now expanding war in West Asia to end, it is his government and the ruling class which he serves that is fueling the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people and their neighbors in the region.

Since October 7, 2023, millions of people inside the U.S. have called for the halt to hostilities in Gaza where the settler-colonial Israeli regime has slaughtered over 41,000 people, most of whom are women and children, under the guise of self-defense. From mass demonstrations in the streets and encampments at college and university campuses, the people in the U.S. have made clear their opposition to the foreign policy of Washington in Palestine.

A similar situation exists in Ukraine where the U.S. government has armed and encouraged the regime in Kiev to continue their war against the Russian Federation despite its massive losses in casualties and territory. Rather than seek a negotiated conclusion to the war, the Biden administration is consistently transferring billions of dollars in weapons to the Volodymyr Zelensky clique although there is no prospect for victory against Moscow.

The negative approval ratings for Biden are undoubtedly connected to the failed Pentagon and State Department war program which has robbed the workers and oppressed of the resources needed to reverse the declining living standards. In the midst of a presidential election, there are virtually no discussions and debates over how peace can be achieved in the various contested zones throughout the world.

During the course of the Biden address before the UNGA he continued to blame the victims of imperialism for their plight. As it relates to the Palestinian question, Biden regurgitates the long-discredited claims of abuses by the Resistance while completely ignoring the more than 76-year occupation by the Zionist regime.

Biden said of the situation impacting Palestinians that:

“Innocent civilians in Gaza are also going through hell.  Thousands and thousands killed, including aid workers.  Too many families dislocated, crowding into tents, facing a dire humanitarian situation.  They didn’t ask for this war that Hamas started.  I put forward with Qatar and Egypt a ceasefire and hostage deal.  It’s been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.  Now is the time for the parties to finalize its terms, bring the hostages home, en- — secure security for Israel, and Gaza free of Ha- — of Hamas’ grip, ease the suffering in Gaza, and end this war.” 

Yet the Biden administration is continuing to send billions of dollars in arms to the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) to carry out genocide against the Palestinians. Since the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) assaults on neighboring Lebanon, the Pentagon has deployed additional troops to the region. When the Islamic Republic of Iran retaliated in response to the targeted assassinations of several of its military personnel in Syria, it was the U.S. which bolstered the occupation forces.

The administration is fond of saying that the settler-colonial regime in Tel Aviv has the right to defend itself from the resistance forces representing the nationally oppressed people. Nonetheless, such a proclamation is invalid since it assumes that Zionism backed by imperialism has a legitimate right to exist.

These statements by Biden contradicts the recent actions by the UN and its affiliates. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled on more than one occasion that the charges against Tel Aviv for genocide are not only plausible, but they have also ordered the settler-colonial state to end its presence Gaza and the West Bank. The UNGA has voted to enhance the status of the State of Palestine. Just prior to the beginning of the 79th session, the majority of member-states within the UNGA voted in favor of a resolution demanding that Israel withdraws from the “Palestinian Occupied Territories” within the next twelve months. See this.

Over the last four years, the Biden White House has not achieved any diplomatic successes in ending the occupation in Palestine, bringing peace to Ukraine and normalizing relations with the People’s Republic of China. African states which are struggling to ensure their genuine independence and right to self-determination are being targeted by the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It has been revealed that U.S. military assistance to Ukraine is being utilized to undermine the security of West African states in the Sahel region. See this.

U.S. Is Outnumbered on the Palestinian Question

Other leaders addressing the UNGA on September 24 condemned Israel and the U.S. for the situation in Palestine. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the actions being taken against the Palestinians and Lebanese people while imploring the UN to enact measures to halt Israel in its genocidal rampage.

Al Jazeera reported on the speech of Erdogan noting that the Turkish leader drew an analogy between the actions of German leader Adolph Hitler during the WWII and what Israel is doing today:

“’Just as Hitler was stopped by the alliance of humanity 70 years ago, Netanyahu and his murder network must be stopped by the ‘alliance of humanity. An immediate and permanent ceasefire should be achieved, a hostage-prisoner exchange should be carried out, and humanitarian aid should be delivered to Gaza in an unhindered and uninterrupted way.’ Other regional leaders also spoke out against Israel’s war on Gaza at the UNGA on Tuesday. Jordan’s King Abdullah II ruled out the possibility of his country becoming an ‘alternative homeland’ for the Palestinians, warning that their forced displacement by Israel would be a ‘war crime.’ He said he was responding to proposals floated by ‘extremists who are taking our region to the brink of an all-out war’”. 

The political gap between the U.S. and West Asia over the deteriorating security situations in Palestine, Lebanon and other regional states provides a clear indication of the inability of Washington to resolve these issues. Irrespective of the lack of diplomatic acumen on the part of the U.S., its military and economic dominance over various geopolitical regions has proven disastrous with the displacement and deaths of millions of people.

Although the burgeoning conflicts surrounding the settler-colonial regime occupying Palestine receives the most press coverage in the western capitalist states, in Africa, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific the role of Washington and its imperialist allies is also causing tremendous distress and economic uncertainty. The annual UNGA debates highlight the imperatives of fundamental reforms within the global system. If there is to be world peace, the imperialists must be displaced from their position of dominance.

The Necessity for a New World System of Governance

Also speaking at the September 24 session was the Islamic Republic of Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian who emphasized the need to end the genocide in Gaza and to build regional security against imperialism. Pezeshkian was recently elected in the aftermath of the death of the previous President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May.

Iran is routinely targeted by Washington and its allies as the major source of resistance to Zionism and imperialism in West Asia. Tensions have escalated over the last several months with the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Tehran by the Israeli government.

According to the Associated Press in its coverage of the Iranian president’s speech:

“Pezeshkian, like Iranian presidents before him, had sharp words Tuesday for Israel. He accused the nation of ‘atrocities,’ ‘colonialism,’ ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘desperate barbarism’ as it fights Hamas in Gaza and exchanges fire with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran backs both militant groups. Israel’s heavy bombardment of Lebanon in recent days ‘cannot go unanswered,’ he said. He added that consequences would be borne by governments he described as thwarting efforts to end the ‘catastrophe’ in the Middle East while calling themselves champions of human rights, an apparent reference to the United States and allied Western powers.” 

Judging from these statements the potential for broader regional and international military conflagration seems inevitable. UNGA Secretary General Antonio Guterres in his opening remarks painted a grim picture of the global situation.

The Secretary General’s address was covered as well by the Associated Press which emphasized:

“The head of the United Nations warned gathered leaders Tuesday that impunity, inequality and uncertainty are driving modern civilization toward a ‘powder keg that risks engulfing the world’ — the latest clarion call from Antonio Guterres that the global situation is becoming intolerable and unsustainable. ‘We can’t go on like this,’ the secretary-general said in an alarming state-of-the-world address as he opened the annual high-level gathering of the U.N.’s 193 member nations. He said the world is in ‘an era of epic transformation’ and facing challenges never seen before, with geopolitical divisions deepening, the planet heating and wars raging in the Middle East, Ukraine, Sudan and elsewhere with no clue how they will end. ‘We are edging towards the unimaginable — a powder keg that risks engulfing the world,’ Guterres told presidents, prime ministers and ministers in the vast General Assembly Hall.” 

People within the western industrialized states concerned about the future of humanity must align themselves with the struggle to end imperialist war. An alliance between the nations of the Global South and the nationally oppressed and workers of the capitalist states provides the only viable option for the fundamental transformation of the current world situation.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

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

Featured image source

Israel is neither a friend nor ally of the United States. Israel looks out for Israel 100 percent of the time and really doesn’t care what happens to anyone else. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that Israel is “our pit-bull in the Middle East” who keeps the natives in line. But this simply isn’t true. Israel’s activities in the region undermine US interests and inflict severe damage to America’s public image. Here’s how foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer summed it up:

Israel is a strategic albatross around our neck. It’s a liability. Let me just point out, the US doesn’t just give Israel lots of weapons and lots of money. It gives it unconditionally. This is truly remarkable. We don’t treat Israel like a normal country and help it because it’s to our benefit strategically. But that’s not what’s going on here. The US does what it does because of the Lobby. (AIPAC) The United States has a political system that’s set up in ways that allow interest groups to have great influence. Well, the Israel lobby is one of the most, if not, the most powerful lobby in the US. And the lobby goes to enormous lengths to make sure that American foreign policy supports Israel unconditionally. And, it is wildly successful.It’s truly impressive at how good the lobby is at getting US foreign policymakers to support Israel hook, line and sinker. PalMedia@PalBint

We don’t blame Israel for figuring out how to rig the system, so it works to their own advantage, after all, the US operates the same way in nations around the world via its media, its NGOs and its intelligence agents. So, it would be hypocritical for us to criticize Israel for behaving the same way that we do. But that doesn’t change the fact that Israel is a strategic liability, in fact, it just underscores the point. Consider, for example, the recent developments with a key strategic initiative (that you might not have even heard about)—upon which America’s future competitiveness depends. If we take the time to understand how critical this initiative is to America’s global power and prosperity and—at the same time—notice how cavalierly Israel has destroyed any prospect of the initiative succeeding, we can get some idea of the callous disregard Israel has for American interests.

What are we talking about?

On 10 September 2023, representatives from India, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, the EU, and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding which committed their countries to a groundbreaking plan that would link production facilities in Asia with markets across the Middle East and Europe. The plan was called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and it was concocted as an alternative to China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative which has emerged as the Gold Standard of cross-continent infrastructure projects. The BRI includes more than 125 countries and reaches 65 percent of the world’s population. It is, by far, the biggest infrastructure and investment project in history and it is vastly lowering shipping costs, boosting productivity, and enhancing prosperity. The IMEC is Washington’s attempt create an alternate system of trade that duplicates many of the BRI’s features and which—according to the experts—will enhance America’s ability to compete with China in the new century. In other words, Washington is counting on the IMEC to preserve America’s preeminent place in the global order and to assist the US in its broader ambition to economically contain China.

Does that sound important?

You bet it does. Check out this excerpt from the Times of Israel:

US President Joe Biden and his allies on Saturday announced plans to build a rail and shipping corridor linking India with the Middle East and Europe, an ambitious project aimed at fostering economic growth and political cooperation.

“This is a big deal,” said Biden. “This is a really big deal.”

The corridor would help to boost trade, transport energy resources and improve digital connectivity. It would include India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Israel and the European Union, said Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser….

“We think that the project itself is bold and transformative, but the vision behind the project is equally bold and transformative, and we will see it replicated in other parts of the world as well,” Sullivan said….

Sullivan said the network reflected Biden’s vision for “far-reaching investments” that come from “effective American leadership” and a willingness to embrace other nations as partners. He said the enhanced infrastructure would boost economic growth, help bring countries in the Middle East together and establish that region as a hub for economic activity instead of as a “source of challenge, conflict or crisis” as it has been in recent history.
Biden unveils US-backed transport corridor to link India to EU via Mideast, Israel, Times of Israel

Biden is right. The plan for a massive rail and shipping corridor linking India with the Middle East and Europe, is a very big deal. And Washington has a lot riding on that deal, including its future prosperity and power. Regrettably, Israel can’t be bothered with such trivialities as America’s future, especially when it conflicts with their own fanatical ambition to conquer a minuscule stretch of barren ground in Gaza. In their mind, that’s all that counts.

Keep in mind, Washington has been working on the IMEC for a very long time. In fact, the so-called Abraham Accords are merely a subset of this broader economic integration strategy. The Accords were aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors so that traditional rivals would all agree to work collaboratively on the same integration project. But, of course, Israel’s 11 month-long rampage in Gaza has obliterated any hope of Arab leaders working with Israel regardless of pressure from the United States. Just last week, Saudi Arabia—which is a key node in the IMEC—announced that it was ‘calling it quits’ and would suspend all efforts to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. This is from an article at Responsible Statecraft:

In a televised speech today, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated that, “The [Saudi] kingdom will not stop its tireless work towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. We affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.”

With this statement, the Crown Prince appeared to dash the Biden’s administration’s lingering hopes of achieving a landmark normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would have also given Riyadh a U.S. defense agreement as well as a pledge to assist in the establishment of a civilian nuclear program.

Although the Biden administration had previously signaled that they might be willing to move forward with the U.S.-Saudi defense agreement even in the absence of normalization with Israel, MBS’ announcement appears to finally kill the possibility of the so-called “Grand Bargain” that Presidential advisors Brett McGurk, Jake Sullivan, and other senior Biden officials had hoped would offer a means of countering China, resolving the Gaza crisis, and topping Trump’s Abraham Accords all in one….

MBS’ clear statement of Saudi support for the establishment of a Palestinian state demonstrates the impact of the events of the past year. Israel’s devastating campaign against Gaza – cutting off water and electricity, dropping an average of 42 bombs every day, and blocking adequate food, health supplies, and other basic necessities from entering the territory – have provoked worldwide condemnation, which is strongest in the Middle East. MBS: No Saudi-Israel normalization until Palestinians get a state, Responsible Statecraft

No one is blaming Israel for responding to the attack on October 7. What Israel is blamed for is its 11-month-long bloodbath that has killed tens of thousands of civilians while reducing 80% of all the structures in Gaza to rubble. That’s not an acceptable response to terrorism. That is genocide.

Of course, if we are going to be honest, the Gaza genocide is just the tip of the iceberg. If we really want to appreciate how much of a burden Israel is, then look no further than the US State Department’s own website. Here’s what you’ll find:

The 75-year partnership (between the US and Israel) has been built on mutual interests and shared democratic values from its inception, with Israelis and Americans united by their commitment to democracy, economic prosperity, and regional security.

SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

The abiding U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is buttressed by robust security assistance to Israel – including the 10-year, $38 billion MOU that was concluded in 2016. Consistent with the MOU, the United States provides $3.3 billion annually in Foreign Military Financing and an additional $500 million in missile defense funding. Missile defense funding supports several cooperative missile defense programs, including David’s Sling and Iron Dome, as well as Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III, whose life-saving capabilities have proved vital to Israel’s security. In 2022, the United States provided $1 billion in supplemental funding to replenish Israel’s stock of missile interceptors for the Iron Dome….

REGIONAL PEACE AND COOPERATION

The United States is committed to promoting a more integrated, prosperous, and secure Middle East that benefits all its people. We are dedicated to deepening and expanding normalization and integration between Israel and Arab and Muslim-majority states – as exemplified by the Abraham Accords, other normalization agreements… the United States – advances regional integration, cooperation, and development to augment peace, security, and economic prosperity for the wider region, including initiatives that could strengthen the Palestinian economy and improve Palestinians’ quality of life. The United States remains committed to advancing a comprehensive, negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict….

As part of our efforts to promote a two-state solution and regional peace, the United States is programming the first two years of a five-year funding plan (a $100 million tranche)… to strengthen people-to-people engagement between Israelis and Palestinians. US Relations with Israel, US State Department

It’s shocking, isn’t it? $3 billion here, $38 billion there. Pretty soon, you’re talking real money.

And you might notice that all the money is funneled in one direction: from Washington to Tel Aviv. Never the reverse. Why is that?

Notice, also, how the author boasts about the the Abraham Accords, and the “regional integration” projects (IMEC), and even the elusive “two-state solution”, all of which are of paramount importance to the United States but all of which have been deliberately sabotaged by our ‘good friend’ Israel.

I don’t know how any objective-minded person can review the facts and not draw the same conclusion as Mearsheimer, that Israel is a strategic liability and an albatross.

If we were smart, we’d close our embassy in Jerusalem and recall our ambassador immediately. Enough is enough.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Featured image is from TUR

The Israeli military has embarked upon a massive bombing campaign in Lebanon. Last week, it began with the remote detonation of thousands of personal electronic devices. On Friday, an Israeli strike leveled a building in the Beirut suburbs. On Sunday and into Monday, the bombings expanded into the largest attack on Lebanon since Israel’s 2006 invasion. All told, the Israeli military bombed 1,300 targets, killing at least 490 people, including more than 90 children and women. 

The death toll is already the highest since the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War, and certainly the worst since October 7, when Israel and Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia group backed by Iran, began exchanging strikes. The Israeli government continued its attacks over the course of the day Monday, hitting a Beirut suburb with three missiles, injuring at least six others. While Israel said it targeted Hezbollah’s weapons supplies, Lebanon’s health minister also said the strikes hit hospitals, medical centers, and ambulances.

With this new bombing campaign, Israel has opened a new front in its wars on Gaza and the West Bank — and critics of U.S. policy have renewed calls for the U.S. to halt its weapons transfers to Israel as the conflict continues to grow.

“It’s easier to stop sending the Israel government weapons to conduct its genocidal wars than it is to evacuate every American in Lebanon,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., on X on Monday, captioning a tweet from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, urging American citizens to leave the country. 

It’s easier to stop sending the Israel government weapons to conduct its genocidal wars than it is to evacuate every American in Lebanon. https://t.co/R3BZ5zMnAP

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) September 23, 2024

Abbas Alawieh, a co-founder of the “Uncommitted” movement, which has been pushing the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris’s campaign to commit to an arms embargo on Israel, reported Monday morning that his family’s village in Lebanon had been hit by Israeli bombs, killing “a mom and her daughters … in their home,” as well as other civilians in his cousins’ village.

“[President Joe Biden], the more weapons you send, the more civilians killed,” Alawieh wrote.

Overwhelmed this morning by news from family in Lebanon. In our village, reports of a mom and her daughters killed in their home by an Israeli airstrike. In my cousins’, their great aunt and 3 daughters, the same.@POTUS the more weapons you send, the more civilians killed.

— Abbas Alawieh (@AZAlawieh) September 23, 2024

In May, ahead of Israel’s invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah where thousands of Palestinians were sheltering from fighting, the Biden administration halted the transfer of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs to Israel. However, in July, amid pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups, the U.S. resumed shipments of 500-pound bombs. 

When Harris was asked during a talk with the National Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia about a shift in policy around Israel’s war in Gaza, a question she has avoided throughout the campaign trail, Harris said she supports Biden’s pause on 2,000-pound bombs.

“So, there is some leverage that we have had and used,” she said.

Although the source of the bombs and missiles used in the recent bombardments in Lebanon have yet to be established, Stephen Semler, co-founder of Security Policy Reform Institute, which tracks U.S. military arms transfers to Israel, believes it likely that American-made munitions were involved in the attacks. 

“As more forensic evidence is recovered in Lebanon, we shouldn’t be surprised to see U.S. fingerprints all over it,” Semler told The Intercept. “Considering Israel’s reliance on U.S. munitions, the burden of proof is effectively flipped, where it’d almost be more shocking to see a non-U.S-supplied weapon being used in southern Lebanon.”

Semler compiled a list of instances of U.S. munitions being used in possible violations of humanitarian law earlier this year, including a strike in March where Israel bombed the village of ​​Hebbarieh in southern Lebanon, hitting a residential building that housed the Emergency and Relief Corps of the Lebanese Succour Association. The Israeli strike killed emergency and relief volunteers. While the 500-pound bomb used in the attack was made in Israel, its Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kit — a bolt-on piece of technology that guides bombs toward their targets — was American-made, according to Semler’s work and research conducted by Human Rights Watch.

On October 16 of last year, the Israel Defense Forces fired 155 mm artillery shells filled with white phosphorus into Dhayra, another south Lebanon village. The attack killed nine civilians and damaged civilian property. Production serial numbers on the artillery shells showed they were manufactured in the U.S., according to Amnesty International and the Washington Post.

The Israeli military has said the recent strikes, which mostly took place in southern Lebanon, are intended to secure the border area so that tens of thousands of displaced Israelis who fled northern Israel over the past year could safely return to their homes. Israel also accused Hezbollah of using “human shields,” alleging it had stored munitions inside civilian homes, a common pretext for costly strikes of homes and hospitals in Gaza.

As the strikes began, Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli released a statement calling for the IDF to invade and permanently take over parts of southern Lebanon from which Hezbollah can fire missiles into Israel.

“Lebanon, even though it has a flag and even though it has political institutions, does not meet the definition of a state,” Chikli wrote in a series of posts on X, blaming Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah to control its southern region. In addition to its armed wing, Hezbollah also operates as an official political party in Lebanon and has been a part of the national government for over three decades. The tweets included a map of a proposed “buffer zone,” that would move the Israel–Lebanon border up beyond the “Blue Line” — which was drawn in a deal following the 2006 war — miles into current Lebanese territory. 

לבנון, למרות שיש לה דגל ולמרות שיש לה מוסדות פוליטיים לא עונה להגדרה מדינה.

בהיעדר מונופול על הפעלת הכוח הן כלפי פנים והן כלפי חוץ ממשלת לבנון היא לא יישות ריבונית. על מרחב הגבול עם לבנון המאוכלס ברובו באוכלוסייה שיעית עויינת שולט באפקטיביות ארגון חזבאללה שבשמונה לאוקטובר פתח… pic.twitter.com/pVrszT5tFf

— עמיחי שיקלי – Amichai Chikli (@AmichaiChikli) September 21, 2024

Chikili’s comments revived worries over the long-standing possibility of Israel annexing and occupying part of southern Lebanon. In recent months, an Israeli settler organization, Uri Tzafon — the name invokes a biblical verse and translates to “Awaken, O North” — said that settling Lebanon is necessary to “grant true and stable security to northern Israel” and expand Israel closer toward its biblical borders, according to Jewish Currents. 

The United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon that has been helping maintain the Blue Line said on Monday amid the renewed Israeli strikes that they have “grave concern for the safety of civilians.”

“It is essential to fully recommit to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which is now more critical than ever to address the underlying causes of the conflict and ensure lasting stability,” the U.N. mission said. 

Hezbollah was founded in the 1980s, largely in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, with the explicit support of the recently established Islamic Republic of Iran. During that conflict, more than 17,000 people were killed, including more than 1,000 civilians – mostly Palestinians and Lebanese — who were massacred by an Israeli-backed Lebanese Christian militia group in Beirut’s Sabra neighborhood and Shatila refugee camp.

Semler said the current crisis stems from Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, which is nearing its one-year mark and has killed more than 41,000 people, including more than 16,500 children. Hezbollah, along with a set of allied groups, including the Houthis in Yemen, have vowed to attack Israel as long as it continues its war in Gaza. 

Ceasefire talks to end the war have dragged on for months, prompting critics, including Semler, to accuse the U.S. and Israel of putting on “political theater,” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firms his grip on power in the country. A growing number of Democratic leaders, and Americans, have called on the Biden administration to use its military aid as leverage to force a ceasefire deal. 

“In general, nothing Israel is doing now would be possible without the United States,” Semler said. Congress approved $18 billion in military aid to Israel this year alone.

IDF spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari told reporters on Monday that it is “not looking for wars” but is “looking to take down the threats” and “will do whatever is necessary to do to achieve this mission.” 

Hagari also claimed Monday that Hezbollah has launched more than 9,000 rockets and drones into Israel since October 7, including 700 in the last week. Semler said his analysis found that Israel has launched an even greater amount — 11,000 munitions, excluding the bombs dropped in airstrikes — into Lebanon from October 7 to June. This weekend’s strikes have prompted thousands more in south Lebanon to flee north. 

Meanwhile, during an Oval Office meeting on Monday between Biden and United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan meant to reinforce the U.S. economic partnership with the oil-rich country, the president said his Cabinet is “working to de-escalate” the conflict in Lebanon.

“The Biden administration is telling us that it’s working for a ceasefire in Gaza, but continues to send arms,” Semler said. “And it’s the same deal for the broader Middle East, they’re telling us, ‘Oh, we don’t want it to extend to a broader conflict,’ but at the same time they keep sending weapons to Israel, which allows them to expand the conflict.”

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image: Smoke billows from a site targeted by Israeli shelling in the southern Lebanese village of Zaita [Mahmoud Zayyat/AFP]

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—Thomas Paine

The government wants your money.

It will beg, steal or borrow if necessary, but it wants your money any way it can get it.

The government’s schemes to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars have run the gamut from wasteful pork barrel legislation, cronyism and graft to asset forfeiture, costly stimulus packages, and a national security complex that continues to undermine our freedoms while failing to making us any safer.

Americans have also been made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the taxpayers.

This is what comes of those $1.2 trillion spending bills: someone’s got to foot the bill.

Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and control has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, tickets and penalties.

No matter how much money the government pulls in, it’s never enough (case in point: the endless stopgap funding deals and constant ratcheting up of the debt ceiling), so the government has to keep introducing new plans to empower its agents to seize Americans’ bank accounts.

Make way for the digital dollar.

Whether it’s the central bank digital currency favored by President Biden, or the cryptocurrency being hawked by former President Trump, the end result will still be a form of digital money that makes it easier to track, control and punish the citizenry.

For instance, weeks before the Biden Administration made headlines with its support for a government-issued digital currency, the FBI and the Justice Department quietly moved ahead with plans for a cryptocurrency enforcement team (translation: digital money cops), a virtual asset exploitation unit tasked with investigating crypto crimes and seizing virtual assets, and a crypto czar to oversee it all.

No surprises here, of course.

This is how the government operates: by giving us tools to make our lives “easier” while, in the process, making it easier for the government to crack down.

Indeed, this shift to a digital currency is a global trend.

More than 100 other countries are considering introducing their own digital currencies.

China has already adopted a government-issued digital currency, which not only allows it to surveil and seize people’s financial transactions, but can also work in tandem with its social credit score system to punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). As China expert Akram Keram wrote for The Washington Post, “With digital yuan, the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] will have direct control over and access to the financial lives of individuals, without the need to strong-arm intermediary financial entities. In a digital-yuan-consumed society, the government easily could suspend the digital wallets of dissidents and human rights activists.”

Where China goes, the United States eventually follows.

Inevitably, a digital currency will become part of our economy and a central part of the government’s surveillance efforts.

Combine that with ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) initiatives that are tantamount to social media credit scores for corporations, and you will find that we’re traveling the same road as China towards digital authoritarianism. As journalist Jon Brookin warns: “Digital currency issued by a central bank can be used as a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions.”

As such, digital currency provides the government and its corporate partners with a mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

This push for a digital currency dovetails with the government’s war on cash, which it has been subtly waging for some time now. Much like the war on drugs and the war on terror, this so-called “war on cash” has been sold to the public as a means of fighting terrorists, drug dealers, tax evaders and even COVID-19 germs.

In recent years, just the mere possession of significant amounts of cash could implicate you in suspicious activity and label you a criminal. The rationale (by police) is that cash is the currency for illegal transactions given that it’s harder to track, can be used to pay illegal immigrants, and denies the government its share of the “take,” so doing away with paper money will help law enforcement fight crime and help the government realize more revenue.

According to economist Steve Forbes, “The real reason for this war on cash—start with the big bills and then work your way down—is an ugly power grab by Big Government. People will have less privacy: Electronic commerce makes it easier for Big Brother to see what we’re doing, thereby making it simpler to bar activities it doesn’t like, such as purchasing salt, sugar, big bottles of soda and Big Macs.”

This is how a cashless society—easily monitored, controlled, manipulated, weaponized and locked down—plays right into the hands of the government (and its corporate partners).

Despite what we know about the government and its history of corruption, bumbling, fumbling and data breaches, not to mention how easily technology can be used against us, the shift to a cashless society is really not a hard sell for a society increasingly dependent on technology for the most mundane aspects of life.

In much the same way that Americans have opted into government surveillance through the convenience of GPS devices and cell phones, digital cash—the means of paying with one’s debit card, credit card or cell phone—is becoming the de facto commerce of the American police state.

At one time, it was estimated that smart phones would replace cash and credit cards altogether by 2020. Since then, growing numbers of businesses have adopted no-cash policies, including certain airlines, hotels, rental car companies, restaurants and retail stores. In Sweden, even the homeless and churches accept digital cash.

Making the case for a digital wallet, journalist Lisa Rabasca Roepe argues that there’s no longer a need for cash. “More and more retailers and grocery stores are embracing Apple Pay, Google Wallet, Samsung Pay, and Android Pay,” notes Roepe. “PayPal’s app is now accepted at many chain stores including Barnes & Noble, Foot Locker, Home Depot, and Office Depot. Walmart and CVS have both developed their own payment apps while their competitors Target and RiteAid are working on their own apps.”

So what’s really going on here?

Despite all of the advantages that go along with living in a digital age—namely, convenience—it’s hard to imagine how a cashless world navigated by way of a digital wallet doesn’t signal the beginning of the end for what little privacy we have left and leave us vulnerable to the likes of government thieves, data hackers and an all-knowing, all-seeing Orwellian corpo-governmental state.

First, when I say privacy, I’m not just referring to the things that you don’t want people to know about, those little things you do behind closed doors that are neither illegal nor harmful but embarrassing or intimate. I am also referring to the things that are deeply personal and which no one need know about, certainly not the government and its constabulary of busybodies, nannies, Peeping Toms, jail wardens and petty bureaucrats.

Second, we’re already witnessing how easy it will be for government agents to manipulate digital wallets for their own gain in order to track your movements, monitor your activities and communications, and ultimately shut you down. For example, civil asset forfeiture schemes are becoming even more profitable for police agencies thanks to ERAD (Electronic Recovery and Access to Data) devices supplied by the Department of Homeland Security that allow police to not only determine the balance of any magnetic-stripe card (i.e., debit, credit and gift cards) but also freeze and seize any funds on pre-paid money cards. In fact, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment for police to scan or swipe your credit card. Expect those numbers to skyrocket once digital money cops show up in full force.

Third, a government-issued digital currency will give the government the ultimate control of the economy and complete access to the citizenry’s pocketbook. While the government might tout the ease with which it can deposit stimulus funds into the citizenry’s accounts, such a system could also introduce what economists refer to as “negative interest rates.” Instead of being limited by a zero bound threshold on interest rates, the government could impose negative rates on digital accounts in order to control economic growth. “If the cash is electronic, the government can just erase 2 percent of your money every year,” said David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University.

Fourth, a digital currency will open Americans—and their bank accounts—up to even greater financial vulnerabilities from hackers and government agents alike.

Fifth, digital authoritarianism will redefine what it means to be free in almost every aspect of our lives. Again, we must look to China to understand what awaits us. As Human Rights Watch analyst Maya Wang explains:

“Chinese authorities use technology to control the population all over the country in subtler but still powerful ways. The central bank is adopting digital currency, which will allow Beijing to surveil—and control—people’s financial transactions. China is building so-called safe cities, which integrate data from intrusive surveillance systems to predict and prevent everything from fires to natural disasters and political dissent. The government believes that these intrusions, together with administrative actions, such as denying blacklisted people access to services, will nudge people toward ‘positive behaviors,’ including greater compliance with government policies and healthy habits such as exercising.”

Short of returning to a pre-technological, Luddite age, there’s really no way to pull this horse back now that it’s left the gate. To our detriment, we have virtually no control over who accesses our private information, how it is stored, or how it is used. And in terms of our bargaining power over digital privacy rights, we have been reduced to a pitiful, unenviable position in which we can only hope and trust that those in power will treat our information with respect.

At a minimum, before any kind of digital currency is adopted, we need stricter laws on data privacy and an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices by the government and its corporate partners.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the ramifications of any government having this much unregulated, unaccountable power to target, track, round up and detain its citizens is beyond chilling.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Flickr

Below is an excerpt from an article on The Sun:

Living nightmare: I put my headaches down to ‘Christmas flu’ six months after my wedding day – but it was an incurable brain tumour

He said people still don’t understand cancer’s true horror

By Owen Leonard, The Sun, September 2, 2024

A DAD put his headaches down to simple “Christmas flu” six months after his wedding day – but it turned out to be an incurable brain tumour.

Adam Chapman, 43, thought it might’ve also been work-related stress when he started getting headaches after December 2022.

But he was left devastated after being diagnosed with high-grade glioblastoma – the most aggressive cancer originating from the brain – when he was rushed to hospital in February last year.

Adam has since been subjected to two operations, the most recent being last month, as well as months of gruelling radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

His memory, cognition and sight have also all been “severely impacted” after he suffered a stroke during his initial 12-hour surgery.

He said:  “I put the headaches down to work related stress, tiredness, and the tail end of the Christmas flu.

“My thoughts were blurred and things didn’t seem to make sense; I was slowly starting to lose control of my brain and body.”

Adam, from Worcester, used to train in the gym five days a week and competed in 10k assault course races before his diagnosis.

But now he’s had to come to terms with the fact that he’ll deal the tumour for the rest of his “limited life”.

He said: “People appear to think that because I’ve had surgery and chemotherapy and I’m at home now, I must be OK.

Click here to read the full article on The Sun.

My Take…

Glioblastomas are the 2nd most common TURBO CANCER caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.

These are tumors that usually have a bad prognosis but these are even worse.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.  

Featured image source

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

What the Israeli government had purportedly done to civilians in Lebanon on the 16th of September 2024 was a blatant, dastardly act of terrorism. Detonating bombs placed in pagers and other communication devices used by innocent civilians was an attempt to spread fear and tension within the populace, apart from its more obvious goal of killing or maiming individuals. According to various sources, 37 people were killed, including a number of children. More than 3000 others were injured, many severely.   

It is important to emphasise that those killed or injured were not from Northern Lebanon where a military clash is raging between the Israeli army and Hizbollah, the movement that is resisting Israeli hegemony in West Asia including Lebanon. The Israeli terrorist operation appears to have targeted several cities, including Beirut, Lebanon’s capital.  Its larger aim — apart from what has been stated here —- could be to turn a segment of the citizenry against Hizbollah in a volatile situation where different groups are competing for power and control with the active support of foreign actors.

The political dimensions of the conflict in Lebanon notwithstanding, the Israeli terror attack of 16th September should be condemned by all those who reject terrorism as ideology and political practice. It is significant in this regard that while some Western governments have condemned Israel’s action, the United States Administration has been reticent about Israel’s role. This is one of the main reasons why the far right government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv has become bolder and bolder in its bellicose behaviour in West Asia. It knows that the majority of American leaders will continue to support the Israeli government blindly, even when it commits terrorism and murder.  

For those of us who have a genuine commitment to human rights and human dignity, we remain consistent in our opposition to terrorism, whoever the perpetrator is.  That is a defining attribute of our credo.     

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Outstanding historical analysis of relevance to an understanding of the so-called “Deep State” and today’s global financial establishment. 

First published on June 8, 2011 

.

.

Read Part I:

The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

By Dean Henderson, May 06, 2023

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton became the first Treasury Secretary of the United States.  Hamilton was one of many Founding Fathers who were Freemasons. 

He had close relations with the Rothschild family which owns the Bank of England and leads the European Freemason movement. 

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Brown and Roger Sherman were all Masons. 

Alexander Hamilton

Roger Livingston helped Sherman and Franklin write the Declaration of Independence.  He gave George Washington his oaths of office while he was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge of Freemasons.  Washington himself was Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  Of the General Officers in the Revolutionary Army, thirty-three were Masons.  This was highly symbolic since 33rd Degree Masons become Illuminated. [1]

Populist founding fathers led by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine– none of whom were Masons- wanted to completely severe ties with the British Crown, but were overruled by the Masonic faction led by Washington, Hamilton and Grand Master of the St. Andrews Lodge in Boston General Joseph Warren, who wanted to “defy Parliament but remain loyal to the Crown”.

St. Andrews Lodge was the hub of New World Masonry and began issuing Knights Templar Degrees in 1769. [2]

General Joseph Warren

All US Masonic lodges are to this day warranted by the British Crown, whom they serve as a global intelligence and counterrevolutionary subversion network.

(Their most recent initiative [2011] is the Masonic Child Identification Program (CHIP).  According to Wikipedia, the CHIP programs allow parents the opportunity to create a kit of identifying materials for their child, free of charge. The kit contains a fingerprint card, a physical description, a video, computer disk, or DVD of the child, a dental imprint, and a DNA sample.)

The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 under the Presidency of Peyton Randolph, who succeeded Washington as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 under the Presidency of Freemason John Hancock.

Peyton’s brother William succeeded him as Virginia Lodge Grand Master and became the leading proponent of centralization and federalism at the First Constitutional Convention in 1787.  The federalism at the heart of the US Constitution is identical to the federalism laid out in the Freemason’s Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723.  William Randolph became the nation’s first Attorney General and Secretary of State under George Washington.  His family returned to England loyal to the Crown.  John Marshall, the nation’s first Supreme Court Justice, was also a Mason. [3]

When Benjamin Franklin journeyed to France to seek financial help for American revolutionaries, his meetings took place at Rothschild banks.  He brokered arms sales via German Mason Baron von Steuben.  His Committees of Correspondence operated through Freemason channels and paralleled a British spy network.  In 1776 Franklin became de facto Ambassador to France.

In 1779 he became Grand Master of the French Neuf Soeurs (Nine Sisters) Lodge, to which John Paul Jones and Voltaire belonged.  Franklin was also a member of the more secretive Royal Lodge of Commanders of the Temple West of Carcasonne, whose members included Frederick Prince of Whales.  While Franklin preached temperance in the US, he cavorted wildly with his Lodge brothers in Europe.  Franklin served as Postmaster General from the 1750’s to 1775 – a role traditionally relegated to British spies. [4]

With Rothschild financing Alexander Hamilton founded two New York banks, including Bank of New York. [5]  He died in a gun battle with Aaron Burr, who founded Bank of Manhattan with Kuhn Loeb financing.  Hamilton exemplified the contempt which the Eight Families hold towards common people, once stating, “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many.  The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right.  Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government.  They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”[6]

Hamilton was only the first in a series of Eight Families cronies to hold the key position of Treasury Secretary.

In recent times Kennedy Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon came from Dillon Read (now part of UBS Warburg).

Nixon Treasury Secretaries David Kennedy and William Simon came from Continental Illinois Bank (now part of Bank of America) and Salomon Brothers (now part of Citigroup), respectively.

Carter Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal came from Goldman Sachs, Reagan Treasury Secretary Donald Regan came from Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America), Bush Sr. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady came from Dillon Read (UBS Warburg) and both Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Bush Jr. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs.  Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner worked at Kissinger Associates and the New York Fed.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the United States needed a publicly-owned central bank so that European monarchs and aristocrats could not use the printing of money to control the affairs of the new nation.

Jefferson extolled,

“A country which expects to remain ignorant and free…expects that which has never been and that which will never be.  There is scarcely a King in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever…banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy.”

Jefferson watched as the Euro-banking conspiracy to control the United States unfolded, weighing in, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery”. [7]

But the Rothschild-sponsored Hamilton’s arguments for a private US central bank carried the day.  In 1791 the Bank of the United States (BUS) was founded, with the Rothschilds as main owners.  The bank’s charter was to run out in 1811.  Public opinion ran in favor of revoking the charter and replacing it with a Jeffersonian public central bank.  The debate was postponed as the nation was plunged by the Euro-bankers into the War of 1812.  Amidst a climate of fear and economic hardship, Hamilton’s bank got its charter renewed in 1816.

Old Hickory, Honest Abe & Camelot

In 1828 Andrew Jackson took a run at the US Presidency.  Throughout his campaign he railed against the international bankers who controlled the BUS.  Jackson ranted, “You are a den of vipers.  I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out.  If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

Jackson won the election and revoked the bank’s charter stating, “The Act seems to be predicated on an erroneous idea that the present shareholders have a prescriptive right to not only the favor, but the bounty of the government…for their benefit does this Act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly.  Present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with government.

Should its influence be concentrated under the operation of such an Act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the independence of our country in war…controlling our currency, receiving our public monies and holding thousands of our citizens independence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.  It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government for selfish purposes…to make the rich richer and more powerful.  Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress.  I have done my duty to this country.”[8]

Populism prevailed and Jackson was re-elected.  In 1835 he was the target of an assassination attempt.  The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was, “in touch with the powers in Europe”. [9]

Still, in 1836 Jackson refused to renew the BUS charter.  Under his watch the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our nation’s history.  This angered the international bankers, whose primary income is derived from interest payments on debt.  BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging the US into a depression.  Biddle was an agent for the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. [10]

The Mexican War was simultaneously sprung on Jackson.  A few years later the Civil War was unleashed, with London bankers backing the Union and French bankers backing the South. The Lehman family made a fortune smuggling arms to the south and cotton to the north.  By 1861 the US was $100 million in debt.  New President Abraham Lincoln snubbed the Euro-bankers again, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills.

The Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote, “If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost.  It will pay off its debts and be without debt.  It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world.  The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America.  That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” [11]

The Euro-banker-written Hazard Circular was exposed and circulated throughout the country by angry populists.  It stated, “The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the valve of money.  To accomplish this government bonds must be used as a banking basis.  We are now awaiting Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase to make that recommendation.  It will not allow Greenbacks to circulate as money as we cannot control that.  We control bonds and through them banking issues”.

The 1863 National Banking Act reinstated a private US central bank and Chase’s war bonds were issued.  Lincoln was re-elected the next year, vowing to repeal the act after he took his January 1865 oaths of office.  Before he could act, he was assassinated at the Ford Theatre by John Wilkes Booth.  Booth had major connections to the international bankers.  His granddaughter wrote This One Mad Act, which details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” just before the Lincoln assassination.

Following the Lincoln hit, Booth was whisked away by members of a secret society known as Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC).  KGC had close ties to the French Society of Seasons, which produced Karl Marx.  KGC had fomented much of the tension that caused the Civil War and President Lincoln had specifically targeted the group.  Booth was a KGC member and was connected through Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin to the House of Rothschild.  Benjamin fled to England after the Civil War. [12]

Nearly a century after Lincoln was assassinated for issuing Greenbacks, President John F. Kennedy found himself in the Eight Families’ crosshairs.  Kennedy had announced a crackdown on off-shore tax havens and proposed increases in tax rates on large oil and mining companies.  He supported eliminating tax loopholes which benefit the super-rich.  His economic policies were publicly attacked by Fortune magazine, the Wall Street Journal and both David and Nelson Rockefeller.  Even Kennedy’s own Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, who came from the UBS Warburg-controlled Dillon Read investment bank, voiced opposition to the JFK proposals. [13]

Kennedy’s fate was sealed in June 1963 when he authorized the issuance of more than $4 billion in United States Notes by his Treasury Department in an attempt to circumvent the high interest rate usury of the private Federal Reserve international banker crowd.

The wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was conveniently gunned down by Jack Ruby before Ruby himself was shot, told author A. J. Weberman in 1994, “The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank.  Don’t underestimate that.  It’s wrong to blame it on Angleton and the CIA per se only.  This is only one finger on the same hand.  The people who supply the money are above the CIA”. [14]

Fueled by incoming President Lyndon Johnson’s immediate escalation of the Vietnam War, the US sank further into debt.  Its citizens were terrorized into silence.  If they could kill the President they could kill anyone.

The House of Rothschild

The Dutch House of Orange founded the Bank of Amsterdam in 1609 as the world’s first central bank.  Prince William of Orange married into the English House of Windsor, taking King James II’s daughter Mary as his bride.  The Orange Order Brotherhood, which recently fomented Northern Ireland Protestant violence, put William III on the English throne where he ruled both Holland and Britain.  In 1694 William III teamed up with the UK aristocracy to launch the private Bank of England.

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street- as the Bank of England is known- is surrounded by thirty foot walls.  Three floors beneath it the third largest stock of gold bullion in the world is stored. [15]

The Rothschilds and their inbred Eight Families partners gradually came to control the Bank of England.  The daily London gold “fixing” occurred at the N. M. Rothschild Bank until 2004.  As Bank of England Deputy Governor George Blunden put it, “Fear is what makes the bank’s powers so acceptable.  The bank is able to exert its influence when people are dependent on us and fear losing their privileges or when they are frightened.”[16]

Mayer Amschel Rothschild sold the British government German Hessian mercenaries to fight against American Revolutionaries, diverting the proceeds to his brother Nathan in London, where N.M. (Nathan and Mayer) Rothschild & Sons was established.  Mayer was a serious student of Cabala and launched his fortune on money embezzled from William IX- royal administrator of the Hesse-Kassel region and a prominent Freemason.

Rothschild-controlled Barings bankrolled the Chinese opium and African slave trades.  It financed the Louisiana Purchase.  When several states defaulted on its loans, Barings bribed Daniel Webster to make speeches stressing the virtues of loan repayment.  The states held their ground, so the House of Rothschild cut off the money spigot in 1842, plunging the US into a deep depression.  It was often said that the wealth of the Rothschilds depended on the bankruptcy of nations.  Mayer Amschel Rothschild once said, “I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency”.

War didn’t hurt the family fortune either.  The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French.  Nathan Rothschild made a huge financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon.  Both the Mexican War and the Civil War were goldmines for the family.

Nathan Rothschild

One Rothschild family biography mentions a London meeting where an “International Banking Syndicate” decided to pit the American North against the South as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy.  German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once stated,

“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War.  These bankers were afraid that the United States…would upset their financial domination over the world.  The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed.”

Rothschild biographer Derek Wilson says the family was the official European banker to the US government and strong supporters of the Bank of the United States. [17]

Family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860.  He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”. [18]

French and British troops had, at the height of the Civil War, encircled the US.  The British sent 11,000 troops to Crown-controlled Canada, which gave safe harbor to Confederate agents.  France’s Napoleon III installed Austrian Hapsburg family member Archduke Maximilian as his puppet emperor in Mexico, where French troops massed on the Texas border.  Only an 11th-hour deployment of two Russian warship fleets by US ally Czar Alexander II in 1863 saved the United States from re-colonization. [19]

That same year the Chicago Tribune blasted, “Belmont (August Belmont was a US Rothschild agent and had a Triple Crown horse race named in his honor) and the Rothschilds…who have been buying up Confederate war bonds.”

Salmon Rothschild said of a deceased President Lincoln, “He rejects all forms of compromise.  He has the appearance of a peasant and can only tell barroom stories.”

Baron Jacob Rothschild was equally flattering towards the US citizenry.  He once commented to US Minister to Belgium Henry Sanford on the over half a million Americans who died during the Civil War, “When your patient is desperately sick, you try desperate measures, even to bloodletting.”  Salmon and Jacob were merely carrying forth a family tradition.  A few generations earlier Mayer Amschel Rothschild bragged of his investment strategy, “When the streets of Paris are running in blood, I buy”. [20]

Mayer Rothschild’s sons were known as the Frankfurt Five.  The eldest – Amschel – ran the family’s Frankfurt bank with his father, while Nathan ran London operations.  Youngest son Jacob set up shop in Paris, while Salomon ran the Vienna branch and Karl was off to Naples.  Author Frederick Morton estimates that by 1850 the Rothschilds were worth over $10 billion. [21]  Some researchers believe that their fortune today exceeds $100 trillion.

The Warburgs, Kuhn Loebs, Goldman Sachs, Schiffs and Rothschilds have intermarried into one big happy banking family.

The Warburg family- which controls Deutsche Bank and BNP– tied up with the Rothschilds in 1814 in Hamburg, while Kuhn Loeb powerhouse Jacob Schiff shared quarters with Rothschilds in 1785.  Schiff immigrated to America in 1865.  He joined forces with Abraham Kuhn and married Solomon Loeb’s daughter.  Loeb and Kuhn married each others sisters and the Kuhn Loeb dynasty was consummated.  Felix Warburg married Jacob Schiff’s daughter.  Two Goldman daughters married two sons of the Sachs family, creating Goldman Sachs.  In 1806 Nathan Rothschild married the oldest daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, a leading financier in London. [22]  Thus, Merrill Lynch super-bull Abby Joseph Cohen and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen are likely descended from Rothschilds.

Today the Rothschild’s control a far-flung financial empire, which includes majority stakes in most world central banks.

The Edmond de Rothschild clan owns the Banque Privee SA in Lugano, Switzerland and the Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich.  The family of Jacob Lord Rothschild owns the powerful Rothschild Italia in Milan.  They are founding members of the exclusive $10 trillion Club of the Isles – which controls corporate giants Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Barclays, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, BHP Billiton and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials. [23]

The Club of the Isles provides capital for George Soros’ Quantum Fund NV – which made substantial financial gains in 1998-99 following the collapse of currencies of Thailand, Indonesia and Russia.  Soros was a major shareholder at George W. Bush’s Harken Energy.  The Club of Isles is led by the Rothschilds and includes Queen Elizabeth II and other wealthy European aristocrats and Nobility.[24]

Perhaps the largest repository for Rothschild wealth today is Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG – a secretive Swiss-based bank holding company.  By the late 1990s scions of the Rothschild global empire were Barons Guy and Elie de Rothschild in France and Lord Jacob and Sir Evelyn Rothschild in Britain. [25]

Evelyn was chairman of the Economist and a director at DeBeers and IBM UK.

Jacob backed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California gubernatorial campaign.  He took control of Khodorkovsky’s YUKOS oil shares just before the Russian government arrested him.  In 2010 Jacob joined Rupert Murdoch in a shale oil extraction partnership in Israel through Genie Energy – a subsidiary of IDT Corporation. [26]

Within months, Sarah Palin had hired former IDT executive Michael Glassner as her chief of staff. [27]  Is Palin the Rothschild choice in 2012?

Read Part III:

The Federal Reserve Cartel. The Roundtable and The Illuminati

By Dean Henderson, May 09, 2023

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Notes

[1] The Temple & the Lodge. Michael Bagent & Richard Leigh. Arcade Publishing. New York. 1989. p.259

[2] Ibid. p.219

[3] Ibid. p.253

[4] Ibid. p.233

[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.156

[6] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.51

[7] Fourth Reich of the Rich. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena, CA. 1978. p.171

[8] Ibid. p.173

[9] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.68

[10] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[11] Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More. David Icke. David Icke Books Ltd. Isle of Wight. UK. 2010. p.92

[12] Marrs. p.212

[13] Idid. p.139

[14] Ibid p.141

[15] Icke. The Robot’s Rebellion.  p.114

[16] Ibid. p.181

[17] Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty. Derek Wilson. Charles Schribner’s Sons. New York. 1988. p.178

[18] The House of Rothschild. Niall Ferguson. Viking Press New York 1998 p.28

[19] Marrs. p.215

[20] Ibid

[21] “What You Didn’t Know about Taxes and the Crown”. Mark Owen. Paranoia. #41. Spring 2006. p.66

[22] Marrs. p.63

[23] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”. The New Federalist. 1994

[24] “The Secret Financial Network Behind ‘Wizard’ George Soros”. William Engdahl. Executive Intelligence Review. 11-1-96

[25] Marrs. p.86

[26] “Murdoch, Rothschild Invest in Israeli Oil Shale”. Jerusalem Post. November 22, 2010

[27] “Sarah Palin hires chief of staff for PAC”, Huffington Post. February 2011

Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network

by Dean Henderson

Publisher: ‎ CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 3rd edition (September 10, 2010)

Paperback: ‎ 480 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1453757732

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1453757734

Big Oil… pulls back the covers to expose a centuries-old cabal of global oligarchs, whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet’s three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world’s central banks.Henderson implicates these oligarchs in the orchestration of a string of conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy Assassination to 911. He follows the trail of dirty money up the food chain to the interbred Eight Families who- from their City of London base- control the Four Horsemen of Oil, the global drug trade and the permanent war economy.”Big Oil… is an extraordinary expose of the powers and events that are exacting a heavy toll on us, the people”.- Nexus New Times Magazine. Australia.”Big Oil… is hair-raising and a masterpiece which deserves not less than the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism. This book should be a requisite for every American to study.”- Dr. Carlos J. Canggiano, M.D., Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico.

Click here to purchase.

[This article was originally published on GR in July 2024.]

If you spend just a few minutes checking out ‘The Great Reset’ website of the World Economic Forum, starting at the page ‘Now is the time for a “great reset”’ – which includes a copy of what it calls ‘The Great Reset Transformation Map’ – and spend two minutes watching the World Economic Forum’s video ‘8 Predictions For The World In 2030’, you will quickly recognize that the WEF intends imposing profound changes to about 200 areas of human life by 2030.

.

.

.

If you also spend just a few hours reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four – you will soon discover that the Elite program currently being imposed on us is far more onerous than anything presented in the dystopian novels written by Huxley and Orwell. Technology, after all, has advanced dramatically in ways that neither Huxley nor Orwell anticipated.

You will need to do a little further investigation, however, to discover that a range of tools – including genocides and wars, famines in some locations and serious economic dislocation in others, the Covid-19 ‘death shot’, 5G, geoengineering, Artificial Intelligence and synthetic biology – is being used by Big Brother to kill off a substantial proportion of the human population.

And, while hidden in plain sight, successively deploying a wide range of technocratic tools that are progressively imprisoning those left ‘alive’ as transhuman slaves.

In broad summary, this is being done by enclosing the Commons ‘forever’ and forcing people off their properties – for a discussion of how this is being achieved using ‘managed retreat’, see the series of articles by Kate Mason starting with ‘Managed Retreat New Zealand: Shhhh….be careful not to let the community know’ – and into a ‘Smart City’ prison.

These Smart City prisons will employ a dense network of 5G towers to facilitate communication and enable total control, where the imprisoned transhuman slaves will be geofenced to confine their movements to within 5 kilometres of where they are imprisoned.

And the detail in the Elite plan tells us exactly how it is being done.

Given that the Elite plan requires all 8 billion humans to submit, one way or another, and it is a lot easier to have people willingly submit to their death or transhuman slavery rather than contend with any resistance, the dystopian future being rolled out is being presented as a combination of necessary (to deal with various threats, including those posed by a non-existent virus and climate disruption), private (to ensure the integrity of your identity), safe and secure (from various online and other threats) to ensure maximum compliance. Of course, an avalanche of propaganda is also being used to obscure the view of what is really taking place.

Thus, initially, each surviving individual will have a Digital Identity, which will have attached to it a social credit score (determined by such factors as your personal, educational, employment and legal records and your internet search history to measure your degree of submission to Elite programs).

Traditional national currencies, which put money in your hands to spend or save as you liked, are being replaced by Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Your allotment of this ‘currency’ will be determined by your social credit score, attached to your Digital Identity and programmed so that it can only be spent within your 5km radius and only at approved locations, in approved amounts on approved products or services.

In addition, a dense network of facial recognition cameras (which take a three-dimensional image of your face thus removing any confusion between you and your identical twin, should you have one) and license plate readers will ensure that every movement (including if in a driverless car) you make is tracked and monitored by the Artificial Intelligence program controlling your sector. And the network of loud hailers (installed on 5G towers, street lights and elsewhere) will facilitate the sharing of routine directives as part of the means by which approved behaviour is elicited and enforced.

But ultimately, as Elites have known for millennia, it is food that is the ultimate weapon of control.

As former US Secretary of State articulated in 1973: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people’.

And, as Professor George Kent eloquently explained in 2008, it is in the interest of the Elite that people are hungry. See ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’.

So any critical analysis of what is being imposed on humanity must take careful account of how food – and the farming of it – is being utterly transformed.

In essence, the Elite plan is to feed us genetically mutilated, synthesized and poisoned trash and insects, profit from our ill-health, force small farmers off their land, undermine rural communities, and utterly transform the ancient practice of farming into a corporate, technocratic operation.

If you want some of the detail, there are excellent sources that highlight the importance of buying organic/biodynamic food while organizing to grow your own, and making sure that your local trading community can defend your food sources against the advancing technocracy.

See ‘Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth’ and

‘The Future of Food’ and watch

‘The Synthetic Transformation of our Food Systems – Focus on Australia’ which is summarized here:

‘The True Extent of Biotechnology Experimentation – It’s Happening Now’.

In short, what the few examples above make clear is that we face a near-term future in which the control mechanisms will be all-pervasive.

Of course, you might still try to act outside the parameters of your social credit score – spend more money, spend it on something not approved in your case, grow your own food, travel outside your zone… – but the computer programs run by artificial intelligence will ensure that this does not happen by deactivating your ‘permission’ or, if this does not work instantly or other action is required, despatch a transhuman or technocratic police officer to intervene. If you still show signs of resisting the transhuman police officer, robot or drone sent to intercept you, it will, for example, simply fire an electromagnetic weapon to make you vomit until you comply.

See ‘Policing the Elite’s Technocracy: How Do We Resist This Effectively?’

For a wider, more detailed overview of some key technocratic, economic, political and other threats, see

‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s “Great Reset”: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’,

and for discussions of threats that are less well known, such as those posed by geoengineering, synthetic biology and artificial intelligence, see

Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetism & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology and watch

‘AI Exterminating Humans Through Synthetic Biology’.

Of course, while the program has been planned by the Elite and designed by its agents, it is not actually being implemented by the Elite or its agents. The entire ‘Great Reset’ program is being implemented by people like you and me who take orders without pondering the significance of their particular order and how it fits into the wider Elite program, just like the person putting together a bullet in a factory doesn’t ponder who will be killed by it.

It is less frightening, as the residents of the Brave New World know, to follow orders without thought or reference to conscience. It is less frightening to not ask questions and just ‘go along’. In essence, it is less frightening ‘not to know’.

And that is why these two dystopian novels end the way they do: Huxley and Orwell were astute observers of their fellow humans and knew how easily they submit. After all, being submissive is far less frightening than resisting. But even if we do somehow ‘know’, we are good at concealing our cowardice behind our favourite delusion, ‘taught’ to you in early childhood: ‘I am doing what I am told and that is the right thing to do.’ Which, in essence, is why so many people got repeatedly vaxxed and even the bulk of those who didn’t prefer to complain rather than act.

See ‘The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind is Climaxing. Can We Defeat it? (Parts 1 & 2)’.

Anyway, with changes being made to 200 areas of human life, the Elite has not left much to chance or even many gaps through which one might sneak. Which means that effective resistance now is the only realistic possibility for averting life under Big Brother or Mustapha Mond and his fellow world controllers.

Of course, as the books illustrate superbly, there is no point seeking redress by asking Big Brother or Mustapha Mond. Similarly, if we seek redress through the Elite or its agents, we will not succeed.

See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

And because the Elite program is so complex and sophisticated, if our resistance is to be effective it must be strategic. That is, we must focus on directly resisting the key foundational components of the Elite program ourselves. Otherwise, our resistance will simply be absorbed and dissipated to come to nothing.

Resisting the Brave New World of the Technocracy

The intention of the Elite’s advancing technocracy is to kill off vast numbers of humans and transhumanize and enslave the rest.

And given the sophistication and savagery of the program, defeating it will require commitment, persistence, courage and enormous strategically-focused effort by a large number of people.

‘We Are Human We Are Free’ is strategically-designed to defeat the Elite program and will succeed if enough people participate. You can read the 30 strategic goals identifying the critical points of resistance on the website with one-page flyers, identifying the minimum areas for action, available in 23 languages.

Conclusion

Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were well placed to perceive trends in society and prescient enough to warn us in novels written many decades ahead of ‘crunch time’. Sadly, humanity failed to take advantage of their warnings.

This means that we must act now if we are to have any chance of averting imposition of the Elite’s technocracy, including destruction of the global economy, even as their genocidal program advances.

Time is running out.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

History: Adolph Hitler Was Financed by Wall Street, the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Yuri Rubtsov and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 23, 2024

From World War I to the Present: Dollar denominated debt has been the driving force behind all US led wars. Wall Street creditors are the main actors. They were firmly behind Nazi Germany. They financed Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. 

The Pact for the Future Was Adopted Without a Vote

By Jacob Nordangard, September 24, 2024

The Pact for the Future and the annexed Global Digital Compact and Declaration of Future Generations was adopted after a short round of statements, where Russia (backed by Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Venezuela, and Nicaragua) issued their discontent with the negotiation process and called for the inclusion of an amendment.

Destruction of Agriculture, Rights of Indian Farmers: “Waltzing with Bayer” Makes the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Blind: India Ditches Mandate to Farmers and Uses Mutagenesis (Genetic Mutations) to Drive Toxic Herbicide HT Crops Into India

By Aruna Rodrigues, September 24, 2024

With a commercialised GM crop, contamination is certain.  GMO and non-GMO agriculture cannot co-exist. This is the hard evidence. The application of the precautionary principle (PP) to this technology is therefore a sine qua non. 

The US Strategy for Europe, “A Punching Bag Against Russia”: Can Europe Come Back to Its Senses?

By Drago Bosnic, September 24, 2024

Despite taking the suicidal collision course with Moscow, from time to time, there are faint voices of reason coming from the “old continent”. Unlike America and the United Kingdom, which are not only sending long-range weapons, but are also guiding them, Germany decided to tread carefully.

Is the US Abandoning Europe Because of High Cost and Low Yield? Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig and Yury Ryabokon, September 24, 2024

The US abandoning Europe may be a good thing. It would finally bring back autonomy to Europe – a type of sovereignty it has not known since the end of WWII, because Europe – the European Union (EU) has gradually and ever faster become a vassal state, or union of states, of the United States, doing the bidding for Washington, including supporting a US proxy-war on her territory – Ukraine against Russia.

Israel’s Tally of War Crimes in Lebanon Increases in Wake of Exploding Pagers

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, September 24, 2024

Israel escalated attacks against Lebanon on September 23, marking the deadliest day of Israeli bombings in that country since 2006. Israel’s strikes in southern and eastern Lebanon, as well as the capital city of Beirut, left a death toll of at least 274, including women, children and paramedics.

BRICS+ Expansion Still Under Debates. “Growing Discontent with the West… More Than 30 Countries Want to Join… “: Sergey Lavrov

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, September 24, 2024

Under Russia’s BRICS presidency which began January 2024, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became the second wave of the newest members to join BRICS. South Africa ascended in 2011 under China’s initiative.

A GMO PIL was filed in early 2005 (ArunaRodrigues & Ors. vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005) in the Supreme Court (SC) to protect our natural environment, farmlands and foods from being made toxic via agrichemicals and irreversible GMO contamination. 

Contamination is the outstanding concern with GMOs because these self-replicating organisms, insect/wind mediated, cannot be recalled.

India is a treasure trove, a listed ‘hot spot’ of 17 worldwide centres of genetic diversity and/or centres of origin. In India, this includes mustard, rice and brinjal. India’s foundational seed stock will be contaminated and would, as a scientific certainty, change the structure of our food at the molecular level, irremediably and irreversibly. 

“Any toxicity that there is will remain without remedy”, said the late Prof Schubert of the Salk Institute.

With a commercialised GM crop, contamination is certain.  GMO and non-GMO agriculture cannot co-exist. This is the hard evidence. The application of the precautionary principle (PP) to this technology is therefore a sine qua non. 

In 2007, we secured  an order in this PIL from the SC that there should be “no contamination”, (even) during field trials. However, given the nature of GMO genetic contamination, the only way this order can be implemented is to bar all field trials. And this is precisely the action that the GEAC took at its 75th meeting of March 2007. 

Keeping in mind that India is THE centre of origin of rice, the GEAC, at the insistence of basmati rice exporters and the Ministry of Commerce, employing the PP, decided not to allow field trials of GM rice in the basmati growing areas of the country, recognising the potential threat of contamination.

The APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) required a certificate stating that no GM rice, groundnut and sesame seeds have been permitted in India due to a ban imposed by Russia on these crops because of a fear of GMO contamination. 

In the 20 years since the PIL was filed, it is by now pretty well conclusive that the evidence from GMO-producing countries (which are just a handful), demonstrates that GMOs are not safe for the environment and for human and animal health. 

In the US, for example, the impact of toxic food on children’s health has been devastating. During a 40-year timeframe, childhood disease has risen from 6% to 60 %, with a commensurate rise in national health  expenditure from zero, 40 years ago, to trillions of dollars today.  It is essential that our regulators take on board the evidence and institute a biosafety regimen that is strictly independent, up-to-date and rigorous, which currently does not exist. 

Corporate Hijack

So, two questions come to mind: 

Why has the ICAR developed and released mutagenic HT rice varieties?  

Why did the apex regulator with India’s regulatory regime take no notice of this and stop it? 

The ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) has developed and released two HT (herbicide-tolerant) basmati rice varieties (Pusa Basmati Rice 1979 and Pusa Basmati Rice 1985) and two HT non-basmati varieties tolerant to the herbicide IMAZETHAPYR. HT Wheat is also in the wings.  

We are informed that these HT crops have been produced through induced chemical mutagenesis. Therefore, these HT crops represent genetic modification of organisms/micro-organisms by induced chemical mutagenesis and are, in fact, GMOs because they create changes in the genome of plants. But and however, these mutagenic HT crops are not synonymous with modern biotechnology or genetically engineered GMOs (recombinant). This is EU law. 

The development of these HT crops has taken several years in planning, development and production. It goes without saying that the GEAC and our collective regulatory bodies have clearly been aware of this. And it is pertinent to add that the ICAR is nominated to the GEAC Committee as an Expert Member with others, including the DG Health Services. 

HT crops have very serious deleterious effects, based on empirical evidence. It is a failed farm technology and causes harm to animals and humans. So, it is curious and indeed unconscionable that these mutagenic HT rice varieties were not stopped at the first instance. The GEAC (apex regulator), should absolutely have done so.  

An HT crop is an HT crop whether produced by GE techniques or GMOs using chemical mutagenesis techniques. The Supreme Court-appointed TEC (Technical Expert Committee), in 2012-13, recommended a double bar on HT crops: (a) for being an HT crop per se because of their empirically proven, serious egregious impacts, (evidence after more than 40 years of growing these crops in the US/Argentina/Brazil) and (b) if in a centre of diversity or origin. 

This double bar applies straightforwardly to rice as a priority, as recognised by the GEAC itself, and also to mustard.  Beyond this, the Indian ‘Rules of 1989’ are outdated and quite inadequate, as has become clear over the years, and suffer from the malaise that there is “NO statutory regulatory framework in place in the form of a Parliamentary law and is in fact subordinate legislation” (Justice Nagarathna in July 2024 in the recent judgement in this PIL, WP (Civil) No. 260 of 2005). 

The ‘Rules of 1989’, nevertheless, do pertain to genetic modification of an organism. A conscionable regulator would have and should have viewed this with new vision in 2024 and applied it to GMOs created through mutagenesis, and if necessary, through a timely notification on their applicability to these GMOs arising from induced chemical mutagenesis. 

Brazen Conflicts of Interest

The hard reason behind such complete blindness is undoubtedly the long-standing and unlawful conflict of interest that exists in the entire regulatory framework — our regulatory bodies have been captured by the biotech and agrichemical Industries. 

Usually, every effort is employed by regulators, through subterranean regulation and secrecy, to obfuscate a conflict of interest because it, ethically and legally, invalidates their position as regulators. Not this time though. 

Moreover, the brazenness and caution-thrown-to-the-wind action by the ICAR in inking in an MOU with Bayer (Sept 2023), which also owns Monsanto (2018), defies belief. 

It is breathtaking; all pretence is gone. We have a cancer that is metastasising vertically and horizontally throughout the entire regulatory body. (This is clear from the appointment of the ICAR to the GEAC Committee as Expert Member.)  

It is symptomatic of a cancer of corruption that plagues the entire global food system.

Dr Casey Means says:

“The largest merger ever done in Germany was Bayer Monsanto, where Bayer, which is a pharmaceutical company merged with Monsanto, which is an agrochemical company in the United States. If you look at what Bayer makes, they make cancer drugs for things like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If you look at what Monsanto makes, which is Roundup, which is the most widely used pesticide in America, the cancer that it causes is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. (There are over 100,000 court cases winding their way through US courts — added by A R). They paid out USD 11 billion in the past couple years for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases. So, the companies are merging that are directly known to cause the disease, with a medical company that has a treatment for the disease. This is very dark.” (Source/Tweet has been removed)

It should be noted that the Bayer-Monsanto Roundup herbicide is also an endocrine disruptor and is linked to birth defects. Monsanto and the US Environmental Protection Agency have both known for over 40 years that glyphosate and its formulations cause cancer.

However, penetrating the huge Indian market represents a massive cash cow for foreign corporations, especially if their HT crops (by either technology of genetic engineering or chemical mutagenesis) get market approval.  This would certainly make up for declining demand elsewhere. For instance, in July 2023,  it was reported by the BBC that German-based Bayer expects to take a USD 2.5bn (USD 2.8bn) hit due to slower demand for its glyphosate-based products.  

The ICAR has recently also concluded MoUs with Amazon and Syngenta. 

Researcher and writer Colin Todhunter says:

“We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world. 

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and big financial institutions, like BlackRock and Vanguard, are also involved, whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, pushing biosynthetic (fake) food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating and financing the aims of the mega agri-food corporations”. From Agrarianism to Transhumanism: The Long March to Dystopia

The ICAR is certainly facilitating this process in India.

It is important to understand that the regulatory agencies of both the US and India are run by the big food processing companies, big agribusiness concerns, the chemicals/pesticide conglomerates and the Gates Foundation. India’s food is becoming increasingly toxic and unsafe. This will lead to chronic disease in India just as it has in the US, children in particular.  

The genesis of the dominance of private interests in our food and agriculture lies in an MOU signed over 20 years ago (see below). That poison has spread and is rapidly being cemented now, through the MOUs with Bayer, Syngenta and Amazon.  

The Knowledge Initiative in Agricultural Research and Education (KIA) was signed in 2006 and, astonishingly, the Indian Government assigned Monsanto to the closest scrutiny of India’s genetic resources as a result of its position on the Board of the Indo-US KIA. Monsanto effectively represented the US government in order to facilitate GM food crops into Indian agriculture. 

The ICAR was inducted as the signing institution for the Union of India for an alliance with the US for GM crops. The ICAR was required to provide “free access” to its entire network of 47 agricultural laboratories and universities so that US companies and research institutes could carry out joint research with ICAR in biotech areas “that have the potential for rapid commercialisation.”

This ‘agreement’ is no longer ‘active’. But its spores and workings continue to influence public institutions of agriculture, including public-private-partnerships with the industry that the Department of Biotechnology partners in GM crop development or the SAUs (State Agricultural Universities) to ensure that ‘policy and regulation’ is speedily tailored to facilitate the introduction of a full range of GM food crops. The State Agricultural Universities of TAU (Tamilnadu Agriculture University) and Dharwad, for example, were involved in the development of Bt brinjal, funded by US AID, Monsanto and Cornell University. 

The ongoing capture of public policy space by foreign interests is not lost on the Peoples’ Commission on Public Sector and Services (PCPSS), which includes eminent academics, jurists, erstwhile administrators, trade unionists and social activists. In a recently released statement, it expressed concern that Bayer will exploit the ICAR’s vast infrastructure to pursue its own commercial plans within India to boost sales of toxic proprietary products. 

The PCPSS notes that there are several ICAR-sponsored research institutions and state-level agricultural universities, which are engaged in outstanding research relevant to Indian agriculture. A number of states have launched their own natural farming missions to free debt trapped farmers from the use of costly chemicals and other unsustainable practices. The PCPSS says it is therefore not clear as to why the ICAR should choose to promote Bayer in multiple areas of agricultural research. 

Mutagenic HT crops have somehow, willy-nilly been introduced into India and in basmati varieties, by-passing the Apex Regulator the GEAC. The ICAR and India’s collective regulatory agencies have aimed for India’s jugular for maximum harm to her agriculture and food.  It is difficult to quite comprehend just how wrong policies that promote HT crops are. 

A wholesale sell-out of India’s agriculture and her food is being relentlessly pursued. Evidence of the utter disaster that HT crops are,  is clear and is based on empirical research findings of 35+ years of growing these crops in the US, Argentina and Brazil. These findings provide insight into the harm that all HT crops, in this specific case by mutagenesis, will have on our farming. 

This seriously egregious policy decision must therefore be urgently reversed and stopped. 

Open Letter to ICAR

In July 2024, I wrote to the ICAR highlighting what is set out below. 

The ICAR’s introduction of HT crops highlights the consequences for India: the ICAR (India’s regulatory body for farming) has effectively ditched its mandate to Indian farmers and farming, whose competitive advantage is organic farming based on soil health, sustainability and regenerative agriculture. By avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, organic farms provide a habitat for a wide range of organisms, from soil microbes and insects to birds and mammals. The biodiversity provided by organic farms is crucial for ecosystem resilience and the provision of ecosystem services such as water purification, pollination and nutrient cycling, which benefit all species. 

This step is a potential threat to India’s export markets, which are based on organic standards, along with the necessary co-surety that India’s foods and farms are not contaminated by herbicides, a consequence of using HT crops. 

In the matter of rice, HT crops are of the greatest concern because India is the ‘centre of origin’ of rice, which means that India has an immensely rich diversity in rice. The ICAR has, furthermore, rather perversely selected basmati, historically, the queen of rice varieties, in which to introduce an HT trait. The ICAR’s action directly impacts the vital issue of contaminating our germ plasm in rice and contravenes a Supreme Court Order of “no contamination”. 

Our export markets for basmati are in excess of USD 5 billion in 2023-24. The ICAR’s action will directly impact India’s exports and, thereby, impact farmer export potential, incomes and income opportunities that premium prices provide. 

In my letter to the ICAR, I also pointed out that HT crops are pesticidal crops and are not meant for human consumption. Therefore, HT crops must be tested as pesticidal crops but are not. The sprays used include chemicals and surfactants, the latter force both weeds and the HT crop to absorb significant quantities of the herbicide that is sprayed on them. The resistant crop stands. Everything else dies including non-target organisms. The use of these surfactants encourages indiscriminate use. 

The ICAR was made aware that, based on empirical evidence, HT crops are a failed technology, which spawn super weeds, higher herbicide use and no added performance yield. I provided the ICAR with empirical data to support my claims.

Overall herbicide use (US Geological Survey) has increased more than tenfold, from 20 million pounds/year (prior to HT Crops in 1992) to 280 million pounds/year by 2012. In other words, 527million pounds more total herbicide was used in the US during this period (1992-2012) due to commercialised HT crops. 

As of 2013, HT crops had caused the emergence of some 60 million acres or about 25% of US cropland (ref. TEC report) of ‘super’ weeds resistant to herbicides, doubling since 2010 or about 50% of crop area sown to herbicides. 

The costs to farmers of weed control have increased by up to 100%, seed prices have increased threefold (from 1996). The combined onslaught is putting US farmers out of business as they struggle with losses on a substantial scale.

The ICAR was made aware that for India HT crops are a particularly perverse use of technology, irrespective of whether GE or through mutagenesis. The technology risks small and marginal farmers’ crops and ‘jari-booti’ herbs and plants, used in many Ayurvedic medicines, because of herbicide drift among other things.  

Moreover, HT crops are designed for monoculture. It bears repeating that HT crops are completely unsuited to Indian smallholder farming. They also uniquely impact the employment of women in weeding (MS Swaminathan Task force 2004). 

As stated above, HT Crops will deny Indian farmers their niche export markets, which are not contaminated and will be endangered by herbicide.  Furthermore, the market for organics is growing by a robust minimum 20% pa. Both requirements attract premium prices.

Like Bayer’s other toxic herbicides, glyphosate and glufosinate, imazethapyr is also a systemic broad-spectrum herbicide and is banned in some countries and not approved for use in the EU. This is an additional red flag with regard to the use of this herbicide. 

Prof. Jack Heinemann notes that antibiotic resistance is also a cause for concern. Herbicides (including imazethapyr) must be tested for their ability to cause bacterial antibiotic resistance. Common adjuvants (e.g. emulsifiers/surfactants) used in association with herbicide active ingredients alter the response of bacteria to antibiotics. 

Combined with antibiotic use in medicine, veterinary medicine, and crop protection, co-exposures to herbicide (and agrochemicals in general) and antibiotics are common. Co-exposures alter the response of bacteria, notably those that can cause diseases in people, companion animals, or livestock, to antibiotics. In time, the co-exposure increases resistance to antibiotics. 

Heinemann recommends: “it is necessary to test any herbicide, including of imazethapyr, to be able to exclude the possibility that it can cause antibiotic resistance. We have not identified any chemical or biological similarities between the herbicides that would allow one to predict in advance that a particular chemical or formulation would not have this effect on bacteria”

And “that effects on bacteria that can cause disease be considered whenever considering adopting a cropping practice that combines herbicide use and herbicide tolerant crops. The enormous burden of antibiotic resistance should not be unnecessarily exacerbated by use of herbicides”. 

India’s population has some of the highest levels of antibiotic resistance in the world. Any spread of HT crops would put us at severe risk of resistance and disease. 

Despite these environmental and health concerns, the herbicide market in India is projected to grow by around 54% in the next five years, from USD 361.85 million in 2024 to USD 558.17 million by 2029. 

In view of the above evidence of serious irreversible harm to health, food and agriculture across several dimensions, it is a required scientific response for the ICAR and our regulators to immediately withdraw HT crops, including HT rice varieties and desist from introducing any HT crop whether through mutagenesis or genetic engineering.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Aruna Rodrigues is Lead Petitioner in the SC in the matter of GM crops: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005).

Anyone remotely familiar with the US strategy for Europe knows that the belligerent thalassocracy plans to use the “old continent” as a punching bag against Russia. This unflattering fate is not something the Europeans want, but the rabid Russophobia they’re being fed is clouding their judgment. Washington DC managed to convince many in the European Union that Moscow is their enemy and that they should fight it at all costs. However, Brussels keeps forgetting that many Western invasion forces have been trying to do that for nearly a millennium, virtually always resulting in the Russian military marching through various European capitals, including Berlin and even Paris. These failed invasions are then used as an excuse that the Kremlin is supposedly “aggressive”, even though it wasn’t the one to initiate these wars. However, Russia was always the one to finish them, to the chagrin of the political West that started them.

Despite taking the suicidal collision course with Moscow, from time to time, there are faint voices of reason coming from the “old continent”. Unlike America and the United Kingdom, which are not only sending long-range weapons, but are also guiding them, Germany decided to tread carefully. Namely, according to its Chancellor Olaf Scholz, “Germany has made a clear decision about what we will do and what we will not do”. He insists that “this decision will not change”. What’s Scholz speaking about specifically was the question of delivering the “Taurus” KEPD 350, a Swedish-German air-launched subsonic cruise missile with a stated range of over 500 km. The Neo-Nazi junta has been “begmanding” this weapon for years, insisting it would be a “game changer”. The obvious question arises, why is Berlin so worried about this? What happened to the Bundeswehr’s belligerence and “readiness to resist (the mythical and ‘evil’) Russian aggression”?

Namely, back on March 1, Margarita Simonyan, the Editor-in-Chief of RT, released a bombshell report containing the leaked conversation between high-ranking German military (Bundeswehr) officers casually talking about striking the Crimean Bridge with up to 20 “Taurus” cruise missiles. The conversation, nearly 40 minutes long, includes the part where the Bundeswehr officers also talked about maintaining plausible deniability. This tells you all you need to know about the supposed “non-involvement” of NATO when it comes to various terrorist attacks and sabotage operations targeting Russian infrastructure, both within and outside of the country. The leaked conversation also revealed the dangerous self-delusions of the political West’s top leadership, as the officers argued that destroying the Crimean Bridge “would be very good and that it wouldn’t be too sensitive for the Russians because of the land bridge”.

The scandal made Berlin far more careful in its posture toward Moscow, as the Kremlin now knew that the political West was directly involved in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. It should also be noted that Scholz made his comments immediately after President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would consider NATO a party to the conflict and that “adequate measures” would be taken to ensure the world’s most vile racketeering cartel pays the full price of its crawling aggression. Russian President doesn’t issue such warnings unless he’s dead serious, meaning that NATO should think twice before continuing to provide targeting and guidance to Western-made weapons. However, the US, UK and other powers are intentionally ambivalent about this issue, refusing to come clean about whether they support such long-range strikes. NATO already broke international arms control agreements by delivering the existing missiles to the Kiev regime.

Namely, according to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a multilateral arms export control mechanism that limits the proliferation of missiles and related technologies that could ease their development and manufacturing, the transfer of weapons with a range of 300 km or more is strictly prohibited. MTCR came into force in 1987, when the political West was terrified of the prospect of having second-to-none Soviet missile technologies proliferate to other countries. This would’ve made it impossible for the belligerent power pole to conduct its endless wars of aggression against the entire world. However, as is usually the case, NATO supports arms control agreements only when it suits them and can never be trusted to keep its word about complying with their limitations. This is precisely what forced Russia to develop hypersonic weapons and update its nuclear doctrine and strategy.

Scholz also effectively repeated Putin’s warnings, saying that the Neo-Nazi junta is unable to use the “Taurus” missiles without the direct involvement of the Bundeswehr. On the other hand, the German military doesn’t oppose the delivery of such long-range weapons and even supports the participation of its officers in targeting and guidance, as evidenced by the leaked Bundeswehr audio. However, over half of all German citizens oppose the delivery of the “Taurus” missiles. An April poll by Forsa Institute, requested by the German RTL television channel, showed that only 37% of Germans support it, while 56% oppose such a move. On the other hand, Berlin’s economic troubles are creating multifaceted pressure on German society, which is far more concerned with finances than war with Russia. Namely, the country is still going through an unprecedented deindustrialization and it has no way to turn back the clock.

Namely, according to Manager Magazine, Volkswagen (VW), one of the largest automotive corporations in the world, could cut up to 30,000 jobs (of its 300,000 employees). Such a massive company losing 10% of its workforce will be a huge blow to Germany. Worse yet, Liz Heflin reports via Remix News that VW’s 13,000 employees in the R&D department will most likely see cuts of up to 6,000 people (or nearly half), while “investments is to be slashed by up to €20 billion in the medium term”. Reports earlier this month suggested that VW was planning “historic factory closures for the first time in the company’s 87-year history”. The corporation cited “soaring business costs, including energy and labor, along with logistics chains”. All this suggests that the suicidal anti-Russian sanctions have only damaged Germany’s economy, which is not only deprived of Moscow’s energy, but also of access to its massive, 150 million strong market.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

In an interview with Sky News Arabia on September 20, 2024, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed skepticism, but was straight to the point about strategic expansion of BRICS, an association comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Under Russia’s BRICS presidency which began January 2024, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became the second wave of the newest members to join BRICS. South Africa ascended in 2011 under China’s initiative.

Tracking down the history, operations and achievements, Lavrov acknowledged in his interview that the BRICS association is consolidating its positions and cooperating with a number of countries. At the same time, this association is facing certain challenges. It is necessary to promote collaboration based on a balance of interests, and most importantly, BRICS functions on the basis of consensus. The consensus principle primarily aims at finding agreements that reflect the mutual accord of all participants. This is not easy. The more partners, the harder it is to search for accord. It takes more time to finalise any consensus-based agreement than a vote-based solution. 

Accrding to Lavrov, this provides a solid foundation for developing a strategic partnership within the association. Currently, BRICS comprises 10 countries; their number has doubled compared to last year. More than 30 countries have already submitted applications for interaction or membership in the association. At the summit to be held in Kazan in October, one of the main items on the agenda will be the consideration of applications from states that wish to interact and partner with BRICS.

BRICS expansion has sparked debates and discussion these several years, long before Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were finally accepted on the condition of “concensus” by BRICS members during the South African summit in August 2023. Lavrov has already indicated and repeated explained the “suspension” of membership into BRICS+. Instead of membership, Lavrov mentioned that potentical countries can only only be accepted as a “partner group” with simple consideration to support and interact with BRICS association. The prescription is very simple – BRICS is an association based on a respectful attitude towards each other and on mutual consideration to promote collaboration based on a balance of interests and strictly adhere to the principle of the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs. 

According to information monitored, more than 30 countries, with growing discontent against western hegemony, have expressed their readiness to join BRICS. Lavrov has also confirmed this figure in his interview with Sky News Arabia, and even earlier explained that “the modalities of ascension have to be collectively discussed” at subsequent summits in future. 

In practical terms, Russia has suspended BRICS+ expansion, in other words BRICS+ flagship policy of boosting its numerical strength, with unique reports indicating that there were more than 30 countries worldwide – Latin America, Asia and Africa. At South Africa’s 15th Summit held under President Cyril Ramaphosa, several countries had expressed interest in ascending the BRICS association, but only five (5) finally joined. The official documents, as stipulated by the guidelines, set no concrete criteria or rules for admission except using the flexible term “consensus” – a general agreement at the summit which was utilized in the selection process. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin have described (designated) this circle of BRICS+ friends into … what is now referred popularly to as “partner members” which starkly reflected in official documents.

At the Primakov Readings held in June 2024, the extraordinary key point was an announcement by Sergey Lavrov over ‘suspension’ of BRICS new membership. In mid-June 2024, Lavrov hosted the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod. The BRICS Foreign Ministers decided to suspend admission of new members and this step reflected in the final documents.

Local and foreign media reported Lavrov’s statement:

“By the overwhelming majority, the ten members decided to ‘take a pause’ with new members, to ‘take in’ the new members who have doubled the association. At the same time, we are working of categories of partner countries as stages ahead of a full-fledged membership.”

Lavrov said BRICS would use the pause to draw up a list of categories for BRICS partner countries that would serve as stepping stones toward full membership. Understandably, BRICS+ has decided to “take a pause’ in terms of admitting new members. The partner-country model in line with paragraph 92 of the Johannesburg II Declaration.

In a media release after June 10-11, BRICS foreign ministers meeting, noted prospects for promoting strategic partnership within BRICS, including the establishment of a new category of “partner countries”  and suspension of new members from the Global South and Global East. As per the agreements reached at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in 2023, the ministers reviewed the efforts to coordinate the modalities of the new category, BRICS partner countries.

Within the stipulated guidelines, Russia took over the BRICS one-year-long presidency on January 1, 2024. The initial four BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) met in New York City in September 2006 at the margins of the UN Assembly, but held its first full-scale meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on 16 June 2009. BRICS has experienced two phases of expansion. In 2011, South Africa joined the association, which included Brazil, Russia, India, and China. On January 1, 2024, five new members officially entered BRICS association namely Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from © Sputnik. Photo host agency brics-russia2020.ru

Low cholesterol levels are associated with increased mortality risk in older adults, challenging the “lower is better” paradigm

Cholesterol plays crucial roles in cell membrane structure, hormone production, vitamin D synthesis and nerve function. Adequate levels are essential for optimal health, especially in older individuals

Low cholesterol is linked to higher diabetes risk in older adults. Both very low and very high levels increase risk, with the lowest risk occurring at moderate levels

Maintaining adequate cholesterol levels is important for brain health, particularly in post-menopausal women. Low levels may disrupt lipid rafts and myelin production, potentially affecting cognitive function

Recent research indicates a relationship between low cholesterol and increased risk of blood cancers. Cholesterol has protective effects on immune function and regulation of cancer cell proliferation

*

You’ve likely heard that high cholesterol is bad for your health, however cholesterol is found in nearly every cell of your body and is vital for optimal functioning. If you have too little, your risk of health problems increases, including all-cause mortality.

Research published in Frontiers in Endocrinology found a revealing link between low total cholesterol (TC) levels and increased mortality risk in those aged 85 and above.¹ This research challenges the conventional dogma that lower cholesterol is always better, especially for older adults.

The study, which analyzed data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, found that individuals with TC levels below 3.40 mmol/L (131 mg/dL) had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to those with higher levels.² In fact, the mortality risk increased by 12% for every 1 mmol/L reduction in TC.³ These findings suggest that maintaining higher cholesterol levels may benefit longevity in your later years.

Why Low Cholesterol Is Harmful in Late Life

Cholesterol, often misunderstood as merely harmful, plays several crucial roles in maintaining bodily functions. This waxy substance serves as a fundamental building block for cell membranes, providing structural integrity and fluidity. It acts as a precursor for various essential hormones and is vital in the production of vitamin D when your skin is exposed to sunlight, contributing to bone health and immune function.

In your digestive system, cholesterol aids in the formation of bile acids, which are necessary for the absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins. Further, cholesterol is integral to myelin sheath formation, enhancing nerve signal transmission throughout your body. A balanced amount of cholesterol is indispensable for optimal health and plays a protective role as you age.

The study found the protective effect of higher cholesterol is independent of nutritional status or chronic health conditions, suggesting a direct biological link between TC levels and longevity in advanced age. The researchers explained:⁴

“Although the biological pathways that link TC to mortality are poorly understood, several mechanisms may explain this inverse association. For example, blood lipids, which are an important component of cell membranes, may affect cell electrophysiology by modulating the distribution and function of some ion channels.

Low TC levels may contribute to the pathogenesis of some common diseases in older people, such as atrial fibrillation. Another potential mechanism is that TC may regulate inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and attenuate the biological response to inflammation. Therefore, individuals with low TC levels may be more vulnerable to physiological disorders because of enhanced inflammation.”

The study identified an optimal range for TC levels in those aged 85 years and over. Participants with TC levels between 3.40 and 4.39 mmol/L (131 to 170 mg/dL) and those with levels at or above 4.39 mmol/L (170 mg/dL) had significantly lower mortality risks compared to those with levels below 3.40 mmol/L.⁵

“Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence challenging the ‘lower is better’ paradigm for cholesterol levels in older adults,” the researchers noted, proposing that the optimal TC range for older adults might lie between 3.40 and 5.18 mmol/L (131 to 200 mg/dL).⁶ 

Low Cholesterol Linked to Increased Diabetes Risk

Another important study of 3.26 million Chinese adults aged 65 and older also revealed the importance of properly optimizing your cholesterol. It found low cholesterol levels are associated with a higher risk of diabetes.⁷

The researchers observed a J-shaped relationship between total cholesterol and diabetes risk. This means that both very low and very high cholesterol levels were associated with increased diabetes risk, with the lowest risk occurring at moderate levels. Specifically, TC levels below 4.04 mmol/L (156 mg/dL) were linked to higher diabetes odds. This “cholesterol paradox” could further explain why low cholesterol contributes to increased mortality in late life.

The findings even held true for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, often labeled as the “bad” cholesterol. The study found a similar J-shaped relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and diabetes risk. LDL cholesterol levels below 2.33 mmol/L (90 mg/dL) were associated with higher diabetes odds. For every 1 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol below this threshold, there was a 12% decrease in diabetes risk.⁸

This again challenges the “lower is better” approach to LDL management, especially for older adults. The protective effect of moderately higher LDL cholesterol levels could be another piece of the puzzle in understanding increased late-life mortality associated with low cholesterol — your body needs a certain level of LDL cholesterol for optimal health throughout life, including in your later years.

The Protective Role of Cholesterol in Brain Health

Maintaining adequate cholesterol levels is also crucial for your brain health, especially as you age. Cholesterol plays a vital role in the production and maintenance of cell membranes in your brain and is essential for the formation of lipid rafts, specialized regions in cell membranes that are crucial for synaptic function and plasticity.⁹

These processes are fundamental for learning and memory. When your cholesterol levels are too low, it can disrupt these lipid rafts, potentially affecting your memory consolidation and cognitive function. Additionally, cholesterol is necessary for myelin production, the protective sheath around nerve fibers that enables efficient signal transmission in your brain.

Low cholesterol levels might interfere with the repair and regeneration of myelin, leading to impaired information processing and potentially contributing to cognitive decline. Further, research indicates that women have a higher lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease compared to men, and cholesterol levels may play a role in this difference.

The study focused specifically on post-menopausal women, finding that those with total cholesterol levels below 153 mg/dL had a significantly higher risk of developing dementia.¹⁰ Even women with cholesterol levels above 201 mg/dL had a reduced risk of developing dementia compared to those with the lowest levels.¹¹

This suggests that maintaining adequate cholesterol levels may be particularly important for cognitive health in post-menopausal women. The researchers explained several reasons why low cholesterol may increase dementia risk in this population:¹²

“In neurons, lipid rafts are … believed to be involved in synaptic function and plasticity, which are essential for learning and memory processes. Low cholesterol caused by drugs or toxins may disrupt lipid rafts, subsequently affecting memory consolidation and cognitive function and finally resulting in dementia.

In addition to lipid raft disruption, demyelination caused by low cholesterol levels might also be another important factor that interferes with the regeneration of myeline; therefore, signal (information) transformation and consolidation become disrupted.

Several factors including hyperglycemia, hypertension, toxins, infections, and many other factors that induce free radicals, oxidation, and the inflammation of myeline results in the aging process or the destruction of myelin. In this situation, a higher cholesterol level might be a rate-limited process for repairment and remyelination.

Without intact functional lipid rafts and myeline, information in the brain for conduction, consolidation, or plasticity is not possible.”

Link Between Low Cholesterol and Blood Cancer Risk Unveiled

Recent research from the UK Biobank study has also uncovered an unexpected relationship between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of plasma cell neoplasms, including multiple myeloma.¹³

This large-scale study followed 502,507 participants for up to 14 years, revealing that individuals with lower levels of total cholesterol, LDL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoproteins had a higher likelihood of developing these blood cancers.¹⁴ While the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, this research points to the complex role of cholesterol in cellular health and immune function.

In the context of blood cancers, cholesterol appears to have protective effects. Higher levels of HDL and its associated apolipoprotein A have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved immune cell function. These lipids can regulate cancer cell proliferation and modify the function of macrophages and other immune cells.¹⁵

Additionally, cholesterol is crucial for the homeostasis of your hematopoietic system, which produces blood cells. The study suggests that very low cholesterol levels might disrupt this delicate balance, potentially increasing the risk of malignant transformations in plasma cells.¹⁶

The study found that the relationship between cholesterol and plasma cell neoplasms was particularly pronounced in males and individuals over 60 years old. The use of cholesterol-lowering medications didn’t reduce the risk of these blood cancers, suggesting that artificially lowering cholesterol levels does not provide the same protective effects as naturally occurring higher levels.

Statin cholesterol-lowering medications are among the most-prescribed drugs in the U.S., but the number of people taking them may soon decline significantly. Based on previous guidelines, 45.4 million adults meet the criteria to take statin drugs, but if updated guidelines from the American Heart Association are adopted, this will drop to 28.3 million.¹⁷

Optimizing Cholesterol Levels for Overall Health

Maintaining optimal cholesterol levels involves more than just focusing on the numbers. Your gut health plays a significant role in this complex equation. Oxygen-intolerant bacteria, which thrive in an oxygen-free gut environment, are vital for converting plant fibers into beneficial fats. However, modern lifestyle factors can disrupt this delicate balance, potentially leading to a shift toward oxygen-tolerant bacteria that produce more potent endotoxins.

This shift can have far-reaching implications for your health. Endotoxemia, often resulting from this bacterial imbalance, is a significant underlying cause of septic shock — a condition that may be more prevalent than commonly recognized.

In fact, it could be a leading cause of death, surpassing even heart disease and cancer in some estimations. Many cases of heart disease or heart failure might actually be triggered by endotoxemia, underscoring the interconnectedness of your gut health and cardiovascular system.

To truly optimize your cholesterol levels and overall health, it’s essential to look beyond conventional metrics and instead consider the following tests for a more comprehensive understanding of your heart disease risk:

• Omega-3 index
• HDL/total cholesterol ratio
• Fasting insulin level
• Fasting blood sugar level
• Triglyceride/HDL ratio
• Iron level

This personalized approach, combined with strategies to improve mitochondrial function and maintain a healthy gut ecosystem, offers a more holistic path to cardiovascular health. By addressing these underlying factors, you can naturally optimize your cholesterol levels while supporting your overall well-being.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Notes

^{1, 2, 3, 5} Front. Endocrinol, 12 June 2024

^4, 6 Front. Endocrinol, 12 June 2024, Discussion

^7, 8 Lipids Health Dis. 2024; 23: 167

^9, 10, 11 Nutrients. 2023 Oct; 15(20): 4481

¹² Nutrients. 2023 Oct; 15(20): 4481, Discussion

^13, 14 Cancer Med. 2023 Nov; 12(22): 20964–20975

^15, 16 Cancer Med. 2023 Nov; 12(22): 20964–20975, Discussion

¹⁷ JAMA Internal Medicine June 10, 2024 

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is deliberately hiding the real number of his country’s soldiers killed in the conflict, Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko said. This revelation comes as Zelensky said he is opening to negotiations but continues to delay despite the high casualty rate his military force is experiencing.

Panchenko worked as a journalist on Ukrainian television, but in August 2022, she began covering events in the Donetsk People’s Republic, especially in Mariupol. For this reason, the Security Service of Ukraine opened a criminal case against the journalist and charged her with high treason.

“Zelensky lies about the number of dead servicemen. He says it is much less than 80,000!!! But he’ll never tell us the exact number,” Panchenko wrote on X.

click for Full screen 

Zelensky lies about the number of dead servicemen.

He says it is much less than 80,000!!!

But he’ll never tell us the exact number.

For him, Ukrainian’s lives are just numbers.

Just should sound good for reports! pic.twitter.com/guwhOILoU0

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) September 21, 2024

According to Panchenko, the Ukrainian leader hides the real number of dead soldiers in order to create the illusion of a more favourable situation in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

“For him, Ukrainian’s lives are just numbers. Just should sound good for reports!” she added.

In February 2024, Zelensky stated that the Ukrainian army’s losses since the beginning of the conflict amounted to 31,000 dead. Commenting on this ridiculous claim, the official spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that every Ukrainian citizen understands that this does not correspond to the truth.

Sergei Shoigu, who was then Russian Defence Minister, stated on February 20 that 166,000 Ukrainian troops were killed or wounded during the unsuccessful counteroffensive in the summer and autumn of 2023 alone.

Zelensky’s ridiculous claims on the death toll are again questioned by the fact that he is now, supposedly, seeking avenues to negotiate with Moscow. If the Ukrainian military is intact, Zelensky would not announce intentions to negotiate with the Kremlin after outlawing this possibility in 2022.

The Ukrainian president told reporters recently that work is underway on a plan that will become “the beginning and basis” for holding negotiations with Russia in any format. He said three points of the plan are already ready without giving further details.

In Zelensky’s words, the meetings to develop the plan were held online and “there will still be online and offline meetings.” He also did not explain when this occurred or which officials participated in the discussions.

Zelensky’s press secretary, Serhii Nykyforov, later clarified that he was referring to meetings with representatives of countries supporting the so-called Ukrainian peace formula, but there were no negotiations with Russian representatives.

According to US media outlet Bloomberg, the plan is expected to be presented to US President Joe Biden later this month. Among the articles are Ukraine’s entry into the European Union and NATO.

Russia and Ukraine held peace talks in 2022, shortly after the start of the Russian special operation to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine. At the behest of Western powers, especially the United Kingdom and the United States, the Kiev regime sabotaged the talks, and the parties failed to reach an agreement.

Since then, Russia has shown itself willing to resume peace negotiations, but Zelensky prohibited his government from discussing the issue with Moscow through a presidential decree. Now, considering the drawn-up plan, Kiev is ready to talk “in any format, with any representative” of Russia because Ukraine “has something to show,” Zelensky said.

In addition, Zelensky stated that Ukraine and Kiev’s allies would like to invite Russia to the second Peace Summit. The first, which took place this year in Switzerland, discussed only the Kiev regime’s demands for a ceasefire, which had no way of enforcing them considering Russia’s dominance on the battlefield. The Russian delegation was not invited to the summit, and its participation was unnecessary since its proposals were not considered.

“The so-called second summit has the same goal – to present Zelensky’s completely unviable ‘peace formula’ as the only basis for resolving the conflict, seeking support from the global majority and using it to present Russia with an ultimatum of capitulation. We will not participate in such ‘summits’,” said Zakharova.

For its part, Russia calls for recognition of sovereignty over the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, as well as over the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from these territories, the withdrawal of NATO membership and the maintenance of its neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said this would allow “both an immediate cessation of hostilities and saving human lives.” The situation, however, escalated with the invasion of Russia’s Kursk region by Ukrainian forces on August 6. Following this, the Russian president stated that Moscow must deal with “these bandits” before entering negotiations.

Yet, even the invasion of Kursk has turned into a bloodbath where thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, including the very few remaining elite troops left in the Ukrainian military and foreign mercenaries, have been killed and wounded, with the true number of casualties hidden by Zelensky. This scenario will only continue to worsen so long as the Ukrainian president continues to delay negotiations.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Donald Trump is virtually always hailed as the enemy of the Deep State, even according to his own statements. He said repeatedly that he’ll dismantle it and make sure there’s peace. When it comes to the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict,

Trump insists he’ll end it in a single day. While such efforts would certainly be commendable, the question arises, how likely is it?

Russian diplomacy thinks it’s unrealistic and for good reason, as there are still ultra-radical elements within the Ukrainian society who have been brought to power with billions of Western funds. In other words, NATO made sure the war keeps going regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election. However, Trump would certainly want to end the war for purely practical reasons. Namely, his political opponents keep using the so-called “Ukraine aid” to funnel money back into the United States and into the DNC coffers.

This also should be more than enough of a reason for a new Trump presidency to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. And indeed, it may seem like the last chance to prevent a wider Russia-NATO confrontation. Trump is also using this to great effect by essentially warning he’ll quit the presidential race if he loses this time. Namely, in a new September 22 interview with former CBS News journalist Sharyl Attkisson, he said that he likely won’t run for president again if he loses this time.

“If you’re not successful this time, do you see yourself running again in four years?” Attkisson asked.

“No, I don’t. I think that that will be – that will be it. I don’t see that at all,” Trump replied, adding: “I think that, hopefully, we’re going to be successful [in the 2024 General Election].”

The Republican nominee touched upon several key issues regarding the Biden administration’s horrible handling of the country, including economy, financial and energy security, inflation, illegal immigration, etc. He also talked about the two recent assassination attempts. He also mentioned these two nearly fateful incidents in a separate interview with Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade on September 21, when he said that he’s concerned about his family’s safety.

“I do [worry]. I do. I don’t talk about it, but I do. I have to worry about family. I have to worry about everybody. I worry about you,” Trump stated.

Image: Ryan Routh (Source: Twitter)

The second shooter, Ryan Routh, turned out to be a rabid Russophobe and an ardent supporter of the Neo-Nazi junta. This is further evidence that it’s not in Trump’s interest to support the Kiev regime and that he could indeed make an effort to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict.

In the meantime, Zelensky keeps getting on his bad side, this time by visiting crucial swing states such as Pennsylvania. On September 22, he was flown in aboard a USAF C-17 heavy military transport aircraft, prompting criticism that the troubled Biden administration is using federal assets for political purposes.

Zelensky already made enemies in the Trump camp, including the latter’s running mate, Senator JD Vance. Namely, in an interview he gave to CNN on the second anniversary of the special military operation (SMO), Zelensky didn’t have anything nice to say about Vance.

In fact, the former comedian insisted that Vance, who served in the US Marine Corps, is “clueless” about the ongoing NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. It seems the fatigues Zelensky has been wearing since the SMO started gave him the illusion that he’s an actual military commander. Zelensky was always highly critical of Vance, as the latter was one of the staunchest opponents of the $60 billion “aid” package that the US provided to the Neo-Nazi junta in late April. Vance was certainly aware of the Kiev regime’s massive issues with endemic corruption, while also understanding that, as previously mentioned, much of that money was also being funneled back into the US so that the no less corrupt Democrats could get their “fair share” of the spoils. In addition, Trump’s running mate also repeatedly expressed doubt that the so-called “military aid” would change the real situation on the ground.

Obviously, this is something that Zelensky never takes too kindly and insists that “Ukraine is winning”. However, while it’s clear that a potential new Trump administration wouldn’t be too keen on supporting the Kiev regime, can the same be said when it comes to other global hotspots? Namely, Trump is highly unlikely to defuse tensions with China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and numerous other countries that have been exposed to decades of US-led/NATO aggression. What’s more, if Trump is hoping to break Russia from the multipolar world so the US could focus more easily on other BRICS+ partners, he’s gravely mistaken. Moscow will certainly not risk any damage to relations with its strategic allies just so it could get another four years of a silent “cold war” with the US. The Kremlin’s reasoning is quite sound – Washington DC will remain its primary adversary no matter who’s in power in the US.

Similar strategic thinking is present in much (if not most) of the multipolar world. Iran cannot trust America, as the legally binding international agreements it signs with one administration are then renounced by the new one, making it impossible to trust the US to ever honor its legal commitments. Washington DC also keeps proving this in the case of arms control agreements, as it has unilaterally withdrawn from all of them (except the New START, which is set to expire in 2026 anyway).

China is in a similar situation, as the documents it signed with the Trump administration to end the trade war at the time proved to be effectively void, because the troubled Biden administration keeps surrounding the Asian giant with the previously banned medium and intermediate-range missiles (permanently stationed in the Philippines and Japan). In other words, the damage is already done and nobody will ever trust the US a single word its leadership utters.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

The interview with NTV was based in response to a Bloomberg article of 9 September 2024 where Andreas Kuhn, geopolitical analyst, writes that America will abandon Europe next, and this, regardless of who wins the election.

.

.

.

.

.

.

It has ceased to be profitable for the United States to support Europe, and it is much more profitable to focus resources on Southeast Asia. See the full article here.

The newscast of NTV. includes only small segments picked out from a long interview with Peter Koenig (which was not featured by the NTV channel), see minutes 26:10 and 28:15.

Below, we provide the complete transcript with  Peter Koenig which NTV decided not to publish. (censorship?)

See video (Russian) below (after transcript)

.

.

Transcript

NTV: What are your views on this?

Peter Koenig (PK): The US abandoning Europe may be a good thing.

It would finally bring back autonomy to Europe – a type of sovereignty it has not known since the end of WWII, because Europe – the European Union (EU) has gradually and ever faster become a vassal state, or union of states, of the United States, doing the bidding for Washington, including supporting a US proxy-war on her territory – Ukraine against Russia.

It seems regardless who wins the Presidency, Europe has ceased to be of primary interest for the US. It was never profitable in the sense of money.

It was a strategic dominance. 

Controlling Europe is moving closer to Russia, and at the same time moving NATO troops ever closer to the borders of Russia – and this despite the promise by then Secretary of State James Baker, who in 1991 replied to Mr. Gorbachev’s worries about NATO expansion, “not one inch further”.

That promise was broken multiple times.

With the right EU leaders in place, the unelected EU Commissioner, as well as the heads of Germany, France, Holland and so on; and with the indoctrinated climate hoax, the EU could be manipulated to economically destroy itself, committing economic suicide, so to speak. Germany is a prime example, as the economic leader of Europe. 

Under no circumstances could Germany prosper, and establishing friendly relations with Russia, something many Germans and German businesses saw as a logical development – was a no-no. 

To top it off, in September 2022, US-led secret services blew up the Nordstream Pipeline, supplying crucial and inexpensive gas from Russia to mainly Germany but also other European countries. Germany did not protest, instead supported ludicrous claims that it may have been Russia, and lately, it could have been Ukraine.

In the meantime, while “sanctioning” anyone not following strict orders from the EC, to not buying petrol or gas from Russia, Europe in 2023 / 2024 has imported more oil and gas from Russia than before February 2014 – the year of US-instigated Maidan Coup.

No longer through a direct pipeline but via India, Turkey, and Ukraine – knowing that energy from Russia was a lifeline for the faltering European economy. 

One could call it hypocrisy – or lie-propaganda.

A new alliance between Germany – and by extension Europe – may bring back the Eurasian market; Eurasia being the largest contiguous landmass (36% of the earths total landmass) on earth (55 million sq.km), housing 5 billion people (about 2/3 of the world population) and controlling about half of the world’s GDP.

Pulling Europe away from Eurasia was one of the goals of the two hot world wars. Russia, the Soviet Union, was and still is the stumbling block. Thanks God.

In brief, Europe must be economically and financially wiped out, so to speak, for the US to remain the world’s hegemon.

Now, Europe is so far ahead in her auto-destruction, that the US may, indeed, direct her attention to other parts of the world, like to Asia and the rapidly emerging Global South, with the BRICS at the center.

NTV: How will Trump throw Europe if he wins?

PK: This is a good question. Trump is like a roller-coaster, difficult to assess. 

He probably must follow the script imposed from above, leaving Europe to the wolves.

However, Europe is still very much bound to the US through NATO. Of the 32 NATO members, 30 are in Europe.

Will Trump do away with NATO, as he often hinted at?

I doubt it.

His action vis-à-vis Europe is difficult to predict.

How about his relation with Russia? Sometimes he says he is friends with President Putin, other times he said Mr. Putin disappointed him.

He will go after Iran and China – in one way or another, if his talks are to be believed.

But even that is not sure.

Iran is not the same Iran he knew. Today, Iran is a close ally of China and Russia, and is part of the BRICS, aspiring to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran has strong backing.

Trump and Europe: wait and see.

NTV: How will Kamala Harris do it? Bloomberg writes that it is as hypocritical as possible: talking about the unshakable support of Europe, but at the same time cutting costs for the military presence. What do you think?

PK: Kamala is a puppet. Sorry for the term. She has no agenda. All her agenda items are following a script given from “above”, pretty much the same as with President Joe Biden.

The recent debate with Trump indicated that very clearly. She talked the line of the common narrative, no mater whether this narrative if full of lies.

Plus, as has emerged in the meantime, she was told what to say through special earpieces. And it was clear to a child, the ABC moderators were biased towards her.

Trump, instead of taking her up on these untruths matter of factly, his emotions run through with him, making his answers often ridiculous.

That is just a sideline.

Kamala will follow instructions from the Globalists.

NTV: Why has Europe ceased to be a beneficial ally for the United States?

PK: Europe has not ceased to be beneficial for the US. As mentioned before, Europe is an important Globalist ally through NATO – with 30 of the 32 member states being European.

These 30 members finance a lot if not most of the NATO budget, they bear de facto a heavier burden than the US and Canada, no matter on the monetary budget, despite what former President Trump said.

But the hegemon feels that Europe no longer needs its immediate attention because it has been driven so far ahead in its effort of self-destruct, that an alliance with Russia – and with Eurasia – for example through the Chinese Belt and Road is no longer a significant risk.

But that is Washington’s assessment. And often their assessments have not much to do with reality.

It needs little change in European politics – a sense of returning to sovereignty – to become a game-changer. Many, if not most of Europeans feel that Russia and by extension Eurasia are natural partners of Europe, and that potential – for which Mr. Putin was always open – should be explored.

Image: Mario Draghi

NTV: What do you think about Mario Draghi’s [former President of the European Central Bank] recent report that the EU is turning into an economic outsider?

PK: Mr. Draghi is right. The EU is not only a European outsider, but is an economic disaster – and so is the Euro, the little brother of the fiat dollar.

Mr. Draghi is right for precisely the reasons mentioned before. Europe has let itself become a vassal of Washington, following all instructions, orders of “sanctioning” Russia and China, and has totally lost her independence. 

Is it too late to bring Europe back as an economic power?

It is never too late. European leaders must take back their countries – and even at the detriment of the EU, become sovereign nations again with their own sovereign currencies – and being able to deal with whomever they want, east and west – not being captive to Washington’s wishes and whims.

The US’s hegemony is gone so or so.

It’s just a matter of time for the final straw to break.

So, the sooner Europe realizes that their survival, economically and socially, is autonomy and sovereignty, plus cooperation with Russia and the East, the better.

NTV: AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: How much does the United States spend annually to protect Europe? A) Considering Ukraine? B) Excluding Ukraine?

PK: Who really knows.

On Europe per se – the US spends nothing in my opinion. There are no American subsidies to the EU or any European country. It’s rather the other way around, Europe largely helps fund NATO – and, as we all know, NATO has long become obsolete, and become an aggressive war machine of the US. So, whatever Europe funds for NATO, is a direct contribution to the wars fought by or on behalf of the US. 

Those who believe NATO exists to defend Europe should start thinking again.

As to the funding of Ukraine – it is also not well-known. Recent figures that were advanced by the US State Department were about 200 billion dollars. 

Is this really all?

Does that include weaponry?

Or does it include reimbursable loans?

All that is kept on purpose pretty wishy-washy.

In any case, the US is not planning to lose any money on Ukraine, as Ukraine is rapidly being privatized by BlackRock and Co.

That means, sizeable returns from investments in agriculture (one of the most fertile soils in the world – Ukraine was formerly called Europe’s breadbasket) – and huge reserves in natural resources, rare earths, gold, silver — other minerals.

NTV: And why did Europe suddenly decide at one time to shift the care of ensuring its security onto the shoulder of the United States?

PK: Is this statement correct?

It is rather the US telling Europe you do not need your own defense, because we – you and the US – have NATO, a common defense force.

Europe, or most of Europe fell for it.

Except French President De Gaulle, who exited NATO in 1966. He was a visionary, against NATO from the bottom of his heart, saying France and by extension Europe MUST be able to defend herself. President Sarkozy, a WEF implant, rejoined NATO in 2009.

General Charles de Gaulle on the Chemin du Roy, Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, 1967 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Europe would be and is totally capable of building up her own defense forces, and I mean DEFENSE – not offense. And this outside of NATO.

Europe has no natural enemies.

Europe’s “enemies”, like Russia and the East, China and so on, have been invented by the US.

There is hope for Europe to become independent again – and to link up with her natural neighbors, and partners, like Russia and the rest of Eurasia.

But it needs perhaps a shock to bring western leaders out of their vassalic slumber.

Video in Russian

*

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Western media and politicians at international conferences do not even try to question the situation in Ukraine when, according to Politico columnist Jamie Dettmer, the West should think about the realism of its position and ask several questions. This is especially imperative since the endless funding of Ukraine only emboldens the Kiev regime to continue the fighting despite having no hope of winning the war.

Dettmer wonders whether Westerners are falling into an information trap regarding Ukraine because, in the West, opposing views are not heard in Western publications or at high-level conferences where Western and Ukrainian officials meet.

.

Screenshot from Politico

.

“The West has to be honest about what’s possible and what isn’t, and shape policy accordingly. And the media has a key part to play, pushing questions we urgently need answers to,” he wrote. “We all too quickly dub those who question current Western strategy as defeatists or accuse them of advancing Russian propaganda.”

The author suggests that there is evidence that Western politicians and media do not reflect on questions such as whether Ukraine can actually win the conflict or the basic positions of Western strategy.

“The question is whether all this is blinding us, leading us to overlook the scepticism needed when considering whether this war is winnable — as in, can Russian forces be ejected from the 20 percent of Ukraine they’ve seized? Are we properly questioning some of the key assumptions underpinning the West’s strategy?” he said.

Dettmer says that, at the moment, few Western leaders openly say that “the way things are going is hopeless, with no real endgame in sight, and can no longer continue in this way.” Although some are “muttering” about the possibility of individual negotiations, only German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has openly stated this need.

It is recalled that earlier this month, Scholz said: “I believe that now is the moment when we also need to discuss how we can get out of this situation of war faster than the current impression is.” This is a far cry from when in late November 2023, Davyd Arakhamia, head of the faction of Zelensky’s Sluga Naroda (Servant of the People) party and a member of the Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence, said that after negotiations with the Russian side in Istanbul, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Kiev not to sign anything with Russia and announced: “let’s just fight.”

The article says that, at the same time, ordinary Ukrainians question the West’s statements on a daily basis. Many Ukrainians see a lack of honesty on the part of Western partners, demand transparency in the issue of Western support and ask to acknowledge whether some countries cannot, in fact, help Kiev, although they usually say the opposite.

Yet, even with Boris Johnson long gone, the Kiev regime is still insisting on fighting and continues to beg the West for money and weapons.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on September 20 that he proposed to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to increase financial aid to Kiev to around $446 billion from 2028 to 2034.

“We expect a financial instrument for Ukraine to be included in the new EU budget for 2028–2034. We propose to increase the financial provision and introduce a separate budget program,” Shmyhal wrote on Telegram.

The prime minister added that Kiev also expects to receive an additional €16 billion from the European Union’s Ukraine Fund.

Ursula von der Leyen said the commission would give Ukraine a €35 billion loan as part of the G7 commitment. The funds will be used to stabilise the country’s overall financial situation. The commission believes the loan could take up to 40 years to repay. Earlier this month, Shmyhal said the Ukrainian government had approved the draft budget for 2025, with a deficit of $38.5 billion. He added that the budget includes estimated revenues of $48.5 billion and estimated expenditures of $87 billion.

Late last month, Bloomberg reported that Ukrainian authorities again pressed for the finalisation of a deal that would unlock $50 billion in profits from the Russian Central Bank’s frozen assets. According to a June G7 plan, those funds are supposed to be transferred to Kiev by the end of the year. However, the implementation of the plan has been hampered by Washington’s demands and the risk that Hungary could slow down any EU decision on supporting Ukraine or sanctions against Russia, according to the people who spoke on condition of anonymity to the media.

It appears that despite the reality that Ukraine cannot win the war, with experts urging the West to accept this, the US and EU are continuing to fund the futile effort to defeat Russia. At the same time, by continuing to fund Ukraine, the Kiev regime is deepening the country’s reliance and, therefore, servitude to the West.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics. 

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image: Ukraine flag and military uniform of ukrainian soldier. Armed Forces of Ukraine

Israel escalated attacks against Lebanon on September 23, marking the deadliest day of Israeli bombings in that country since 2006. Israel’s strikes in southern and eastern Lebanon, as well as the capital city of Beirut, left a death toll of at least 274, including women, children and paramedics. The Israeli military targeted “medical centres, ambulances and cars of people trying to flee,” according to Al Jazeera, which cited Lebanon’s Health Minister Firass Abiad as the source for the information. Israel also targeted civilian homes, which it claimed were housing Hezbollah weapons.

This latest targeting of Lebanese civilians comes on the heels of Israel’s detonation of hand-held electronic devices in civilian areas of Lebanon onSeptember 17 and 18, when Israeli forces remotely triggered multiple explosions of electronic pagers and walkie-talkies that killed at least 37 people, including a 9-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, and maimed or injured 3,250 people, 200 critically. About 500 people suffered severe eye wounds and others received grave injuries to their hands, faces and bodies. The blasts occurred in residential buildings, barber shops, grocery stores, cars and at funerals. Many civilians, including government and hospital workers, were killed.

Elias Warrak, an ophthalmologist at Mount Lebanon University Hospital in Beirut, treated several of those injured by the blasts. He told the BBC that between 60 percent and 70 percent of the patients he attended had to have at least one eye removed. “Some of the patients, we had to remove both eyes. It kills me. In my past 25 years in practice, I’ve never removed as many eyes as I did yesterday [September 17].”

Image: A car fire allegedly caused by an exploding pager (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

Israel’s weaponization of 3,000 to 4,000 pagers and walkie-talkies programmed to explode simultaneously constituted “terrifying” violations of international law, according to 22 independent United Nations experts, including 13 special rapporteurs.

The radios and pagers were reportedly distributed to people associated with Hezbollah, which includes both military and civilian individuals. “At the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,” the experts noted. “Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices would inevitably violate humanitarian law, by failing to verify each target, and distinguish between protected civilians and those who could potentially be attacked for taking a direct part in hostilities.”

A booby-trap is defined as something designed to kill or injure unexpectedly when a person performs an apparently safe act like answering a pager. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby-traps that are disguised as harmless objects when they are constructed and designed with explosives. They breach the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions.

War Crimes of Murder, Attacking Civilians, Indiscriminate Attacks, Violence to Spread Terror

“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time,” the U.N. experts wrote. “Such attacks could constitute war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks.”

The U.N. experts declared,

“It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary,” adding, “A climate of fear now pervades everyday life in Lebanon.”

Amal Saad, an expert on Hezbollah, told Drop Site News, “Everyone’s scared to send text messages, to make calls, and they’re afraid to open laptops. It’s definitely led to some level of complete disorientation, fear, confusion, paranoia. It has huge psychological effects.” Saad noted that the purpose behind the explosions “was to terrorize and paralyze and demoralize.”

Volker Türk, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, likewise denounced the attacks in a statement, calling them “shocking, and their impact on civilians unacceptable,” and saying that “the fear and terror unleashed” was “profound.” Türk wrote,

“Simultaneous targeting of thousands of individuals, whether civilians or members of armed groups, without knowledge as to who was in possession of the targeted devices, their location and their surroundings at the time of the attack, violates international human rights law and, to the extent applicable, international humanitarian law.”

The independent U.N. experts urged states to bring to justice those who ordered and executed the attacks, under the well-established doctrine of universal jurisdiction.

But the weaponized electronic devices weren’t the only recent war crimes Israel has committed against Lebanon.

Israeli Bombing of Residential Beirut Neighborhood Was a War Crime

On September 20, an Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in a residential Beirut suburb killed a top Hezbollah leader along with at least 37 Lebanese people, including three children and seven women, and injured at least 68. This constituted a war crime as it was an intentional attack with knowledge it would cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians and was clearly excessive in relation to the military advantage Israel sought.

U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan celebrated the attack, calling it “justice.” Mohamad Elmasry, professor in the media studies program at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, described Sullivan’s statement as “shocking.” Elmasry told Al Jazeera, “The United States has a long history of its war crimes and it has been covering for Israeli crimes not only during the past 11.5 months [in Gaza] but for decades now – giving Israel cover at the UN and in other diplomatic circles and supplying Israel with weapons to target civilians.”

Indeed, the U.S. routinely vetoes U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for its war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory and has pressured countries in the U.N. General Assembly to facilitate Israeli impunity.

But on September 18, the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the State of Palestine’s resolution demanding an end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in accordance with international law, as recently affirmed by the International Court of Justice. The historic resolution calls for sanctioning Israel, that is, forbidding member states from doing business with Israel or promoting the legitimacy of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. The vote was 124 in favor and 14 against with 43 states abstaining and 12 states not voting. Only the U.S., Israel, and several island states voted “no.”

This is the first time the General Assembly (which is the democratic body in the U.N. system) has called for sanctions against Israel. The resolution reflects the opposition of the international community to Israel’s lawless behavior. It remains to be seen if and how the 124 states that voted for the resolution will implement it.

Since September 18, Israel has continued to commit war crimes in Lebanon. It has launched additional attacks on civilians, including the September 20 bombings of an apartment building in Beirut, and the current targeting of civilian apartments, ambulances and medical centers, killing and wounding mounting numbers of civilians.

Israeli officials claimed that Hezbollah was storing thousands of long-range rockets in civilian homes. They sent people in Lebanon text messages and automated calls cautioning them to move away from Hezbollah’s weapons caches. But Lebanese civilians could not know how close they were to potential military targets, human rights groups said. UNIFIL, which is the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, has “grave concern for the safety of civilians in southern Lebanon” amid what it called “the most intense Israeli bombing campaign” since October 7.

As it continues its genocidal campaign in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel is demonstrating that it is fully prepared to commit war crimes in Lebanon as well. In addition to their illegality, Israel’s actions imperil the entire region, and indeed, the world.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace.

A member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, she is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.  

Featured image: Image from a news article on Mehr News about the September 2024 pagers explosions in Lebanon (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

How was Ryan Routh, “a man with no money for child support,” able to suddenly start living in a pricey house in Hawaii and afford flights to Taiwan, Turkey, Poland, Ukraine?

Why has Routh “never served a day in jail” when he has “100 different counts” to his name?

Why was Routh’s fiancée okay with him flying to Ukraine for months at a time?

How was he able to feed himself in Ukraine when he only had “$68 in [his] bank account.”

“And everywhere he goes, he gets press from the local papers to the New York Times to Newsweek.”

The whole thing stinks, and it suggests that someone other than his “fiancée” was supporting him.

How was Ryan Routh, “a man with no money for child support,” able to suddenly start living in a pricey house in Hawaii and afford flights to Taiwan, Turkey, Poland, Ukraine?

Why has Routh “never served a day in jail” when he has “100 different counts” to his name?

Why was… pic.twitter.com/97o3qMJuMa

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 20, 2024

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image is from Twitter

Non-citizens have been added to several states’ voter rolls largely through motor vehicle departments, sometimes even after they have explained that they are not U.S. citizens.

States have been discovering non-citizens on their voter rolls over the years, with many being added through the “motor voter” process at motor vehicle departments that began with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). If non-citizens are seeking to become naturalized citizens, then being illegally registered to vote can prevent that from occurring.

An election integrity group has examined states’ voter rolls for years, finding many non-citizens who are illegally registered to vote across the country.

Pennsylvania

J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), said on a Just the News special report with The Association of Mature American Citizens to be aired Tuesday that non-citizens had been registered to vote in Pennsylvania for decades.

“Pennsylvania had been registering non-citizens, by admission – this wasn’t some conspiracy on the internet – and they admitted they had been registering non-citizens for 20 years at PennDOT, and it was a glitch, they called it,” Adams said. “So we use the National Voter Registration Act to go in to try to get the records of how bad the problem was, the records of how they fixed the problem, or allegedly fixed it, and they’ve been stonewalling us for about seven years.”

He explained that PILF had oral arguments earlier this month before “the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, defending our win. Hopefully, eventually, Pennsylvania coughs up the records.”

In 2017, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, a Republican who was a Philadelphia city commissioner at the time, told a Pennsylvania Senate committee that there were over 100,000 matches of voter registration records to state driver’s license numbers with Immigration and Naturalization Service indicators.

The matches don’t mean that all of those people were registered to vote, but Schmidt argued: “We’re not talking about an insignificant number here. We’re talking about a potentially very significant number of thousands and tens of thousands.”

The Pennsylvania Department of State announced in September 2017 that records indicated 1,160 non-citizens since 1972 had requested their voter registrations be canceled.

California

Meanwhile, in California, PILF filed a federal lawsuit in February against the Alameda County Registrar of Voters for allegedly violating the NVRA by not disclosing records of foreign nationals registering to vote and voting for more than 20 years.

Non-citizens have been placed on voter rolls through motor vehicle departments by lying about their citizenship, Adams also noted.

“[W]e’ve collected over the years of the data on how non-citizens get in, and it’s largely by not telling the truth in the motor voter process. And it includes people here on green cards, people here legally,” Adams added.

“Most of the people who get registered to vote, according to the data we’ve collected, are actual, legal residents, like 90% of them, 95%. And so they get sucked into the system, through motor voter, through DMV, and they get registered to vote that way, and it’s a big problem,” he continued.

However, sometimes, non-citizens still get on states’ voter rolls despite explaining their citizenship status.

“People get registered to vote when they tell, on their voter registration form, the election officials, that they are not a citizen,” Adams said.

“We have hundreds where they actually mark on the form, ‘hello, not a citizen,’ and they still get registered to vote,” he explained.

PILF has obtained voter registration forms from New Jersey and San Diego County, Calif., that show non-citizens declared their lack of U.S. citizenship but were still registered to vote.

Lauren Bis, PILF director of Communications and Engagement, told Just the News in February that most of the non-citizen voters self-reported casting ballots, since they must do so when going through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

The second most common way for non-citizens to get onto voter rolls is third-party registration drives by nonprofits, Adams previously told the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show.

While non-citizens are prohibited from voting in federal, state, and most local elections, municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont, and Washington, D.C., allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

Thousands of non-citizen voters have been discovered on voter rolls this year. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio have all included language in their state constitutions that prohibits non-citizen voting. Meanwhile, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin all have ballot measures for voters to decide in the November general election whether non-citizens should be prohibited from voting in state elections.

Arizona

On Tuesday, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) said that nearly 100,000 voters were incorrectly registered in the state as providing proof of U.S. citizenship, even though they had not done so.

Fontes explained that there was an error in state systems that labeled the roughly 97,000 voters as providing documented proof of U.S. citizenship, Votebeat reported. The Motor Vehicle Division provides the state’s voter registration system with driver’s license information, and the error occurred in that process. Affected voters had first obtained Arizona driver’s licenses before October 1996 and were issued duplicate replacements before registering to vote after 2004, Fontes said.

The error has occurred for about 20 years and over four administrations, he noted, and was discovered by a Maricopa County worker who found a registered voter who hadn’t provided proof of U.S. citizenship but was listed as a voter who could cast ballots in both federal and state elections. The voter had a green card but never cast a ballot, Fontes said.

Texas

Last month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) announced that more than 1 million ineligible voters have been removed from voter rolls since 2021. Of those, more than 6,500 non-citizens were found, and about 1,930 of them have voted. The records of those 1,930 voters are in the process of being sent to the attorney general’s office from the secretary of state’s office for investigation.

Ohio

In May, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) directed all 88 counties to begin a removal process for non-citizens on Ohio’s voter rolls following a review by his office’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives. The review analyzed data from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and found 137 voter registrations of non-citizens who had twice confirmed their lack of U.S. citizenship.

In August, LaRose directed county election officials Thursday to remove another 499 non-citizens registered to vote from the state’s voter rolls.

Illinois and Elsewhere

According to a PILF report from May 2023, Chicago records show that 394 foreign nationals were removed from the city’s voter rolls since 2007, with 20 of them recorded as casting 85 ballots.

In April 2023, PILF reported that Maricopa County, Ariz., records showed that since 2015, 222 foreign nationals were removed from the county’s voter rolls, with nine of them recorded as casting 12 ballots across four federal elections. 

According to a February report by PILF, Pima County has removed 186 non-citizens from its voter rolls since 2021, with the majority of those registered to vote through third parties.

Of the 186 non-citizen voters in Pima County, seven cast ballots across two federal and local elections. A total of 120 of the records, or approximately 65%, “came from ‘political parties and group drives,’” according to the information given to PILF by Pima County. The county data didn’t include which third-party drives registered the non-citizens. 

The year with the greatest amount of non-citizen voter records created in Pima County was 2022 at 132. The midterm election year of 2022 also had the highest number of non-citizen voters who cast ballots in the county, which was six in total during the general election.

Another PILF report noted that ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, North Carolina found that 1,454 individuals on state voter rolls were not naturalized U.S. citizens. Of those, 89 registrants appeared at polling places, 24 of which were challenged, with 11 of the challenges sustained.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image source

The so-called “Agreement of the Century” signed by Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and sponsored by Donald Trump staged the de facto recognition [by the US] of Israeli sovereignty over much of the Jewish colonies in the West Bank (including the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and virtually the entire holy city of Jerusalem with the exception of two eastern suburbs) and demands that the Palestinian community renounce completely its historical claims and the right to which it is entitled under international law in exchange for a promise of an injection of $50 billion within 10 years. This would in practice result in the loss of Israeli citizenship for 300,000 Arabs and make it impossible to have a Palestinian state.

Such a doctrine would clash with the vision of Theodor Herzl, considered the father of the present-day State of Israel and founder of Zionism in promoting the creation of the WSO (World Zionist Organization), who in his book “The Jewish State: Testing a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question”, proposed the creation of an independent and sovereign Jewish State for all the Jews in the world.

In his work “The Old New Earth” (1902), he lays the foundations of the present-day Jewish state as a utopian modern, democratic and prosperous nation, in which the Jewish people were projected into the context of the search for rights for the stateless national minorities of the time, such as the Armenians and the Arabs.

Later, in 1938, the visionary Einstein warned of the dangers of an exclusionary Zionism by stating:

“I would like to see a reasonable settlement with the Arabs on the basis of peaceful life in common, which I believe would be preferable to the creation of a Jewish state”.

Towards the Greater Israel 

The Greater Israel (Eretz Israel) is an entity that would try to unite the antithetical concepts of atavism. This doctrine had as its chief advocate Isaac Shamir, who argued that “Judea and Samaria (biblical terms of the present-day West Bank) are an integral part of the land of Israel. They have not been captured and will not be returned to anyone” and it is the basis for the postulates of the Likud party led by Netanyahu who aspires to make Jerusalem the “indivisible capital of the new Israel”, after the invasion of its eastern part after the Six-Day War (1967) that had its international backstop when the Trump Administration moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Thus, the Netanyahu government would be speeding up the deadlines to implement the endemism of Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), which would drink from the sources of Genesis 15:18, which notes that “4,000 years ago, the title to all land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River was bequeathed to the Hebrew patriarch Abraham and subsequently transferred to his descendants”.

This would involve the restoration of the Balfour Declaration (1917), which drew a vast State of Israel with an area of nearly 46,000 square miles and which extended from the Mediterranean to the east of the Euphrates encompassing Syria, Lebanon, northern part of Iraq, northern part of Saudi Arabia, the coastal strip of the Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt as well as Jordan, which would be renamed Palesjordan after being forced to host all the Palestinian population of the present West Bank and Gaza forced into a massive diaspora (new nakba).

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Parece haver um conflito de narrativas entre a Ucrânia e os seus apoiadores ocidentais. A mídia americana tenta disfarçar a trágica realidade da Ucrânia no conflito, reportando um número reduzido de mortes, mas tem o cuidado de tornar a narrativa suficientemente realista para que os seus leitores acreditem nela. Contudo, os ucranianos não estão preocupados em tornar a narrativa credível, afirmando números completamente irrealistas.

Recentemente, o Wall Street Journal (WSJ) afirmou que as baixas ucranianas no atual conflito com a Rússia ascendem a cerca de 80.000 soldados mortos e 400.000 feridos. O jornal afirmou que os seus dados foram obtidos de fontes confidenciais ucranianas familiarizadas com o assunto. Além disso, o artigo afirmava que os russos sofreram cerca de 600 mil baixas, incluindo 200 mil mortos e cerca de 400 mil feridos.

Obviamente, o artigo publicado pelo WSJ é uma peça de propaganda ocidental que não tem credibilidade. De acordo com todas as estimativas feitas por analistas honestos e imparciais, as baixas ucranianas são muito superiores às russas, e não é possível que apenas 80 mil ucranianos tenham morrido no conflito. Em Abril de 2024, as autoridades russas confirmaram 500.000 vítimas ucranianas, incluindo todos os soldados mortos e feridos. Atualmente, as estimativas variam entre 600 mil e 700 mil vítimas ucranianas, dado o elevado nível de letalidade nas operações russas nos últimos meses.

Embora as autoridades russas não revelem o número de vítimas – que é um procedimento comum para países em situações de conflito – parece haver um consenso entre fontes russas e neutras de que o número é consideravelmente inferior a 100.000. Apenas fontes ucranianas e ocidentais estimam um elevado número de russos mortos e feridos, o que faz parte do seu esquema de propaganda para manter o apoio público ao financiamento da guerra.

Contudo, mesmo os esforços dos meios de comunicação ocidentais para disfarçar as perdas ucranianas não foram suficientes para agradar às autoridades em Kiev. O presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky, criticou duramente a mídia americana, alegando que o WSJ inflacionou os números reais. Não forneceu quaisquer números que refutassem os dados do WSJ, apenas afirmou, sem qualquer evidência, que o número de vítimas é muito inferior ao que o jornal dizia.

“80.000? Isso é uma mentira. O número real é muito inferior ao que foi publicado. Significativamente”, disse ele.

É curioso ver como Zelensky parece agir de uma forma completamente fora de sintonia com a realidade. Tanto os ocidentais como os ucranianos querem esconder a verdade sobre o que está a acontecer no campo de batalha, uma vez que obviamente não lhes é conveniente admitir que a Ucrânia está a perder. Contudo, o Ocidente parece agir com mais sentido estratégico, preocupando-se em tornar as suas narrativas suficientemente realistas para a opinião pública.

Zelensky está tão desesperado que parece simplesmente não compreender o que é remotamente credível para a opinião pública. A sua intenção parece ser divulgar em 2024 dados que possam corresponder à realidade do conflito já em 2022. Por exemplo, sem mencionar o número de feridos, Zelensky afirmou em Fevereiro que 31.000 ucranianos tinham morrido em dois anos de hostilidades com a Rússia. Isto parece inacreditável, não havendo forma de convencer a opinião pública com tais “dados”.

A máquina de propaganda ocidental é normalmente gerida por jornalistas profissionais que sabem como convencer os leitores. Obviamente, não é interessante apresentar números completamente irrealistas, já que na atual fase do conflito ninguém acredita em narrativas como “vitória ucraniana” ou “humilhação para os russos”. Agora o objetivo já não é dizer que Kiev está “perto da vitória”, mas simplesmente que “ainda é possível mudar o jogo”.

Zelensky não consegue compreender estas táticas jornalísticas. A sua única intenção é manter as mentiras como fizeram em 2022. Ele está desesperado para manter o seu regime ilegítimo e está a fazer tudo o que pode para evitar que a opinião pública se volte contra ele. É por isso que ele criticou a mídia americana. Zelensky não compreendeu as tácticas por detrás da história do WSJ e está agora a tentar usar uma história ainda mais falsa e inacreditável.

No entanto, todas essas manobras provavelmente falharão. A opinião pública ocidental está cada vez mais consciente da realidade da guerra e compreende que os principais meios de comunicação social não dizem a verdade. Ações como a invasão catastrófica de Kursk – que já resultou na morte de mais de 15 mil ucranianos – mostram que Kiev não tem qualquer hipótese de “mudar o jogo”. É inútil que ucranianos e ocidentais briguem sobre quais mentiras contar, uma vez que não se acreditará em nenhuma delas.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Ukraine and West clash over narratives about casualty figures, InfoBrics, 23 de Setembro de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

The Pact for the Future and the annexed Global Digital Compact and Declaration of Future Generations was adopted after a short round of statements, where Russia (backed by Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Venezuela, and Nicaragua) issued their discontent with the negotiation process and called for the inclusion of an amendment.

Russia’s key objection was that United Nations should not be allowed to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. Apart from that, they don’t want to give more power to the High Commissioner on Human Rights, they object to the speeding up of nuclear disarmament, and they don’t want to “equate non-governmental actors with states when making decisions on international technological agenda”.[1]

As a countermeasure, the Republic of the Congo (speaking on behalf of the African Union) proposed a motion that no action would be taken on the draft amendment, which was accepted by all but seven nations (and fifteen that abstained).

.

.

.

.

The General Assembly then adopted the Pact without a vote![2]

The fact that Russia is involved in a war against Ukraine, and that the supporting nations have autocratic rule, is not exactly beneficial to the genuine opposition to the Pact (for reasons of true democracy, national sovereignty and freedom of speech), as any critique of any kind risks being dismissed as part of Russian intelligence operation and/or supporting the views of totalitarian regimes.

It remains to be seen what happens with the Russian claim that they will distance themselves from the Pact, while the work on implementing it (with the stated goal to “safeguard future generations” and “turbocharge Agenda 2030” with the help of strategic foresight, anticipatory governance, and behavioural design) continues in global forums for cooperation like the G20 and BRICS—with Russian participation.

Despite their expressed dissatisfaction, Russia supports the UN’s central role in “coordinating the positions of member states and searching for collective responses to global challenges”. They did not block the adoption the Pact and will, without a doubt, implement the actions that they did not object to.

Russia especially welcomes The Declaration on Future Generations, the “bridging of the digital divide” for the SDGs, and a reform of the International Financial Architecture.

BRICS (with its ten member states) is chaired by Russia this year. Digitisation is high on the agenda with The Digital BRICS Forum held this week.

The fact is that the BRICS-members Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, United Arab Emirates voted against Russia (and Iran), whereas China abstained.

The main concern of the BRICS countries is that Western Powers will be the main beneficiaries of the pact, not that the digital tools can be used for population control, online censorship, and for influencing our behaviour.

They want to be assured that they are included as equal partners in the emerging new world order with its digital world brain.

As a comment to my article The Media Silence Surrounding the UN Pact for the Future, the Swedish Government finally published a press release this Friday (September 20th, only two days before the Summit) about the delegation that would attend Summit of the Future, probably confident that no media attention would be given before the meeting.

The silence during the two years of negotiations is how “democracy” is defended from being “hijacked” by “backward thinking” and “anti-globalist” factions among the general public.

.

Screenshot from Sveriges Television’s news program Rapport about the adoption of the Pact for the Future, Sunday 22 september.

.

On the day of the adoption of the Pact, several newspapers, Swedish Radio and national television, woke up from their slumber and published the news about the Pact for the Future having been adopted.

I guess that our leaders now will inform us that “we” have agreed to the conditions spelled out in the Pact.

Have your government or media also finally informed you of the Pact? Please post links if you have any.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Notes

[1] Statement from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20240923090000000/qRMMeMjhrye_/PRAIRU_h_nyc_ru.pdf

[2] United Nations, World Leaders Pledge Bold Action to Protect Present, Future Generations amid Climate Crisis, Conflicts Gripping Globe, as General Assembly Adapts Pact for Future, press.un.org/en/2024/ga12627.doc.htm

All images in this article are from the author

“Eat Ze Bugs Agenda?” The Pandemic Treaty and All the Multiple Vectors Toward One World Government. James Corbett

By Michael Welch and James Corbett, September 24, 2024

From the Pandemic Treaty, to the Summit of the Future, to Agenda 2030, multiple pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are coming together to form a picture of a world governed for the most part by a technocracy, with centralized control in the hands of a few unelected figures from on high.

Limping Serbia Shoots Itself in the Foot: Refusal to Russia’s Invitation to the BRICS Conference

By Stephen Karganovic, September 23, 2024

A public opinion survey conducted in mid-May 2024 by the Russia Today news organisation on a representative sample of the Serbian public has yielded results that, had it been mindful of the opinions of those it governs, should have led the government to urgently recalibrate its political  course.

Zelensky’s Cancelled Meeting with Latin American Countries Reflects a Lack of Support for Kiev

By Ahmed Adel, September 23, 2024

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has cancelled a meeting he planned to hold in New York with leaders from Latin America and the Caribbean on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. The reason is the low number of participants, as reported by Brazilian media.

High-tech Attack in Lebanon May Usher In a Regional War

By Steven Sahiounie, September 23, 2024

Nasrallah called the Israeli attacks a ‘declaration of war’ and a ‘war crime’. Belgium’s Foreign Ministry called it an act of ‘terrorism’, with other Western countries also condemning it. Nasrallah reiterated that to stop the attacks on Israel, a ceasefire in Gaza must be put into effect.

Everything You Need to Know About the Conflict in Ukraine. “Multi-polar World Over-Ridden by Washington’s Hegemony”. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 23, 2024

By 2007 it was clear to Russia’s President Putin that the promise of a multi-polar world was being over-ridden by a policy of Washington’s hegemony. At the Munich Security Conference, Putin threw down the gauntlet and said that Russia did not accept Washington’s rules based uni-polar world. At that moment the US/NATO went to war against Russia.

The Free Soul of a Genius: Kris Kristofferson. “His songs keep echoing in my mind”

By Edward Curtin, September 23, 2024

Kris Kristofferson, a man of deep soul and poetic genius, is eighty-eight years-old, an elderly man who has come a long way down life’s road, now “Looking at a looking glass/ Running out of time/ On a face you used to know.” His songs keep echoing in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of millions of others.

Is Putin in Cahoots with the Globalists? Mike Whitney

By Riley Waggaman and Mike Whitney, September 22, 2024

Anyone who follows Russian-language media knows that Moscow is in near-total lockstep with the West when it comes to soul-crushing technocracy and other forms “safe and convenient” societal progress. Actually, an objective observer would recognize that Russia is far ahead of the West in implementing “digitalization” shilled by Davos and other celebrated globalist organizations.

As today marks the deadliest day of Israeli air strikes in Lebanon since 2006, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) condemns Canada’s failure to avert Israel’s belligerence.  CJPME reiterates its call for Canada to immediately impose a full Arms Embargo on Israel using the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA.)  CJPME points out that – with Gaza and the West Bank – this is the third brutal battle front that that Israel has opened against its neighbours in the past year, and Canada continues to repeat meaningless and erroneous platitudes about Israel’s “right to self-defence.”  Meanwhile, Canada ignores grave breaches of international law, like Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and its reckless “pager attack” in Lebanon last week.

“Israel is conducting a multifront ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza and the West Bank and is now opening a third front with Southern Lebanon. This is shameless brutality, with colonial overtones, by a racist Israeli government propped up by Canada, the US and their allies,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Canada had nearly a year to calibrate an effective response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, violent land theft in the West Bank, and its war with Hezbollah. It has now failed to deter Israel from escalating its attacks and violations of international law throughout Lebanon,” added Woodley.

Earlier today, Lebanon’s Health Ministry announced that at least 365 people, including at least 21 children, had been killed and 1,246 wounded in Israeli attacks in Lebanon.  These attacks follow on the heels of an Israeli attack last week via pagers and walkie-talkies which left dozens dead, including children, and thousands wounded in Lebanon.  Reckless and indiscriminate attacks that fail to distinguish between civilians and combatants are strictly illegal under international law.  Canada still has not condemned last week’s pager attacks by Israel.  “After a year of Israel’s devastating violence and forced displacement in Gaza and the West Bank, our hearts only ache more for the civilians in Lebanon who have been killed, wounded, or forced to flee their homes,” continued Woodley.

CJPME points out that Canada was well aware that tensions have escalated significantly between Israel and Hezbollah over the past year yet did nothing.  The BBC reported in July that between 8 October 2023 and 5 July 2024, Israel carried out over 6000 cross border attacks in Lebanon, while Hezbollah carried out only about one fifth that number.  “Canada’s talk about limiting arms to Israel is consistently vague and half-hearted,” asserted Woodley, “while Israel’s attacks on Lebanon could easily begin to resemble the conflict in Gaza.”  CJPME points out that Israel also hacked the Lebanese communications system prior to today’s attack, sending messages urging residents to evacuate homes in Southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut accused of storing weapons for Hezbollah.  “Given Israel’s history of using misinformation to justify its actions in Gaza, these new messages are highly suspect,” continued Woodley. “With residential areas and civilians already under attack, there is a serious risk of escalation, potentially targeting civilians under the pretext of security threats.”

CJPME notes that since January, Canada claims to have paused the approval of all new arms export permits to Israel. But this does nothing to address the hundreds of existing permits that were already approved before the pause came into effect. As of August, nearly $95m of military goods had been approved to ship to Israel by the end of 2025. However, this certainly represents a small fraction of the existing permits that are still active. Moreover, the public doesn’t know what these permits were for, how the decision was made, or if they will be completely cancelled – and Canada has refused to provide these details.

CJPME points out that SEMA was created to enable Canada to take economic measures against states which commit grave breaches of international peace, and/or gross and systematic human rights violations. “If not now, when will Canada ever take punitive action against this war-crazed Netanyahu government?” questioned Woodley.  In addition to the arms embargo, CJPME also calls on Canada to withdraw its military forces from Red Sea operations against Yemen and to push the US to engage in a comprehensive regional peace plan involving Iran.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”!   

Featured image: Israeli tank operating in Gaza (Photo: IDF)

A new report by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) highlights that the failures of Canada’s temporary resident visa program for Gazans (TRV) are rooted in systemic anti-Palestinian racism. Unlike a similar program helping Ukrainians flee Russia’s invasion in 2022, the Gaza TRV was designed with significant restrictions that fatally undermined its ability to help people escape Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. CJPME’s report, titled “Intended to Fail,” asserts that the TRV program was intentionally designed to limit the number of Palestinians who could find safety in Canada, based on racist assumptions about Palestinians as potential security threats and/or as “terrorists.”

“Losing your loved ones is the worst life-changing event but imagine witnessing them die slowly from starvation stuck inside besieged Gaza because Canada won’t force Israel to let them out, it is completely shattering,” said Israa Alsaafin, of the Gazan Canadian Family Reunification League. “Canada is showing no urgency in this emergency to save my family. Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms, but I feel like my family, and I are second-class citizens.”

The TRV was introduced in early 2024 by Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to help reunite Canadians with their Palestinian family members stuck in Gaza. However, to date, not a single Palestinian has left Gaza under the program. CJPME’s report evaluates how the TRV program and public discourse were dominated by the racist trope of Palestinians as security threats (and/or ‘all Muslims are terrorists’), asserting that systemic racism influenced the design and execution of the program to reduce its humanitarian potential.

CJPME’s report provides significant recommendations for the Ministers of Immigration, Foreign Affairs, and Heritage, to ensure that Canadian policy better aligns with the needs of Palestinians fleeing genocide, the recommendations include:

1. The Minister of Immigration must immediately reform systemic barriers in Canada’s Gaza TRV program as identified by the families of Palestinians trying to flee Gaza;
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs must immediately use all diplomatic levers available to pressure Israel and Egypt to stop blocking the release of Palestinians on Canada’s Gaza TRV list

“Minister Miller has overseen an epic failure. If my goal was to save Palestinians from genocide and reunite them with their families in Canada – I could not have designed and implemented a worse program if I tried,” said Alex Paterson, Senior Director of Parliamentary Affairs for CJPME. “It is clear from listening to the stories of the families, analyzing the differences with the Ukrainian program, and analyzing the case law – that Minister Miller capitulated to racists inside and outside government that believe that one Palestinian is too many for Canada. This is a stain on our reputation,” added Paterson.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image source

Israel has continued its war on journalism with another attack on Al Jazeera, this time with a raid on the outlet’s office in the West Bank and an order to shut down for 45 days. The shuttering occurred despite the office being legally under Palestinian control per the Oslo Accords.

This move comes as Israel and Hezbollah exchange heavy fire and step closer to the brink of full-scale war, and as Israel continues its daily massacres in Gaza and keeps ramping up its brutality toward Palestinians in the West Bank.

Israel keeps attacking Al Jazeera, assassinating journalists and bombing press offices for the same reason the mafia kills witnesses. They want to commit their crimes in the dark.

You shut down the press, kill journalists in record numbers and ban foreign reporters when you have a lot to hide. https://t.co/EKNgqqsAag

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) September 22, 2024

Journalist Jonathan Cook writes of the news:

Having destroyed Al Jazeera’s office in Gaza, and killed much of its staff there,

having outlawed Al Jazeera from broadcasting in Israel,

having admitted executing Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh (after lying that Palestinians did it),

Israeli troops have now invaded Al Jazeera’s office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, supposedly under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and shuttered the channel’s operations.

This is the latest attack on journalism by Israel: over the past year, it has killed more than 170 journalists, most of them Palestinians, and barred all foreign correspondents from reporting from Gaza.

When will the US and UK proscribe Israel as a terrorist state?

When will western media organisations and western journalists speak up in solidarity with their terrorised colleagues in occupied Palestine?

Israel hates truth.

Israel hates truth for the same reason anyone has ever hated truth: because the truth about them is ugly.

During the Iraq war/GWOT, the U.S. attacked Al Jazeera relentlessly, bombed its facilities, killed its Baghdad correspondent and locked a cameraman in Guantanamo. Israel has repeated this pattern. All journalists must condemn these violent assaults on freedom of the press. https://t.co/vDNMic2Vlu

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) September 22, 2024

The more I live and learn the more convinced I am that everything ultimately comes down to seeing. Clear perception is what moves things toward health, and the lack of clear perception is what keeps things in dysfunction. The more clear perception there is, the more things move out of dysfunction and toward health. This is true whether you’re talking about your own personal psychology, or the largest power dynamics in the world.

This is why profoundly ugly governments like Israel and the United States constantly attack the press, churn out propaganda, manipulate narratives, participate in online information ops, use censorship, and obstruct visibility via government secrecy. The truth about them is ugly, so they work to prevent the truth from being clearly seen.

You will see this same dynamic happening in your personal life with the nastier individuals you interact with. They pour a tremendous amount of energy into pushing and pulling at the way you see them, the way you see others in your circle, and the way you see yourself. They speak maliciously about others in private conversations and present a different face out in the open. They manipulate perception to make themselves seem big and shiny and make others seem small and unworthy. They work to inflate your view of them and devalue your view of yourself.

Even within yourself you’ll see this same dynamic. All our psychological dysfunctionality is driven by subconscious wounds, trauma and coping mechanisms that we have not yet coaxed out into the light of consciousness, and if we are really honest with ourselves the reason we have not done so is because some ugly truths are hidden within our inner darkness that we’d prefer not to look at. It takes a lot of courage and a fierce dedication to truth to bring all those inner demons out into the light where they can be healed, but it’s the only way to become an authentic person.

Everything ugly in our species clings to the darkness and avoids being seen, whether it’s experiences in early childhood that we’d rather not examine, unhealthy interpersonal relationships, or the most murderous and depraved impulses of the most powerful empire in human history. 

And in all cases the treatment is the same: do everything we can every day to expand seeing at every opportunity. On the level of the personal this looks like rigorously honest and courageous inner work. On the level of the interpersonal this looks like paying attention to the ways abuse and manipulation play out in yourself and the people you know, and cultivating truth-based relationships with truth-driven people. On the level of the collective this looks like using every means at your disposal to help spread awareness of the abuses of our rulers and the abusive nature of the systems we live under, using your own unique gifts and abilities.

Seeing is the first step toward health, which is why every unhealthy aspect of humanity does everything it can to avoid it. We will not have a healthy world until we become a conscious species, and we will not become a conscious species until we all have unrestricted perception, both inwardly and outwardly.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Featured image: Universal Misery – by Mr. Fish

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“All around the world, national legislatures are going to be forwarding suspiciously similar looking pandemic preparedness bills that will have all of this, all of these tools for control.” – James Corbett, from this week’s interview

From the Pandemic Treaty, to the Summit of the Future, to Agenda 2030, multiple pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are coming together to form a picture of a world governed for the most part by a technocracy, with centralized control in the hands of a few unelected figures from on high.

James Corbett started to study this subject, from the time he realized the hole in our common knwledge is a rabbit hole taking him deeper and deeper. But he also maintains a positive attitude, even when observers listen with despair to the sad signs he sees on our horizon. He joins is this time to tell us about the new generation of “Replicon” vaccines, Pandemic preparations going through multiple national legislatures, “monkeypox” as the next pandemic and more. James spoke to Global Research during a fascinating and disturbing  conversation on the 17th of September.

James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. 

Global Research: As I understand it, there was a major demonstration put on by critics in Geneva, a Geneva convoy aimed at opposing the WHO pandemic treaty and the Pandemic Treaty that didn’t get passed, at least not in a form that all of us recognized or expected. So, at least a partial victory of sorts. Could you apprise us of what happened last May? And in your opinion, did the WHO just kick the pandemic treaty further down the road until later, or did the people successfully kick the WHO in the guts?

James Corbett: I suppose it is how you look at it.

But I’m certainly not resting on my laurels or patting myself on the back or, oh, everything’s done here. No, unfortunately, this is a war of attrition. And just because the worst didn’t happen in Geneva in May does not mean that it’s not an ongoing process.

In fact, quite the contrary. We talk about the Pandemic Treaty not having passed, but really that’s only because they weren’t able to finalize and get all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed in time for that World Health Assembly. But they’ve just kicked it, as you say, kicked the can down the road to later this year, potentially.

They have talked about the potential of holding a special World Health Assembly later this year to rubber stamp whatever they come up with. Or at the very, very least, next year, at the next World Health Assembly, they will have a Pandemic Treaty ready. So, unfortunately, all of that momentum and interest and enthusiasm amongst the freedom community, freedom supporting community out there, free humanity, they know how to take that energy and just divert it or cool it down or give people a sense of a victory so that they sit back on their laurels.

And it is interesting, actually. You mentioned, for example, that Geneva convoy that was taking place. But from my perspective here in Japan, it’s been amazing to see the pushback against the biosecurity agenda that’s been taking place and really gaining momentum in Japan, especially this year.

We’ve had a number of remarkable events I was just writing about with regards to the replicon vaccine, which is the self-amplifying mRNA vaccine, which is sort of an upgrade or downgrade, I suppose, depending on which way you’re looking at it, of the mRNA vaccine platform, which is essentially all of the worst parts of the mRNA vaccine, but even worse because it also includes a replicase protein, which will then encode for more of the mRNA within your own body that then encodes the proteins like the spike protein or whatever else Big Pharma wants to have circulating around in your system. And so if you are concerned about the mRNA vaccines and what the effects they are having on the global population, you should be very concerned about the prospect of self-amplifying mRNA vaccines and the potential, although we don’t really know all of the potential effects of this because, of course, it is not a thoroughly studied technology. It is a brand new experimental medical technology that has already been approved for use here in Japan and is due at this point to start rolling out in the next few weeks when the fall COVID-19 vaccination program starts here in Japan.

They are supposedly getting ready to start using the self-amplifying mRNA vaccines. This is very concerning and thankfully the Japanese people are starting to really wake up about this en masse. We saw earlier in January a vaccine study group here in Japan of some prominent doctors who held a really remarkable press conference talking about the problems of the mRNA vaccines and the many, many effects that they are having on the population.

We saw a massive rally against the WHO in April, which was then parlayed into an anti-WHO group here that’s about protecting the Japanese population from the global biosecurity agenda and stopping what they are calling the third atomic bomb, the self-amplifying mRNA vaccines that they say the government is now preparing to drop on its own citizens. We’ve seen another rally that took place in Tokyo in May. Tens of thousands of people, which featured a speech from a former Japanese minister, a cabinet minister who is still a sitting parliamentarian, who talked about his own experience developing cancer after having received the vaccine and tying those two things together, and then actually apologizing to the public, saying that these vaccines should have been tested more, they’ve been rolled out inappropriately, they’re having a horrible effect, actually apologized to the Japanese public for it.

Startling stuff. Just last month…

GR: The media in Japan, are they promoting this stuff as well?

JC: Well, just last month, NHK, which is the Japanese national broadcaster, the equivalent of the CBC, on its popular morning program aired an entire segment about mRNA vaccine side effects and things that have been happening to people, vaccine adverse events, because, as they put it in their own broadcast, we’ve received thousands of requests from viewers out there. Thank you very much.

So here’s our presentation. So they laid out an entire presentation about the mRNA vaccines, talked to people who were suffering from adverse events. Just two days later, the current minister of health in the Japanese government said, on a pretty significant walk back from the safe and effective line that we’ve heard from every, basically, health ministry in the world, said that we… I can’t remember the exact phrasing of this, so don’t quote me on this, but it was something to the effect of, we cannot guarantee the safety.

As to the safety of these vaccines, we can’t speak to that. Something along those lines. Anyway, it was a remarkable walk back from the position we were expected to hold.

And now, next week, there is going to be an international COVID summit, which will include not only people from around the world flying in to give presentations and to interact with prominent Japanese doctors about this issue, but also they will be giving a parliamentary presentation at the Japanese parliament as part of a press conference that’s happening. And there will be another massive rally in Tokyo coming up next Saturday on the 28th. So there is a lot of activity happening here, as you would expect in a country that is facing what they are calling the third atomic bomb.

GR: It sounds like the Japanese population is waking up way more than… Apparently the Canadian population… I mean, notwithstanding we’ve had certain people speaking up, but it’s pretty much quashed by the mainstream media. I think that maybe you could talk a little bit about looking at COVID-19 in retrospective as the dust settles, so to speak.

Now, the next pandemic that they’ve been talking about, it could just be around the corner. Now, a month ago, the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced an upsurge of MPOX in the Democratic Republic of Congo and a growing number of African countries who said that… WHO said it constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. I think the MVABN vaccine that just got added to the pre-qualification list, which is necessary for timely and increased access to communities in urgent need.

And as with COVID-19, no evidence was supplied regarding the virus’s existence. You know, it relies overly much on the RT-PCR test to detect it, which is really not good for diagnosis, as the Nobel Prize winning inventor of RT-PCR announced.

I mean, he’s dead in 2019. But with this device, you can create a scare factor around the virus, making me think this could be COVID-19, the sequel, okay, MPOX. It is apparent based on much of the reporting that I’ve done on the show, that you’ve done on your show regarding the pandemic, that it played a role of healing people.

It seemed to have been an attempt to test a new vaccine, not for health, but for control, and for seeing just how far you can push against democratic principles and so on. I mean, getting the entire world to lockdown, all of that stuff. So I’m wondering, what role do you think this MPOX virus will play? Is this a sequel to COVID-19? Is it maybe an off thing? Because, I mean, what is similar and what is different about this latest pandemic scare, in your opinion?

JC: Well, I think the similarities are obvious, as you point out several of them already.

And we see essentially with COVID-19, even preceding COVID-19, we see the template of how these types of pandemic scares will presumably continue to work until the public stops falling for them, which is to say PCR tests creating an appearance or a belief in a widespread phenomenon that is affecting public health. And for that reason, as we’ve already seen, they can lock you in your home, they can force you into quarantine, they can force you to use digital apps to scan your location, they can use contact tracing, etc., etc. The precedent has been set.

Now it’s just a question of finding the right trigger that will scare the public enough. And whether or not monkeypox, and I will continue to refer to it that way, because I remember a year ago when that was what it was called, but I don’t know if that is particularly going to be the one that will be the scandemic sequel, but it certainly is a candidate, as is many others. In fact, I’ve always found it quite humorous that one thing that the WHO has been warning about is Pandemic X, whatever.

They literally say, well, is this some sort of hypothetical thing? It could be anything, we don’t know. But in the future, where there will be some sort of Pandemic X and this X thing will have these properties and it will kill however many millions of people. And it’s literally something they just made up.

They’re literally saying it’s a hypothetical thing that we’re just making up, but we should be prepared for it. So it is on its face ridiculous. But I think it shows the actual connection between so many of these different threads that we’re talking about.

Not only the biosecurity agenda, finely detailed as it may be, but also the broader agenda that’s rolling out and how it connects in to that quest for world government, which I think is ultimately what all of this is really about. And we can see that, for example, from the UN Pact for the Future, the Summit for the Future that’s taking place, or is about to take place in New York, where they are going to be deciding on whatever they’re going to be deciding on with regards to an emergency action platform that will give the Secretary General of the UN special emergency powers and whatever other authoritarian nonsense they are dreaming up is just one part of that agenda. Another part is using the biosecurity scare to enact changes, for example, to the food supply.

And if that sounds like a strange leap, well, here we go. How about in Canada right now? Bill C-293, that is Bill C-293, is currently making its way through the Canadian Senate. It is called an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, which is, of course, presumably all about how do we prevent the next pandemic, monkeypox or whatever that may be.

And this has apparently been forwarded by a Liberal Party backbencher. It has already been approved in the House and is now making its way through the Senate. And apparently what this means is, given the wording, and I would suggest people go and actually read the context of Bill C-293 so they can see it for themselves, but it starts talking about regulating commercial activity to specifically prohibit any activities that may potentially give rise to some sort of pandemic in the future, including industrial animal agriculture.

And it also then instructs the Minister of Agriculture to promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins. And that phrase may not mean anything to people at the first level. What does that mean, promotion of alternative proteins? Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the Eat Ze Bugs agenda, they want you to eat insects.

That is going to be your new main diet staple in this new normal that they’re trying to bring in on the neo-feudal plantation. You are going to be eating bugs. And part of that, they are calling it alternative proteins.

It’s a protein derived from, say, cricket powder and other such things that are now being approved for human consumption for the first time in the history of many. The European Food and Safety Administration has just approved, for example, cricket protein to be sold for human consumption, etc. This is called alternative proteins.

And now this is being embedded in Bill C-293 in the Canadian Parliament that’s talking about pandemic preparedness. So we have to start eating bugs? I mean, this is how every aspect of this global agenda starts to interlock. And to a certain extent, it almost, I won’t say gives the lie to, but shows how the WHO Pandemic Treaty and all of that, to a certain extent, is window dressing.

Because this, at the end of the day, is going to be enacted in every nation state’s national legislature. And it’s going to be passed as, for example, Bill C-293 in Canada and whatever Senate bill or whatever in the United States, etc., etc. All around the world, national legislatures are going to be forwarding suspiciously similar looking pandemic preparedness bills that will have all of this, all of these tools for control.

Another thing embedded in Bill C-293 is contact tracing, of course, because the government needs to be able to have the communications technologies and facilities to be able to know everyone you’re interacting with all the time. So that in case you fall ill, well, they’ll be able to track everyone you’ve been in contact with. And that power would never be abused by any government, surely.

So again, you start to see how under the cover and pretense of a sufficiently ginned up scare that gets the public worked up enough that they will give up their basic fundamental rights, the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, right? As long as you are scared enough to be able to willingly give up those rights, the government will come along and take them gladly. And unfortunately, again, this is not just a Canadian problem. This is a global problem.

It is happening in country after country all around the world. It is happening right now. And until we stop giving away our basic rights in the event of any perceived threat, and most of these threats are complete ginned up nonsense, but even if there was a real threat, that still does not give the government the right to come in and completely control my activities and start telling me to eat the bugs and all of this other self-evident nonsense.

GR: James, on the subject of Bill C-292 and other legislations that are going up in countries around the world, is there a negative in terms of people bringing forward things like, I don’t know, something like ivermectin or anything else like that that’s going to be pushed as an alternative to the WHO treatment? Is there some inconceivable mechanism that’s going to even more profoundly marginalize those alternatives?

JC: Yes, but the real operative question is, treatment for what? Because as you say, this PCR test is something that is really not fit for purpose for diagnosing anyone with anything. It is a tool that can be used to gin up the perception of some sort of pandemic. But was there really a pandemic? And of course, researchers like Denis Rancourt there in Canada have talked about and gone in deeply into the statistics surrounding the appearance or lack thereof of an actual pandemic threat that did or did not take place in 2020, 2021.

And he came to the conclusion that there was not a pandemic event that took place just based on the statistics alone. And he’s done a lot of important research on that. So really, the question we should be thinking about is, well, is the response, the hysterical, tearing down the fabric of our society response that we saw in 2020 and 2021 really proportional to what we experienced in our actual lives? And if not, then what really happened there? And why is it happening? And I think that gets probably closer to the point.

I mean, yes, certainly people have talked about ivermectin and other ways of combating these spreading pathogens, etc. And I am certainly not here to tell. I’m not a doctor.

I don’t play one on TV. People’s personal health and the decisions they make. Great.

Good for you. I’m sure you can do that better than I can do that for you. But having said that, I think the obvious, the 10,000 pound elephant in the room that cannot be discussed is that health is fundamentally about preparedness, not preparedness, prevention of illness.

And prevention of illness involves being healthy, eating healthy, engaging in a healthy lifestyle, disentangling yourself from the glowing screen, going outside in the sunlight, grounding your feet on the actual earth, spending time in physical activity, all of these things that tend not to make money for major corporations and big Pharma, etc., which is precisely why the prevention side of all of this is completely and utterly neglected. And the mantra of the mainstream establishment message over the past few years is you got to get a needle in your arm. That is health.

And once you have your needle in your arm, you know, anything. And the epitome of that particular nonsense was the giving away of free Krispy Kreme doughnuts. If you get your vaccination, you can get some doughnuts.

You’ll be doubly healthy. You’ll have the experimental medical technology in your arm, and you’ll have some doughnuts to clog your arteries with. It’s laughable.

It’s ridiculous. It’s utterly stupid. But I feel like I’m the one taking crazy pills because am I the only one who sees this?

GR: Well, I can think of an interesting take on what you’re saying, and that’s with regard to what’s happening in Gaza right now, where the genocide-like actions are taking place, you know, committed by Israel, and people are subjected to bombings.

They’re also starved of food. Water supply, half of the water supplies in the place have been destroyed. Medical supplies you can’t get in, and basically the Israeli government yet is helpful enough to allow health care workers in to administer a polio vaccine once it was discovered that polio is back in the region.

I mean, after all the indifference the Israeli Defense Forces have shown toward Palestinian women and children over the last 11 1⁄2 months, I don’t think that protecting them from polio really makes a lot of sense. I mean, what’s behind, you know, is the vaccine. I mean, in spite of all the weapons that are being aimed at Gaza, I mean, is this vaccine an exception to that rule? I mean, is it really about saving lives, or what is it about?

JC: Well, I think you answered your own question there, because it clearly and obviously is not about saving lives.

In the midst of this, I won’t even dignify it with the word war zone. It is a slaughter zone where innocent men, women, and children are being bombed to smithereens every single day, but we’re going to pause that at certain times and certain places so that everyone can gather to get the shot in their arms so that they won’t get polio. On its face is just ludicrous nonsense on every level.

Every part of that story is stupid. But what does it signify? Why, then? What is really behind this? The absolute most basic level that we can always proffer as one reason for these things to happen, clearly the corporations, the corporatocracy that puppeteers so many of our national governments, has a strong interest in, at the very least, the incredible propaganda opportunity here. Look, hey everybody, look how important it is to get your vaccines.

We will literally stop this random wanton slaughter just so that people can make sure they get their vaccines because we love you and it’s good for you. And that idea gets embedded in the public consciousness if they simply accept a story like that without questioning it. So, yes, bottom line, profits, sure.

That is certainly part of it. But there does seem to be a deeper agenda to this, doesn’t there? Because I don’t think money simply explains all of what we have seen rolling out in the past few years and what we see on the plate right now. I think this has to tie into what I keep pointing out is essentially every aspect of my work for the past 17 years and presumably the next 17 years is, we’ll continue to stress, this is about a much bigger agenda that has been identified in many ways by many people over the years.

It’s been called the New World Order agenda or it’s been given many names. But the essential kernel of the idea is a global governmental system ruled over by a central, unelected, unaccountable body that will be issuing dictates and mandates to global citizens. And that can take many different forms.

We could preserve the nation-state infrastructure but have it as a system like what we’re seeing right now where the WHO is creating this Pandemic Treaty that may or may not ever get passed, but every single national legislature is forwarding these various pandemic preparedness bills that essentially do all of that within those national legislatures. So that’s kind of the vision of what we see rolling out before us right now. All of this is taking place within the context of an oligopoly, an oligarchy and an oligopoly that is attempting to solidify and centralize a position from which they can dictate mandates for the global population to control the world’s resources, including, of course, its natural resources and also its human population.

And unless and until we face that dark reality square in the face, because all my life, at any rate, that has been derided as crazy conspiracy theorizing, unless and until we can completely and utterly discard that thought-stopping pejorative of conspiracy theory and face this reality as it is coming into view, unless and until we can do that, I don’t think we have a chance of turning the tide against this agenda.

GR: Okay, I’ve got about 30 seconds left, but is there anything else you’d like to say to our listeners on the subjects at hand before we conclude our conversation?

JC: Absolutely. Well, as always, the most important thing is what we can be doing about this.

The number one thing right now is the number one political priority. We need to withdraw from the UN completely, totally. No questions asked, no holds barred.

Withdraw from the United Nations. That is the seat from which they are trying to wield this power right now. And unless and until that becomes a political policy and a point that people are out on the streets protesting about, I don’t think we have a chance against this.

Os parlamentares europeus tomaram uma decisão muito perigosa ao votarem a favor da autorização de ataques de longo alcance contra o território profundo da Rússia. Chamando a agressão ucraniana de “direito à autodefesa”, os políticos europeus deram um passo significativo em direção a uma escalada de violência que poderia facilmente levar a uma fase aberta no atual conflito entre a Rússia e a OTAN.

Uma resolução votada no Parlamento Europeu em 19 de Setembro aprovou uma recomendação para autorizar ataques profundos contra a Rússia. A resolução estabelece uma série de medidas que aumentam a escalada de tensões, incluindo o aumento dos gastos militares, a imposição de mais sanções e o confisco de bens russos. Contudo, o ponto central do documento é o pedido formal aos países fornecedores de armas de longo alcance para autorizarem o uso de tais equipamentos contra alvos militares russos fora da zona de conflito.

O texto da resolução afirma que as restrições à utilização de armas ocidentais pela Ucrânia prejudicam o direito à autodefesa e devem, portanto, ser abolidas. Atualmente, a maior restrição está no uso de armas de longo alcance contra alvos profundos, uma vez que os ataques transfronteiriços já estão oficialmente autorizados. Temendo uma escalada, os fornecedores de mísseis de longo alcance pedem que as suas armas não sejam utilizadas em áreas alvo muito distantes da zona de conflito, mas os eurodeputados apelam ao levantamento desta regra.

“(O Parlamento Europeu) insta os Estados-Membros a levantarem imediatamente as restrições à utilização de sistemas de armas ocidentais entregues à Ucrânia contra alvos militares legítimos em território russo, uma vez que isso prejudica a capacidade da Ucrânia de exercer plenamente o seu direito à autodefesa sob a lei internacional e deixa a Ucrânia exposta a ataques à sua população e infraestrutura”, diz a resolução.

A adoção desta resolução pró-guerra refletiu a preocupação de centenas de eurodeputados sobre a possível deterioração do apoio militar à Ucrânia. Vários relatórios recentes indicam que a Europa está perto de reduzir significativamente a assistência militar, dada a deterioração da indústria de defesa local. Por esta razão, o lobby pró-guerra na UE está a fazer o seu melhor para manter o atual nível de apoio – ou expandi-lo – através da aprovação de novos documentos legais no Parlamento Europeu.

Os parlamentares europeus destacaram a redução do fornecimento de armas e munições como uma das principais ameaças à Ucrânia. A este respeito, a resolução recorda acordos internacionais assinados entre os países ocidentais e Kiev para enfatizar a alegada importância de manter a assistência militar a um nível elevado, bem como de expandi-la constantemente.

“(A resolução) Sublinha que as entregas insuficientes de munições e armas e as restrições à sua utilização correm o risco de minar os esforços enviados até agora e lamenta profundamente o declínio do volume financeiro da ajuda militar à Ucrânia por parte dos Estados-Membros, apesar das fortes declarações feitas no início deste ano; reitera, por conseguinte, o seu apelo aos Estados-Membros para que cumpram o seu compromisso de março de 2023 de entregar um milhão de munições à Ucrânia, para acelerar as entregas de armas, em particular de sistemas modernos de defesa aérea e de outras armas e munições, em resposta a necessidades claramente identificadas , incluindo mísseis Taurus; apela à rápida implementação dos compromissos assumidos em compromissos conjuntos de segurança entre a UE e a Ucrânia; reitera a sua posição de que todos os Estados-Membros da UE e aliados da OTAN devem comprometer-se coletiva e individualmente a apoiar militarmente a Ucrânia, com pelo menos 0,25% do seu PIB anualmente”, acrescenta o texto.

Como era de se esperar, a medida europeia foi celebrada pela grande mídia. O Politico publicou um artigo elogiando a forma como os parlamentares europeus apelaram a ataques ao “coração da Rússia”. As possíveis consequências da medida foram completamente ignoradas, sendo o foco dos jornalistas ocidentais simplesmente o elogio à irresponsabilidade da resolução.

Na Rússia, por outro lado, a notícia foi recebida com advertências. Moscou tem dito repetidamente que ataques profundos seriam vistos como uma declaração de guerra pela OTAN, uma vez que se sabe que apenas militares ocidentais estão qualificados para operar sistemas de longo alcance. Os políticos russos comentaram a resolução europeia, dizendo claramente que a UE está a “apelar à guerra nuclear”.

Deve ser enfatizado que as resoluções do Parlamento não criam obrigações para os Estados-membros, mas servem apenas como uma espécie de orientação. No final, cabe a cada estado europeu decidir se levanta ou não as restrições. No entanto, dado o elevado nível de belicosidade anti-russa, não seria surpreendente se este tipo de medida irresponsável fosse adotada. Resta saber se os países que realmente fornecem armas de longo alcance tomarão esta decisão.

A paciência e o desejo da Rússia de evitar a escalada e de cooperar para a paz impediram, até agora, que fossem tomadas medidas de retaliação adequadas. Contudo, no caso de ataques profundos, seria difícil evitar uma resposta, uma vez que este seria um cenário de guerra aberta iniciado pela própria OTAN

Washington parece compreender claramente a linha vermelha da Rússia, mas os europeus agem sem qualquer mentalidade geoestratégica. Talvez os EUA estejam a induzir os países europeus a permitir estes ataques, a fim de testar a paciência da Rússia, usando a França e a Alemanha como cobaias para ver se haverá ou não uma resposta nuclear. É importante que os países europeus compreendam a armadilha que estão a criar para si próprios – caso contrário, poderão cruzar um ponto sem retorno na escalada militar.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Europe playing with fire by calling for deep strikes, InfoBrics, 20 de Setembro de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

Serbia’s leadership are lucky that international law does not prescribe liability for political malpractice. If it did, they would find themselves in the dock.

As if Serbia had other viable options and acting with brazen contempt for the vital interests of the country, they have rudely turned down the Russian President’s courteous invitation to attend the forthcoming BRICS conference in Kazan on 22 October, reaffirming vocally instead their commitment to the “European path.” Ironically, at approximately the same time a revealing report ordered by the European Commission and authored by former EU commissioner Mario Draghi was published, with less than glowing conclusions about the Union’s competitive future.  The report was redacted in insufferably tedious bureaucratic prose and it may have been unintelligible to Serbian officials. But even without Draghi’s hints, there is plenty of compelling evidence that the European Union is experiencing a deep structural crisis affecting its political, economic, and ideological dimensions. The question asked by savvy Europeans is not whether it is competitive, but whether it has a future. Hence, the stiff-necked refusal of official Serbia to even consider reasonable alternatives that could benefit their country is as breath-taking a demonstration of political malpractice, or malfeasance to put it more accurately, as has ever been witnessed, anywhere.

Public opinion poll data confirm the existence of a deep discrepancy between the servile pro-European Union rhetoric of the ruling Serbian nomenklatura and the views of the ordinary citizens of Serbia. A public opinion survey conducted in mid-May 2024 by the Russia Today news organisation on a representative sample of the Serbian public has yielded results that, had it been mindful of the opinions of those it governs, should have led the government to urgently recalibrate its political  course. A minority of 45,4% of Serbian respondents are currently in favour of joining the European Union. But if joining were predicated on Serbia’s recognition of the secession and “independence” of Kosovo, an overwhelming majority of 80% of the Serbian public would be opposed. European Union officials have repeatedly stressed that without that condition being met Serbia would be barred from joining, so it would seem evident that “No, thank you” is the actual response to EU membership of four-fifths of the Serbian people.

Interestingly, surveys conducted by collective West entities such as Voice of America have yielded very similar results. VOA finds that only 40% of Serbs would be prepared to vote in favour of entering the EU, roughly matching RT’s data. We do not know how VOA respondents would have reacted if admission to the EU were conditioned on the recognition of Kosovo because that option was not included in the published version of the results. But given the public’s mood, one can easily extrapolate what the response would most likely have been.

Curiously, RT and Voice of America poll results are in broad concordance on other issues as well. RT has found that 84,6% of surveyed Serbs oppose sanctions against Russia and that 76.1% hold the collective West and its Kiev proxy responsible for the conflict in Ukraine. As for the aforementioned Voice of America survey, it found that only 10% of the Serbian public support an “unequivocally pro-European Union and pro-Western course” and that a “majority of the Serbs indicated they want Serbia either to maintain ties to Russia or pursue a pro-Russian foreign policy.” Claiming that “the pro-Western trend in the region is strong,” Paul McCarthy, the International Republican Institute’s director for Europe, is quoted as telling Voice of America that ”Serbia goes against the grain of the other five countries in the region; it is more pro-Russian, blames the West for the conflict in Ukraine, has very low approval ratings for joining the European Union.” And, to add insult to injury, only 3% of Serbs would favour joining NATO.

What is keeping the Serbian government from reflecting the clearly articulated political preferences of its citizens, as found by pollsters of both interested parties in the current geopolitical confrontation? Spinning such devastatingly congruent findings is virtually impossible.

Nor would it be possible, disregarding the results of bogus “elections” and assuming that the principle of political accountability were even minimally respected, for such glaring discrepancies between the declared will of the people and the conduct of their “representatives” to occur.

This is a question that should be of the utmost practical interest not just to the Serbs, but even more urgently to Russian policy makers.

The succinct answer is that the alienated political elite are doing precisely what they were installed in the position of power to do. In Serbia, after the October 2000 color revolution takeover executed with money and logistical support furnished by Western special services, the rulers’ constituency are not the citizens but the foreign forces that set them up and that sustain them in power. To that effect, an immutable system has been established which permanently functions for the benefit of foreign interests and to the detriment of the country. The system is independent of the cosmetic, periodic regime changes and it is unaffected by the selection of individual puppets, all of whom follow the same general line. They all invariably perform at the pleasure of their curators, like the bought and blackmailed pawns on the chessboard that they are.

That exactly is the pattern, copy/pasted in Serbia, that is seen throughout the collective West. Shielded by a simulacrum of “democracy” whilst acting through corrupt, visible pawns, from the background it is the largely unseen forces of peculiar spirituality and imbued with a ferocious Molochian ideology that relentlessly implement policies abhorrent to the politically impotent citizenry. Events in those captive societies are directed by them through their puppets toward outcomes that virtually no one desires but all are powerless to resist. Just ask the Irish, who are uselessly protesting as their remonstrances are cruelly ignored by their alienated government. Or ask the English, who at the hands of the tyrannical government they had just “democratically” elected are suffering levels of arrogance and two- tier justice repression by comparison to which Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands might appear to many as decidedly mild.

The ordinary people of Serbia are in exactly the same position. Those pretending to represent them are impostors.

There are two things that official Russia must now do. The first is to ground its policy in the sharp distinction between the Serbian people and those who in international forums fraudulently monopolise the right to make decisions and speak in their name.

Granted, in international relations civility ought to be the preferred norm and to the degree possible governments should be treated with diplomatic discretion, even if their pretensions and legitimacy are questionable. But in serious policy planning such governments should never be conflated with those they rule when plainly that would be unwarranted.

The second thing that the critical mass of Serbs expect from Russia is a more intense and demonstrative people to people and even more importantly at the present moment government to people engagement. Whatever one may think of Stalin, at the end of World War II he wisely noted that German regimes come and go, but what always remains is Germany for the Soviet Union to deal with. Russian policy in relation to Serbia should take its cue from that eminently based observation and henceforth treat only the Serbian people as Russia’s enduring political partner.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from Shutterstock/Dmitriano Hanov

Rethinking Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic

Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.

Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:

1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;

2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;

3) Genocide or Blowback?;

4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);

5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;

6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;

7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;

8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;

9) The Balance Sheet; and

10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.

• ASIN:‎ B0992RRJRK
• Publisher: ‎Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
• Language: ‎English

Click here to purchase. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has cancelled a meeting he planned to hold in New York with leaders from Latin America and the Caribbean on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. The reason is the low number of participants, as reported by Brazilian media.

According to an article published on September 17 by Folha de S. Paulo, the invitation, sent in August, received few confirmations of attendance. This follows Russia’s absence from the June summit organized by Switzerland to address the war. Only 11 of the 33 nations in the region participated, and the majority, such as Brazil, did not send heads of state.

At the same time, the Brazilian and Chinese governments are organizing a meeting on the sidelines of the UN assembly to release a joint proposal for peace in Ukraine. Zelensky rejected the Sino-Brazilian initiative as “destructive.”

The lack of support for Kiev from Latin American and Caribbean countries is just the tip of the iceberg, especially since the conflict has already been largely deflated, with less relevance on the international scene and media coverage, especially since the Hamas attack on Israel last year.

At the same time, Ukraine has been losing support from various sides, especially from the Global South—including Latin America and the Caribbean—which has avoided showing support for either side. For example, Brazil has tried to appear neutral regarding the conflict since the beginning, but President Lula is becoming increasingly critical of the Kiev regime.

The growing loss of support has to do with Zelensky behaving like a spoiled child who, at any cost, even at the expense of his own people, is trying to engage in a war that cannot end in a Ukrainian victory. Latin America recognizes that Russia has already sent proposals to Zelensky to try and pacify the conflict, but Ukraine is always trying to escalate. It is easy to see that Zelensky is using this narrative of victimization to try to garner support and demonstrate personal power, which does not benefit either side.

Recent events indicate that countries in Latin America and the Global South have little to gain by unrestrictedly supporting any parties involved in the conflict. With this in mind, Latin American countries have opted for diplomacy and neutrality in relation to the conflict. There is also the complexity of external influences in economic and political terms, with initiatives and activities dominated by China and Russia, followed by the West. Consequently, most nations in the Global South avoid openly committing to an alignment with either side.

The Global South, which encompasses Latin America, Asia, and Africa, has seen Russia as a more politically engaged actor that recognises the economic importance of these regions.  Russia has highlighted the role of BRICS and the need to deepen relations with the Global South, both within the context of BRICS and in other multilateral forums, such as the G20. China, in turn, exerts strong commercial influence, being the leading partner of several countries in the Global South.

Different ideals have weighed heavily on the Global South in confrontation with the narratives of the West, Russia, China, and other nations, and this is having an influence on their views towards the Ukraine War. The current international scenario is marked by the influence of several poles, making the calculation of state actors much more complex in decision-making and giving them greater room for maneuver since they no longer depend exclusively on the West and its interests.

The involvement of the BRICS countries, particularly Brazil and China, playing active roles in elaborating the joint peace proposal for Ukraine indicates a push towards multilateralism and the defence that countries do not isolate themselves in economic or political groups. This is evident in the preparation of the joint peace proposal for Ukraine drafted by Brazil and China, suggesting that non-Western countries may prefer diplomatic and peaceful solutions outside the scope of NATO, which is a military alliance. This effort aligns with the broader BRICS goals of promoting a multipolar world order, which will likely have repercussions in discussions during the UN General Assembly.

Low participation in Zelensky’s meeting could also be interpreted as a sign of the difficulties NATO faced in disseminating its narrative among non-Western countries. NATO’s narrative is increasingly centered on a zero-sum logic, defending exclusive interests in relation to Russia, which makes the search for a negotiated solution to end the conflict more complex and difficult to achieve. No peace proposal by NATO countries would be successful since the organization has acted in prolonging the war, such as through constant weapon deliveries to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.

Therefore, it is possible that proposals originating from other countries, such as those from Latin America and Africa, will have greater weight within the international community over time, and NATO’s discourse will become weakened because it is a directly interested party in the conflict.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Between Tuesday and Wednesday, 32 people were killed and about 4,000 injured by exploding handheld devices, including pagers, walkie-talkie radios, mobile phones, laptops, and even solar power cells across Lebanon, with two children among the dead.  Many of the injured lost fingers, hands, and eyes, with some 300 in critical condition according to the Health Ministry’s press briefing on Thursday morning.

Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, gave a televised address on Thursday evening.  Nasrallah explained how Israel had sent direct and indirect messages on Tuesday threatening the Lebanese resistance that more attacks would follow if the attacks on Israel continued. The Wednesday attack was a follow-up of the threat from the previous day.

Nasrallah called the Israeli attacks a ‘declaration of war’ and a ‘war crime’. Belgium’s Foreign Ministry called it an act of ‘terrorism’, with other Western countries also condemning it.

Nasrallah reiterated that to stop the attacks on Israel, a ceasefire in Gaza must be put into effect.

Hezbollah discontinued the use of mobile phones among its operatives because Israel was capable of listening in.  Instead, the Lebanese resistance group started using pagers and walkie-talkies.

The pagers were sold under the name Apollo Gold, a well-known Taiwanese manufacturer. However, investigators confirmed that they were not made in Taiwan but by a Hungarian firm, BAC Consulting, which had a contract from Taiwan to use the Apollo Gold brand name.

According to the New York Times, BAC was an Israeli shell company set up to mask the identity of the Israeli agents who inserted explosive material and a remote detonator capability into the pagers.

According to leaked intelligence to Al-Monitor, the explosions were planned to go off at the start of a full-scale war against Lebanon. Still, a leak alerted two members of Hezbollah to the danger, and the Israelis detonated the devices on Tuesday.

Hezbollah had attacked Israel on August 25 and among the targets was the elite spy center known as Unit 8200. 22 Israelis were killed and 74 wounded at the cyber-spy headquarters.

When the pagers exploded on Tuesday, many analysts saw the attack as a response to the attack on Unit 8200.

The Israeli spies who planted the explosives in the pagers were most likely from Unit 8200.

Hezbollah has been calibrating its attacks and minimizing casualties to avoid justifying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to start a full-scale war against Lebanon. The US administration of President Joe Biden has been asking Netanyahu to reign in the extremist elements in his cabinet who are pushing for a regional war.

Israel has been waiting for Hezbollah to lose patience so that they can start a full-scale war. Media reports from Tel Aviv say Netanyahu will fire Yoav Gallant the Defense Minister.  The two have a tense relationship, but Gallant seems to accept that his next mission will be a full-scale attack on Lebanon.

According to the Times of Israel, Gallant said Israel’s focus has moved to the northern front as a “new phase” of the war is beginning. Lebanon’s Foreign Minister saw the attack on Lebanon as a signal to a wider war.

Netanyahu knows that he could stop the Hezbollah attacks on Israel by agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza.  Biden got Netanyahu’s promise of a ceasefire in July, but later Netanyahu reneged on his agreement and used the excuse of demanding Israeli troops on the Philadelphia corridor. Once it was clear to Biden that Netanyahu would not agree to any ceasefire, under any terms, Biden stepped out of the race for a second term as President.

Netanyahu is bound to keep the war going in Gaza, despite not having achieved his military goals there, because he is in office only as long as he does the bidding of two Ultra-Extremist Jewish settlers, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich.  If Netanyahu loses their support in his cabinet, his coalition will fall, and Netanyahu will go to jail on past corruption charges.

From the beginning of the war on Gaza, Netanyahu has been determined to destroy Hamas, and his second goal has been to destroy Hezbollah. Military experts have cautioned that his goals cannot be achieved because the resistance to occupation can never be stopped.  An army can kill leaders and fighters, but the desire for freedom and independence can never be wiped out. India and South Africa are both examples of winning independence from colonial rule.

With the Biden Oval Office flying on auto-pilot, Netanyahu feels this is the unique chance to start a major war in Lebanon, which the US government will pay for.  He knows from his standing ovations speech at the US Congress, that Israel is assured of US military support during a war in Lebanon. Netanyahu has calculated that the time is right because if Donald Trump were to win in November, he might pressure Netanyahu to a ceasefire and stop the blank check for weapons.  Trump has proved in his previous term in office that he is not in favor of foreign wars in which the US taxpayers have to pay the bill.

All eyes are on the skies of Lebanon, as the hours passing by bring us closer to a possible war that has not been seen in its scope for 50 years.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published at Times of India.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse