A crise política na Alemanha não parece terminar no curto prazo. O colapso do governo preocupa as autoridades do país, e há também um cenário social desequilibrado que coloca em risco toda a estabilidade alemã. Num discurso recente, Olaf Scholz reconheceu que a situação na Ucrânia é a principal razão desta crise, particularmente devido ao apoio sistemático prestado por Berlim ao regime de Kiev.

O primeiro-ministro alemão afirmou que a principal razão da crise política do país é a falta de consenso entre as autoridades sobre o apoio militar à Ucrânia. Ele culpou o ex-ministro das Finanças, Christian Lindner, por se recusar a aprovar um plano orçamentário para aumentar ainda mais o financiamento para Kiev. Segundo Scholz, a posição de Lindner criou polarização entre as autoridades e desfez a coalizão do governo.

Scholz demitiu recentemente Lindner do seu cargo, criando fortes atritos entre os diferentes grupos que apoiam o governo. Lindner também é o líder do Partido Democrático Liberal, um dos três partidos que compõem a coalizão pró-Scholz. A sua demissão causou descontentamento não só entre os membros do partido, mas também entre os sociais-democratas e os “Verdes”, criando um ambiente de desconfiança entre a equipe de Scholz.

A rivalidade entre Scholz e Lindner começou como uma disputa sobre como estabelecer uma política de apoio à Ucrânia consistente com a situação financeira da Alemanha. Os dois responsáveis ​​tiveram uma discussão amarga e possivelmente desrespeitosa durante uma reunião em que Scholz tentou forçar Lindner a aprovar um novo plano econômico que permitiria mais ajuda militar à Ucrânia, ignorando assim alguns dos principais problemas sociais da Alemanha, como o declínio econômico e a desindustrialização. .

Scholz tenta disfarçar a natureza do seu plano econômico alegando que este inclui esforços para promover o desenvolvimento de energias limpas e investimento na indústria automóvel. Contudo, a questão ucraniana é o fator central da proposta. Scholz afirma que é necessário ampliar as políticas de ajuda a Kiev, considerando que o inverno está chegando e os ucranianos necessitarão cada vez mais de ajuda internacional para superar as dificuldades da temporada. O chanceler afirma ainda que, com a vitória de Donald Trump nos EUA, a principal responsabilidade pelo apoio à Ucrânia recairá sobre a Alemanha e os europeus, razão pela qual espera que seja aprovado um plano econômico que estabeleça uma assistência clara a Kiev.

“O ministro das Finanças não demonstra vontade de implementar esta oferta no governo federal em benefício do nosso país. Não quero mais sujeitar nosso país a tal comportamento”, disse Scholz.

Scholz está atualmente em uma situação política crítica. Os seus seguidores tornaram-se uma minoria no governo, uma vez que a demissão de Lindner também encorajou a demissão de outros ministros e funcionários. É possível que sejam convocadas eleições antecipadas em Março, e o Presidente alemão Frank-Walter Steinmeier já se pronunciou a favor disso. É evidente que a Alemanha atravessa um dos momentos mais críticos da sua história pós-Guerra Fria, deixando de ser o país estável, pacífico e desenvolvido tão elogiado pelos social-democratas europeus nos anos anteriores.

Além disso, os adversários políticos de Scholz estão a pressionar os restantes funcionários do seu governo para estabelecerem uma agenda diferente da do chanceler. Por exemplo, de acordo com a mídia alemã, Lindner pediu ao Ministério da Defesa que impusesse novos limites à ajuda militar à Ucrânia, justificando o seu pedido com base em cálculos econômicos que provam a incapacidade da Alemanha de continuar a aumentar a assistência. Berlim já reduziu para metade a sua ajuda a Kiev, mas Lindner e outros políticos realistas dizem que esta precisa de ser ainda mais cortada para superar o défice de milhares de milhões de dólares do país.

No final, fica claro como o conflito na Ucrânia é responsável pela crise política alemã. O próprio Olaf Scholz admite que a falta de consenso sobre a questão ucraniana levou ao colapso do seu governo, o que parece ser razão suficiente para Berlim repensar a sua política em relação à Ucrânia. Em vez de demitir ministros que pensam diferente, Scholz deveria prestar mais atenção aos cálculos que expõem a realidade alemã, reconhecendo que não é viável para o país continuar a apoiar o regime ucraniano no longo prazo.

Se Scholz não mudar a sua estratégia em relação à Ucrânia, será derrotado em novas eleições parlamentares. Além disso, o custo político dos seus esforços será em vão porque a ajuda alemã à Ucrânia não é capaz de mudar nada no cenário de conflito. No final, o governo Scholz deverá tornar-se mais um dos muitos governos europeus que ruíram no meio da crise que afeta o continente desde 2022.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Ukraine aid program responsible for political crisis in Germany, InfoBrics, 8 de Novembro 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

He deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic.

Former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Richard Haass recently published a detailed article for his think tank’s journal about how “The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine: Why Washington Must Redefine Its Objectives”. He observed that the US never clearly defined what victory means, which has led to false expectations, deep disappointment, and confusion about the endgame. Haass then proceeds to explain why the US should push Ukraine to compromise with Russia.

According to him, it can’t realistically restore its pre-2014 borders, nor outlast Russia in the ongoing “war of attrition”.

Zelensky’s much-ballyhooed “Victory Plan” “is not a plan for victory, but a prescription for continued war”, Haass wrote, warning that “If Kyiv’s allies walk away, it could end up being a prescription for defeat.”

Instead, he suggests settling for Ukraine remaining “an independent, sovereign, and economically viable country”, which requires ending hostilities as soon as possible.

.

.

To that end, its Western partners “should tell Kyiv that Western support cannot be expected to continue at or near current levels without it. But they should also make an ironclad pledge to do everything in their power to provide Ukraine with arms for the long haul.” This includes giving it long-range weapons as a deterrent to Russia resuming the conflict at a later date. A buffer zone would also ideally be carved out along the Line of Contact, potentially with peacekeepers, but neither side would give up their claims.

Haass then proposes that the second diplomatic phase “could involve territorial transfers in both directions and a degree of autonomy for the inhabitants of Crimea and Ukraine’s east. It would also involve the creation of a security guarantee for Ukraine.” He added that this should involve formal NATO membership, but a coalition of the willing therein that provides credible security guarantees could suffice. Phased sanctions relief for Russia could also induce compliance with the ceasefire.

Moreover, “the West might ask Ukraine to forswear nuclear weapons” while NATO “could pledge not to station its forces on Ukraine’s territory”, which could meet some of Russia’s stated interests. Haass then ends by calling on Biden to implement this policy regardless of whoever his successor might be, arguing that he could take the heat for Kamala to carry out this much-needed policy change whereas Trump’s promised efforts to broker a peace deal would be shaped by the conditions that he inherits from Biden.  

The former CFR chief deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic. Russia’s Permanent UN Representative recently reaffirmed his country’s position that it won’t accept Ukraine being admitted to NATO in any shape or form. This means that it’ll never agree to its formal membership like Haass proposed even if troops aren’t based there.

Nevertheless, the argument can be made that the raft of bilateral security guarantees that Ukraine clinched with NATO members since the start of this year is practically equivalent to formal membership, with the only exception being that there’s no implied obligation to dispatch troops in its support. About that, Article 5 is misinterpreted by friends and foes alike as mandating the aforesaid, but all that it actually involves is each country deciding on its own the best way to support a beleaguered ally.

The bloc’s unprecedented military aid to Ukraine from early 2022 onwards de facto amounts to the implementation of Article 5 without crossing the line of sending troops there so formalizing this existing form of support through the abovementioned security guarantees simply solidifies the status quo. Russia obviously disapproves of it, but it hasn’t ramped up its surgical strikes against military targets or its battlefield operations in response, thus implying that it tacitly accepts this “new normal”.

Likewise, the West also tacitly accepts that its sanctions failed to inflict the strategic defeat on Russia that they expected, just like it also tacitly accepts that Ukraine won’t reconquer any of its lost regions. Awareness of these “politically incorrect” observations sets the stage for a potential compromise whereby the West and Russia can consider formalizing this state of affairs as the basis for an armistice since each can claim victory in their own way without the other “overreacting” like some have feared.

Russia won’t use nukes against Ukraine in response to that country formalizing its existing Article 5-like relationship with NATO while the West won’t deploy troops to help Ukraine reconquer its lost territory. Phased sanctions relief could incentivize Russia to abide by the armistice, while a mix of Western and non-Western (particularly BRICS countries) peacekeepers could possibly be deployed in the buffer zone. Ukraine might also be coerced to demilitarize part of its universally recognized border with Russia.

On the topic of autonomy for Crimea and Donbass that Haass touched upon in his piece, that’s already in effect since both Russian regions formalized such relations with the federal center upon their accession to the country. Haass is either unaware of this, forgot, or has something else in mind, but in any case, no changes are expected since this arrangement already works well for them. On the flipside, Russia wants Ukraine to grant its co-ethnics cultural autonomy at least, but this is unlikely.

None of the conflicting parties, which includes indirect participants like the West, will be fully satisfied with what was suggested by Haass or was proposed in this analysis in response to his piece. Even so, some of the compromises that were put forth could help lead to an armistice, though the challenge is preventing Russia and/or Ukraine from violating it out of fear that their rival is rearming under this cover ahead of a seemingly inevitable unannounced first strike. There’s no perfect solution to this dilemma.

Both sides will indeed rearm under this cover, but Russia could be positively influenced by phased sanctions relief at a comparatively accelerated pace while Ukraine could be restrained if the US has the political will and international peacekeepers do their duty monitoring compliance with the ceasefire. There’ll still remain the chance that one or the other could “go rogue” due to their unresolved security dilemma, but these additional proposals are the most realistic means for reducing that possibility.

All told, Haass’ proposed compromise is very imperfect, but it’s also still impressively better than anything that his peers have thus far put forth. Considering his influence in policy formulation, both directly and over those who are tasked with carrying this out, it’s possible that some of his ideas might be seriously considered or at least generate a debate about their merits among those who matter. The sooner that this happens, the sooner that the US can cut its losses while it still has the opportunity.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.  

UNCTAD, COP29, They Did It Again: Digital Tyranny Beyond the Worst Imaginations of George Orwell’s 1984. Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig, November 12, 2024

For those who understand what full digitization of everything means, it is clearly pointing the way to digital tyranny, to a digital Gulag – promoted by UNCTAD, a UN organization, well-aware of what they are doing.

“Trump Has His Own Monroe Doctrine”: Latin America Is Under the Spotlight – and This Is Bad News for Latin Americans

By Uriel Araujo, November 12, 2024

One should expect to see the US increasing pressure on Latin American countries towards alignment amid the ongoing Chinese-American geopolitical dispute.  Oliver Stuenkel (a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) argues that Trump has his own Monroe Doctrine, and that his “isolationist” foreign policy translates into safeguarding hegemony in the New World.

The Remembrance Day Amnesia Racket

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 12, 2024

On November 11, 1918, when the guns fell silent in Europe, some 16 million had been left dead.  A ceremonial ritual grew up around commemorating the fallen.  So horrific were those events that a convention known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was born, an instrument that initially began as a bilateral agreement between the United States and France to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Russia’s Doctrine of “Peaceful Coexistence”. A Solution to Avoiding WWIII?

By Evgeny Chossudovsky, November 11, 2024

Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa.Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.”

Israeli Hooligans Storm Through Amsterdam Chanting “Fu** You Palestine”. Mike Whitney

By Mike Whitney, November 11, 2024

Zionist hooligans stormed through the streets of Amsterdam on Thursday tearing down Palestinian flags and intimidating passers by. The scene resembled the incidents that occur regularly in the West Bank where fanatical settlers bully and brutalize the sheep herders and olive growers who live on the land.

Looking Straight at the Aftermath of the Puppet Show Election. “Won” or Lost”, The Six Tools of Tyranny

By Emanuel Pastreich, November 11, 2024

Let us rather talk today about the six tools of tyranny that are employed to run this country but that you are not empowered to change, or even to address, through elections or any part of the political process.

Five Reasons Why Trump Should Revive the Draft Russian-Ukrainian Peace Treaty

By Andrew Korybko, November 11, 2024

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump wants to create a Western-patrolled DMZ along the Line of Contact (LOC) for freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, which was analyzed here and here, dangerously runs the risk of escalating tensions with Russia to the point of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis.

The deeply entrenched fascism of the collective West, the merger of the corporate and the state, is mostly disguised but shockingly palpable in its proxies.

Investigative journalist Abby Martin describes Israeli fascism with these words:

“I hate when I see politicians just trying to denounce Netanyahu as some sort of aberration from Israeli society. No, this is the norm.

This is the norm. Look at every single cabinet minister, every single member of the Knesset is out there spewing genocide, advocating mass murder of not just Palestinians, but babies, babies. It is sick.”

.

[Transcript here: Western-Supported Zionist Fascism/ By Abby Martin – Mark Taliano]

The current Western-supported Zionist holocaust of Palestinians is the distilled essence of Western fascism, Western settler-colonialism, genocide.

And what are some of the real goals behind the Western-supported genocide?

“The ultimate objective,” explains Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.” (1)

Western/Zionist proxies in Syria and beyond (al Qaeda, ISIS and affiliates) serve the same fascist agenda. Investigative reporter Vanessa Beeley explains,

“many in the US are not aware that US forces occupy one third of Syrian territory illegally. The justification of being in Syria to fight ISIS is dishonest. In 2016, in a closed UN session with Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry and Syrian so-called opposition that was recorded and published by the NYT – this recording confirmed three things: 

1:  Obama policy in Syria was the removal of the Syrian government and President Bashar Al Assad

2:  In order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS in the hope that ISIS would advance on Damascus and pressure President Assad into stepping down

3.  Weapons that were for the “rebels” under the Obama Train and Equip program mysteriously ended up in the hands of ISIS. 

Further links for U.S. support for ISIS in Syria – herehereherehere herehere , herehere and here. Local sources hereherehere and here.” (2)

Beneath the veils of war propaganda,  Dana Stroul – Joe Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense – then co-chair of the Syria Study Group – “nomalizes” Empire’s illegal occupations and theft of Syrian resources, even claiming that Washington and is proxies “own” one third of Syian territory.

Illegal occupations, support for internationally-proscribed terrorist groups, unilateral coercive economic measures (collective punishment) amount to bald-faced imperialism, which amounts to fascism, given the barbaric  nature of Empire’s sectarian proxies.

And what are some of the underlying motivations?  Empire seeks to weaken, to subjugate and to balkanize, to impose “Regime Change”, to open up new territories for corporate exploitation, to plunder resources, and to further project its power in the so-called New Middle East.  All of this is in contravention of international law and all of it is consistent with fascism laid bare.

Empire disguises its West Asian fascism as ‘humanitarian” even as the death toll in its concurrent wars of aggression amounts to millions of souls. (3)

What About Ukraine?

Here, the fascism presents as literal nazism and genocidal ethnic nationalism, (4) both fostered since the end of World War Two by Western intelligence agencies. These are the Western-supported extremist elements that spearheaded the violent coup against the elected Yanukovych government and instated a Washington-supported nazi-controlled regime that would soon after bomb and kill and genocide its own people in the East of the country.

When the war ends, and the likely outcome of Ukraine’s military defeat materializes, Western corporations will still profit.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF), Cargill, Monsanto, and Blackrock will all profit from Ukraine’s misery and the mass-slaughter of its youth. (5) Russia was the fabricated enemy, but never the real enemy.

Elections and democratic posturing are all disguises that conceal the collective West’s deadly fascism and its globalized permanent war agenda, which destroys one country after another, in lockstep, for the narrow benefit of international financial interests — including armament manufacturers,  but to the detriment of humanity.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Research Assistance by Basma Qaddour

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1)  Felicity Arbuthnot and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, “Video: ‘Wiping Gaza Off the Map’: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves.” Global Research, 11 November, 2024. (Video: “Wiping Gaza Off the Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

(2) Vanessa Beeley, “End the U.S. Alliance Global War Policy or Suffer the Consequences/ My intervention at a Sare for Senate-sponsored conference” Global Research, 21 February, 2024. (End the U.S. Alliance Global War Policy or Suffer the Consequences – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

see also: Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIS-ISIL-Daesh) that the U.S. Government Does Not Want You to Know About – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

(3) Mark Taliano, “US-NATO Holocaust in Iraq: The Depopulation and Destruction of Mosul.” Global Research, 12 July, 2017. (US-NATO Holocaust in Iraq: The Depopulation and Destruction of Mosul – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

(4) Robert Parry, “When Western Media Saw Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis.” Orinoco Tribune, 10 August, 2014. (When Western Media Saw Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis – Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

see also: Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government, and World War Three? – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

(5) Mark Taliano, “Misinformed Westerners and the Demise of Ukraine: The West Supports the Destruction of Ukraine and its People” Global Research. 23 July, 2023. (Misinformed Westerners and the Demise of Ukraine: “The West Supports the Destruction of Ukraine and its People” – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

As we write, New York City is an unsettling 70 degrees in November. Meanwhile, a cohort of war profiteers, their pockets lined by the very industries destroying our climate, are flying to COP, the annual U.N. climate summit hosted by a petrostate, no less. They’re gathering to “discuss climate solutions”—but one of the world’s biggest contributors to the climate crisis will be entirely overlooked: the U.S. military-industrial complex.

The world’s largest institutional emitter, the U.S. military, sits beyond the reach of the metrics meant to hold countries accountable for climate pollution. Exempt from transparency requirements at the COP or within U.N. climate agreements, the military sector is, in fact, the leading institutional driver of the climate crisis. It burns through fossil fuels on a scale that surpasses entire nations while waging wars that destroy lives, communities, and the land itself. It’s a deliberate omission, one meant to hide the environmental and social costs of militarism from view.

Leading the U.S. delegation to COP is John Podesta — a career defender of militarism, a lobbyist who has worked to fortify the very military establishment poisoning our air, water, and land. Now, he arrives in the conference halls of COP wrapped in a cloak of environmentalism. Yet, as long as he skirts around the elephant in the room, no amount of recycled paper or energy-efficient lighting at COP will address the core driver of the climate crisis. If Podesta ignores the environmental impact of U.S. militarism, he’ll be dooming us.

For those of us directly feeling the crisis, there’s no question that the U.S. Empire’s military machine is central to our climate emergency. Appalachians living through floods and those of us in New York watching temperatures soar out of season are witnesses to the toll. And yet we watch as our leaders, claiming to care about climate, push forward with policies and budgets that only deepen our climate emergency.

In the past year alone, the war on Gaza has been a horrifying example of militarism’s environmental toll. Entire communities were leveled under the firepower of U.S.-funded bombs. In just two months, emissions from these military activities equaled the yearly carbon output of 20 countries. This violence bleeds beyond borders. U.S. police forces train with the Israeli military, and they’ll soon bring their war tactics to Atlanta’s Cop City, where a training center is planned on sacred Indigenous land. Militarism is woven into every facet of our society — taking lives, razing homes, and desecrating land — all while stoking climate disaster.

This crisis can’t be solved by those who are its architects. It can’t be fixed by Podesta’s well-crafted speeches or the administration’s empty pledges. The Biden administration just passed one of the largest military budgets in history, pumping more dollars — and more carbon emissions — into the climate catastrophe. Each weapon shipped, each tank deployed, is an environmental crime in the making, one funded by American tax dollars. We can’t ignore this fact as COP progresses and climate talks fall short yet again.

It’s easy to despair in the face of such unaccountable power. But in times of crisis, clarity can become a weapon. We must expose the truth that militarism is antithetical to climate justice. True climate solutions don’t come from polite panel discussions led by those who wield the tools of destruction. They come from radical honesty and demands for accountability. They come from a commitment to ending the empire choking our planet and communities. And they come from a shared goal of mutual liberation that doesn’t ignore the plight of the many to serve the few.

The cost of militarism is clear, and its environmental toll demands our fiercest opposition. This COP, let’s not let the elephant in the room fade into the background. It’s time for those responsible for our climate crisis—the war machines, the lobbyists, and the industries that back them—to be held accountable. For our survival and for each other, we must demand climate justice that tells the truth.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Aaron Kirshenbaum is CODEPINK’s War is Not Green Campaigner and East Coast Regional Organizer. Based in, and originally from Brooklyn, NY, Aaron holds an M.A. in Community Development and Planning from Clark University. They also hold a B.A. in Human-Environmental and Urban-Economic Geography from Clark. During their time in school, Aaron worked on internationalist climate justice organizing and educational program development, as well as Palestine, tenant, and abolitionist organizing.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. Based in Mississippi, Melissa holds a B.A. in Public Relations from Tulane University.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Already in November 2023, UNCTAD has made infamous headlines by announcing a digital future; see this:

“UNCTAD – in blatant derogation of its historical mandate on behalf developing countries, namely the Global South–, will level the playing field, as the saying goes, on behalf of the entire UN System by announcing in a Press Release in Geneva on 15 November 2023, its e-Week from 4 to 8 December 2023, in a major revamp of its annual e-Commerce Week series which began in 2016.

UNCTAD’s Secretary-General, Rebecca Grynspan said,

“The digital economy plays a critical role in advancing development goals at all levels. Through inclusive and multi-stakeholder discussions, we can together build a global digital future that works for all.”

“More than 3,000 stakeholders from 130 countries will examine how to turn digital opportunities into shared development gains and close existing divides for a sustainable future.””

See this for full article.

For those who understand what full digitization of everything means, it is clearly pointing the way to digital tyranny, to a digital Gulag – promoted by UNCTAD, a UN organization, well-aware of what they are doing.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) seems to have become the UN spearhead for announcing – or re-announcing – the UN system’s anti-human Agenda 2030 ongoing and to come.

Now UNCTAD is helping in selling to the world the climate hoax, big time.

It is warning the world of an imminent climate disaster, as the globe once again is entering one of the most CO2-generating world events, COP29, which will take place in Azerbaijan’s capital city, Baku, between November 11 and 22, 2024.

The official meaning of COP is Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is an international climate summit, which is held annually. At COPs, world leaders gather to work together on solutions to tackle climate change.

As of the current date, the number of participants who have successfully registered for COP29 has surpassed 32,000. The official registration has only begun in June 2024. So, this may just be the beginning of more [participants] to come.

COP28 took place a year ago in Dubai with more than 85,000 participants. If you believe the official interpretation, COPs are for world leaders to find solutions to the inevitable and rapidly progressing climate change.

.

COP28 in UAE (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

.

Really? Does the world have 32,000 or even 85,000 “leaders”? With their reasonable entourage, you might get to 2,000.

What about all the others?

First, all fly into Azerbaijan in CO2-emitting fuel-guzzling jets, hundreds, if not thousands, in private jets.

Imagine? To go and pretend chatting about protecting the environment from earth-killing greenhouse gases?

Most of the world and participants may have never known that COP21 of 2015 in Paris issued a “clandestine” agreement, not to be published, saying that CO2 from wars and other military activities, as well as from air traffic and ocean travel, is not to be counted. Very smart because the military, worldwide, is by far the biggest polluter.

Yet, even considering all human CO2-produced, including from wars, planes and ships, amounts to less than 0.5% of all CO2 and has no impact on the world’s climate, whatsoever. Some real scientists [not bought] are talking about extreme arrogance of mankind pretending to be able to influence our Mother Earth’s climate.

These scientists – those who have escaped the threats of coercion— openly admit that we, humanity, are living in a fake world, one that wants Us, the People, to submit to “guilt-imposed” fear from man-made (us, the people) climate change; a lie.

We have allowed an obscure inhuman elite to create a world way beyond the worst imaginations of George Orwell’s 1984.

Besides, CO2 is as necessary for life as is oxygen. CO2 is food for trees and plants that, in turn,  produce oxygen which almost all living beings need to breathe.

Any excess CO2 is immediately absorbed by the oceans, and given off, when needed. It is Mother Earth’s perfect balance that plays with the seasons.

More than 97% of climate influence on earth comes from the sun. And that happens in smaller and larger cycles which, in turn, are linked to the wide-wide universe. But that may be the subject for other debates, many of which are ongoing.

Second, every COP raises hopes among the believers that eventually the solution to stop climate change will be found, if we only pay the right price – and the price of course is money, money from the poor to the rich. Not vice-versa.

Some 95% or more of all the COP attendees, since the COPs exist, are there to make “deals”, seeking networking for big-big business connection, most of which include large, millions of tons CO2-generating contracts. That is what the COPs are good for. The rest is an abject lie.

The fluke of annual COPs started with the first global Environment Conference in Rio, the so-called Rio Earth Summit of 1992. That was the officialization of a long planned criminal lie – namely, that we the people are responsible for a rapidly changing world climate — so that we can be squeezed into strait-jackets, of recurring plandemics, economic crises, natural disasters, famine, excessive poverty, endless wars, leading to an endless chain of confusing and humanity-surmising disasters.

.

Group photo of world leaders meeting at the 'Earth Summit'.

Group photo of world leaders meeting at the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13 June 1992. UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras

.

The “climate change” idea is at least 70 years old, but was first advanced by the Club of Rome’s disastrous report called “Limits to Growth” (1972), complemented later by the Club’s “The First Global Revolution” (1991) — a brilliant idea for the unhumans attempting to control humanity.

The United Nations (UN) was created after WWII in 1945 in San Francisco, by 50 countries emerging from WWII, as a serious organization. The leaders of these first 50 members agreed on an international treaty to enshrine equal rights of all people and maintain peace.

Today, the UN system has been overrun by a dark worldwide Deep State, a diabolical cult, aiming at controlling humanity – and that should happen in a fast-forward mode from 2020 to 2030, the infamous UN Agenda 2030.

UNCTAD, the forerunner of the UN system, is now propagating to halt the impending “damage” to the earth through climate change, asking for US$ 1.46 trillion to be pledged during COP29, foremost by the rich countries for the Global South, so that they may take measures to fight climate change.

.

Watch here

.

Following UNCTAD’s mandate, they must address their financial sectors to reorient their investments towards “sustainable development” [whenever you see the word sustainable, be on guard, it is suspect – authors note]; develop “sustainable” growth policies; establish “equitable carbon markets” [whatever that means]; and work for “Energy Transition Minerals”, most likely meaning, let foreign corporations exploit their natural resources, so they can pay back the US$ 1.46 trillion, or whatever they get.

Dear Global South, nothing comes for free. In short, the west needs your natural resources for its extravagant way of life, steels them from you and pays you back with money you will never see, under the pretext that you must fight climate change. A perfect fraud executed grand style, sponsored by a leading UN organization, UNCTAD. 

Why wouldn’t you suggest to UNCTAD to fight environmental degradation by requesting its members and business leaders to reduce the ever-growing output of plastic – a huge business of course that ought not to be touched especially not by UNCTAD, the UN-business and trade promoter? Plastic is everywhere. Some of it degrades into nano-plastic, which invisibly in the air, ending up in people’s lungs and brains. See this.

Some rich countries export their plastic waste to so-called developing countries, alias, the Global South, against payment – so the western elites don’t have to deal with it.

Larger amounts of plastic wastes end up in the oceans as small islands, killing bird fish and other sea animals.

This is the real environmental damage that should be fought and eliminated – and it affects most the Global South. Stand up and tell UNCTAD that this is our real problem, NOT climate change.

As long as you participate in these COPs, you are part and parcel of the worldwide fraud.

Instead of human-created CO2 emissions that are supposedly killing our, the world’s, climate, maybe we all should think about the technologies of geoengineering that have been developed for the last at least 80 years and are today mastering the most cutting-edge technologies, which, of course, nobody wants to talk about.

What could cause these excessive floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves, all-destructive “forest fires”, destroying infrastructure, entire towns, living quarters, agriculture, production and industry centers – entire economies, causing havoc, famine, misery, extreme poverty – and eventually death.

Yes, man-made, but not the man-made you are lied to by the COPs and by UNCTAD on behalf of the UN and the dark cult.

See this for the full UNCTAD Press Release.

It is high time to open eyes, ears, and our superior conscience against the lies, fraud and the power of non-humans attempting to control and enslave humanity.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

With Donald Trump’s recent victory, Latin America seems to be under the spotlight. For one thing, earlier this month, Trump (who will take office on January 20, 2025) said that, if elected, he would call Mexico’s newly inaugurated President Claudia Sheinbaum “on day one or sooner” to inform her that “if they don’t stop this onslaught of criminals and drugs” coming into the US, he would “immediately impose a 25 percent tariff” on everything Mexico sends into the US. The Republican did call her on November 7 – but, despite the previous harsh rhetoric, it was “a very cordial” conversation – according to Sheinbaum.

Now going further southwards in the Latin continent, Argentine’s Javier Milei will apparently be the first President to meet with Trump this week, even before the latter’s presidential inauguration. The meeting will take place at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s south Florida club, during the exclusive Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Billionaire Elon Musk, owner of X, will also be present. This could indicate Trump will be “favoring” Argentina over its regional rival Brazil.

Together with Trump’s call to Mexico’s Sheinbaum the very same day his electoral victory was announced, those are signs that Latin America is going to be a big deal for the new administration. One should expect to see the US increasing pressure on Latin American countries towards alignment amid the ongoing Chinese-American geopolitical dispute.  Oliver Stuenkel (a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) argues that Trump has his own Monroe Doctrine, and that his “isolationist” foreign policy translates into safeguarding hegemony in the New World.

One should note that some degree of Monroeism is not exclusive to Trump. In late 2023, analysts such as Tom Long (a reader in international relations at the University of Warwick) and  Carsten-Andreas Schulz (an assistant professor in international relations at Cambridge University) were already warning about the “return of the Monroe Doctrine”. Long and Schulz wrote that, under Joe Biden, the “White House’s warnings about China’s growing footprint in the Western Hemisphere” carried “a distinctively Monroeist undertone.” They argue that Biden might not go so far as to praise the Monroe Doctrine at the United Nations (as Trump did), but Biden’ initiatives in the continent are nonetheless perceived in a similar light by Latin Americans.

Therefore, talking about the Monroe Doctrine “coming back” is, to be more accurate, a matter of focus and intensity – such a doctrine in fact has never really gone away. Moreover, in more recent years, be it with Trump or Biden, it has become clear that being “pro-American” spells disaster for Latin America countries, as I wrote in December 2023. When it comes to being thusly inclined, Argentina’s Milei is indeed quite an extreme case, with his “nightmarish” economic measures.

One may recall that, during his presidential campaign, he even promised to “get rid” of the peso currency by replacing it with the dollar – which would take away the Argentinean Central Bank’s role in the nation’s economy, handing it to the US Federal Reserve – thereby fully giving up any autonomous monetary policy. This plan is still under discussion. Under Milei, Argentina has also stepped back from joining the BRICS group. With Milei’s heavy austerity measures, Argentina’s poverty rate,  in the first six months of the new administration, has risen to 53% (which means 3.4 million Argentinians have been pushed into poverty this year). The new poverty rate is the highest level for two decades – Washington has been his economics.

Image: Trump and Bolsonaro meeting in Florida on the weekend of March 7, 2020 via EPA

Under the previous Jair Bolsonaro’s “Westernalist” administration Brazil got a taste of what “automatic alignment” with Washington looks like. The 2019 “Technology Safeguardsagreement on the Alcantara Space Center is a pretty good example. In addition to other things, it granted access to some parts of the strategically placed Brazilian Space Agency’s launching facility to US personnel only. The deal also imposed a number of limitations on personnel as well as resources from non-MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) countries, which excluded China. What’s more, it limited Brazil to launching rockets that are made with US-developed technology, and money thereby earned by the Brazilian government could not be invested into Brazilian rockets.

Bolsonaro ruled Brazil from January 2019 to January 2023 and thus his presidency also coincided with the first years of the ongoing Joe Biden’s presidency. At the time so much was talked about Brazilian alignment with Washington being limited to a Bolsonaro-Trump “friendship”, with Joe Biden even refusing to talk to his Brazilian counterpart. The truth is that fondness aside, Biden handled his Bolsonaro pretty much the same way Trump would: demanding alignment and offering nothing (or not much) in return. This is illustrated, among other things, by Biden’s administration’s pressure to stop Chinese company Huawei from taking part in building Brazil’s 5G network.

The Biden administration in any case “contributed decisively to the maintenance of Lula da Silva in power after the failed coup attempt attributed to former President Jair Bolsonaro”, as Fabiano Mielniczuk, a research member of NEBRICS, describes it. With Bolsonaro’s successor and incumbent Brazilian President Lula da Silva, a healthy partnership did not materialize, though: for instance, Washington has weaponized the environmental rhetoric, maintained  pressure on Brasilia to disengage from BRICS, and forced Brazil to postpone the request of Iranian warships.

It was during Trump’s years, in his previous presidency, that the Monroe Doctrine hit Latin America hard, though – with “Bay of Pigs”-like plans (that did not come through) to invade Venezuela through Colombia, for instance. Besides alleged CIA plans to kill Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, in May 2020 American mercenaries attempted to enter the country on speed boats from Colombia as part of so-called Operation Gideon to launch a coup d’etat against Maduro. Caracas accuses Washington and Bogota of having played a role in it. Operation Gideon has been described as a lousy display of incompetence and hubris.

.

undefined

Operation Gideon. SEBIN agents displaying captured former US Green Berets (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)

.

With a new empowered Trump’s presidency, the country risks having to face way more efficient operations. The issue of Venezuela has been haunting elections in South America – as we have seen more recently in Uruguay. Tensions between the Bolivarian Republic and Guyana over territorial claims (amid major oil discoveries) are still on the rise and the specter of both a regional conflict and a US intervention haunt the region.

I’ve recently written on how Trump’s recent victory marked the end of an over three-decade long Bush-Clinton Era and how this development could be, overall, good news for the planet, considering the record. I argued that Trump’s previous 2017-2021 presidency was no match for the Bush-Clinton years in terms of the destruction of nation-states, complicity in genocide, and war-mongering. However, merely pointing out this fact by way of comparison does not amount to implying Trump was or will be a “peace-maker” by any chance.

The Abraham Accords (which lie at the core of the ongoing predicament in the Middle East in so many respects) were, to some degree, his making. The whole issue of Israel itself will be a test and a challenge for the new administration. As for Washington’s foreign policy under Trump pertaining to Latin America, one should not expect, as argued here, anything other than the good old Big Stick approach.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by Global Times via InfoBrics

If President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign promises in his victory speech, the Pentagon could see personnel fired, especially “woke” generals who have embraced progressive movements associated with racial and social issues.

In his last term, Trump faced numerous forms of resistance, especially from the Pentagon, largely due to his position on security issues such as NATO or his willingness to put troops on the streets to suppress protests in the US. Former generals and defence secretaries have been some of the former president’s fiercest critics, labelling him a fascist and saying he was unfit to be president, a Reuters investigation found.

Having gained experience in his first term, Trump is expected to prioritise loyalty in key elements of his administration, which could lead to the removal of military officers and career civil servants he deems disloyal.

In June, when questioned by Fox News, Trump said he would fire generals described as “woke.”

“I would fire them. You can’t have (a) woke military,” Trump said.

According to the Reuters investigation, sources believe that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, a former fighter pilot and widely respected black military commander, is in Trump’s crosshairs after he spoke out on racial discrimination in the US following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.

During the election campaign, Vice President-elect JD Vance expressed his opinion during an interview by stating that political leaders have to “get rid of them and replace” the people who are not aligned with the political vision that the head of state is trying to implement.

This speech corroborates the fear of some of the American elite who understand that this anti-woke movement by Trump could become broad.

Trump’s strongest anti-woke messaging during the election campaign aimed at transgender troops, and it is recalled that he had previously banned transgender service members, posting a campaign ad on X portraying them as weak, with the vow that

“WE WILL NOT HAVE A WOKE MILITARY!”

Removing woke ideology from the US military is seen as imperative by Trump, especially after US News & World Report ranked Russia, and not the US, as having the world’s “strongest military.” Therefore, Trump will not only purge woke ideologues from the military but also those responsible for the war in Ukraine since, as it turns out, the war is responsible for strengthening Russia instead of weakening it.

US military figures facing repercussions for their fervent support for the war in Ukraine is something welcomed by Moscow, which has consistently called for peace negotiations, while the Kiev regime has consistently rejected them despite losing the war and experiencing catastrophic economic decay and demographic decline.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump’s statements in favour of peace in Ukraine differentiate him from other political figures in the US.

“At least [Trump] is talking about peace [in Ukraine]. He is not talking about confrontation, about the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This distinguishes him favourably from the current US administration. It is difficult to predict what will come next,” Peskov told Rossiya 1 television.

At the same time, Peskov noted that Trump is “less predictable” than current US President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, the failed Democratic candidate and rival in the presidential race. According to the Kremlin spokesman, it is not possible to say now whether Trump will stick to the pacifist statements he made during his election campaign.

However, what is certainly predictable is that Trump’s war on “woke” ideology in the US military will not be limited to the purging of generals but also career civil servants at the Pentagon, who could be subjected to loyalty tests, according to current and former officials.

A senior US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters there was increasing concern within the Pentagon that Trump would purge career civilian employees from the department.

“I’m deeply concerned about their ranks,” the official said, adding that several colleagues had expressed concern about the future of their jobs.

“This will be 2016 on steroids and the fear is that he will hollow out the ranks and expertise in a way that will do irreparable damage to the Pentagon,” the official predicted.

In effect, it appears that great changes are coming to the Pentagon and US military once Trump enters the White House on January 20. How this reflects on policy remains to be seen, but it can be expected that the president-elect will focus more on challenging China and supporting Israel against Iran than the current administration’s priority of challenging Russia and supporting Ukraine.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Trump-proofing the East Asia Economy Through Elusion

November 12th, 2024 by Adam S. Posen

Myanmar’s Rakhine State Faces Famine, Says UN

November 12th, 2024 by Roger McKenzie

Donald Trump has named Republican congressman Mike Waltz as his next national security advisor, a position that was held by ultrahawk John Bolton in the last Trump administration.

Like Bolton, Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enough in Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States. 

.

.

.

Read on X

.

Trump has also confirmed that Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik will be taking on the role of US ambassador to the UN, a role previously held by warmonger Nikki Haley in the last Trump administration. Again, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the old hawk and the new one.

Stefanik is best known for her congressional efforts to stomp out free speech on college campuses, making a lie of Trump’s lip service to the importance of First Amendment rights. As explained by Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp, she’s a hawkish swamp monster whose political career was primed in some of the most odious neoconservative think tanks in Washington, and opposes placing any limits on US military support for Israel. Earlier this year Stefanik actually flew to Israel to give a speech before the Israeli Knesset vowing to help stop the “antisemitism” of protesters against Israel’s genocidal atrocities at American universities. 

And now we’re getting reports throughout the mass media that deranged war slut Marco Rubio has been tapped as Trump’s new secretary of state. It’s really hard to imagine anyone worse for the role of Washington’s top diplomat than a warmonger who has spent his entire political career pushing for more wars, sanctions and slaughter at every opportunity.

.

Read on X

.

This should dash the hopes of Trump supporters everywhere that this time their guy really will end the wars and drain the swamp. Trump’s appointment of Iran hawk Brian Hook to help staff the State Department for the next administration and his rumored consideration of Mike Rogers for secretary of defense are likewise bad signs, as is Tucker Carlson’s claim that virulent China hawk Elbridge Colby is likely to play a role in the administration.

Trump’s anti-interventionist supporters loudly applauded the other day when he unexpectedly announced that Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley would not be playing a role in the next administration. In response to the announcement, libertarian comedian and podcaster Dave Smith said on Twitter that stopping Pompeo was not enough and that “we need maximum pressure to keep all neocons and war hawks out of the Trump administration.” In response to Smith’s post, Donald Trump Jr tweeted, “Agreed!!! I’m on it.”

When I saw this, I tweeted the following:

“Ignore their words and watch their actions. Been saying it for years, and I’m going to keep on saying it. Ignore their words, watch their actions. Talk, as they say, is cheap.”

Their actions are telling us a lot more than their words right now.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: The official portrait of Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) (From the Public Domain)

The Remembrance Day Amnesia Racket

November 12th, 2024 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It was catastrophic, cataclysmic and all destructive.  It wiped out empires and aristocracies and tore through the middle class.  The First World War was a conflict that should never have happened, was pursued foolishly and incestuously by the royal families of Europe and fertilised the ground for an even greater war two decades later.  It produced an atmospheric solemnity of grief and loss, and a lingering, collective neurosis.

On November 11, 1918, when the guns fell silent in Europe, some 16 million had been left dead.  A ceremonial ritual grew up around commemorating the fallen.  So horrific were those events that a convention known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was born, an instrument that initially began as a bilateral agreement between the United States and France to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy.  Eventually, virtually all the established states of the day signed it, heralding a most fabulous illusion, pursued even as countries began rearming.

.

undefined

Briand-Kellogg Treaty, with signatures of Gustav Stresemann, Paul Kellogg, Paul Hymans, Aristide Briand, Lord Cushendun, William Lyon Mackenzie King, John McLachlan, Sir Christopher James Parr, Jacobus Stephanus Smit, William Thomas Cosgrave, Count Gaetano Manzoni, Count Uchida, A. Zaleski, Eduard Benes. (From the Public Domain)

.

The commemorators that tend to make an appearance on Remembrance Day often prove to be the war makers of tomorrow.  The demand that we all wear red poppies and contribute to the causes of veterans would be all the more poignant and significant were it to discourage killing, foster peace and encourage the brighter instincts of human progress.  Instead, these occasions are used by the military minded to ready the populace for the next conflict, a form of vulgar conditioning.  Before his death in 2009 at the ripe age of 111 years, Harry Patch, a veteran of the Great War’s trench warfare, proposed that war was “a license to go out and murder.  Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn’t speak?”  That logic is hard to better.

The statement here is not “lest we forget” but “what should be remembered?”  Corpses are only memorable if they are useful.  The fallen serve as bricks and masonry for the next slaughter, engineered by war criminals, the negligent and the incompetent. They died so that you could live and prosper, or so we are told.  The commemorative classes repeatedly refer to “democracy”, “freedom” and “our way of life”, a seedy way of suggesting value in sending the young to an early grave.  Accordingly, so that your children should be able to live in a way befitting their standing, you must participate in the next murderous, maiming conflict.

If these commemorations served as lessons, then they should be revered, repeated and rerun with mighty fortitude.  Unfortunately, those lessons are never observed.  Were that to be the case, such quixotic, costly provocations as the AUKUS pact, which incites nuclear proliferation and arming for future conflict against phantom threats, would be matters of the past.

As things are, these commemorative days mark human idiocy and venality, anticipating the next bloodbath that will enlist the docile for war, leaving the planners untouched by accountability, be it in any legal or ethical sense.  To this day, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former US President George W. Bush, remain at large for illegally invading Iraq in March 2003.  It was an invasion based on a monstrous lie on Iraq’s capabilities, notably in the Weapons of Mass Destruction department, one that dismembered a state and unleashed an Islamic fundamentalist whirlwind in the Middle East.

Those in the Remembrance Day promotions business are keen to remind younger converts that the occasion is not just for previous generations.  Bianca Wheeler, the new Director of Veterans SA, offers some unconvincing waffle to any unsuspecting newcomers to the creed: “Remember Day is about linking the past to the present, and then taking that and considering what it means for the future.”  Wheeler, herself a former naval officer, is keen to change the conventional view of what a veteran is: not necessarily one festooned in medals from the great conflicts, but one dedicated to service.  How eye-piping in sweetness.

With each November 11, there is a growing concern.  The young seem increasingly estranged and disassociated from these occasions, worry those in the Remembrance Day amnesia racket.  “For many  young people,” ponders the Hawkesbury Post, a New South Wales paper, “Remembrance Day may seem like an event disconnected from their daily lives.  After all, the wars it commemorates feel like ancient history.”

If history is but a record of agreed upon facts, then this occasion is one about agreed upon mythology.  Wheeler would have you believe that a historical exercise is at play, hence the following platitude: “You can’t know where to go in the future without knowing where you come from.”

The onus should be on the warmaker, the arms manufacturer and merchants of death, to explain why their nasty handiwork needs to be remembered.  By focusing on the dead, we can ignore the reasons for their deployment, the circumstances they found themselves in countries they barely knew existed, falling for causes they could hardly articulate.  The statues, monuments and honour boards always mention the heroically fallen; never do they mention those who signed their death warrants to guarantee the Grim Reaper his fill.

As things stand, the armaments complex has far better things to do than turning up at war memorials.  Killing fellow human beings is a frightfully pressing business, and there is always ruddy cash to be made from the quarry of the eternally gullible.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected] 

Featured image: A remembrance poppy distributed by the Royal Canadian Legion worn on a lapel (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

The Musings of Shigeru Ishiba: Visions of an Asian NATO

November 12th, 2024 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

This article originally published on November 11, 2023 was revised on January 14th, 2024 with a focus on the dangers of escalation and the role of “False Flags”. It was updated on October 4, 2024

On October 1st, Iran launched Operation “True Promise 2: about 180 missiles were deployed (NYT).A coordinated missile Strike has completely destroyed  Israel’s F-35 Base Nevatim “among other key targets”.

“The facility hosts both of the Israeli Air Force’s F-35 fifth generation fighter squadrons, and was previously intended to host a third squadron of the fighters after they were delivered” (Military Watch Magazine)

Teheran has confirmed that the attack was launched in response to Israel’s assassinations of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s chairman Hasan Nasrallah: 

“According to a statement released by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the attack was aimed at “three military bases” in the Tel Aviv area:

Labelled “True Promise 2,” the operation follows a year of escalating tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv, and represents a long awaited retaliatory attack after an Israeli strike on Tehran on July 31.

Iran was previously reported to have agreed not to retaliate if Israel deescalated hostilities, with Israel’s invasion and intensive bombardment of Lebanon and assassination of the leadership of the Iranian aligned militia group Hezbollah having been seen to have broken this agreement.” (Military Watch Magazine)

The fundamental question is whether this retaliatory attack will lead to escalation, including an Israeli counter-attack on Iran.

For details see 

Iran’s Operation “True Promise 2” against Israel. Remember Dick Cheney: “Let Israel Do the Dirty Work for Us”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 03, 2024

 

Michel Chossudovsky, October 4, 2024

 

Video Interview

 

Video produced in November 2023

 

 

Expanding Middle East War.

Planned US-NATO-Israel Attack on Iran,

The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

November 13, 2023

1. In Solidarity with Palestine 

.

We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
.

And this must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”. 

The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking 

Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.

Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel.
 
The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.
 
.

2. Triggering “False Flags”

Inciting Escalation in The Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean

Let us be under no illusions. Remember Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11. “False Flags” are part of the history of modern warfare. They are sophisticated intelligence operations often requiring infiltration into enemy ranks.

Starting in the immediate wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, US-NATO war ships –including aircraft carriers, combat planes, naval vessels have been deployed in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

These deployments have been described in chorus by the mainstream media as a response to “Palestine’s [alleged] Aggression against the Jewish State”.

They are tagged as humanitarian undertakings: Coming to the rescue of Israel. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The False Flag concept requires inciting your enemy or an armed jihadist group to confront or “attack America” thereby providing a justification to strike back in self defense: The Houthis in the Red Sea and Hezbollah in the Eastern Mediterranean both of which are allies of Iran.

Trigger one or more incidents with a view to justifying a process of military escalation.

In recent developments, the “False Flag agenda” has evolved towards US-NATO air and naval attacks against Yemen. 

“Sadeh, Zubaydah, Abs, Bani, Sana, Hudaydah, and Taiz have been attacked by American forces, initiating yet another war without Congressional approval, a branch of the US government emptied of power.

The New York Times, of course, blames the expansion of the conflict on the Houthis for interfering with shipping to Israel.” (Paul Craig Roberts)

The endgame is to incite Iran through various means to enter the Middle East battlefield, which would lead eventually to a process of escalation. The media is now using the term: “Iranian Proxies” in an ambivalent report by the NYT: 

There is no direct evidence to show senior Iranian commanders ordered Yemen’s Houthi rebels to launch attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to a New York Times report citing US intelligence officials.The unnamed sources said they continue to assess that Iran isn’t interested in a wider war, even though it encouraged Houthi operations in the Red Sea.

“The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war that Iran wants to avoid,” the news report said.

“There is no direct evidence that senior Iranian leaders, either the commander of the elite Quds Force or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the recent Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea.” (Quoted by Al Jazeera)

 

.

.

3. America’s Military Doctrine: Targeting and Killing Civilians

.
The targeting of civilians and the killing of children in Gaza is modelled on numerous US sponsored massacres of civilians (1945-2023) including the 2004 attack on Fallujah. (More than 30 Million mainly civilian deaths in US-led wars in what is euphemistically called the “post War Era”).
 .
Veteran War correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot reflected on the indescribable barbarity of the 2004  Fallujah massacre, which resulted in countless deaths and destruction. It was a genocide conducted by the U.S military: 
.

The Americans invaded, chillingly: “house to house, room to room”, raining death and destruction on the proud, ancient “City of Mosques.”

Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard …

One correspondent wrote: “There has been nothing like the attack on Fallujah since the Nazi invasion and occupation of much of the European continent – the shelling and bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, the terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.”

 

Fallujah, 2004 
.
The U.S. is supportive of the Israeli genocide directed against the people of Palestine. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a criminal. He is Washington’s proxy, unreservedly endorsed and supported by the Biden Administration as well as the U.S. Congress. 
 .
Zionism constitutes the ideological underpinnings of  contemporary U.S. imperialism and its unending war against the people of the Middle East. 
.
The Zionist “Greater Israel” dogma –as in all wars of religion since the dawn of mankind– is there to mislead people Worldwide as to “who is really pulling the strings”
.
Zionism has become a useful instrument which is embodied in U.S. military doctrine. The “Promised Land” broadly coincides with America’s hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, namely what the U.S. military has designated as the “New Middle East”.

Cui Bono: “To Whom Does it Benefit”

There are strategic, geopolitical and economic objectives behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine. “Crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators”:

Who are the Perpetrators?

Israel’s War against the People of Palestine serves the interests of Big Money, the Military Industrial Complex, Corrupt Politicians…  The Genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.

The US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. The unfolding Middle East War is largely directed against Iran.
 .

Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

To leave a comment and /or access Rumble click here. Or click the lower right hand corner of the screen

 .

 4. Iran and the Nuclear Issue

Historical Antecedents. Using Israel As a Means to Attacking Iran 

In 2003, the war on Iran project (Operation Theatre Iran Near Term, TIRANNT)) was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 15 years.

Let us recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America. And that Israel would, so to speak, 

“be doing the bombing for us” [paraphrase] , without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.  For further details see my article below was first published by Global Research in May 2005, as well as PBS Interview with Z. Brzezinski 

This Dick Cheney-style option is currently (November 2023) once more on the drawing board of the Pentagon, namely the possibility that Israel which is already bombing Lebanon and Syria, would be incited to wage an attack on Iran (acting on behalf of the United States).

US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons

Careful timing: In June 2023, the US House of Representatives adopted  Resolution (H. RES. 559) which provides a “Green Light” to wage war on Iran.

The US House  passed a resolution that allows the use of force against Iran, intimating without a shred of evidence that Iran has Nuclear Weapons:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States—

(1) that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable;

(2) that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon under any circumstances or conditions;

(3) to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; and

(4) to recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Click below to access the complete text of H. RES 559

Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 

Whereas Iran is tagged (without evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. 

In recent developments, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, “admitted to the world that Israel has nuclear weapons ready to be used against Palestinians”

The Times of Israel reported that: “Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday [November 5, 2023] that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”

Video on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Facility

English subtitles  
 

 .

5. The War on Energy

.

Unspoken Objective of a US-NATO-Israel War against Iran: Natural Gas 

Reserves of Natural Gas: Iran ranks Second after Russia. Russia, Iran and Qatar possess  54.1 percent of the World’s reserves of natural gas.

-Russia 24.3%, 

-Iran 17.3%, 

-Qatar, 12.5 %  (in partnership with Iran)

versus   

-5.3 % for the US

President Joe Biden ordered to “blow up” (September 2022) the Nordstream Pipeline, which constitutes a U.S. Act of War against the European Union.

In the words of Joe Biden:

“There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2”. Statement at White House Press Conference (February 7, 2022)

America’s strategic objective is, despite its meagre reserves of natural gas: 

To Force the European Union to buy LNG “Made in America”. 

What this implies is that America’s military agenda against Russia and Iran constitutes a means to hike up EU energy prices, which is an Act of Economic Warfare against the People of Europe. 

 
 

The Iran-Qatar Natural Gas Partnership 

The maritime gas reserves of the Persian Gulf are under a (joint ownership) partnership between Qatar and Iran (See diagram below).

 

The Biden Administration is Intent upon Destabilizing the Iran-Qatar Partnership 

This partnership is supportive of the People of Palestine.

In March 2022, “President Joe Biden  following a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheik Tamim “designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, fulfilling the promise that he had made to Qatar earlier this year [2022], the White House said” ( Reuters, March 10, 2022 )

“The designation is granted by the United States to close, non-NATO allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. military.

Biden promised Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, in January [2022] during a meeting at the White House that he would grant Qatar the special status.” Reuters  See also  Reuters (January 31, 2022) 

What is at stake are cross-cutting coalitions. Qatar is a “Partner” of Iran in relation to the strategic reserves of maritime gas in the Persian Gulf. There is no formaI military cooperation between the two countries.  

Washington’s unspoken agenda is to break and/or destabilize Qatar’s Partnership with Iran, by integrating Qatar into the US-NATO military orbit. 

It is worth noting that a few days prior to the October 7, 2023 Hamas operation, the Emir of Qatar Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani laid the foundation stone for the Northern Dome expansion project” in Iran’s Pars South Field (See map above).

“the Emir of Qatar said the groundbreaking for the Northern Dome expansion project was laid today, which is in line with Qatar’s strategy to strengthen its position as a global LNG producer …  

This joint gas field, known as “South Pars” in Iran, is the largest natural gas field in the world and contains 50.97 trillion cubic meters of gas and about 7.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas condensate.

At the time of writing, the implications of Sheik Tamin’s October 2023 expansion project in South Pars Fields (which is in Iranian territorial Waters) as well as Qatar’s “Special Status” Military Alliance with the U.S. remain unclear.

America’s Al-Udeid military base in Qatar (left) is the largest US base in the Middle East.

Have the status and functions of Al Udeid changed since the signing of the March 2022 agreement designating Qatar as a “Major Non NATO Ally of the US”

Qatar is both A Partner of Iran as well as a Major Non NATO Ally of the U.S. Reports confirm the development of a close relationship between the commanders of the US Air Force and the Qatari Emiri Air Force. 

Qatar is a “Powder Keg”?

The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.

The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Qatar, Russia and Iran (the 3 largest holders Worldwide of natural gas reserves) reached an agreement in 2009 to create a ‘Gas Troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.

A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing LNG from Qatar. 

Last year (November 2022), “QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”. Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

  • Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership
  • Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field
  • Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf
  • Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar) 
  • Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market, 
  • Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries

.

Iran. Third Largest Reserves of Oil Worldwide

Iran is not only second in terms of its gas reserves after Russia, it ranks third Worldwide in relation to its oil reserves (12% of Worldwide oil reserves) versus a meagre 4% for the U.S.
 
 

6. Strategic Waterways: The Ben Gurion Canal Project

 .

U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways

The Ben Gurion Canal Project was initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.

The Ben Gurion Canal project is currently contemplated as means control the channels of international maritime trade to the detriment of the people of the Middle East.  It also seeks to destabilize China’s maritime commodity trade.

 

 

In the context of the broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”.

According to Yvonne Ridley:

“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)

The U.S led war is intent upon confiscating all Palestinian territories, which would be appropriated by the State of Israel, acting as a strategic “Anglo-American Hub” in the Middle East:  

The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.

Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.

Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.

Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)

.

7. “Greater Israel”. Strategic “Anglo-American Hub”  

 

The Promised Land of Greater Israel coincides with America’s Colonial Design in the Middle East 

The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.  

In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel–  is  accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.

Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of  parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey

“The New Middle East”:  Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

.

8. “America’s Promised Land”. Global Warfare

 

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East coincides with America’s long war against the Middle East. As we mentioned earlier the Zionist agenda provides an ideological and religious justification of America’s long war against the Middle East. 

  • The 1979-80. the so-called Soviet Afghan War, engineered by the CIA 
  • The 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War engineered by the U.S. 
  • The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq,
  • The 2001 The US-NATO Invasion of Afghanistan
  • The 2003 Invasion of  Iraq
  • The 2006 War on Lebanon,
  • The Arab Spring,
  • The 2011 war on Libya,
  • The 2015 war on Yemen
  • Obama’s 2014-2017 “Counter-Terrorism” Operation against Iraq and Syria
  • The ongoing wars against Syria, Iraq and Yemen

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO.

Needless to day, the ideological and religious underpinnings of the “Greater Israel” project are consistent with America’s imperial design.

While the Zionist agenda is not the driving force, it serves the useful purpose of misleading public opinion concerning America’s long war against the people of the Middle East. 

The Historical Context: A Sequence of Military Plans and Scenarios to Wage War on Iran 

Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT) war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified doc), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage.  

TIRANNT was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.

Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Israel does not act without Washington’s approval.

U.S.-Israeli Air Defense

Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.

The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would

“integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”  (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )

What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:

”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

At the outset of  Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel.

And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated.

According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.

Of utmost relevance:

Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.

In practice, a war on Iran, would be a joint US-NATO-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 11, 2023, Updated January 14, 2024

Below is my May 2005 Global Research article which provides a detailed historical perspective on US war plans to attack Iran. 

 

* * *

Part II

 

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by  

Michel Chossudovsky 

Global Research

May 2005

 

At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:

“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to “set Israel loose” to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not “encouraging Israel”. What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (see Seymour Hersh)

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

“A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. ‘It is getting quite scary.'” (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003)

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran’s nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger “regime change” in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).

Bush advisers believe that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 “smart air launched weapons” including some 500 BLU 109 ‘bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than “adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster“:

“Given Israel’s already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement.” (See Richard Bennett)

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”. (See W Madsen)

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, see also this)

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are “safe for civilians”. Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas)

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

“To attack Iran’s nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.” (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible “scenario” at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

“We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don’t think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that.” ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Iran’s Military Capabilities

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005).

It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

The US “Military Road Map”

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world’s oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, USPolicy , emphasis added)

Main Military Actors

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.

Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See this)

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness” and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter’s observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives

In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel’s IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and “anti-terror maneuvers” together with several Arab countries.

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery)

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as “the appointment of the right man at the right time.” The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz’s appointment was specifically linked to Israel’s Iran agenda: “As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario.”

March 2005: NATO’s Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel’s military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

“The more Israel’s image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel’s links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey’s impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel’s operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. ” (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an “initial authorization” by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”. (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.

US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and “unconnected to events in the Middle East”: “As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises.” (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld  (right) was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.”

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran’s North-Western border. US military bases described as “mobile groups” in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to “neutralize Iran”. The longer term objective under the Pentagon’s “Caspian Plan” is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing “American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

“Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku.” ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld’s visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan’s Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of “The Shanghai Five” military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.

Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials “is not being tough enough on Iran…” Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See VOA). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.”

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated “Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator” (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as “a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World’s most deadly “conventional” weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release)

Late April 2005- early May: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.

Iran Surrounded? 

The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.

Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

“since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches – Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries… Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran’s reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory.” (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

Concluding remarks

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. (“they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”)

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.

Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Antiwar Movement

The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the “war on terrorism” and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.


Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities 

John Steinbach,  

March 2002

( This article describes Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal. Several of the statements are no longer valid or relevant in 2023

It is understood that in the course of the last 21 years, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have significantly evolved). 

 

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.

Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow…

The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes.

The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”

Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.

Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.

First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”

Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.

Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.

Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.

From John Steinbach, Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, Global Research

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Expanding Middle East War. Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways

The puppet show election is over and the CEOs and political operatives are dividing up the spoils behind the curtain.

In pro-wrestling, there is a winner and a loser. But whether anyone really “won” or “lost” is the talk of fools.

What we do know without any doubt, is that the myth of a Democratic Party that stands for working people has had a wooden stake driven through its zombie heart. That does not mean the Republicans were better, but that their vague offers of change won over some who would otherwise never have supported a con man like Donald Trump.

.

.

.

As candidate for president, let me state again that we cannot accept this bogus election, one pumped full of fraud and deception from the start, covered over with bribes from left to right, and disinformation from North to South. The two so-called candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, had no legitimacy to start with and would never have been selected by the people.

I do not congratulate Donald Trump on his “victory” but rather call on him to step down because his direct participation in state crimes and his acceptance of blatant bribes from the rich and powerful disqualifies him from any public office.

We must hold a transparent, scientific, and internationally monitored presidential election in the near future. There is no other choice.

We the people must lay the stones in the ashes of this burnt house that will be the foundations for a new republic, starting today, and we should do so with confidence, and assurance, knowing that the sound and fury that the decadent puppet masters produce is but an annoying echo of tyranny in the halls of history.

The second Declaration of Independence from the Shadow Empire rooted in Washington, London and Jerusalem offers us a starting point from which we must go forth as we rewrite the rules by which politics is conducted, rather than trying to conform to the bankrupt and rigged rules, the political scraps, that the powerful deign to allow us to have.

Let us forget about elections for the moment. They will not mean anything until we have solid institutions and reliable journalism, until our citizens are entitled to quality education and accountable government—and that process starts with the organization of citizens, block by block, town by town, state by state, into ethical and transparent communities.

.

.

Better to face the truth, and to speak honestly with your family. Better to start your own garden and encourage your neighbor to do so too. Better to print a local newspaper about real issues and distribute it to everyone. Better to explain to your children honestly how the economy works and why we must have these wars. That honest discussion is the start of a new republic and it must never be a matter of raising money from the rich.

Six tools of tyranny that the so-called revolutionaries of the left and right will not mention, and cannot stop:

Let us rather talk today about the six tools of tyranny that are employed to run this country but that you are not empowered to change, or even to address, through elections or any part of the political process.

These six tools of tyranny can be stopped by citizens, but only by building constitutional accountable transparent local organizations and embracing a revolutionary stance in accord with our Declaration of Independence. This revolution cannot be bought, cannot be outsourced, and cannot be brought into being by anyone else but you. As Hillel the Elder said, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”

1. Stock Market, derivatives market, and other bogus “markets”

The first tool of tyranny is the stock market. This rigged casino where the rich force us to play our game by their rules and in which they can bankrupt us at any time by changing the rules in midstream is the economic rack on which they torture us. All the politicians and the devious economists bow before this false god shamelessly, Wall Street, offering up the futures of our children to its ugly gods and their bloody fangs. If we cannot create policy that regulates, or eliminates, Wall Street because of its thievery and blatant criminality, then we are but subjects of a horrible shadow tyranny.  

2. Advertising, entertainment, and public relations complex

From the cradle we are told what to value and what not to value, not by wise elders, not by the enlightened writings of past ages, not by our parents, but rather by the advertising, entertainment, and public relations complex that brainwashes us without our knowing. We are told we must crave sex and sweet food, that we must live in a big house and indulge in waste if we want to be happy—all by the advertisers and entertainment moguls. We are seduced by the superficial, distracted by titillations of voyeurism, and dumbed down by thrills bereft of meaning, and thus induced into a narcissistic coma—all courtesy of the entertainment industry.

The covert public relations industry spends billions to convince us, using Harvard professors and movie stars, that war is peace, that slavery is freedom, and that false politicians on leashes can lead us to the promised land.

3. The lobbying and consulting complex

The lobbying industry allows corporations and the rich to bribe public officials, to force them to rely on the most despicable elements in our society for the money demanded for election campaigns. Lobbying must be made illegal; yet in this depraved age politicians have their speeches written by lobbyists, have their laws drafted by lobbyists and count on lobbyists to provide cushy jobs for their family and friends. The consultants are a breed of their own, just behind the scenes, making the real decisions for the puppets on TV. Consultants can do anything and they are accountable to no one. They carry the real messages from the billionaires mouths to the ears of those in government.

4. The Federal Reserve, bank, and intelligence/military complex

The Federal Reserve, which creates and devalues our money, is the pawn of private banks, and no longer under the control of the Congress, and far beyond the reach of the people who are forced to use the money it prints up. That means that BlackRock or Black Stone, State Street or Goldman Sachs, or any number of hidden players located overseas, pretending to be “American” can just order money printed up and your money will diluted by inflation as a result. It is called theft. Such monetary thievery has grown worse and it is tied to intelligence now, which is run, in turn, by IT firms like Google, Amazon, Oracle, and Microsoft, and they are working hard to force you to employ digital money which they can take away from you at any moment.

They also cooperate with the Pentagon which uses bogus military budgets as a means of laundering the fake money, or dirty money, that the bankers bring in.

5. The automation, electrification, and digitalization scam

Big business has planted talking heads in universities, in journalism, and in politics who keep telling us we must be on the cutting edge of semiconductors, and must install as soon as possible the latest million-dollar systems for the automation and digitalization of our society in order to remain competitive. But the technologies that we are told we must have they do not improve our lives, but rather they make society more fragile and easily disrupted and they assure that hacking, a break in the supply of energy, or even a software update we never asked for can bring us all to our knees in a way that even a war could do not previously.

Automation and digitalization not only destroy jobs, not only create a Gaza of the soul at the shopping center, or your office, they also make us passive and dependent, they consume massive amounts of energy, they establish a totalitarian form of governance in which people without credit cards or mobile phones do not exist, and they purposely hollow out institutions so that there is no one there behind the websites we see.

As a result, the departments of government, of universities, of all public institutions are managed for profit by private firms that exploit us, rather than assist us, and whose very existence is hidden. Correspondence and telephone calls received from our citizens are handled by 1  people who have no authority or accountability. AI, a scam that allows multinational corporations to determine our lives in secret and to give dictatorial orders that are supposedly produced by supercomputers who are wiser than us, is being introduced in every corner of the nation as part of this war on the people.

6. Medicine as war on the bodies of citizens  

The takeover of the entire medical field, from basic research at universities, to academic journals, to hospitals and clinics, to pharmaceuticals, to insurance and public policy by investment banks has created a new form of medicine whose purpose is to extract profit from the citizens at any price and to destroy their bodies using a new form of warfare.

This war went into overdrive in 2020 with the complete takeover of medicine by the military and intelligence during the Covid-19 operation which took as its mission, starting at DARPA, the destruction of the bodies of citizens with dangerous medications that have no scientific value, but are rather new types of weapons and the issuance of pandemic scares meant to induce mind-numbing trauma.

We need to grab these six tools of tyranny by the horns and wrestle them to the ground. The political parties will not touch them; the journalists are silent. We the citizens must do the heavy lifting ourselves.

The peace activist Philip Berrigan described our predicament perfectly,  

“We will suffer as a people, and that suffering will take one of several courses. We will continue our obstinate and heavy-handed idiocy up to and through World War Three and burn as the world burns with us. Or we will keep our counsel while America is torn by bloody revolution until domestic chaos makes impossible the false unity needed to fight war. Our decent Americans will learn, as they do not now understand, that proportionate power is no longer in their hands—that power rests today with the economic conglomeration and their political representatives in Washington, and that regaining power must mean introducing nonviolent revolution. Otherwise, power will be taken from its inhuman masters by inhuman means, foreshadowing its inhuman use by new masters.”

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Israeli Visitors Anger Pro-Palestinian Residents in Amsterdam

November 11th, 2024 by Steven Sahiounie

The Israeli media spoon feeds the Jewish population with anti-Arab rhetoric, while keeping world opinion on Israel out of sight.  When the Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans arrived in Amsterdam for a match against Ajax, they were shocked to see Palestinian flags flying. Israel bans all Palestinian flags in Israel, Gaza and the Occupied West Bank.

Football fans are usually young, and passionate about their team. Many traveling football fans have reputations for violence, hard drinking and hooliganism. Add to the mix an ongoing genocide in Gaza which almost every country on earth has condemned, and the Israeli fans felt isolated, unwelcome and angry.

The young Jews were caught off guard in Amsterdam, and perhaps they had not been well informed about the atmosphere they were entering into.  Last spring, the University of Amsterdam had held student and faculty protests in support of Palestine, following the trend in America.  Dutch students demanded that their universities divest of any ties with Israel, as part of the Boycott, Sanction, Divest (BSD) movement gaining worldwide support.  The protests were met with an extremely brutal police crackdown in Amsterdam.

On November 6, the Israeli fans tore down Palestinian flags around the city, burned one flag and attacked a taxi driver who they targeted as looking like an Arab.  In response, a group of taxi drivers came to confront the Israelis, but the police were alerted to the risk of violence and stepped in to prevent danger to the Israelis.

On November 7, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters had gathered in Dam Square in the afternoon, and around 10 people there were arrested for criminal offences including disrupting public disorder, police said.  Later, the Israelis were en route to the game and were videoed on an escalator shouting “F**k the Arabs” and while sitting in the stadium they were heard to chant praises to the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza, and mocking the dead children in Gaza. The game authorities had asked all in attendance to observe a minute of silence in honor of the hundreds dead from floods in Spain. The Jews mocked the silence and jeered the victims in Spain, in reaction to Spain’s embargo on weapons sent to Israel.

The Dutch team, Ajax, won the match 5-0 against Maccabi Tel Aviv. The Israeli fans must have been angry at losing, and their visit to Amsterdam had turned into a disappointing trip.

On November 8, the news of the actions and attitudes of the Israeli fans had swept through the city, and some residents were ready to react to the visitors who they felt were out of touch with Dutch and global opinion.

The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said it was concerned by the violent events in Amsterdam, which it said began with the words and actions of the Israeli fans.

The PFA recalled a previous incident where an Arab man was beaten unconscious by a group of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters in Greece, and called on UEFA and FIFA to address the normalization of genocidal, racist, and Islamophobic rhetoric among Israeli football fans.

The Dutch King, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Ursula von der Leyen, and Josep Borrell all labeled the three days of violence as acts demonstrating anti-Semitism.  European leaders decided the easiest way out was to blame themselves, the Dutch, and paint the Israelis as innocent victims of Jew-haters, while ignoring that Europeans have become aware of the injustices Palestinians are suffering in Gaza.

US President Joe Biden said the attacks “echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted”.  Lame-duck President Biden will go down in history as the man who could have stopped the genocide in Gaza, but refused.  The War on Gaza is Biden’s war.  If he had stopped the cash and weapon flow to Israel, lives could have been saved, but he instead turned on the green light even brighter for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Dutch who fly a Palestinian flag, or march in a street protest, or participate in a campus sit-in in solidarity with Palestine are doing so because they enjoy freedom and self-determination in the Netherlands.  They feel that Palestinians deserve the same freedom, and that a brutal military occupation in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank should be ended since the International Court of Justice ruled the Israel’s occupation is unjust and must stop.

It is possible that some in Amsterdam are anti-Semitic; however, the vast majority of Europeans are not. In general, the Dutch are freedom-loving and open-minded. They are well-educated and well-informed by a media which is free and access to divergent opinions through the internet is readily available. The Dutch, like most of the world, have come to view the Israeli attack on the Palestinian people in Gaza, in which over 40,000 have been killed and are mainly women and children, is unjust and should be stopped immediately through a ceasefire and negotiations.

In the aftermath of the Amsterdam violence, the Dutch media has spun the story with a Moroccan twist. Media personalities and political figures have come out blaming Moroccans in Amsterdam as the cause of violence.

Sander Sassen, a political commentator for NieuwRechts outlet, accused Moroccans of causing the chaos in Amsterdam. He claims the viral videos show that Moroccan youths targeted the Israeli fans in Amsterdam. The news outlet is associated with the far right in the Netherlands.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), well known for his anti-immigrant stance including the Moroccan community, criticized the Dutch authorities for not better protecting the Israeli fans.

Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands, currently numbering about 419,272, have long been singled out for collective, and unfounded blame. Politicians, eager to place blame on people and not themselves, have fueled negative stereotypes and social divisions.

Wilders was convicted of discrimination and inciting hatred after he referred to the Moroccan community in the country as a “scum” during a campaign rally back in 2014. He was convicted for his remarks in 2016, and a court upheld the conviction in July of 2021.

On 28 May 2024, Norway, Ireland and Spain recognized the State of Palestine, the latter two being EU member-states. The Netherlands does not recognize Palestine, but does support the UN ratified two-state solution.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters light flares in Amsterdam, on 7 November 2024 (Reuters)

There are 15,000 Jews that live in Amsterdam. They seemed to be just fine until some Israeli hooligans showed up…. Turns out when spend a year making your national anthem “may your village burn”, somebody’s gonna knock your teeth out because—unlike the ICC and the ICJ—the streets have a quicker judicial process… @yoUsaama

.

.

Watch on X

 

Watch on X

.

Zionist hooligans stormed through the streets of Amsterdam on Thursday tearing down Palestinian flags and intimidating passers by. The scene resembled the incidents that occur regularly in the West Bank where fanatical settlers bully and brutalize the sheep herders and olive growers who live on the land. According to an early report from the Middle East Eye:

Israeli hooligans provoked clashes with Dutch youth in Amsterdam on Thursday after they chanted racist anti-Arab slogans, tore down Palestinian flags and ignored a minute of silence for the Spanish flood victims.

Traveling Maccabi Tel Aviv fans stirred trouble on Wednesday and Thursday in different parts of of the Dutch capital ahead of their Europa League match against Amsterdam club Ajax.

Hooligans were seen removing at least two Palestinian flags from what appeared to be the front of local residents’ homes a night before the match, according to the AD daily newspaper.

An Arab taxi driver was also attacked by mobs who appeared to be with the Israeli fans, although police said they couldn’t identify the nationality of the attackers as no arrests were made.

A group of Israeli fans gathered in the Dam Square on Wednesday were filmed sparking confrontations with locals, shouting “Fuck you” at some of them and “Fuck you Palestine.” Middle East Eye

Amsterdam reporting inflames anti-Palestine racism, antisemitism

The spillover of racist bravado and thuggery onto the streets of a European capital should concern those who thought that toxic Zionist ideology could be contained within the Middle East. We now see the flaw in that theory. Fanaticism has no boundaries or geographic borders. These young people are emboldened by their own deeply-ingrained sense of superiority, a phenomenon that Washington elites have fueled for decades thinking it served their overall geopolitical interests. One can only wonder whether this latest explosion of racist violence will trigger some desperately-needed self reflection leading to a reset of the current policy. One can always hope. Here’s more from the MEE:

Ahead of match on Thursday, fans heading to the Johan Cruyff Arena stadium were seen shouting: “Let the IDF [Israeli army] fuck the Arabs”. They also refused to participate in a minute of silence before kick-off for at least 200 people who died in the Valencia floods.

The police have not made any known arrests of the Israeli fans involved in provocative act ahead of the match…..

Amid the provocations against Arabs in the city, clashes erupted between the Israeli hooligans and some youth before and after the match and late into the night.

Footage shared on social media showed people clashing with each other and police intervening. Other videos showed people attacking and chasing some of the Israeli fans…..

A police spokesperson said five people were hospitalized and 62 arrested. MEE

We can safely assume that this recent clash would not have taken place had the international community made some effort to enforce its own resolutions (242) requiring Jewish settlers to withdraw from (internationally-recognized) Palestinian land creating the opportunity for a two-state solution.

Amsterdam : ce que l'on sait des violences contre les supporteurs israéliens après un match de Ligue Europa entre l'Ajax Amsterdam et le Maccabi Tel-Aviv

But instead of using the tools at its disposal (economic sanctions and peacekeepers) the UN Security Council has allowed itself to fall under the coercive influence of Washington that effectively operates in the interests of the most fanatical elements in Israel. Washington has sabotaged every effort to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis laying the groundwork for widespread social unrest, hooliganism and even genocide. The results of America’s deranged machinations and endless pandering are clear to see. Violence is breaking out everywhere. Here’s more from MEE:

Israeli far-right ultras are notorious for anti-Palestinian verbal and physical violence. In March, travelling Maccabi Tel Aviv fans brutally beat a man who was carrying a Palestinian flag in Athens ahead of their team’s match against Greek team Olympiacos….

“Israel’s most senior leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly courted far-right football supporters in Israel and have received their violent support in return. The well-documented racism and violence exhibited by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam mirrors the thuggery of the Israeli government in Gaza and Lebanon,” Mcgeehan told MEE....

“To rid European football of the type of genocidal chanting we saw from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, Uefa should remind the Israel Football Association of its obligations under article 7(7) of its statutes to stamp out racist behaviour, and impose appropriate sanctions if the IFA does not take action.”MEE

So, the cat is out of the bag. Netanyahu and his allies actually encourage this obnoxious behavior and claim that anyone who opposes it is an antisemite. Anti-Muslim leader of the largest party in the Dutch government, Geert Wilders, who appears to share Netanyahu’s worldview, called the riots a “pogrom” while, at the same time, referring to the Arab victims as “multicultural scum”. Like we said, his views are closely aligned to those of the Israeli prime minister.

Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg summarised this week’s events in Amsterdam in an interview that appeared on Aljazeera on Friday. I transcribed his comments so readers could reflect more easily on what he had to say:

The important thing to remember here, is that this is not the Prime Minister pushing a narrative. This is the Israeli narrative at the moment. Palestinians—simply by “being”—are an existential threat to Israel, to everything Israeli, and also to the general ‘good fight.’ Israelis are shocked that the Dutch don’t realize that Israel is fighting their war for them. Israelis are fighting the existential threat that is threatening to take over Europe. And the fact that Israeli fans rampage and riot in the middle of Amsterdam, sing racist songs, climb the walls of private homes to tear down Palestinian flags; they are just doing what needs to be done. (Sarcasm) That is a major part of the Israeli condition at the moment; a complete rejection of the notion that actions have consequences. ….In this instance, the policies of Netanyahu and his government reflect the Israeli consensus. …This is not indoctrination by government power; this is what Israeli society actually thinks. We are under threat simply by being in the same space as Palestinians. We are perennial victims. What we do we do because we must, we do in self defense, or we do as part of ‘fighting the good fight’. If anybody doesn’t understand that, that’s their problem. We are not subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else and, perhaps more than anything else, this is a demonstration of how deeply ingrained in the Israeli psyche is the sense of ‘rightful impunity’ is. Israelis should not suffer the consequences of any of their actions. We ‘do what we do’ because we have no other choice. Ori Goldberg, comments on Zionist rampage in Amsterdam, Al Jazeera

.

Watch on X

.

Finally, here’s a short recap of what took place in Amsterdam by someone who was there and who seems like a credible witness:

The incident with the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam is only getting more insane because last night they were targeted after their horrendous behavior. And instead considering why UEFA (The Union of European Football Associations) let a country that is currently committing a genocide and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, and whose football league is filled with racist teams who pride themselves on not employing Arabs. Well, instead of dealing with that, of course, Zionists and western media are pretending that this is somehow similar to the extermination of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. And, I am sorry, but this is ridiculous, and it diminishes the legacy of these horrors, because these people were not targeted on the basis of their Jewishness. They were targeted because Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are violent hooligans who were rampaging through the streets of Amsterdam, attacking people, tearing down flags, chanting about there being no children and schools left in Gaza, saying let the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) win so it can “Fu** the Arabs” and other horrors. These people need to be banned from international football.

The blame is squarely with UEFA. This isn’t some antisemitic outburst against Jewish people that came from nowhere. This comes from the racism that permeates Israeli society and the way in which this spills over whenever Israelis travel to other countries. And, as I say, UEFA is to blame, because this is not the first incident with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans…. In March they beat a Palestinian man unconscious in Athens before their game…. And, yet, instead of dealing with them, UEFA let’s this group of people who celebrate genocide and violently attack those who oppose it, continue to go around Europe and do more celebrating and expect people not to react. This is farcical and ridiculous, and the way it is being framed is just disgusting. @Teammichael777

See this.

As always, the media’s version of events is skewed in favor of the perpetrators. None of the mainstream coverage can be trusted. But you already knew that.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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 Reuters

Video: The 24th Hour — 9/11: Yesterday and Tomorrow

November 11th, 2024 by AE911Truth

AE911Truth is proud to bring you our most illustrious online conference ever!

The 24th Hour. September 7, 2024

This free online broadcast will feature some of the most important voices in our society – including those who are not only calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 but also challenging the establishment position on the most impactful issues facing our world today!

Our guests will include:

  • Presidential candidate Jill Stein
  • Comedian and podcaster Jimmy Dore
  • Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies
  • Bio-terrorism expert Meryl Nass
  • Historian Daniele Ganser

Also participating are

  • Alex Stein,
  • Sean Stone,
  • Ian Crossland,
  • Roland Angle,
  • Madhava Setty,
  • Kelly David,
  • Kamal Obeid,
  • Craig McKee,
  • John Schuler,
  • Barrie Zwicker, and
  • Anthony Hall.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: Lower Manhattan skyline after a Boeing 767 hit the World Trade Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. (Michael Foran, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)


America’s War on Terrorism

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714715

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

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.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

Click here to purchase.

Sehr geehrte Bundesräte,

In den letzten Jahren haben Sie, die Schweizer Regierung, sich schrittweise, still und ohne öffentliche Diskussion der NATO, der „North Atlantic Treaty Organization“ genähert.

Heute hat die Schweiz bereits eine assoziierte Mitgliederdelegation mit 6 Sitzen in der Parlamentarischen Versammlung der NATO (NATO-PA). Siehe hier.

Dies ist eindeutig ein Schritt gegen die neutrale Schweiz.

Und antidemokratisch, denn Sie, verehrte Schweizer Regierung, haben das Schweizer Volk nie konsultiert.

Die NATO wurde 1949 nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als Verteidigungsapparat gegründet – hauptsächlich unter dem Vorwand, Europa gegen die drohenden Gefahren der damaligen Sowjetunion – dem heutigen Russland – zu verteidigen.

Die NATO war DIE Organisation, die den Kalten Krieg förderte und die Menschen bereits damals mit der Angst vor einer bevorstehenden Invasion der Sowjetunion indoktrinierte. Später wurde es klar, dass nie die Gefahr eines USSR-Angriffs auf Europa, geschweige denn die USA bestand.

Die NATO hätte spätestens nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 aufgelöst werden müssen.

Der Warschauer Pakt, 1955 als Gegenstück zur NATO gegründet, wurde Anfang der 1990er Jahre aufgelöst.

Die NATO nicht.

Die NATO war nie ein Verteidigungsbündnis – die NATO ist eine Kriegsmaschine.

Und Sie, liebe Bundesräte, wollen sich der NATO weiter annähern und ihr möglicherweise sogar beitreten?

1991 hatte die NATO 16 Mitgliedstaaten. Heute hat sie 32 Mitglieder, von denen 30 in Europa sind. Die einzigen transatlantischen Mitglieder sind die USA und Kanada.

Heute ist die NATO auf über 800 US-Militärstützpunkten auf der ganzen Welt vertreten; fast 700 davon befinden sich im Umkreis von Russland und China.

Wenn man sich die Schweizer Neutralität vor fast 210 Jahren – im Jahr 1815 – ins Gedächtnis ruft, kann dieses Zitat aus einem internen CIA-Dokument vom 23. April 1955 [OCI Nr. 3377/55, Kopie Nr. 2] eine wichtige Erinnerung an die Bedeutung der Schweizer Neutralität sein:

„Die Neutralität der Schweiz, wie sie im Wiener Vertrag vom 28. März 1815 vorgesehen ist, war weder ein neues Konzept, noch war ihre Anerkennung durch ausländische Mächte eine neue Idee.“ … „Und der berühmte Akt der immerwährenden Schweizer Neutralität und Unverletzlichkeit, der am 20. November 1815 von Österreich, Großbritannien, Russland und Preußen unterzeichnet wurde, erklärte die Schweiz zu einem für immer neutralem Land und enthält die viel zitierten Zeilen: „Die Neutralität und Unverletzlichkeit der Schweiz und ihre Unabhängigkeit von allen ausländischen Einflüssen liegen im wahren Interesse der Politik ganz Europas.“

Das Schweizer Außenministerium preist die Neutralität der Schweiz auf seiner Website als „unantastbares“ Gut an, und verweist dabei auf die Den Haager Konventionen vom Oktober 1907 – siehe hier.

Doch unsere Verteidigungsministerin und derzeitige Bundespräsidentin der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft rückt die Schweiz immer näher an die NATO heran, ohne das Schweizer Volk zu konsultieren.

Ein Beitritt zur NATO wäre der Todesstoß für die Schweizer Neutralität.

Das wissen Sie, sehr geehrte Bundesräte.

Schließlich wurde eine erfolgreiche Volksinitiative für die Schweizer Neutralität abgeschlossen und am 11. April 2024 mit fast 130.000 gültigen Unterschriften (100.000 sind erforderlich) bei der Bundeskanzlei eingereicht. Sie wird voraussichtlich 2025 / 2026 zur Volksabstimmung vorgelegt, und wenn angenommen, wird die Neutralität in der Schweizer Verfassung verankert werden.

NATO-Haushalt

Geehrte Bundesräte, Sie wissen vielleicht, dass sich das gesamte NATO-Budget 2024 auf etwa 1,4 Billionen US-Dollar beläuft – wovon etwa zwei Drittel von den USA und ein Drittel von Europa und Kanada finanziert werden. Es handelt sich um einen „jährlichen Fonds“ zum Töten und Zerstören – und für die Bereicherung des internationalen Militär- Industriekomplexes.

In seiner ersten Amtszeit forderte Präsident Trump die europäischen NATO-Mitglieder auf, ihr Militärbudget auf mindestens 2 % ihres BIP zu erhöhen. Einige Länder haben dies möglicherweise getan, andere sind noch weit davon entfernt, dieses Ziel zu erreichen.

Hier finden Sie die aktuellen NATO-Ausgaben pro Mitgliedsland.

.

Entnommen aus Al Jazeera

.

Es ist denkbar, dass Herr Trump in seiner neuen Amtszeit als US-Präsident diese Forderung an die europäischen NATO-Mitglieder wiederholen wird.

Das Schweizer Militärbudget für die kommenden vier Jahre – 2025 bis 2028 – beläuft sich auf etwa 30 Milliarden CHF, also etwa 7,5 Milliarden CHF pro Jahr. Dies entspricht weniger als 1 % des geschätzten Schweizer BIP für 2024 (784 Milliarden CHF). Wenn die Schweiz der NATO beitreten und dem Auftrag von Herrn Trump folgen würde, müsste das Militärbudget auf etwa 15 Milliarden CHF pro Jahr verdoppelt werden.

Alternative zum NATO Budget

Mit einem Bruchteil des NATO-Budgets von 1,4 Billionen US-Dollar im Jahr 2024 könnte die Hungersnot in der Welt beseitigt werden. Oxfam schätzt, dass die Beseitigung des Welthungers in all seinen Formen 31,7 Milliarden US-Dollar erfordern würde, zuzüglich 4 Milliarden US-Dollar für den Schuldenerlass der ärmsten Länder der Welt, insgesamt also etwa 35,7 Milliarden US-Dollar. Dies sind weniger als 3 % des jährlichen Militärbudgets der G7 oder etwa 2,55 % des NATO-Budgets für 2024.

Siehe diese.

Sehr geehrte Bundesräte, glauben Sie, dass die Schweizer Bürger an diesem monströsen und mörderischen Unterfangen namens NATO teilnehmen wollen? Und das zum Nachteil der Schweizer Neutralität?

Ich persönlich glaube, dass die meisten Schweizer nicht NATO-Mitglied werden und ihre legendäre Neutralität aufgeben wollen.

Deshalb, liebe Bundesräte, möchte ich Sie dringend bitten, als souveräne Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, die keinen Druck von außen akzeptiert, diesen Schritt gegen die Neutralität zu überdenken und aufzugeben.

Eine neutrale Schweiz wäre in der Lage, zwischen Konfliktparteien zu vermitteln und beim Wiederaufbau einer stabilen, harmonischen und friedlichen Weltgesellschaft zu helfen.

*

Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche „Teilen“ unten, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research weiter zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.

Verpassen Sie nicht die Global Research Online e-Books!

Peter Koenig ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Ökonom bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang weltweit tätig war. Er ist der Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftskrimi über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Unternehmensgier; und Co-Autor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch „When China Sneezes: Vom Coronavirus-Lockdown zur globalen politisch-wirtschaftlichen Krise“ (Clarity Press – 1. November 2020).

Peter Koenig ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist außerdem nicht ortsansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang-Instituts der Renmin-Universität in Peking.

Gekennzeichnete Bildquelle

Trump has everything to gain by picking up where everyone left off over two and a half years ago.

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump wants to create a Western-patrolled DMZ along the Line of Contact (LOC) for freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, which was analyzed here and here, dangerously runs the risk of escalating tensions with Russia to the point of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis. It would therefore be much better for him to revive the draft Russian-Ukrainian peace treaty from spring 2022 instead. Other than averting World War III, which is an obvious motivation, here are five others:

1. Fulfill His Democratic Mandate to Bring Peace to Europe

Trump won the popular vote and therefore has a democratic mandate to fulfill his campaign pledge to bring peace to Europe. Doing so would be a strong start to his second term and reassure his supporters that he won’t backtrack on his commitments like last time. Additionally, other countries will see that he’s serious about doing what he promised, thus leading to them taking him more seriously and making them less likely to haggle with him. He might also set himself up to win the Nobel Peace Prize too.

2. Create Less Space for the Deep State to Manipulate Him

Another one of Trump’s promises is to purge the country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) of warmongering neoconservatives. If he backtracks on the most important of his foreign policy promises, then they’ll have more space to manipulate him. After all, it was his decision to bomb Syria early on into his first term that set the stage for every other foreign policy disappointment. Failure to hold his ground on Ukraine would be a very bad omen.

3. Compel the EU to Take More Responsibility for Its Defense

Trump’s reported plan for NATO aims to compel the EU to take more responsibility for its defense so as to rebalance the burden that the US carries in this regard and then facilitate the latter’s “Pivot (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China. This won’t be achieved with nice words or even threats, but only through shocking the system by forcing them to step up after he ends the conflict in this way, which is their worst fear and would thus leave them with no choice but to do what demands afterwards.

4. Help “Un-Unite” Russia and China as Realistically as Possible

He promised on the eve of the election to “un-unite” Russia and China, and while it’s impossible to turn them against each other, the most realistic outcome that he can hope for is to reduce Russia’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China by gradually restoring the European vector of its balancing act. Phased sanctions relief as a reward for compliance with a ceasefire/armistice could do a lot to avert the aforesaid scenario in a non-threatening way that would also be tacitly acceptable for Russia too.

5. Replenish Stockpiles to Better Prepare for Contingencies

And finally, swiftly ending the Ukrainian Conflict by reviving spring 2022’s draft peace treaty as the basis for this would enable the US to fully focus its military-industrial complex on replenishing its depleted stockpiles in order to better prepare for contingencies, such as those that might soon develop in Asia. This would be difficult to do if Trump keeps arming Ukraine after either being manipulated into turning this into another forever war or as an additional security guarantee to go with his reported DMZ plan.

*

As can be seen from the five points above, Trump has everything to gain by picking up where everyone left off over two and a half years ago to sustainably end the Ukrainian Conflict on the terms that Kiev and Moscow tentatively agreed to shortly after it began, albeit with minor modifications. The current territorial realities, whether with regard to the LOC or the entire administrative borders of the four Ukrainian regions that joined Russia, would have to be recognized. If he does so, then a deal is certain.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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 source

Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary in the Conservative government, told the BBC that the Labour government had undermined the UK’s effort to help Ukraine. His lambasting of the Starmer government comes as support for Ukraine continues to wane, especially following Donald Trump’s election in the US, which is affecting the attitudes of European allies.

The UK has already sent a staggering £12.8 billion in security assistance to Kiev, including £7.8 billion worth of arms – aid that Russia warns will only prolong the conflict.

“I definitely have a sense that that momentum has dropped back,” Wallace said.

He added,

“You can’t just do a statement and then float around,” in an apparent nod to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s previous remarks that allies should “step up” support for Kiev.

Wallace said one reason the Conservative government supplied arms to Ukraine was to show who was calling the shots.

“[Britain] took a position to lead and the leadership did bring lots and lots of Europeans with us…”  the former defence secretary said.

Wallace’s comments came after The Guardian quoted a Ukrainian government official on conditions of anonymity as saying that Starmer “isn’t giving us long-range weapons,” a reference to the Storm Shadow, high-precision long-range cruise missiles manufactured in the UK.

Ukraine’s last attack by a Storm Shadow on Russian forces occurred on October 5.

“The situation is not the same as when Rishi Sunak was prime minister. The relationship has got worse,” the Ukrainian official admitted.

Britain’s former defence secretary said companies wanting to export equipment to Ukraine had been waiting six months for their export licences to be processed.

“That doesn’t sound like a government that wants to help Ukraine, if its bureaucracy in the Foreign Office is holding out some pretty basic technologies that Ukrainians need to make their own weapons systems to defend their nation,” he added.

London has provided the Kiev regime with a total of £7.8 billion in military support since the start of the Russian special military operation in 2022, and although London will continue to support Ukraine in the short term, evidently, support will drop once Trump enters the Oval Office in January.

World leaders are reacting to Trump’s election by preparing for a drastic change in relations with the US. This applies particularly to the Middle East and Ukrainian crises, with Zelensky and Middle Eastern leaders congratulating the Republican on his victory.

As Bloomberg highlighted,

“President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t take office for more than two months but he’s already shaping US policy in two major hot spots: Israel and Ukraine.”

The outlet also highlighted that while Israel will benefit greatly from Trump’s arrival, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcoming his election victory with great joy and describing it as “history’s greatest comeback!” and a “huge victory,” the same event is forcing Zelensky to consider negotiations with Moscow.

Trump’s inevitable policy change toward Ukraine worries not only many in Kiev and London but also Brussels.

Josep Borrell, the EU’s head of diplomacy, said he will appeal to the bloc’s countries to maintain support for Ukraine in the face of uncertainty over Trump’s plans.

“Next week I will chair the regular meeting of the European Union foreign and defence ministers. [… Ukraine] will be high on the agenda, as it has been since the starting of the war. It has been a priority topic, and I will convey to Member States the importance of our continued support, both in the diplomatic field with the Foreign Ministers Council, and in the defence and security [field] in the Council that joins the Defence Ministers of the European Union Member States,” Borrell said during his visit to Kiev on November 9.

He stressed that it was too early to speculate on Trump’s intentions regarding aid to Ukraine and assured that the EU’s commitments to Kiev “remain valid.”

“This is something in which I want to insist: […] More military support, more training capacities, more money, faster supplies, and also the permission to strike the enemy’s military targets on its territory,” the EU foreign policy chief added.

However, Borrell has no way of enforcing EU countries to continue contributing to Ukraine, especially when Trump inevitably scales back US support so it can instead be redirected to Israel. This is the new reality that Zelensky will face in the new year, and there is nothing the UK’s Conservative party or Borrell can do to change this, which will be a devastating blow since the Biden administration has already wasted well over $100 billion on the war effort, well above any other country.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: Volodymr Zelensky greets Rishi Sunak. (Photo: Ukraine Presidency)

A federal jury in Detroit awarded more than $12 million Friday to a former Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) employee who was terminated after declining to get a COVID-19 vaccination, citing religious discrimination.

According to the verdict form, Lisa Domski, who worked at the insurance company for more than 30 years as an IT specialist, received $10 million in punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The jury also awarded her approximately $1.7 million in lost wages and $1 million in noneconomic damages.

Newsweek contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield via email on Saturday for comment.

Domski claimed she was a victim of religious discrimination after the company denied her request for an exemption from its 2021 vaccine policy. She maintained that the requirement conflicted with her Catholic beliefs.

Court records show Domski worked 100% remotely during the pandemic and 75% remotely before COVID-19 emerged in 2020. Her attorney, Jon Marko, argued that even without vaccination, she posed no risk to others due to her remote work arrangement.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion. Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience,” Marko said in a statement. “Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells BCBSM that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan had implemented its vaccine policy in October 2021, requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated for COVD-19 or obtain a religious or medical accommodation. The company denied any discrimination during the trial. In earlier court filings, the insurer questioned whether Domski held a sincerely held religious belief.

In response to the verdict, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan released a statement defending its actions:

“Throughout the pandemic, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, together with its employees, worked to promote the health and safety of our colleagues, stakeholders, and communities. As part of that shared work, in October 2021, Blue Cross, and its subsidiaries, enacted a vaccine policy requiring all of its employees to be fully vaccinated for Covid-19 or obtain a religious or medical accommodation.”

The company further stated:

“In implementing the vaccine policy, Blue Cross designed an accommodation process that complied with state and federal law and respected the sincerely held religious beliefs of its employees. While Blue Cross respects the jury process and thanks the individual jurors for their service, we are disappointed in the verdict. Blue Cross is reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has indicated it is reviewing potential legal options, suggesting a possible appeal of the verdict.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.

Featured image source


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

Selected Articles: Trump Between War and Peace. Manlio Dinucci

November 11th, 2024 by Global Research News

Trump Between War and Peace. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, November 10, 2024

Trump had already met with Putin during his previous term in office, which is why he was the subject of the first impeachment attempt in the United States. Today, with the majority in Congress, there is a possibility that he will reopen a negotiating table with Putin to end the Russia-Ukraine war, in other words, the war that NATO is waging against Russia under US command.

A Massacre Within a Massacre: Israel Is Exterminating Palestinians in Northern Gaza and Killing Palestinian Journalists Reporting on It

By Eva Bartlett, November 11, 2024

Over 180 media workers have been killed and 60 detained as Israel’s methodical destruction of the brutalized Gaza Strip continues. The US and UN have given Israel free reign to methodically kill the population of northern Gaza Palestinians. This is a genocide within a genocide.

Cuba, Buckle Up! Trump Elected US President

By Francisco Dominguez, November 11, 2024

Although Cuba has endured the longest comprehensive blockade of a nation in peace time (over six decades, so far), under Trump the pressure was substantially ratcheted up.

Trump’s Peace Plan: The Clock Is Ticking for Russia to Achieve Its Maximum Goals in the Ukrainian Conflict

By Andrew Korybko, November 10, 2024

Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.

Why Trump Won– Why Harris and Democrats Lost. Some Likely Consequences

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, November 10, 2024

Trump believes that an increase in government revenue from raising tariffs and a big cut to social programs spending and deregulation will result in a major offset to US budget deficits, which rose last year to $1.8 trillion and is currently running at a $2 trillion estimate for 2025.

Fertility Rate in England and Wales Falls to Lowest Level Since Records Began in 1938

By Sky News and Dr. William Makis, November 11, 2024

The fertility rate in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level since records began, according to government data. The average total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime – was 1.44 children per woman in 2023.

Has Trump’s Victory Sealed the Coffin of the “Bush-Clinton Era” Which Lasted Three Decades?

By Uriel Araujo, November 10, 2024

So much is being written now about Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ presidential election. Few analyses however, if any, are paying attention to a remarkable development, namely the end of the Bush-Clinton era. You might have not paid much attention to it (in all likelihood, you never heard of it), but it started in the 1980’s, and lasted all the way to 2016. Let us go back in time, then.

Elderly people across the globe were assured that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 would safeguard them from death. However, a major new peer-reviewed study has exposed the devastating betrayal: COVID-19 mRNA boosters directly contributed to the deaths of millions of nursing home residents worldwide.

Promised protection, these vulnerable populations instead experienced increased mortality after receiving booster doses, with the very intervention meant to safeguard their lives actually hastening their deaths.

The study by researchers Prof. Sourafel Girma and David Paton published in Science Direct exposes this disturbing reality, reveling that far from offering a clear and consistent benefit, COVID-19 vaccinations — particularly the boosters — contributed to increased mortality in these vulnerable populations.

Using machine learning to analyze vaccination data, the study found only a small, short-term benefit in two of three mortality measures among care home residents.

However, after the booster doses were administered, there was a significant increase in COVID-related deaths—a troubling finding that contradicts the vaccines’ intended purpose.

.

Announcement of the new research paper on X

.

The authors noted:

“In the later period, we find some evidence that higher vaccination rates are associated with higher Covid mortality.”

.

.

Even more alarmingly, vaccinating care home staff appeared to have a consistently negative impact on resident mortality.

Across all seven time periods analyzed, and for every vaccine dose given, the data showed that staff vaccinations were linked to higher rates of both COVID and all-cause deaths among residents. These findings were statistically significant with 99% confidence for the primary vaccine series.

This study raises critical concerns about the ongoing push for COVID-19 vaccinations in care homes, especially when the data increasingly shows no clear benefit—and in most cases, significant harm.

With no strong evidence supporting continued vaccination of residents or staff, the question becomes: Why are healthcare authorities still promoting these vaccines?

As is often the case, the mainstream media has remained silent on this issue, despite the growing body of evidence that calls into question the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in care home settings.

The Girma and Paton study is just the latest in a series of findings suggesting that the current vaccination strategy is not only failing to protect the most vulnerable but may be putting them at even greater risk.

The time has come for an open, honest dialogue about the true impact of COVID-19 vaccines on care home residents—and whether continuing this approach makes sense at all.

Comment by Dr. William Makis

There was zero benefit from COVID-19 vaccines, even in the “high risk populations” for COVID-19 Infection: age over 70 and in a long term care home setting.

COVID-19 vaccines only hastened the deaths of those over 70.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People’s Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

Featured image is from TPV


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

The fertility rate in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level since records began, according to government data.

The average total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime – was 1.44 children per woman in 2023.

It is the lowest value since records began in 1938, new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

Some 591,072 live births were recorded – the lowest number since 1977.

Figures for 2022 showed the average TFR had declined to 1.49 children per woman, down from 1.55 in 2021.

.

.

Greg Ceely, head of population health monitoring at the ONS, said:

“Total fertility rates declined in 2023, a trend we have seen since 2010.

“Looking in more detail at fertility rates among women of different ages, the decline in fertility rates has been the most dramatic in the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups.”

.

.

This latest data follows analysis commissioned by Sky News showing the UK’s fertility rate is falling faster than any other G7 country.

Research by thinktank the Centre for Progressive Policy (CPP) discovered the fertility rate has dropped by 18.8%.

Women have increasingly had children at older ages, with only one in five women born in 1997 having a child before the age of 25 – the lowest of any earlier generation.

Not feeling ready, financial pressures and not finding the right partner are preventing millennials who want children from trying to have them, research from the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies has found.

The cost of housing and childcare have been cited as reasons, as well as people not feeling ready to have children because other major life events are happening later.

A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is needed on average to ensure the long-term “natural” replacement of the population, according to the ONS.

Yet the rate has been falling since 2010 – and there is a similar picture globally.

The global total fertility rate was 2.3 children per woman in 2022, less than half the rate (5.3) in 1963, with most countries seeing a decline.

The lowest fertility rate is in Taiwan, where women are having 1.09 children on average, closely followed by South Korea with a rate of 1.11 and Singapore at 1.17, according to CIA data.

Ukraine – which was invaded by Russia in 2022 – Hong Kong, Macau, Italy and Moldova are also seeing the lowest rates.

Despite falling fertility rates, populations can still continue to grow for some time.

This is because it takes time for population growth to reverse, and also because of factors such as immigration.

Comment by Dr. William Makis

In 2021 when COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, the 20-24 age group would have been 17-21.

This is one of the reasons why so many universities and colleges implemented draconian COVID-19 vaccine mandates on all their students.

This had to be one of the desired outcomes. There is no way around it.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

At the Valdai Forum, Putin said that neoliberalism stifles national sovereignty and traditional values and erodes national cultures, thus eliminating diversity.  “There is no room for difference in the neoliberal order. It seeks to flatten diversity rather than celebrate it.” Washington’s unipolar system “only serves a small number of powerful elites.”  Now that Putin has come to these realizations, perhaps he will replace his neoliberal central bank director.

Putin thanks Washington for the economic sanctions that forced Russia off the mistaken path of globalism. “The sanctions have forced us to look inward, to focus on developing domestic industries.”  Globalism is a one-way street to economic death.  For Americans the consequence was the offshoring of American industry and middle class jobs, pressure on state and local budgets, and the loss of a trained work force.

Putin says that he respects Western civilization–probably more than do graduates and professors of Western universities. The problem is not Western culture. The problem is with the aggressive policies of Western governments.  Putin is puzzled that such weak political and military countries are so aggressive toward such a powerful unified country as Russia.

Putin said Trump was a capable leader who has shown courage and resilience.  Putin declared willingness to work with Trump to normalize relations and put them on a more constructive path.

Now that both powers have capable leaders perhaps the world can escape from war.  Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do.

It was recently assessed that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump plans to organize a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without the US’ participation in order to freeze the conflict. This is obviously a lot easier said than done. Here’s what can offset this scenario by either delaying it long enough for Russia to end the conflict on its own terms or capsizing Trump’s plan completely:

1. The Europeans Fear a Direct Kinetic Escalation with Russia

France’s tough talk earlier this year about conventionally intervening in the conflict and Poland subsequently refusing to rule out its participation as well mask the Europeans’ fear of a direct kinetic escalation with Russia. Trump will have to masterfully leverage the US’ influence over them and NATO as a whole in order to coerce his country’s European partners into putting their security on the line by going through with this risky plan. It could always backfire, after all, and inadvertently spark World War III.

2. Public Opinion in the Polish Lynchpin Is Strongly Against This

It’s difficult to imagine a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without Poland’s leading participation, but public opinion is strongly against this after a reputable survey over the summer showed that 69% of Poles are opposed to dispatching troops to that neighboring country in any capacity. As mutual Polish-Ukrainian mistrust worsens as explained here, here, and here, it’ll become a very tough sell, plus Poles fear that they’ll once again be exploited by the West while getting nothing at all in return.

3. Trump’s Prior Rhetoric About Article 5 Doesn’t Inspire Confidence

Another hurdle that’ll have to be overcome is regaining confidence in Trump due to his prior rhetoric about Article 5 after he declared in February that the US won’t protect those NATO members who haven’t spent at least 2% of their GDP on defense. He even threatened that “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.” Even though most now meet that target, they might still fear that he’ll attach more strings to Article 5, which they’ll rely on for defense if they participate in this mission.

4. It’s Unclear Exactly What Trump Would Do If Russia Hit NATO Troops

Trump will also have to convince NATO members that his response to Russia hitting their troops will balance the line between fulfilling Article 5’s perceived commitments while avoiding an escalation that could spiral into World War III. They also need to be sure that he’ll go through with it and not back down. Moreover, this would have to be clearly communicated to Russia too, who he’ll have to deter. There’s a lot that can go wrong anywhere along this sequence of events so its success can’t be taken for granted.

5. NATO Is Unprepared for a Prolonged Non-Nuclear Hot War with Russia

Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes in the event of direct kinetic exchanges between them, then NATO would be unprepared for waging a prolonged non-nuclear hot war with Russia. It’s losing the “race of logistics” by far, no progress was made during the last NATO Summit on the “military Schengen” for facilitating such movements eastward, and the bloc only has 5% of the air defenses needed to protect itself. NATO might therefore ultimately lose to Russia.

6. External Mediation Could Lead to a Scaled-Back Peacekeeping Mission

Hungary and India have excellent ties with Russia and the US so it’s possible that they could independently or jointly work to broker a scaled-back peacekeeping mission instead. This could result in Western troops deploying west of the Dnieper, Ukraine demilitarizing everything that it still controls in the east of heavy weapons, and Russia agreeing to freeze the Line of Contact. Such a scenario was broadly discussed here in mid-March. It’s unlikely, admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless still possible.

7. Cautious Europeans Might Wager That It’s Better to Just Cut Their Losses

All the same, the preceding six points might lead to the cautious Europeans waging that it’s better to just cut their losses and let everything play out however it will without risking the consequences that their participation in any Ukrainian peacekeeping mission could entail. It would be an unprecedented defeat for the West if it possibly lets Russia achieve a maximum victory, but growing fatigue as well as the fear of inadvertently sparking and losing World War III could result in this world-changing outcome.

8. A Cuban-Like Brinksmanship Crisis Could Break Out Before Trump’s Reinauguration

Another possibility is that anti-Russian hawks in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) and/or Zelensky provoke a major escalation with Russia before Trump’s reinauguration out of desperation to prevent him from “selling out Ukraine” as they might see it. If that happens, then Trump would be powerless to influence the course of events. He’d have no choice but to inherit whatever the outcome would be, whether it’s World War III or a possibly lopsided peace deal.

9. There’s a Chance That Russia Achieves Maximum Victory Before Then Too

This scenario is unlikely due to the high probability that the aforesaid point would materialize, specifically in the form of a conventional NATO intervention to at least race Russia to the Dnieper, in the event that the front lines collapse before mid-January and Russia is about to achieve maximum victory. Even so, there’s always the chance that it’s averted for whatever reason, in which case there’d be no need for the NATO peacekeeping mission that Trump reportedly envisages.

10. The West Asian Wars Worsen & Become Trump’s Immediate Priority

And finally, nobody knows whether or not the West Asian wars might worsen and thus become Trump’s immediate priority upon resuming office, with there being compelling arguments to predict that both Israel and Iran might be plotting precisely this scenario in advance of their respective interests. Briefly, Israel might want to bait the US into helping it destroy Iran once and for all, while Iran might want to inflict a devastating blow to US regional interests as revenge for Trump’s assassination of Soleimani.

*

Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then he might resort to threatening Russia and NATO alike, but such psychological warfare might have no effect. In that case, he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends, participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!

We are starting the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.

I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.

.

.

[Start at 00:25:29]

Transcript

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You’re either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“

Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You’re either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West’s monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100thanniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.

I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.

Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21stmeeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.

I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.

It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?

Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.

We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.

We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.

We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.

Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.

We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.

Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.

Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.

In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.

Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.

It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.

To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would also like to say a couple of words, if I may.

First, of course, artificial intelligence is a highly important development tool. AI development ranks among our priorities, primarily, of course, in the economic sphere and in other fields, including the use of big data. We are facing major workforce shortages and posting minimal, 2.4 percent, unemployment rates. This amounts to a shortage of human resources. In the future, we believe that these economic problems can be resolved by developing state-of-the-art technologies, and we prioritise the use of AI technologies in this context.

Do pros outweigh cons? Does the development of nuclear energy technologies spell more benefits or more negative consequences? Civilian nuclear technologies play a tremendous and highly important role in medicine, agriculture and transportation, and their role will continue to increase. I am confident that this will become particularly relevant in the context of climate change issues.

At the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This creates major threats for humankind. The same is absolutely true of AI technologies. How is this regulated, and how do people use them? This is a good question. Of course, many countries regulate this. As you say, certain countries ban them. I believe that it is impossible to ban them. AI will eventually make its way, no matter what, especially in conditions of greater competition. I am not talking about armed confrontation, but overall economic competition is increasing. AI will inevitably continue developing in conditions of a competitive struggle. In this respect, we can certainly join the ranks of leaders, considering our certain advantages.

Sovereignty is a highly important component. Of course, these platforms are mostly created abroad, and they form people’s world outlook; this is absolutely correct. We should realise this and expand our sovereign AI network. Of course, we need to use all available assets, but we have to develop our own aspects here.

Sber and Yandex are actively engaged in this area, and overall, their work has been quite successful. We will certainly persist in our efforts, there is no doubt about that, especially as AI begins to replicate itself, which is both fascinating and highly promising.

However, there are, of course, potential risks involved. We must recognise and understand these risks and adjust our work accordingly. As I mentioned, this is one of our most critical areas of focus. By “our,” I mean the state, industry specialists, and society as a whole, because the development of AI technologies inevitably raise many moral and ethical issues that require our full attention.

You mentioned the risk of forming radical views, and so on. Indeed, we must counter these risks by offering our own perspective and worldview on the events unfolding within our society and globally. This is something we will address together.

Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyse the developments in this area.

Vladimir Putin: By all means.

Ruslan Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to ultimately reflect our culture.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. We certainly have the capability to do this, that’s clear. I am confident we will succeed, and it will provide strong support for our development, bringing us significant benefits.

Thank you.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, when we have sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us the Russian idea for the 21st century?

Vladimir Putin: It can only assist us in addressing the challenges we face, and it is very important how we define these challenges.

Given that AI works with big data, we have all the necessary resources: intellectual and technological capabilities, along with abundant free energy. There is much for us to collaborate on, including tackling profound philosophical and fundamental issues that you mentioned.

We need to make use of all the resources at our disposal. It is up to us to decide whether we trust or not the results of research based on modern principles, which, among other things, involve the use of artificial intelligence.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

We have also discussed a related topic: artificial intelligence and digitalisation go together with information and everything happening to it right now, and there are indeed many things happening: both positive and negative.

Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in this session.

Please, go ahead.

Arvind Gupta: Thank you.

My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr President, and I come from India. I work at the intersection of technology and society, and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.

Thank you, Mr President. You have already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan has talked about on AI. I thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI – and I will in the end mention that – of information manipulation, surveillance, using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today.

Mr President, you know, the group discussed that internet was designed about 40–45 years ago to be a global public good. Unfortunately now, like many other things it has become very unipolar. It is controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings. And some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.

The second issue we discussed, Mr President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also, really define how we think.

AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time. And they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. You know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So, the algorithms themselves are biased.

The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponisation of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, is giving certain nation states massive power and it is influencing national security, democracy and the public order in general.

So, Mr President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 Presidency to these Western technology platforms. It is a platform which takes society into account. It is a bottom-up platform built around identity – a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It is actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it. This is to present how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today.

Mr President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the MIR platform very successful in Russia in a very, very short time. That also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.

Mr President, the issue that you just discussed – I mean progress with this biased nature of technology and technology platforms, and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head on to us – the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence?

What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI? How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponisation of AI, for non-weaponisation of artificial intelligence?

Lastly, Mr President, we would like to hear from you how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large. That was one of the most defining things that the group debated and we are looking forward to hearing your view.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, this is a very important topic similar to the previous question about artificial intelligence, its use and development. There are several aspects here.

First, of course, the use of the internet should be based on sovereign algorithms. We must strive for this.

Second, it is very difficult for us as a state – it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive – to prohibit everything. In Russia, the professional community arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to decide on the rules of behavior in the internet, and independently adopted certain self-restraints, especially related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.

Of course, the internet must obey the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is taking place. This is obvious.

What we witness is an information manipulation. Most unfortunate, this is happening. But, let me repeat: if the activity of the internet is subject to internal laws, to internal legislation, then we will be able to minimise possible negative consequences.

I understand that there are technological limitations and technological difficulties to implement all this. But if we take the relevant efforts together with the professional community, which sees where threats to society as a whole can emerge and works professionally to suppress these threats, then the state will by all means support these efforts.

For such countries as India, as Russia, this problem is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good maths schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are leaders in this field. We have all the resources for this. I repeat once again, this is not a problem for such countries as India or Russia.

As for the Mir payment system, then yes, this can be regarded as success. It works well, reliably. It would work even better, in more countries, if there were no artificial obstacles created to hinder its operation. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate success of this kind.

The theme of the internet has already become eternal, to my mind. You said that it was created to be used for the benefit of humankind. It was certainly created for other purposes but at some point, its intended purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activity in the internet, just like any human activity, be subject to the moral and ethical rules and laws of the states where this system operates.

I repeat once again: it is not always easy to do this in terms of technology, but we should certainly try to achieve this. Society must protect itself from destructive influence, but it should do everything to ensure that the exchange of information is free and that it benefits the development of a particular state, and indeed the entire international community.

We in Russia will aspire to this. I know that India is following the same path. We will be happy to cooperate with you in this area.

Thank you for paying attention to this. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to this and not to engage in this work. I wish you every success.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you use the internet yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way: I press a few buttons from time to time to look something up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But still, you do it, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Using our search engines?

Vladimir Putin: Yours, yours.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Fine. Thank you, that’s comforting. (Laughter.)

We discussed in great detail the environment and the state of the world in terms of climate, among other things. I would like to ask our good comrade Rasigan Maharajh from South Africa to tell us more about it.

Rasigan Maharajh: Thank you very much, Mr President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself.

Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organisation, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather.

This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear: we are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the wellbeing of people and the planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures are at record levels. The emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.

The colonial and imperial phases of globalisation largely established the current wealth systems. And they are essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the Global North and the Global South or, as you framed it, the Global Minority and the Global Majority.

Some colleagues – Hickel and associates working at the London School [of Economics] – calculated that the Global North extracted raw materials, land, energy and labour worth approximately $10.8 trillion in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.

Between 1990 and 2015, the 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the Global South was approximately $242 trillion. It is abundantly clear that unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development and ecological breakdown.

Whilst the heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, has served to maintain the hegemony of the Global North, and specifically the advantages of the G7.

The global Covid-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system, while reminding us, as you have mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives.

Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponise intellectual property systems. There are thorough restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies. These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition.

Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generate more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan – this was from the Secretary-General of the UN –the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.

This was echoed recently, just to the west of us, in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crises and to mobilise sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals.

Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems, actively promoting knowledge sharing, and ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.

Now, I want to round up by saying that our very survival is at risk, should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, everything that you have discussed with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club clearly represents a critical area of research for humanity. We will not go into detail or debate the causes of ongoing developments now.

Clearly, climate change and global warming is what is happening. Why is it happening? Is it caused by human activity, or are there other factors at play, including outer space, or is it something that happens to Earth now and then, which we do not really understand? However, changes are clearly there. That is a fact. It would be reckless on our part to do nothing about it, and that is undeniable.

We in Russia know this first-hand because warming in our country is going at a faster pace than anywhere else around the world. Over the past 10 years, we have seen temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees, and even more – by 0.7 degrees – in the Arctic. We see this clearly. For a country with 60 percent of the territory in the permafrost zone, this factor has practical consequences. We have entire towns and cities, as well as production facilities and more, built on permafrost. This is a very serious matter with serious consequences for us. So, we understand what this is all about.

Incidentally, we have one of the world’s greenest energies, 40 percent of which comes from gas and nuclear generation, as well as hydrogeneration. Overall, low-emission energy accounts for 85 percent of the total energy generation in Russia, which makes it one of the greenest operations globally. Also, I believe Russia is home to about 20 percent of the world’s forests, which represents a significant absorption capacity.

We are pondering this and we have plans, which we made public some time ago, stating the year by which we will work to reduce man-made emissions. And, of course, we will work on it.

By the way, those who made the biggest fuss over this issue are, unfortunately for everyone and most likely for themselves as well, moving in exactly the opposite direction.

For instance, coal generation in Europe is sharply up. Not long ago, there was a lot of clamour in Europe against coal-fired generation. What they did after all is they have expanded it instead of shutting it down. This is strange, but it is a fact. Again, they did so for some far-fetched political reasons. But that is a separate topic.

Now, regarding artificial obstacles to the development of the emerging economies linked to the environmental agenda. These so-called green obstacles, which some countries have started creating for the emerging economies and markets, are nothing other than a new instrument they have invented to hinder development.

If they are concerned, really concerned about climate change, which is something we should think about, of course, they should provide sources of funding and technologies for the countries that are ready to work in this sphere, so that they can calmly adopt these innovative technologies without sustaining losses. Otherwise, they would be trailing behind progress.

Some rightly tell those who demand immediate conversion to innovative technologies that they themselves had used up all the sources of energy and had polluted everything, including the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately move to new levels of power generation. They wonder how they can accomplish this. Should they spend all their remaining resources on purchasing innovative technology from them? This, again, is a tool of neo-colonialism.

Give people an opportunity to live and develop, if you really and sincerely think that we all must take care of this issue together. Provide the sources of funding and technologies instead of limiting access to them. I fully agree with you, if that is what you hinted at in your speech. It cannot be any other way, the way I see it.

The same goes for funding. As I have said, according to our experts, whom I fully trust, the United States cashed in $12 trillion out of thin air over the past 10 years simply because the US dollar is a global currency. They did it by printing and circulating more dollars, which usually get back to their banks and their financial system, which are getting an additional income and profit from that. It is a tactical position. They just make money out of thin air, and this is what everyone should bear in mind.

If they simply issue this money which represents windfall profit for them. This money should be used as a source of funding, including for the environmental agenda. Share your windfall profits with us, if you are really concerned about the environment. If that is what you hinted at, I can say that you are absolutely right, and it is difficult to argue with this approach. This is how it should be done.

Well, this is probably all I can say. I have nothing more to add to this. That is, there is much more to say, but I have outlined the main points.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, has President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited you to the climate conference scheduled for next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, he has.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will you go?

Vladimir Putin: I have recently been there, and President Aliyev and I have agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will participate in this event.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Excellent.

Let us segue to the next topic that concerns us all, since most of us here specialise in international affairs. You initiated the idea of Eurasian security. We have dedicated many discussions to this issue, and this year’s Valdai paper largely focused on it as well, and the session was quite engaging.

I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to share the main takeaways with us.

Glenn Diesen: Thank you. Mr President, my name is Glenn Diesen. I am a professor of political economy from Norway. Our panel was on Eurasian security. I would like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity. To a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs, as in the 19th century we had Great Britain as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time it is somewhat different, as we have the United States again as the dominant maritime power.

But on the Eurasian continent we are now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities because even the largest economy, China, does not really have the capability and does not even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So, this puts us in conflict between the unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction for many countries.

However, in our discussions we also discovered a consensus that there were some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being an anti-Western one, as the objective should be to harmonise interests and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of the BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rests on the idea that we could overcome bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.

The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also to a large extent the multivectoral foreign policy, that is, the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power. And this is seen as a necessity, a requirement to have more political independence, more autonomy in the economy and foreign policy, and not merely being a spectator in international affairs. And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonising. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity, as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one, which is also being promoted under Washington.

And the third and final point was that multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonising interests because the great powers in Eurasia have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration, and different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centres of power. So, this creates incentives to harmonise interests. It seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful.

I remember a decade ago many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation. So, this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So, under the alliance system, there is always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weaken adversaries.

So, in the spirit of harmonising interests I also had a question premised on the inability we had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. And I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 1990s by instead going with NATO expansion.

So, my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because a few years ago I had a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering about your opinion, if you see a possibility of this path forward. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I apologise. Could you please repeat what you said at the end? Please rephrase your question.

Glenn Diesen: My question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we have seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if there were some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there was an ability to use BRICS or some other institution to also foster better relations between Russia and Europe, so [that] we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe, which we were never able to overcome after the Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: You know, once the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and bloc policy itself. I will say it again: when the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome bloc mentality and policy.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I am convinced that the United States did not need that. Clearly, they were afraid that this would weaken their control over Europe, whereas they wanted to keep it, which they did and have tightened it even more.

I think this will eventually weaken the vassal subordination system. I do not mean anything bad by what I am about to say, and, God forbid, I am not accusing or reproaching anyone of anything. We can see, however, that many European countries, nearly all European NATO members, are in fact acting against their own interests for the benefit of the US politics and economy.

In some US states, energy is 65 to 80 percent cheaper than in the EU countries. They are making deliberate taxation moves, such as reducing revenue tax, or creating favourable conditions for relocating entire businesses and industries from Europe to the United States. And some do relocate.

Sectors directly relying on primary energy sources, such as the fertiliser and the glass industries, to name a few, were the first ones to get affected by it. These industries have wound down their operations because they no longer made economic sense, and are relocating to the United States.

The second phase of restructuring affected the metallurgical industry, and now the automotive industry.

Governments can blame corporate management for inefficiency all they want, but the current state of affairs primarily stems from the government policies, and the management was forced to find ways to save their businesses and jobs in these circumstances, which it is not always doable.

So, the conflict of which we are, unfortunately, part, has made it possible for the United States to reinforce its leadership, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries have found themselves in a state of semi-colonial dependency. Frankly, I did not expect to see that happen, but it is their choice.

The same is happening in Japan, which is surprising. What have we done to deserve this? We have done nothing wrong, in word or in deed. But they have imposed sanctions on us. Why would they do that to us?

Now, the question is what we should do about that. We have not done anything wrong. There are colleagues from Japan here, maybe they have questions.

The situation with Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. “Take some rest,” he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting.

As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer.

Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts. My jaw dropped. He went on in the same spirit, speaking about his views on the situation in America and where and how the United States would direct its efforts. I will not repeat what he said, but he did not say anything bad about the United States. He spoke as an analyst and an expert, not as a German chancellor.

However, 80, 85 or even 90 percent of what he said is happening now. I can see this happening; all of us can see this. Of course, we must try to create a Eurasian security system. It is a vast continent. And Europe obviously can, and I believe that it must, become an integral part of this system.

You have said that China does not have the capability or the intention to dominate this continent. You also mentioned Central Asia; I will speak about it here too. I think our friends from China are certainly with us today. There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination. That is the point and the attraction of the concept or initiative which President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has formulated, the Belt and Road initiative. A common belt and a common road. This is not just a Chinese road; it is a common road. This is what we believe and how we act, at least in bilateral relations, that is, in the interests of each other.

What is happening in Central Asia? Many expected it to be a site of conflict or clash between China and Russia. This has not happened. You see, the point is that these are young states with economies that need to be developed. Demography is on the rise there, for example, the population of Uzbekistan grows by a million every year. A million every year, can you imagine that? It has a population of 27 or 28 million, and it grows by a million every year. The population of India grows by 10 million a year, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, told me. But India’s population is 1.5 billion, while Uzbekistan has 37–38 million people, and will have 40 million soon, up one million every year. That is a lot. There are many problems there.

If the People’s Republic of China comes and helps these economies, this means that their economic cooperation helps stabilise their domestic processes and statehoods, which is in Russia’s interests. We want to see a stable situation and stable development there. This is in our interests as well. That is why there is no rivalry there; there is cooperation there. It is not hindering our traditional relations with that part of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which had been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not just remember but also value the special contacts and special ties between us. This is benefitting everyone.

If we are doing this to create a security system for the Eurasian continent… Incidentally, I see and hear that some European countries have again started talking about creating a common security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and have returned to the idea which, I believe, was proposed by Charles de Gaulle in his time. Actually, he proposed a common security system to the Urals. But it should be created all the way to Vladivostok, of course. So, the idea has been revived. If our colleagues decide to do this…

But the most important thing that you have said and I have mentioned, which is set out in the OSCE documents, is that the security of some must not contradict or infringe on the security of others. This is extremely important. If all of us do so, and if we increase the level of trust, as you said… The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries.

You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? Come on, guys, what kind trust are you talking about? You have openly said that you cheated us, that you lied to us and played foul, and now you expect us to trust you? However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. We can sit here talking about it all night, but this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not?

Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Ms Merkel, whom you mentioned and who spoke about the Minsk process?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we were just talking, the three of us. It was in Bonn where the German government was sitting, whereas Ms Merkel, whom you have mentioned, spoke in an atmosphere of a certain public pressure and in conditions of a crisis. The situation was different. Unlike Ms Merkel, who spoke in the presence of and for the media, Mr Kohl spoke calmly, freely expressing his views not just in the absence of the media but also in the absence of his interpreter whom he had sent away. That is why I proceed from the assumption that he was speaking absolutely sincerely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: One more question, if I may, on the same subject raised by Glenn and mentioned by you. In the neighbouring countries the population is growing, and in your remarks, you mentioned migration flows. This has been a very hot topic lately, including in our country.

Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your Eurasian colleagues?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, certainly, we discuss this frequently.

I have already said that unemployment is at its all-time low today at 2.4 percent. In fact, this amounts to full employment. We have a labour shortage. And of course, we need labour to develop the economy.

Moreover, labour shortage is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have half a million people or even 600,000 who can get a job in construction right now, and the industry will not notice. We need 250,000 people in manufacturing industry right now, and it would not cover all its needs either.

At the first stage we need to create conditions so that people who come to work for us are ready for this: they must have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions – we have talked about this many times – know our laws, and not only know all of this, but be ready to abide by them.

This way, there will be no irritation or rejection on the part of our citizens; and we need, above all, of course, to focus on the interests of the people of Russia. This is absolutely obvious. I want my colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation – the heads of regions, to hear me, as well as the law enforcement agencies.

As for the people that come to us: they must also benefit from a modern environment and live in dignity, enjoy all the benefits of civilisation in health care, education and so on. There are distortions here too. I will not go into details now, but we must work on this.

My colleagues, my friends, the leaders of the republics of the former Soviet Union and I discuss this all the time. And they themselves want to train people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for this kind of work in the Russian Federation.

What is needed for this? We must answer this question too. We need to create schools, we are now building schools, we are creating schools. We need to send Russian language teachers, who are in short supply and whom they would gladly accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent in our court. They are ready and willing to do this. We will do this together.

However, in the future, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we need to make sure that the Russian labour market receives, first of all, people with good education, well-trained professionally – and some of the people who come to us today would stay to work at home – and that we create manufacturing facilities there that would be included in the overall value-added chain for making of certain goods. We would give them orders, they would produce certain components, and the final assembly could be either with us or with them, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, in their homeland, living in the environment of their native language, their culture. In general, we could work together this way.

To a certain extent, we need to restore the cooperation chains that we had in the Soviet Union, of course, on a new technological basis, on a new logistical basis. And then the overall system will be more sustainable, and growth rates for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will not be such tension in this sphere.

We have just talked about artificial intelligence and other possibilities. We need to deal with labour shortages – of course, this is what all the experts are talking about – by relying new technological capabilities, and to adopt a new technological framework, improving performance and efficiency. I looks quite possible to me.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mr President, something important happened yesterday, and the whole world was watching, holding its breath. The United States elected its next president. This will be already the sixth head of state for the United States on your presidential watch, but he was also the fourth. It happens, you know.

Did any of them leave any trace in your memory? Maybe you have positive or less positive memories about some of them. And whom did you enjoy working with?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they are all interesting people. I can hardly imagine a man getting the highest political office in one of the world’s leading countries while being mediocre, dumb or uninteresting.

What do I mean? In fact, domestic politics in the United States has been evolving towards more political infighting and more political tension with opponents and political rivals of the head of state using all kind of tricks to derail his agenda. Quite often, they use dirty tricks which are far removed from the kind of political culture they pretend to adhere to.

Remember all the attacks Bush had to face? He was called illiterate, not smart, or ignorant. But this was not true. We had a lot of differences and contradictions. I believe that in terms of US policy towards Russia, most of them focused all their efforts in staging what amounted to a covert intervention, once you take a general view of their actions.

However, as a person, I can tell you that George W. Bush, who was the Governor of Texas before becoming President, and was in charge of a very challenging state, a huge one, by the way – he succeeded in this position. Judging by my experience with him, he is just as smart as anyone in this room, no matter what they say about his low IQ, etc., and he was just as smart as any of his political rivals. And I know this for a fact, since I talked to him in person, and I spent a night at his ranch in Texas. I also met his parents many times who invited me to their home, and they visited me too.

Here is what I can tell you: when I talked to his father, who was former President of the United States too, but when we talked he was no longer President, of course – he told me quite honestly and in a calm voice: “We made a big mistake when we decided to stonewall the Moscow Olympics. This prompted Russia to do the same with our Olympics. This did not make any sense.” This is what he told me face-to-face: “This was nonsense, and a big mistake. Why are we doing all this?”

But so what? This did not change anything. Faced with outside pressure, the International Olympic Committee literally turned into a circus. They have gone the whole nine yards in transforming the Olympic movement into a marketing ploy, and are destroying it with their own hands.

But that is not what I am getting at – I am not talking about that now, I am talking about the people I have had to work with. Each of them is a remarkable person. They reached as high as they did for a reason.

Fyodor Lukyanov: What is the next President like from this point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can regard him in any way you like. After all, at the outset – during his first presidential term – everyone said that he was mainly a businessman and that he did not understand much about politics, that he could make mistakes.

But, first, I can tell you: his behaviour when he faced an assassination attempt really impressed me. He turned out to be a courageous man. And it was not just the raised hand and the call to fight for their shared ideals. It was not just that, although, of course, this was more of a reflex. A man shows himself in extraordinary conditions – this is where a man shows himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in the right way: he showed his courage, as a man.

As for politics during his first term in office, I do not know whether what I say reaches him, but still I will say it now. I am saying this absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was hounded from all sides, that they would not let him do anything. He was afraid to take a step to the left, to the right, to say an extra word.

I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: this is his last term after all, so it is up to him to make his choices. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I do not want to comment now on what was said during the presidential campaign, I think it was said consciously trying to win votes, but whatever. And what has been said in terms of trying to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion at least deserves attention.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people. We will live up to this pledge.

Fyodor Lukyanov: And if he fulfils everything that he has been talking about all the time, and if calls you before the inauguration and says: “Vladimir, let us meet”?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I do not think it would be shameful for me to call him. I do not do this because there was a time when the leaders of Western countries have been calling me almost every week, and then suddenly they stopped. If they do not want to do it, so be it. As you can see, we are alive and well, and are developing, moving ahead.

If someone of them wants to resume contacts, I have always said and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. We are ready to resume our contacts and have discussions. But there are many people willing to have discussions, there is a whole audience here, but if not, we will have a discussion with you then.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Does this mean that you are ready to have discussions with Trump?

Vladimir Putin: We are ready, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Good.

Well, since Trump is not in this room, I suggest that we have a discussion with those who are here. Let us start with Professor Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Mr President.

I am very glad to see you once again. First, I want to convey the gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the brilliant organisation of the Kazan Summit by our Russian friends.

I also want to say a big thank you to you for personally supporting our club, including for this lively and interactive discussion.

I have recalled that eight years ago at this forum I had the honour of asking you: what are your thoughts on the relationship between Russia, the United States and China? Your answer was spot on: you said that they should be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial. Eight years have passed since that time. There are so many changes taking place around the world. On the one hand, there is all this competition, and all these terrible sanctions. But, on the other hand, China has been there for Russia as its strategic partner, and there has been a lot of positive momentum in developing cooperation within BRICS.

Here is my question: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the Russia-China strategic partnership?

Second, will it be possible to bring relations between Russia, the United States and China back to normal in the new environment?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding relations between Russia and the Chinese People’s Republic, they have reached a historical high and are based on mutual trust, which is something we lack in our relations with other countries, above all with Western countries. I have already said why.

I know, if we had representatives here of those whom I am targeting in my remarks, they would have presented a lengthy list of claims against Russia and against me. But this is not the point right now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at its highest point in recent history. And this, precisely this, and our personal, friendly – genuinely friendly – relations with President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, offers a solid foundation for enabling our two countries to forge closer ties.

I will not go into details now but still, 240 billion in trade does not make you the biggest trade partners, but it is still the fourth largest trade balance among China’s major trade and economic partners. This is quite a result already, and also a very important fact. And we really complement each other well. We started with energy, including nuclear energy. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, this is very important, and this importance is growing. Therefore, we are expanding our cooperation across the board, the palette of our capabilities, focusing more and more on high technology in all kinds of domains.

China has achieved a lot. I have already said – I do not remember if I mentioned this here during the previous session – but at other events I said that our experts believe that China has adopted and developed an economic model organically, based on its needs. This model has proved to be much more effective compared to many other leading economies around the world. Let us admit that Chinese specialists have been able to combine economic planning with a market economy, while at a political level, our friends have managed not to stand in the way of these specialists and let them do their job. This is very important. And the results are there. This goes to say that the Chinese economy outperforms other economies despite a slight deceleration in terms of growth rates lately.

Unfortunately, the United States adopted a double containment policy by trying to contain and deter both China and Russia. Why do they need this, considering that they have to focus on two fronts at the same time? Of course, it is clear that the United States views China’s growing economic might as a threat, a threat to their dominance.

In my opinion, if they want to work and be effective in their efforts, these are the wrong methods. They must change them. They need to prove that they have an edge through fair and open competition, which would enable the United States to trigger its internal resources and development drivers. But what has the United States been doing? It has been undermining its own development with all these bans and restrictions. It seeks to ban Chinese goods or Chinese technology on the US market. But what will come out of this? Higher inflation and higher manufacturing costs. This will be the result – nothing more.

As for our interactions, our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China can be quite complementary in the sectors where the United States has been trying to contain China.

For example, we started with the energy sector. And there has been a lot of momentum in the oil and gas sector, and in the nuclear industry too. We are proactively working together to build new units at nuclear power plants, and on oil and gas deliveries too. All this contributes to China’s efforts to achieve its energy security in a reliable and sustainable manner. In fact, we are neighbours, so there is no one who could stand in our way – no storms, or efforts to close down navigation routes. Nothing can stand in the way of our cooperation, since we share the same border. This way, we can guarantee supplies today and in the future.

I think that everyone would win and there would be no losers if the United States, for example, changes course in the way it treats both Russia and China by moving away from its double containment policy towards a trilateral cooperation framework.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There was another question on the topic of trilateral cooperation.

Vladimir Putin: This is what I have just said in the end of my reply. You missed my point.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, I got distracted.

Vladimir Putin: You had something else on your mind.

To be continued.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

Cuba, Buckle Up! Trump Elected US President

November 11th, 2024 by Francisco Dominguez

The people of the United States and most of the rest of the world woke up this week to the last news they wanted to hear.

Not only had Donald J Trump presiding over a proto-fascist Maga mass movement been elected president of the United States, he will enjoy a comfortable Republican majority in the Senate, and he also may have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

He obtained about the same number of votes as in 2020, 74 million, and he scored an electoral victory because the Democrat candidate, Kamala Harris, got well over 10 million votes less than Joe Biden in 2020.

If one adds the strong political identification of the US Supreme Court with Trump’s overall political views, he will enjoy few obstacles from the key institutional structures of the United States to implement his cherished aim, the establishment of a strongly authoritarian government that would endeavour to turn all existing institutions into instruments of his political movement, his ideology and his government plans.

Throughout the election campaign and since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has projected a government programme of wholesale retribution against his political opponents including what he perceives as a hostile media, which he has labelled “the enemy within.”

He also intends to expel millions of — principally Latino — immigrants, who he accuses of “poisoning the blood of the country.”

His strategic plan for the US has been systematised in a 900-page document by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, which, if fully implemented, will erase most of the existing mechanisms and practices that, despite its gross imperfections, broadly qualify the US as a democracy.

Many have exhaled a premature sigh of relief when Trump in his victory speech promised “no more wars” in his coming administration. However, during his 2016-20 government he conducted a mutually damaging “trade war” against China, a country he harbours a deep hostility to.

Hostility to China is likely to become the centre of his concerns on foreign policy, for which he can escalate the intense cold war and the massive military build-up around the South China Sea, including arming Taiwan, already developed by Biden.

Open US hostility to China began with president Barack Obama’s “Pivot to East Asia” in 2011, which prepared the militarisation of US policy towards the Asian giant. US military build-up 8,000 miles away from the US is stirring trouble in the region.

Image: US Embassy in Jerusalem. Image: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Flickr

There ought to be little progress to be expected from the coming Trump government on the Middle East and on Palestine-Gaza. In December 2017, less than a year in office, reversing nearly seven decades of US policy on this sensitive issue, Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. There was worldwide dismay, including in substantial sections of the US Establishment, because it “shattered decades of unwavering US neutrality on Jerusalem.”

About Latin America, the 2016-20 Trump government specifically targeted what his national security adviser, John Bolton, called the “troika of tyranny” — namely, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua — which he also referred to as “a triangle of terror.”

Bolton in outlining Trump’s policy accused the three governments of being “the cause of immense suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism.”

In 2018, Trump’s state secretary, Rex Tillerson, affirmed the Monroe Doctrine because it had asserted US “authority” in the western hemisphere, stating that the doctrine is “as relevant today as it was when it was written.” Tillerson’s was a strong message to Latin America that the US would not allow the region to entertain building links with emerging world powers such as China.

It was during Trump’s 2016-20 administration that, after several years of careful and methodical preparations, the US orchestrated and financed the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua. It convulsed the small Central American nation for more than six months of vicious levels of violence, leading to wanton destruction of property, massive economic losses, and nearly 200 innocent people killed. The Biden administration, under pressure from cold warriors in the US, has continued its policy of aggression against Nicaragua by applying an array of sanctions.

Trump inflicted hundreds of sanctions on Venezuela with horrible human consequences, since in 2017-18 about 40,000 vulnerable people died unnecessarily. Venezuela’s economy was blockaded to near asphyxiation. Its oil industry was crippled with the double purpose of denying the country’s main revenue earner and preventing oil supplies to Cuba. Trump repeatedly threatened Venezuela with military aggression; Venezuela (2017) was subjected to six months of opposition street violence; an assassination attempt against President Nicolas Maduro (August 2018); Juan Guaido proclaimed himself Venezuela’s “interim president” (January 2019, and he was recognised by the US); the opposition tried to force food through the Venezuela border by military means (February 2019); the State Department offered a reward of $15 million for “information leading to the arrest of President Maduro” (March 2020); a failed coup attempt (May 2019); a mercenary raid (May 2020); and in 2023 Trump publicly admitted that he wanted to overthrow Maduro to have control over Venezuela’s large oil deposits.

Although Cuba has endured the longest comprehensive blockade of a nation in peace time (over six decades, so far), under Trump the pressure was substantially ratcheted up. In 2019 Trump accused the government of Cuba of “controlling Venezuela” and demanded that, on the threat of implementing a “full and complete” blockade, the 20,000 Cuban specialists on health, sports culture, education, communications, agriculture, food, industry, science, energy and transport, who Trump falsely depicted as soldiers, leave.

Due to the tightening of the US blockade, between April 2019 and March 2020, for the first time its annual cost to the island surpassed $5 billion (a 20 per cent increase on the year before).

Furthermore, Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” against Cuba meant, among other things, that lawsuits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, were allowed; increased persecution of Cuba’s financial and commercial transactions; a ban on flights from the US to all Cuban provinces (except Havana); persecution and intimidation of companies that send fuel supplies; an intense campaign to discredit Cuban medical co-operation programmes; USAid issued a $97,321 grant to a Florida-based body aimed at depicting Cuban tourism as exploitative; Trump also drastically reduced remittances to the island and severely limited the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, deliberately making companies and third countries think twice before doing business with Cuba; and 54 groups received $40 million in US grants to promote unrest in Cuba. Besides, Cuba has had to contend with serious unrest in July 2021 and more recently in March 2024, stoked by US-funded groups in as many cities as they could. The model of unrest is based on what has been perpetrated against Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Trump’s final act of sabotage, just days before Biden’s inauguration, was to return Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list by falsely charging it with having ties to international terrorism. The consequences have been devastating: between March 2022 and February 2023, 130 companies, including 75 from Europe, stopped any dealings with Cuba, affecting transfers for the purchase of food, medicines, fuel, materials, parts and other goods.

Trump, despite being so intemperate and substantially discredited worldwide due to his rhetorical excesses, threats and vulgarities, leads a mass extremist movement, has the presidency, the Senate and counts on the Supreme Court’s explicit complicity, and is, therefore, in a particularly strong position to go wacko about the “troika of tyranny,” especially on Cuba. In short, Trump’s election as president has a historic significance in the worst possible sense of the term.

From his speeches one can surmise he would like to make history and he may entertain the idea of doing so by “finishing the job” on Cuba (but also on Venezuela and Nicaragua). If he does undertake that route, he has already a raft of aggressive policies he implemented during 2016-20. Furthermore, he will enjoy right-wing Republican control over the Senate foreign affairs committee.

Worse, pro-blockade hard-line senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are leading members of this committee and have a fixation with Cuba. Trump got stronger support in Florida, where the anti-Cuban Republicans in Florida bolstered his support and election victory. He also has a global network of communications owned by his ally, billionaire Elon Musk. Furthermore, no matter who the tenant in the White House, the “regime change” machinery is always plotting something nasty on Cuba.

So, buckle up! Turbulent times are coming to Latin America. Our solidarity work must be substantially intensified by explaining the increased threat that a second Trump term represents for all Latin America, but especially for Cuba.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Morning Star.

Francisco Dominguez is national secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and co-author of Right-Wing Politics in the New Latin America. He will be speaking together with the Cuban ambassador Ismara Walter Vargas, Keith Boleder and Kevin Courtney at a public meeting, What Will the Next US President Mean for Cuba? on Thursday November 14, 6pm, Hamilton House, London. See www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk for full details.

Below is an excerpt from an article on Daily Mail:

A British Airways pilot has died during a layover between flights at a resort on the island of St Lucia, according to reports.

The 47-year-old Senior First Officer is believed to have collapsed at a luxury hotel in front of shocked tourists on the Caribbean island yesterday.

His death meant that BA had to cancel  Flight BA2158 from Vieux Fort, which was due to land at London Gatwick at 08.50 today.

‘This tragedy has left British Airways staff stunned and deeply upset,’ a source reportedly told The Sun.

‘The Senior First Officer was very popular and his death was completely out of the blue.’

Devastated crew members are expected to return to the UK on another flight tonight.

The crew who had flown with the pilot have been offered counselling by bosses.

BA said in a statement to MailOnline: ‘Our thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of our colleague at this difficult time.’

.

.

Pilot Incapacitations on Duty in 2024 (12 So Far)

Nov. 3, 2024 – British Airways Flight BA2158 (UVF-LGW) Saint Lucia to London, 47 year old pilot died suddenly during layover, after collapsing in Saint Lucia resort.

Oct. 9, 2024 – Turkish Airlines Flight TK204 (SEA-IST) from Istanbul to Seattle, Captain Ilcehin Pehlivan, age 59, died mid-flight

Sep. 8, 2024 – Southwest Flight SW3584 (LAS-DAL) departed LAS at 0834PDT headed to DAL, diverted to LBB due to incapacitation of the captain. FO landed, stopped and removed the captain from the seat to get to the gate.

Aug. 19, 2024 – Wizz Air Flight W6-1451 (WAW-LCA) from Warsaw (Poland) to Larnaca (Cyprus), pilot became incapacitated, plane forced to return to Warsaw, incident identified as serious

July 22, 2024 – Edelweiss Flight WK-5 (TPA-ZRH) from Tampa, FL, USA to Zurich, Switzerland, pilot suffered a medical condition and was incapacitated

June 12, 2024 – Nesma Airlines Flight NE-130 (CAI-TIF) Cairo, Egypt to Taif (Saudi Arabia) – pilot Captain Hassan Youssef Adas in his late 30s collapsed and died from a presumed heart attack

June 4, 2024 – Aeromexico Flight AM-34 (MTY-MAD) from Monterrey (Mexico ) to Madrid (Spain), first officer became unwell, had a medical problem, flight diverted to Mexico City.

Mar. 24, 2024 – Jetblue Pilot Captain Keith Duncan died suddenly during layover in Curacao

Mar. 14, 2024 – British Airways BA-2272 (JFK-LGW) New York to London-Gatwickone of the pilots became incapacitated, plane forced to divert to St.John’s, NL, Canada.

Feb. 17, 2024 – Lufthansa Flight LH-1140 (FRA-SVQ) Frankfurt to Seville on Feb.17, 2024 – First Officer Incapacitated, plane turned around back to Madrid

Feb. 16, 2024 – DELTA – NYC – 58 year old Capt Geoffrey John Brock died unexpectedly on Feb.16, 2024 during a layover in Honolulu, HI

Jan. 16, 2024 – LATAM Brasil Flight LA-3744 (BSB-JPA) Brasilia to Joao Pessoa on Jan.16, 2024 – Pilot Incapacitated, plane diverted to Salvador for safe landing

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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 is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Israel is really struggling with how difficult its present circumstances make playing the victim. It keeps having to invent new abuses to be victimized by like the imaginary Amsterdam “pogrom” and the fake mass rape narrative that surfaced months after October 7, because it can’t sit comfortably in the role of victimizer while on trial for genocide in international courts.

Playing victim is too deeply ingrained in the narrative control strategies of Israel and its apologists, so they have to keep coming up with new and innovative ways for Israel to be victimized even when it is very clearly the last state on earth who has any business being viewed as such.

*

We keep seeing the word “pogrom” used to refer to Israeli hooligans getting their asses kicked for obnoxious behavior in Amsterdam even as Israeli settlers keep committing textbook pogroms in the occupied West Bank. 

Just a week ago armed Israeli settlers went on a violent rampage torching Palestinian people’s houses, vehicles and olive trees in order to terrorize them and drive them away. This is the exact type of behavior that the word “pogrom” has historically been used to describe, but you never hear that word used in the mass media to describe Israeli thuggishness. Instead we’re seeing it used to describe Israeli soccer hooligans getting beat up after they tore down Palestinian flags and sang chants about murdering children in Gaza.

.

Read on X

.

So we’re seeing some good news and some bad news about Donald Trump’s potential cabinet picks when it comes to US warmongering and militarism.

The good news is that Trump has publicly ruled out giving psychopathic war hawks Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo a role in his next administration, explicitly naming them in a post on Truth Social and saying they won’t be invited.

This announcement suggests that Trump is at least trying to win the favor of the more anti-interventionist faction of his base. Pundits like Tucker Carlson have been publicly crusading against both Haley and Pompeo throughout this election cycle, and I mention Carlson specifically because he reportedly has Trump’s ear and was believed to have played a role in talking Trump out of bombing Iran in 2019.

The bad news is that other professional warmongers appear to be working their way into the administration. Reports from both Bloomberg and Fox News say the horrible Mike Rogers is under consideration to be the next secretary of defense. The Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams has a good thread on Twitter calling Rogers “an utter warhawk neocon” who is “arguably worse than Pompeo and Rubio,” noting that Rogers has promoted insanely hawkish positions on Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Iran, and China.

This news, in addition to Trump’s selection of Iran hawk Brian Hook to help staff the incoming State Department, makes it clear that Trump could still easily wind up with a cabinet packed full of warmongering swamp monsters just like last time. Hopefully he keeps getting pressured not to do so.

.

Read on X

.

In a new article on “the expanding ground occupation of the Gaza Strip by the IDF” about the way Israel has been carving up Gaza and seizing more and more territory, Israel’s Ynet News reports that far right elements within the Israeli government are simply waiting for the Israeli hostages held by Hamas to die so that their deaths can be used to justify continued occupation and the construction of Jewish settlements in Gaza. 

It’s like a false flag conspiracy theory, except it’s definitely happening and is being done right out in the open, and is even being announced ahead of time.

*

Democrats: Oh no the right wing voters we again tried to win over voted Republican again and we lost again.

Leftists: So stop doing that and win over the left instead by promoting immensely popular social policies.

Democrats: No way man, if we do that we’ll lose.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: A woman in black lies face down on the Israeli flag, symbolizing sadness and despair (Source)

Over 180 media workers have been killed and 60 detained as Israel’s methodical destruction of the brutalized Gaza Strip continues.

The US and UN have given Israel free reign to methodically kill the population of northern Gaza Palestinians. This is a genocide within a genocide.

In spite of experiencing two Israeli wars on Gaza, I never imagined the horrific scenes coming out of northern Gaza now: Israel is exterminating the population in broad daylight, broadcast for all the world to see.

And no one is doing a damn thing to stop it.

As of October 21, Israel has besieged northern Gaza for 17 consecutive days, preventing humanitarian aid from entering, putting the population of 400,000 already starved Palestinian civilians in the north at severe risk of full starvation.

More recently, the Israeli parliament has voted to ban UNRWA, the United Nations agency for humanitarian aid, which has been the sole lifeline for many Palestinians. 

Israeli forces have also bombarded water stations and wells, depriving Palestinians there of water, and cut off communications with the outside world, leaving the civilians trapped, isolated, and unable to communicate to the outside world what terrorism Israel is unleashing on them.

According to Euro-Med Monitor, as of November 2,

“For nearly a month, a full-scale invasion of northern Gaza has been unfolding openly, aiming to eradicate the Palestinian population and forcibly displace residents through terror. In addition to a crippling siege that blocks aid, prevents ambulance services, and shuts down hospitals, the Israeli army has conducted numerous massacres, killing over 1,300 people and injuring around 2,000 more.

As they did elsewhere throughout the Gaza Strip during the past over one year of genocide, Israeli forces are targeting hospitals in Gaza’s north. Euro-Med reported that,

Israeli army forces surrounded the Indonesian Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia. They fired two artillery shells at the hospital, cut off its electricity, and targeted anyone moving in the area.”

The army is firing on medics and other rescuers, as they’ve done throughout 2023-2024, as they did in 2009 when medics I was with came under Israeli sniper fire, another medic I knew killed by Israeli shelling with a flechette (dart) bomb. By killing the rescuers and destroying the hospitals, Israel ensures maimed Palestinians will go without medical care, and probably die.

This is, of course, illegal under international law. But as Israel’s genocidal actions have shown the world, the Israeli government (and army and illegal colonists) believe laws don’t apply to them.

Take the horrific video of an Israeli drone precision-targeting a Palestinian child, killing it, and then bombing the civilians who ran to try to rescue the child. Par for the course for the Israeli army. Were the perpetrator one of the United States’ enemies, there would be calls for No Fly Zones, sanctions and corporate media howling 24/7.

.

Read on X

.

Not content to merely murder Palestinian civilians by bombing, sniping and starvation, the Israeli army has been deploying robots with explosives and leaving booby trapped barrels to remotely detonate.

The scenes which journalists have been able to publish are surreal, like science fiction, with quadcopters policing the streets. A few weeks ago, a friend messaged me that he had to choose between starving or risking being shot dead by Israel soldiers or quadcopters if he tried to get bread.

Some days later he messaged me at 4 in the morning: Israeli tanks were outside his home, the audio he sent was terrifying. He chose to stay in his home, not endure another Nakba.

I don’t know if he is alive now.

.

Read on X

.

Israel’s War on Journalists

In early October, Palestinian cameraman Fadi al-Wahidi was shot in his neck by an Israeli quadcopter, leaving him paralyzed.

.

.

Aside from al Jazeera, for which Fadi worked, most Western media and journalist projection organizations are unsurprisingly not reporting on Fadi being targeted by Israel.

Reporters Without Borders, which I previously wrote about for its downplaying the number of Palestinian journalists killed by Israel, has no entry on Fadi.

.

.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, at least, does. Its entry notes:

“Al Wahidi was critically injured in the neck by a bullet fired from an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft while Al Wahidi and correspondent Anas Al-Sharif were covering an Israeli siege on northern Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp. Both men were wearing “Press” vests and clearly identifiable as journalists.”

Anas al-Sharif—who continues to courageously report from northern Gaza—told CJP they’d been in an area

“completely far from the areas of operations of the Israeli occupation forces,” and full of residents when, “an Israeli reconnaissance drone fired at us. After the shooting, we tried to move to another safer place and hide from any danger, but a bullet from the plane hit our colleague Fadi Al-Wahidi in the neck, which led to his complete paralysis.”

Wahidi has since fallen into a coma. His colleagues and friends are pleading for some sort of international intervention to allow him to be taken abroad for medical care, to save his life.

In central Gaza, Ali Al-Attar is likewise in critical condition after an Israeli airstrike. He, too, needs lifesaving medical care unavailable in Gaza (because Israel destroyed Gaza’s health care system). See this.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported, citing the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS), that (between 7 October 2023 and 10 October 2024) 168 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed in the Gaza Strip, including 17 women, 360 were injured, and 60 were detained (taken hostage).

Al Mayadeen updated on November 2 that the number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza is now 183.

.

.

Israel’s Mass Extermination Campaign Continues

It’s absolutely devastating to watch every day pass with alarming new updates from or on northern Gaza. Like Anas al-Sharif, Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat courageously reports apocalyptic scenes of Israeli bombarding in northern Gaza.

In a live update on X recently, he said:

We are witnessing genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, specifically in Jabalia, which is under siege from all directions. Israeli occupation forces are bombing displaced civilians, detaining them, and attempting to ethnically cleanse them. They are targeting shelters for displaced civilians, and bodies are scattered everywhere in the north, along the roads. Thousands of civilians are being forcefully displaced (ethnically cleansed) from the north.”

Meanwhile, in a bout of meaningless theatrics, US Secretary of State and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin have, “demanded Tel Aviv improves the humanitarian situation in Gaza within 30 days or risk losing US military aid and face possible legal action.”

But clearly Israel’s biggest backer is spouting nonsense: there will be no cut to military aid, there will be no legal action, the US will never take a position to cease the Israeli genocide of Gaza. In fact, giving Israel one month before any supposed repercussion is, in my opinion, giving Israel a green light to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza as quickly as possible.

Israel seems hell-bent on implementing former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s ‘Five Fingers’ project, which envisioned carving Gaza into segments, all under Israeli security control.

If this is Israel’s intent, we will see block by block Israel repeating its extermination campaign of northern Gaza all over the rest of the already brutalized Strip.

.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: Palestinian families walk through destroyed neighbourhoods in Gaza City on 24 November 2023 as the temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli army takes effect (MEE/Mohammed al-Hajjar)

Netanyahu’s dismissal of the Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant, would have created an underground crisis within the army that could lead to a coup de main against Netanyahu, who is led by the former member of the Israeli emergency government, Benny Gantz, the recently dismissed Minister of Defence, Galant and the Army Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi.

Netanyahu and the Banality of Evil

Netanyahu would have trivialized evil because of the total absence of morality in his actions that leads him to commit crimes against humanity without thinking about their consequences and without discerning the good or bad of their acts. Thus, the use by Israel of systematic torture, the genocide of the Gazan population and other evil practices would not be considered by Netanyahu from their effects or their final outcome because the deities have chosen him to “the high mission of eliminating Hamas from the face of the earth and building the Great Israel,” a dystopian situation that has led the Jewish civil rights activist and Holocaust survivor, Israel Shakak to affirm “The Nazis made me fear being a Jew and the Israelis make me ashamed of being a Jew.”

Coup de Main Against Netanyahu?

Following the decision of the International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant accused of “crimes against humanity,” Netanyahu is aware that once the asymmetric war against Hamas has ended, he risks an international criminal prosecution. 

Consequently, after razing Gaza, Netanyahu decided to invade South Lebanon to displace the 400,000 inhabitants of Southern Lebanon across the Litani River, hoping to gain time until Donald Trump’s victory in the certainty that he will be able to count on his blessings to exonerate him from all guilt before the International Criminal Court.

However, the Biden administration holds Netanyahu directly responsible for the massive loss of votes in the recent US elections, reflected in a very high abstention among the Muslim population and the left wing of the Democratic Party, what would have facilitated the comfortable victory of Trump. Thus, Joe Biden, in an interview published by Time magazine, admitted that

“Netanyahu, would be prolonging the war for political reasons and to stay in power at the head of a complex coalition government.”

This —coupled with the obvious anger of the Israeli military leadership after the manifest failure of the Israeli army to engage in a ground offensive on Lebanon, the pressing need to enlist another 20,000 troops due to the countless casualties suffered against Hizbullah and the refusal of reservists to join the ranks— would be the ideal breeding ground for a coup de main led by former Israeli Emergency Government member Benny Gantz and the recently dismissed Minister of Defence, Galant and the Army Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi.

This coup should materialize before President Trump is inaugurated in the month of January and would count on the support of high-ranking officials of the Israeli Army and the blessings of the Biden Administration and AIPAC. And after ending the invasion of Gaza and the hostages held by Hamas, this would lead to the early calling of new elections with the declared objective of forming a Government of National Unity of Benny Gantz with Yair Lapid and whose primary task will be to rewrite the Oslo Accords, which make possible the peaceful coexistence of two peoples in two states.

While Netanyahu, a nefarious politician who attempted an autocratic coup d’état to subsequently establish a presidential regime, could face criminal prosecution where he will be accused of negligence and crimes against human rights, what could mean a criminal conviction and his definitive exit from the Israeli political scene.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

Featured image source

Can There be an American-Russian Reset?

November 11th, 2024 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The New York Post reports that Russians are floating the idea of a “reset” with the US made possible by Trump’s election as President. Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund said that Trump’s “convincing victory shows that ordinary Americans are tired of the unprecedented lies, incompetence, and malice of the Biden administration.  This opens up new opportunities for resetting relations between Russia and the United States.” 

Trump and Putin are in favor of this, and so is the Russian media which is asking these kind of questions:

“What does the Trump administration mean for the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine? Do you think he will be able to broker a peace, or at least a ceasefire, in at least one of those conflicts?

“Do you expect the US to scale back its defense commitments in Europe under Trump? If so, will this create an opportunity for European countries to move ahead with some sort of of vision of collective security that does not rely on the US? Perhaps something in line with Macron’s proposals?

“Do you expect any changes in the US-NATO relations? Will  the alliance’s new secretary general, Mark Rutte, be able to effectively deal with the Trump White House?”

My response is that these are relevant questions. Trump has these intentions.  Does he have the means?

Trump has confidence, but he also has ego and blusters, two traits unsuitable to dealing with Putin, Xi, and the Iranian “Supreme Ruler”.  

Also, Trump is a strong personality. Some strong men are comfortable with strong subordinates, but others prefer yes-men.  Trump’s first term was littered with people of weak character and low integrity and they were traitorous.  Did he learn his lesson as he claims, and can he find strong men who will put their reputation in the line of fire?  If so, will he fight for their confirmation by the Senate, or will his advisors convince him that he risks bad publicity and defeats at the beginning of his administration?  

There is some indication of that already in a report that a businessman on Trump’s transition team said that Bobby Kennedy is not to have a position except as an advisor who collects information on harmful food and vaccines.  Little doubt, nominating Bobby as FDA chief or Health and Human Services Secretary would have Big Pharma in every Senator’s office threatening the cut-off of all campaign contributions and their redirection to challengers.  Maneuvering Trump into non-confrontation erodes his image as a fighter for America and will disappoint his supporters.  It is unlikely that Trump’s advisors realize that the Senate’s refusal to confirm Bobby in office would enhance Trump’s power.  He could present the people with the names of the Senators who are actively blocking the restoration of Americans’ health and ask why voters elected obstacles to making America great again.  Trump has the people. He could bring the power of the people to bear on the Big Pharma stooges. 

Another problem is that many, probably most, of Trump’s supporters believe America loses its wars because leaders are too weak to “stand up for America” and properly fight wars.  It is important to Trump to stand up strong for America.  Being tough for America also protects him against media lies that he is a Russian agent or some such accusation, whereas a reasonable deal with Putin opens him to these charges.  Unfortunately, this plays into the hands of the warmonger neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy since the Soviet collapse.  Their hawkishness makes them attractive associates for Trump, because together they present a tough front which Trump’s supporters want to see.  Even Trump supporters have been indoctrinated with the belief that Russia, China, and Iran are America’s enemies.

A big problem for Trump in the trouble in the Middle East is that he is so heavily aligned with Israel, as are the US Congress and US media.  There is so much he has to go against, including the powerful Israel Lobby, in order to bring Israel to heel.  Moreover, some analysts are convinced that it is the US that uses Israel in behalf of US hegemony over oil in the Middle East.  If they are correct, to change this policy is an enormous undertaking.

I believe Trump would like to withdraw from NATO. Like Putin, Trump wants to focus on domestic problems and issues.  Whether Trump can put together a government that would support a NATO withdrawal  is not easy to believe.  Many American economic interests benefit from Washington’s rule over Europe and Ukraine. (According to reports US agri-business now owns one-third of Ukraine’s farmland.)  Moreover, the threat to Europe is not Russia.  European ethnic nations are being turned into Towers of Babel by their own governments who allow the countries to be over-run by immigrant-invaders while they warn of Russian invasion. It is unclear that such a nonsensical situation as this can be dealt with politically.

Ukraine, of course, will be played as another American defeat if Putin stays true to his goals of de-militarizing Ukraine and prohibiting NATO membership.  If Trump accepts Putin’s terms, Trump’s opponents will try to play it not as a victory of peace over war but as an American defeat on Trump’s watch.  If Putin accepts a Trump face-saving solution, it likely will play as a Putin defeat, which after three years of sacrifice will be difficult perhaps for Russians to accept.

NATO is Washington’s creation, and the General Secretary is Washington’s Puppet.  Absent the US, NATO is meaningless and cannot possibly take a hostile position toward Russia.  In place of mutual defense, European countries would have to develop civilized relations with Russia.  

To sum up, the questions being asked cannot be answered until we see the government that Trump is able to form.  Moreover, for the next two and one-half months the US government remains in the hands of Democrats and the ruling elite.  This gives them plenty of time to commit the US in directions contrary to Trump’s agendas.  It also gives them time for another assassination attempt.  Trump has no executive power until he is inaugurated in mid-January.  It is important to understand that, unless the ruling elite can tame Trump or box him in, the ruling elite regard Trump’s presidency as an existential threat to themselves. They will not fold up their tents and fade away.

The world’s population supports a reset.  People everywhere are tired of wondering if some fool in Washington is going to commit them to nuclear Armageddon.  Let’s pray that Trump can break the hold that the corrupt American ruling elite has on the United States and the world.  It will require strong men and women, such as Tulsi Gabbard, in strong positions.  A compromised administration will fail. It is past time to end war for US armaments industry profits and the unrealism of the neoconservatives’ ideology of US 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

World War I: Whence the Poppies of Flanders Fields?

November 11th, 2024 by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

[This was first published by GR in May 2015, updated on 11 November 2024.]

The enthusiasm for war in the summer of 1914 was never as great or as widespread as we have been conditioned to believe. By early 1915, after six months of massacres and with no end in sight, the soldiers and civilians of all the belligerent countries were disillusioned and disgusted, and this alarmed the authorities. In Britain, and throughout the British Empire, the widespread war weariness manifested itself in a drastic reduction of the number of men who volunteered to join the army, and the government was forced to consider introducing compulsory military service, a measure that might trigger opposition, resistance, possible even unrest, and even worse. 

The fact that the enthusiasm for the war had virtually gone up in smoke, was reflected in 1915 by the success of a pacifist song born in the United States, then still a neutral country, which became an immediate hit in Britain. Its title said it all: I Didn’t Raise My Boa to Be a Soldier.

Ten million soldiers to the war have gone,
Who may never return again.
Ten million mothers’ hearts must break
For the ones who died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrow
In her lonely years,
I heard a mother murmur thro’ her tears:
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier,
I brought him up to be my pride and joy,
Who dares to place a musket on his shoulder,
To shoot some other mother’s darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,
It’s time to lay the sword and gun away,
There’d be no war today,
If mother’s all would say,
“I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier.”

Indeed, in 1915, leading personalities in all belligerent as well as many neutral countries began to argue in favour of ending the war by means of negotiations. However, both sides stuck stubbornly — and literally — to their guns. It is remarkable also that the song mentions ten million mothers whose “hearts must break”: the Great War would indeed cause the death of approximately ten million soldiers.

The popularity of this song was a matter of grave concern for Britain ‘s political and military leaders. They wanted at all costs to fight on to a victory they had expected before Christmas 1914. Even more disturbing for these gentlemen was an echo that reached them from the front in France and Belgium, where the murderous battles of the war’s early stages had given way to an equally deadly trench warfare. The ordinary British soldiers as well as their comrades from the other countries of the Empire had produced, and popularized, a song with a title that expressed their war weariness: “I want to go Home”: 

I want to go home,
I want to go home.
I don’t want to go in the trenches no more,
Where whizzbangs and shrapnel they whistle and roar.
Take me over the sea, where the Alleyman can’t get at me.
Oh my, I don’t want to die, I want to go home.
(…)
Take me over the sea, where the snipers they can’t get at me.
Oh my, I don’t want to die, I want to go home. 

The British authorities would undoubtedly have preferred more patriotic and warlike songs to be cranked out by their cannon fodder. 

It was in this context that on May 3, 1915, an officer came to the rescue. in the vicinity of Ypres, a town right on the front line in Flanders, John McCrae a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian army, known as a keen supporter of the British Empire and of the war, wrote a poem in which he urged the men to carry on with their task despite all the hardship. This composition, entitled “In Flanders Fields”, was predestined to become famous all over the world, presumably on account of its potent description of poppies floating in a sea of crosses marking the tombs of the dead, and also of larks singing, high above the heads of the trench-bound combatants, in spite of the rumble of the guns:  

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below. 

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

In his brilliant book on the First World War, The Great War and Modern Memory, the American historian Paul Fussell has critically dissected this poem. He denounces it as an almost “vicious and stupid” but particularly powerful and effective literary instrument of war propaganda, of what the French called jusqu’au boutisme, “fighting until the [triumphant] end,” in which the line “take up our quarrel with the foe” naturally jumps to the fore. 

The poem was indeed potent and effective, because it evoked images the denizens of the trenches were familiar with and found appealing, such as they sky stretching high above their heads, the dawn and sunset they observed keenly every single day, the mesmerizing larks, untouchable high in the sky, the blissful “mock-death” (Fussell) of the sleep they cherished so much – and the red poppies, traditionally associated not only with sleep, dreams, and oblivion, but also with love, blood, and martyrdom. To the British soldier and poet Isaac Rosenberg too, the poppies were a strong symbol in the sense of blood and sacrifice; in his poem “Break of Day in the Trenches”, he wrote that “the roots” of the poppies “are in man’s veins.” 

Larks and other birds deserve some comments, as they were important to soldiers on both sides of no man’s land, who were aptly described as moles by the Irish poet and actor Cyril Morton in a poem, “The Moles,” written in 1915. For years on end, hundreds of thousands of men did indeed live underground like moles in a stinking labyrinth of narrow and crooked corridors, between two walls of dirt, with high above their heads a sky that was all too often grey, but sometimes tantalizingly blue. Only the sky made them realize that they were not holed up in a long and narrow kind of mass grave. And so it is not surprising that the birds flying and singing high above their heads played an important role in the life of the combatants. 

Larks appealed to the imagination of the British soldiers, while the Germans were mesmerized by nightingales. This was not a coincidence: in the British literary tradition back to Chaucer and Shakespeare, the lark, with its appearance and its song, announces the dawn and therefore, symbolically, a new life, as well as “passage from Earth to Heaven and from Heaven to Earth,” in other words, the link between life and death, which was of course particularly fragile at the front. And the German fascination for the nightingale had a lot to do with the fact that for them this songbird conjured up foreboding, above all a presentiment of death, but also a sign of spring and of love, in other words, of the life to which one was so attached, of the joy of life to which one aspired so passionately; and the Nachtigall also bespoke the loved ones who, for the denizens of the trenches, were as far away and as untouchable as the birds circling and singing high in the sky.

The soldiers lived below ground and, other than their comrades, they never saw a human being. One could occasionally look at the other side through a periscope, but in most cases no sign of life was visible, neither in no man’s land nor at the enemy lines beyond. One saw virtually nothing and no one, but one could smell all the more, namely, a repulsive stench. Indeed, countless corpses of men and horses were lying around unburied near the trenches, and it even happened that parts of bodies were integrated in the walls and parapets of the trenches. 

The stench not only of cadavers, but also of excrement, was part and parcel of life in a system of trenches that had become one huge open sewer, a modern-day cloaca maxima. Admittedly there were latrines, and it goes without saying that the very class-conscious British had separate privies for officers and ordinary soldiers; however, the latrines were often hit by shells, which caused the contents to be scattered over a large area. It also did not help that diarrhoea was pandemic. Bits and pieces of horse carcasses might also rain down occasionally on the soldiers on account of explosions. And the cadavers of horses reportedly smelled even worse than those of human beings. In any event, the “human moles” had no choice but to learn to live with the stench. They got used to the odour, as is illustrated by the following two lines from George Willis’s poem “Any Soldier To His Son”: “I learned to sleep by snatches on the fire step of a trench, And to eat my breakfast mixed with mud and Fritz’s heavy stench.” If the soldiers of all armies smoked a lot, pipes as well as cigars and cigarettes, it was to calm their nerves and forget their hunger, but most of all to mask the omnipresent and insupportable stench of corpses and excrement.

The generals and other high-ranking officers who occasionally visited the trenches were not used to the odours that prevailed there and were disgusted by the stench and the sight of excrement. But they did not get any sympathy from the ordinary soldiers who had to live permanently in such nasty circumstances. This lack of sympathy oozes out of the text of a humorous song that was very popular among the Tommies, “That Shit Shute”:

The General inspecting the trenches
Exclaimed with a horrified shout,
‘I refuse to inspect a division Which leaves excreta about’
But nobody took any notice
No one was prepared to refute
That the presence of shit was congenial Compared with the presence of Shute
And certain responsible critics
Made haste to reply to his words
Observing his staff of advisers Consisted entirely of turds
For shit may be shot at odd corners
And paper supplied there to suit
But shit would be shot without mourners
If someone shot that shit Shute.

A typical day in the trenches started before the first rays of sunlight pierced through the darkness of night, which, during the summer, meant around 4:30 a.m. Everybody had to appear fully equipped, weapon in hand, as if an attack were imminent. The British called this routine “stand-to,” or “standing to arms.” The Tommies, like the French, stared in the direction of the rising sun, saw the first larks, and wondered if they would survive the coming day and if they would ever return home and reunite with their loved ones. On the other side of no man’s land, the Germans’ gaze chased the fleeing night and their ears strained to hear the nightingales’ finales, conjuring up life and loved ones. Then came the order to “stand down,” followed by permission for the men to have breakfast. In certain British units, rum was served on this occasion, two spoonfuls per person, to add to tea or to drink separately. The distribution of rum was a much-prized ceremony. And before an attack the Tommies received a more generous ration than usual. After an attack by the British, an odour not only of corpses and excrement but also of rum floated throughout the no man’s land.

During the day, there was work to be done. The majority of the soldiers were peasants or industrial workers, very much used to hard work. And their bosses — the officers — liked to order them to perform all sorts of tasks, feeling that it had to be that way, and observed keenly to see that the work was done properly. They also felt that it was necessary to keep the soldiers permanently occupied in order to prevent boredom and keep morale high. Trenches had to be dug, enlarged, strengthened, or repaired after a bombardment. The weapons had to be cleaned and the uniforms and boots made to look as good as possible under the circumstances. The men were subjected to frequent inspections, and there was a constant need for soldiers to perform guard duty. The daily routine ended in the evening with the same stand-to ritual as in the morning. This time, the Germans eyed the sun setting in the west, and the British, French, and Belgians observed the approaching night; everyone looked out longingly for larks and nightingales.

McCrae wrote his poem in the spring of 1915, and it was not a coincidence that poppies flowered abundantly in Flanders’ Fields at that time. Normally, that flower’s minuscule seeds penetrate deep into the earth to wait there, sometimes for years, for the soil to be upturned for some reason, and thus exposed to the sunlight and warmth they suddenly germinate. With the digging of miles of trenches and the explosion of tens if not hundreds of thousands of shells starting in the fall of 1914, the conditions were created for an unprecedented burgeoning of poppies the following spring in that corner of Belgium, of course most spectacularly so in the immediate vicinity of the trenches and in the pockmarked no man’s land.

With its poppies, McCrae’s poem thus certainly catered to the sensibilities of the Canadian and British soldiers. Even more effective as a tool of motivation was the fact that the poem loomed like an appeal emanating from the fallen comrades, rather than from officialdom, including officers like McCrae himself. It insinuated in a particularly subtle way that not to persevere in “our [sic] quarrel with the foe” would have amounted to a kind of treason, a gross shattering of the chain of solidarity that bound the men together – the living as well as the dead! Not “holding high the torch” thus became unthinkable, as it would have meant betraying the dead comrades. Such disloyalty would have prevented the latter from finding rest in an eternal sleep, even though they were cradled by a lovely landscape bursting with soporific blossoms: 

If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields. 

Such a jusqu’au-boutiste poem could hardly fail to find favour with military and political authorities keen to find ways to motivate the men, with the media, and thus with the public. McCrae received heaps of letters and telegrams congratulating and praising him. In Flanders Fields was published on December 6, 1915, in the satirical but nationalist British magazine Punch and thus embarked on a career as one of the most celebrated and cited literary products of the Great War. The reason was not its literary merits, nor was it because ordinary soldiers liked it, which does not seem to have been the case at all. It became famous because it would be used systematically, year after year, to make propaganda in favour of the war and against pacifism, in favour of the sale of war bonds, of the recruitment of volunteers all over the British Empire and later, in 1917, in the United States – and in Canada, again in 1917, in favour of the introduction of conscription, a measure that met with much opposition, especially in the province of Québec. Even today, the red poppy is associated not only with remembrance, but with nationalism and militarism, which is why on occasions such as Remembrance Day pacifists have turned to wearing an alternative, white poppy. 

The poppy also made an appearance in a very different literary and musical creation of 1915, but one of a strongly anti-militarist nature, namely a French song inspired by the bloody fighting in the infamous forest known as Bois-le-Prêtre, in Lorraine. In this song, entitled Au bois Le Prêtre, the red poppy is an analogue of the futile medals bestowed on the soldiers who “fell” for the fatherland on that particular “field of honour”: 

Si, du canon bravant l’écho,
Le soleil y risque un bécot,
On peut voir le coquelicot
Partout renaître…
Car, dans un geste de semeur,
Dieu, pour chaque Poilu qui meurt,
Jette des légions d’honneur
Au Bois-le-Prêtre
If the sun dares to ignore the gunfire,
And comes to bless us with a little kiss,
Red poppies all around us
Spring to life again . . .
It is God who, like a sower,
Generously casts decorations
One for every soldier
Who dies in Bois-le-Prêtre

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on World War I: Whence the Poppies of Flanders Fields?

This question is rhetorical, of course, because such an event was never scheduled. The properly formulated question is why a classical colour revolution isn’t now in progress in Moldova, after the fraudulent elections that recently took place in that country? The blatantly unfair “electoral” process which resulted in Maia Sandu’s alleged victory, critical to the collective West as its adventure in Ukraine turns into a  debacle, meets all the criteria that trigger a “spontaneous” colour revolution of the sort to which we have grown painfully accustomed.

But instead of facing civil turbulence for the dishonestly conducted 3 November Presidential election, on the contrary, fervent NATO and EU advocate and World Economic Forum Young Leader Sandu has been effusively praised and warmly congratulated on her bogus triumph.

At the same time, a concerted attempt to provoke regime change using classical colour revolution instruments is being made in Georgia.

So far, it has fizzled out not for lack of trying but because of the political maturity shown by the Georgian people, who refused to take the bait. The pretext was the allegedly disputed parliamentary election in Georgia, the numerical result of which favouring the governing party (about 54%) and the opposition (45%) roughly corresponds to the contrastingly acceptable outcome in Moldova. What was the crucial difference? It was chiefly the geopolitical orientation of the respective governments that in those elections were up for public approval and the fact that the “non-governmental organisations” which on command trigger regime change agitation are under the control of collective West intelligence agencies. Those agencies, in turn, and the governments whose instructions they execute, operate not with a factual but a utilitarian concept of what is a fair and free election. If as in Moldova the outcome serves collective West’s goals the election is fair; if as in Georgia it hinders them, it is fraudulent. Things are quiet in Moldova because local hirelings there were ordered not to stir up public discontent whilst in Georgia they were issued the opposite directive.

The other noteworthy difference is that the egregious irregularities of the electoral process in Moldova are amply documented whilst allegations of similar misconduct in Georgia remain unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. But in the rules based order that hardly matters.

The completely utilitarian nature of the assessments, by Western political institutions and media at least, of whether an election was legitimate or not, is demonstrated by the fact that the large segment of the Moldavian electorate residing in Russia, estimated to number about half a million, were effectively disenfranchised from the voting process. That was accomplished by drastically reducing to just a handful the number of Moldovan polling stations on Russian territory and making available only 10,000 paper ballots (curiously, it did not occur to anyone in Kishinev to use Dominion voting machines instead) to those Moldovan citizens residing in Russia who managed to overcome all obstacles in order to exercise their right to vote.

On the other hand, to stress the Moldovan regime’s strict adherence to “European values”, no hindrances were placed in the way of the Moldovan diaspora in the European Union to take part in presidential elections in the country to which they may have a connection but where they do not reside. The Moldovan regime’s calculus was that the bulk of the Moldovans living and employed in the EU have a private interest to not disrupt Moldova’s European Union accession process, however remote the prospects, because their legal residence in Europe and consequently the jobs they hold there enabling them to send remittances to relatives in impoverished Moldova depend on it. Unlike Moldovans residing in Russia, that segment of the Moldovan diaspora are highly motivated out of economic self-interest to vote for Maia Sandu and her pro-European policies. In the referendum to enshrine the goal of EU accession within the Moldovan Constitution, held under identically unequal conditions and simultaneously with the first round of presidential elections on 20 October, it was the vote of the Moldovan diaspora residing in the EU which enabled the proposed measure to prevail, albeit with a razor-thin margin of a fraction of a single percentage point.

In both instances, the majority of the people actually living in Moldova, who were to be most directly affected by the outcome of the voting, did not support either their government’s pro-European Union policy or the election of Western puppet Maia Sandu to the presidency of their country. Results favourable to Western interests were achieved by resorting to corrupt practices and flagrant electoral engineering.

Understandably therefore a colour revolution was not engendered in the aftermath of the recent elections in Moldova, although all the objective conditions from Gene Sharp’s playbook for launching one have been fulfilled. It suffices to recall in this regard one of the fundamental triggers which in the past have led to the overthrow of numerous legitimate governments that were indisposed to bow to the political dictates laid down by arrogant Western hegemons.

Sharp’s doctrine prescribes that a close election result ideally facilitates the task of professionally organised and amply financed colour revolutionaries who are in need of a plausible pretext to mobilise and direct the clueless masses. That is because it lends credibility to the allegation of malfeasance levelled against the targeted “regime” and fuels a sense of grievance among the populace, who supposedly were cheated out of effectively asserting their political will.

Such malfeasance is precisely what happened in Moldova but did not occur in Georgia. But Moldova is covered by a tight and, unlike in Georgia, unsupervised network of Western financed “NGOs,” which by default exercise a monopoly on disinformation and “civil society” activities. Consequently, in Moldova there is no movement to denounce flagrant systemic fraud or to challenge the legitimacy of the regime of foreign vassals who base their rule on the simulacrum of authority derived from that fraud. That is because, as we explained, the criteria that are always applied are unabashedly utilitarian; “constructive” fraud as in Moldova, which serves the interests of the puppeteers, is always proper and irreproachable.

By contrast, honest elections, as in Georgia, which go against the grain are always and irrespective of the factual matrix denounced as fraudulent.

Whoever is endowed with even a modest capacity for political reasoning will easily recognise the crooked game and the malignant rules by which it is being played.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: President Maia Sandu delivering a speech on May 29, 2023. Photo: Moldovan Presidential Administration Facebook

 


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.


Rethinking Srebrenica eBook : Karganovic, Stephen, Simic, Ljubisa: Amazon.co.uk: BooksRethinking 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

The Valdai Club, a well-recognized and influential Russian academic think tank, marked its 21st annual meeting with the traditional indepth and broad discussions, coincidentally on November 7th, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Valdai Club’s substantive discussions, with participation of both local and foreign experts from Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America, largely centered on the changing geopolitics and its impact on developments and, most essentially on the emerging new global order of the 21st century.

As the Valdai Club passed its 20th year,  it has witnessed significant political developments on a dramatic scale these two decades. This alone shows its historical uniqueness, the period, characterized with complexity and contradictions, also generated a solid platform for making tremendous contributions to shaping political history. The history brings in its fold different political waves and economic crises, which sometimes makes the future world unpredictable. But experts, as the popular saying goes ‘two heads are better than one’, have conscientiously studied the dynamics of the changes and design an analytical future.

With an increasing influence, Russian President Vladimir Putin, under his leadership on November 7th, outlined the shape and components of the emerging new world architecture. It took him and the entire Valdai Club experts and participants deep into the night, ended close to midnight. Here are a few significant features Putin tried to outline to the world:

i) Building a new world system: If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. 

Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. The world is changing radically and irreversibly. This is the dynamics of historical development. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible.

ii) Soviet Union’s contributions: Russia, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating some political trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. It can be emphasized that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development. Undoubtedly, the Soviet Union was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

iii) Six principles of a new phase of historical progression. (a) Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

(b) Secondly, it has consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

(c) Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others. Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

(d) Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. It is not anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them. The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

(e) The fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive. We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

(f) The sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

(iv) Russia’s role in shaping the new world. Russia is is playing roles in structuring this emerging new world. It has an aspiring to global dominance in its tracks. Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. By way of history, Russia is guided by its own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in the identity, history and culture. It does protect its sovereignty, and further upholds universal rights and freedoms, and the existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. In a nutshell, at least these are some of the broad and multi-dimensional description of the future 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: President Vladimir Putin at the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. Photo – Kremlin.ru


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine envisages the creation of an 800-mile demilitarized zone that would be patrolled by Europeans adds a lot of urgency to Russia’s nearly 1000-day-long struggle to achieve its maximum goals in this conflict. The potential entrance of conventional Western/NATO forces into Ukraine as peacekeepers places Russia in the dilemma of accepting yet another “red line” being crossed or risking World War III by targeting them.

To refresh everyone’s memory since it’s been so long since the special operation started, Russia officially aims to: 1) demilitarize Ukraine; 2) denazify it; and 3) restore its constitutional neutrality, among other supplementary and informal goals. September 2022’s referenda then added the official goal of removing Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including the areas of Kherson and Zaporozhye on the other side of the Dnieper, which will be challenge.

At the same time, Putin has repeatedly refused to reciprocally escalate in response to egregious Ukrainian provocations like its bombing of the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, oil refineries, and residential buildings, et al, all due to him not wanting the conflict to spiral out of control. For as responsible of an approach as this is, the drawback is that it created the perception that he might accept the crossing of even more “red lines”, including conventional Western/NATO forces in Ukraine.

Putin’s aversion to escalation might therefore be exploited by Trump, who was reportedly handed a plan in June advising him to give Ukraine whatever it wants if Russia refuses whatever peace deal he proposes, ergo the high likelihood of a conventional Western/NATO intervention to decisively freeze the conflict. Trump’s track record of “escalating to de-escalate” with North Korea and Iran suggests that he’d also go through with this plan against Russia, hence why it should take this scenario seriously.

Provided that Putin lacks the political will to risk an unprecedented escalation by targeting those conventional Western/NATO forces, and his behavior thus far in response to other provocations suggests that this is indeed the case, then he’ll have to race against the clock to achieve his maximum goals. It’ll still take some time for the US to get key stakeholders like Poland on board, where 69% of the public is against dispatching troops to Ukraine in any capacity, so this likely won’t happen by mid-January.

In any case, Russia no longer has a hypothetically indefinite amount of time like before to:

1) demilitarize Ukraine;

2) denazify it;

3) restore its constitutional neutrality; and

4) remove Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including those areas across the Dnieper. Even though the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict favor it, and capturing Pokrovsk could lead to huge gains in Donetsk, it’ll be very difficult to achieve all these goals by the time an intervention occurs.

To explain in the order that they were mentioned, Ukraine was initially supposed to be demilitarized upon the swift success of the special operation in its early phase, but the UK and Poland (whose role most observers aren’t aware of) convinced Zelensky to rubbish spring 2022’s draft peace treaty. That document would have greatly slashed its military capabilities, but it’s no longer realistic to imagine that he’d agree to this, especially after being given tens of billions of dollars’ worth of NATO arms.

NATO is also unlikely to agree to ask for them back due to the perception (regardless of its veracity) that Ukraine must be able to “deter” Russia from supposedly recommencing the conflict after it finally ends. The Taliban’s swift capture of Afghanistan after Biden’s bungled withdrawal from there was viciously lambasted by Trump, who’d go down in history as an even bigger loser if he agreed to “demilitarize” Ukraine and was then played for a fool by Putin if Russia steamrolls through it sometime later.

The only viable way in which Russia could implement Ukraine’s demilitarization in today’s context is to control as much of its territory as possible in order to ensure that no threatening weapons are deployed there. The problem though is that Russia is unlikely to obtain military control over all of Ukraine, or even just significant parts of its territory east of the Dnieper in proximity to the internationally recognized border across which Kiev’s shells still regularly fly, by the time of a Western/NATO intervention.

One of the reasons why the special operation’s opening phase didn’t result in ending the conflict on Russia’s terms is because the West informed Zelensky about how overextended its military logistics had become and thus encouraged him to exploit that to push it back like he ultimately did. Given how cautious of a leader Putin is, he’s unlikely to act out of character once more by ordering a repeat of this same risky strategy even if the frontlines collapse and Russia is able to roll into other regions.   

Another unforeseen challenge that Russia experienced during the special operation’s opening phase was actually holding the broad swaths territory that it nominally controlled. Ukraine’s hidden Javelin and Stinger stockpiles inflicted enough losses behind Russia’s lines to engender the large-scale pullback that coincided with the failure of spring 2022’s peace talks. There’s also the obvious difficulty of swiftly capturing large cities like Kharkov, Sumy, and Zaporozhye, which hasn’t yet happened.

Moving along to Russia’s second maximum goal of denazifying Ukraine after explaining how tough it’ll be to achieve the first one of demilitarizing it, this too can’t succeed without a political agreement that’s no longer realistic in today’s context after such a chance slipped away in spring 2022. What Russia has in mind is Ukraine promulgating legislation that aligns with these goals, such as banning the glorification of World War II-era fascists and rescinding restrictions on ethnic Russians’ rights.

Zelensky has no reason to go along with this anymore like he flirted with doing in early 2022 and Trump’s team doesn’t seem to care all that much about this issue anyhow. It’s therefore unclear how Russia can achieve this before a Western/NATO intervention except in the unlikely scenario of a Russian-friendly Color Revolution and/or military coup, neither of which the US would accept, and both of which would probably thus prompt the aforesaid intervention out of desperation to salvage “Project Ukraine”.

The third maximum goal of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality is comparatively more likely but nevertheless moot at this point given that the raft of security guarantees that it already clinched with NATO states since the start of this year de facto amount to continued Article 5 support. Contrary to popular perceptions, this clause doesn’t obligate the dispatch of troops, but only for each country to do whatever it deems fit to help allies under attack. Their existing military aid to Ukraine aligns with this.

Coercing Ukraine to rescind 2019’s constitutional amendment making NATO membership a strategic objective would therefore be a superficial concession to Russia on the US’ part to make Trump’s peace plan a little less bitter for Putin to swallow. As with the previous two maximum goals, Zelensky has no reason to comply with Putin’s demands in this regard since the latter’s forces aren’t in a position to impose this upon him, thus meaning that it can only realistically be done if Trump orders him to.

As the reader probably already picked up on, the common theme is that Russia’s inability to militarily coerce Zelensky into complying with its maximum goals greatly reduces the possibility that they’ll be achieved, which also holds true for the final one of obtaining control over all its new regions’ land. It’s unimaginable that Zelensky will voluntarily cede Zaporozhye with its over 700,000 population, for example, or that Trump will accept the Western opprobrium that would follow coercing him to do so.

The same goes for letting Russia cross the Dnieper to obtain control over that region’s and Kherson’s areas on the other side, thus creating the opportunity for it to build up its forces there in the future for a lightning strike across Ukraine’s western plains in the event that the conflict ever rekindles after it ends. There’s no way that Trump would ever give Putin such an invaluable military-strategic gift so Russia’s supporters shouldn’t deceive themselves by getting their hopes up thinking that this will happen.

The only way in which Russia can achieve its maximum goals before the entrance of Western/NATO troops into Ukraine as peacekeepers is through military means, which would require another large-scale multi-pronged offensive of the sort that characterized the special operation’s early days. Even then, however, the high risk of once again overextending its military logistics, being ambushed by Stingers/Javelins, and thus risking reputational costs and even on-the-ground losses, will remain.

As such, there are really only three options left for Russia: 1) escalate now before Western/NATO troops enter Ukraine and either coerce Zelensky into agreeing to these demands or capture and hold enough land in order to demilitarize as much of the country as possible; 2) escalate after they enter at the risk of sparking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that could spiral into World War III; or 3) accept the fait accompli of freezing the conflict along the Line of Contact and begin preparing the public accordingly.

It’s unclear which option Putin will choose since he hasn’t yet signaled a preference for any of them. Nevertheless, it’s timely to quote 19th-century Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov, who famously said that “Russia is not sulking; she is composing herself.” Russia knows that the clock is ticking for achieving its maximum goals before Trump likely orders Western/NATO peacekeepers to enter Ukraine. The Kremlin is quiet for now precisely because policymakers have yet to decide what to do.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: Michael Joiner, 360info.org CCBY4.0


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

It’s now more than 48 hours after the election, the dust has settled, and the results are in except for a late counting in the state of Arizona–the outcome of which won’t affect the results of the election. Trump has won an undeniable victory, both in the electoral college and in the popular vote.

Political pundits, pollsters, and over-paid political strategists who seem to get it wrong repeatedly every election cycle are now concocting all manner of explanations and mightily spinning their excuses. Some say Harris lost because the Democrats’ ‘ground game’—i.e. get out the vote efforts—failed; or that the $1 billion in campaign contributions she received during the summer was ill spent; or her TV ads were poorly focused; or her ‘politics of joy’ theme grated on the mood of voters who were anything but happy. But all these tactical explanations of the Democrats’ devastating defeat—which was across the board and not just for Harris—are obviously irrelevant.

The pundits and political strategists who forecast the election wrong are now failing to understand its results as well. Here are the more important takeaways from the election:

A Popular Vote Anomaly?

The electoral college result thus far, with Arizona’s 11 votes pending, is 301 for Trump and 226 for Harris (270 needed to win). Trump also won the popular vote with 73.4 million vs. 69.1 million for Harris—as of the popular vote count late November 8.

.

Source: AP

.

Perhaps the most glaring indicator of what went wrong for Harris, however, is the big shift in the popular vote away from Democrats in 2024. In 2020 the Democrats polled 81 million votes in the presidential race. In 2024 so far only 69.1 million. That’s 12 million fewer votes for Democrats! How to explain that fact?

Did all the 12 million cross over to Trump? Apparently not. Trump’s 2024 popular vote was not that much different from 2020. He received 74 million in 2020 and in 2024 so far about 73.4 million.

These contrasting numbers raise two interesting questions:

Where did Harris’s missing 12 million popular votes go, if not to Trump? The corollary question also arises: did Biden and the Democrats really receive 81 million votes in 2020?

.

Both photos are from the public domain

.

Whichever the explanation, the mainstream legacy media (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, etc) are conspicuously avoiding any analysis of this missing 12 million or the apparent vote count anomaly.

But one thing is irrefutable in the official vote tally: roughly 13 million fewer turned out to vote for either candidate in 2024 and 12 million were Democrat voters. The only logical conclusion therefore is that 12 million Democrrat voters apparently stayed home and did not vote. So why?

Whatever the popular vote, it is irrelevant for US presidential elections. Only the archaic electoral college vote matters. Why the USA keeps that institution when it allows ‘one person one vote’ for all other voting for members of Congress is interesting. Two-thirds of voters have indicated in multiple surveys recently that they want a direct vote for the president and an end to the Electoral College. Why both parties continue with the system says much. Nevertheless it’s a question—like a Florida 2000 election ballot ‘chad’—that will be left hanging for now.

Electoral College Vote Repeat

Trump’s 301 (eventual 312) electoral college votes confirms this writer’s prediction this past summer that the swing states would flip back to 2016 numbers and Trump. 2024 would be a 2016 swing states déjà vu election.

In the 2020 election, Biden’s electoral college vote was 306 to Trump’s 232. In 2016 Trump won 304 electoral college votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227. The winning margins of 304 (2016), then 306 (2020), now 301 (312) in 2024 is not merely coincidental.

The largely similar electoral college counts in 2016, 2020, and 2024 suggests strongly that deeper forces in the US political system created a shift beginning 2016 and have continued ever since.
Trump’s election in 2016 was therefore not the aberration as many Democrats and mainstream media argued in 2020; Biden’s in 2020 was.

Events of the past decade suggests the fallout from the economic crash and crisis of 2008-10 is still having its longer term political impact. Voters’ overwhelming concern with economic issues in 2024 reveal it is still reverberating. In 2024 it was manifested in inflation. In 2020 it was massive Covid job loss. Since 2008 it’s been the steady decline in real income and living standards for tens of millions of American households—amidst the accelerating income and wealth for the 1% or 5% households largely attributable to accelerating financial asset markets and values. As one famous pundit said more than three decades ago: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

One might clarify that: “it’s the lopsided economy, stupid!” Economic conditions have deteriorated much further since the 1990s when that statement was made, especially after the 2008-10 crash and crisis followed by the Covid induced crash. Some political elites apparently never learned the economic lesson.

Throughout this past summer this writer has been predicting Trump would win the electoral college vote by slightly more than 300—by 302 to 236 to be exact. This forecast was based on the assumption he would win all the seven swing states, except for Michigan. In retrospect he has won the latter state as well. (see my piece “November 2024: A Swing States Déjà vu Election?” at the LA Progressive website last week).

Inflation and other economic conditions during the Biden years were firmly established by opinion polls since the start of 2024 as the primary concerns of voters, thereafter strongly confirmed again in the September Gallup poll.

Put in a long term perspective, Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 and her loss of the ‘blue wall’ states in the north can be largely attributed to the weak GDP economic recovery after 2010 and the even weaker related job recovery during the Obama years. GDP grew around only 60% of normal after 2010 when compared to the prior nine US recessions since 1948. More importantly, jobs lost after 2007 due to the 2008-09 crash did not recover to 2007 levels until 2015. It took six years just to get back to pre-recession job levels. Add to this Hillary Clinton’s well known approval of free trade treaties and its offshoring of jobs effect—as well as her strategic error of not even bothering to campaign in the blue wall states—and the result was a predictable 2016 Trump sweep of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and victory. It was still ‘the economy, stupid’.

In 2020 Biden also largely won for economic reasons—specifically the severe recession and job losses of 2020 due to the Covid pandemic economy partial shutdown. Biden swept back the blue wall states and won handily—almost exactly with the same electoral college votes that Trump had won with four years earlier! That stupid old economy had not gone away.

In 2024, the Covid induced mass layoffs in 2020 no longer prevailed but were replaced by another Covid induced economic consequence: inflation which erupted in fall of 2021. Prices for goods started abating by 2023 but inflation in the much more ubiquitous services sector of the US economy remained chronically high throughout 2023 and into early 2024.

Official government statistics estimate the price level rose 24% over the four Biden years but real inflation adjusted take home pay for tens of millions of households was impacted more severely than the statistics or politicians and media suggested during the recent election.

Actual inflation impact on family budgets was more like 30%-35%, especially after considering the sharp rise in interest rates starting March-June 2023 and rise in taxes, neither of which are included in calculations of the government’s price statistics. Households also pay for interest out of their take home pay and family disposable income. Mortgage rates rose 114% under Biden. Credit card average rates rose from 16% to 23% and households carried over record level of that debt monthly. New student loan rates rose from 4% to around 7%. And new auto loans from4% to 9%. And that’s not considering local taxes and fee hikes. Or problems with the methodologies and assumptions in government price calculations that tend to under-estimate actual inflation.
Households and voters knew what the real picture of affordability was the past four years—even if politicians, media, and mainstream economists did not!

This background of the voting outcomes since 2016 and longer term economic causes raises the more immediate question ‘why Harris’ lost in 2024. It certainly wasn’t due to irrelevant tactical explanations as the media and pundits now argue. And while jobs and inflation were the critical, even key, longer term causes determining election outcomes, in themselves they still don’t explain it all.

There were strategic failures for Harris’s defeat’; nor indeed defeat for the Democrat party in general since its losses in November were across the board in both houses of Congress, governorships, and other local elections. In addition, Trump’s strategy targeting disaffected you males, mostly working class and across racial lines, proved effective in turn.

Why Harris & Democrats Lost

Failure to Differentiate from Biden…

High on the list of why Harris lost must be her failure to differentiate her proposals from those of Biden, especially on economic issues. When directly asked in an interview during the campaign what she would change from Biden’s policies she replied: “nothing”. That was perhaps the turning point of sorts in the campaign. Voters weren’t looking for ‘nothing new’. They wanted economic change that directly affected their declining real take home pay that had been slashed by 30%-35% inflation since 2020.

Harris this past week experienced what might be called the ‘Hubert Humphrey’ effect. In 1968, Democrat Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for re-election. His policy for escalating the war in Vietnam, combined with the inflation of the late 1960s, meant it likely would not win. His VP was Humphrey who became the Democrat party presidential candidate that year. But Humphrey would not break with Johnson’s war policy nor did he offer any answer to the rising inflation of the mid 1960s. War and inflation doomed his campaign in 1968, which he lost convincingly to Richard Nixon. Similarly, Harris’s refusal to break from Biden war policies in 2024 or to offer any answer how she’d lower prices for households played a big role in her defeat. Both she and Humphrey were convincingly defeated.

The Hubert Humphrey Effect should consequently be renamed the Humphrey-Harris Effect.

US voters wanted to hear specifics on how the candidates proposed to reverse the decline in their living standards. Harris gave them mostly platitudes. The Democrat party leaders may have removed Biden as their candidate over the summer, replacing him with Harris, but they left his policies intact. Voters understood they were still voting for Biden. Especially Democrat voters as 12 million of them stayed home.

Some traditional Democrat constituencies jumped ship. Election data already show that many more black male voters voted Trump than in prior elections. So too did Hispanic voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania. Even Puerto Rican voters—who the mainstream media hyped would turn on Trump because of some comic at one of his rallies made disparaging remarks about Puerto Ricans—voted Trump in key constituencies. And there were the white suburban women who the Democrats bet would vote Democrat based on the reproductive and women’s rights issues. In key swing states like Pennsylvania it appears they too voted by narrow margins for Trump.

Identity Politics Themes No Longer Resonate….

What all this may mean is economic issues and questions of class trumped identity issues of gender, sexual orientation, and race on which Democrats had based their campaigns in recent years had become of secondary at best importance to voters. Legitimate polls like Gallup were shouting this message all year and especially in latter months of the campaign. Democrat leaders were deaf, however. They apparently believed just changing the face of their candidate and throwing billions of dollars into the race this past summer would ensure re-election. It was another big strategic error.

If Harris failed to differentiate herself from Biden, then the Democrat party leadership kept her largely campaigning on issues of identity—gender, race, and sexual orientation.

January 2021 Is Not the Issue…

A third related strategy failure was the Democrat elevation of the January 6, 2021 events and Trump’s often out of context rally statements as a key issue. It wasn’t. It ranked well down the list in almost all voter opinion polls. Just as in 2016 allegations that the Russians were interfering in the election and had Trump in their pocket had little influence on voters choices. In 2024 did voters didn’t believe the charge that Trump was the destroyer of American democracy incarnate, a felon, or closet fascist—or just didn’t care even if true—any more than they believed in 2015 Trump was the puppet of Putin.

Both the Democrats pushing of identity issues and the personality attacks on Trump as either foreign agent or a felonious fascist gained much traction. The economy was paramount in both 2016 and 2024, as it was in 2020. But Harris and the Democrats just couldn’t let go of the old saws and themes that no longer worked, and get focused on the economy.

Emerging Electorate & Party Realignment…

Another strategic reason why Harris and Democrats lost has to do with the shift in constituencies in the past decade. It’s now clear that Trump has been able to start building a base in the working class, especially among young male voters. This is now being called the ‘Bros Vote’. But it’s mostly young, non-college, males who have been among the most disaffected segments of the voting population in recent decades. They are young millennials and GenZers who have experienced the most negative effects of low wages, housing unaffordability, low paying jobs at which they must work two and sometimes three to get by, and other related issues. Democrats appear to have abandoned them, as the party has drifted steadily away from the traditional working class since the 1990s and toward suburban women, LGBTQ voter constituencies, professionals, and college graduates. This is a cultural thing that sometimes gets expressed in elites’ slips of the tongue—like Hillary’s calling them ‘deplorables’ in 2016 and Biden recently referring to them as Trump’s ‘garbage’.

Not all of Harris’s lost is attributable to her failures or Democrat party leaders failures. Some of the loss is explainable by Trump’s own personal appeal, his policy initiatives during the campaign, and his political strategy in general.

Trump Talks & Appears Like They Do…

Part of Trump’s appeal is evident when he speaks. He’s crude, sometimes incoherent, makes off the wall statements, insults people he doesn’t like, embarrasses himself. In other words, he often sounds like them in their own every day conversations. It makes him appear authentic to them. Democrats and their intellectual, educated supporters are often shocked by this behavior. They find it abhorrent. They are turned off by the crude working class ‘banter’ that is part of normal communication for this constituency. But they live in a different cultural world than the Bros constituency as well as the working class black and Hispanics.

The difference could be viewed in Harris rally speeches and even her final concession. It was all too perfect. Not a missed phrase. Straight from the teleprompter. As if she’s reading her comments, which of course she was. Too many platitudes, canned metaphors, and planned anecdotes. In other words, not natural or authentic.

Trump’s Working Class Policy Proposals…

Overlaid on this class cultural divide is the fact that Trump appealed to working class voters with policy measures that should have been Democrat, and often were in decades past but no more. Trump proposed no taxes on tip income, which Harris quickly copied; he proposed no tax on overtime pay and to remove taxing of social security benefits—which Harris conspicuously did not copy. Trump’s proposal for child care credits were more generous than Harris’s. And his proposals on tariffs as way to force corporations to relocate jobs back to the US seemed more convincing than Harris’s which was ‘no different’ than Biden’s which was to shower grants of tens of billions on companies to bribe them to ‘onshore’ back to the US. Even Trump’s immigration proposals were often stated as job creating, even if somewhat questionable in that effect.

In short, Trump at least verbally turned toward working class voters in the election, while Harris and Democrats seemed to further champion suburban women, identity issues, and push the worn out hackneyed line ‘Trump is a Russian pawn and closet fascist who’ll destroy democracy, the country and civilization itself’.

Widening Generational Divide…

But for the tens of millions of new younger voters who came of voting age a decade ago, the Democrats’ leading election themes tying Trump to Russians and autocratic behavior are dead. Perhaps not dead but dying as well are the various themes associated with identity politics. Identity issues will not go away but they will no longer be predominant. The focus on identity does not resonate with the Bros swing vote and has even become antagonistic. Nor do they elicit the same tacit approval within the Hispanic and Black voting constituencies in a period when the economic stress for tens of millions of working class households is approaching a breaking point after decades. A quarter century later it’s still ‘the economy, stupid!’. In fact, more so than ever before.

Some Likely Consequences

It’s somewhat early to define what Trump will now do as president in a second term. But there are outlines from the campaign and his own issues focus in his statement.
Most likely the initial actions will be associated with what he can do without Congressional legislation by means of his own Executive Orders.

At the top of his initial list will be EOs related to illegal immigrants’ deportations and rebuilding his border wall. EOs related to alternative energy matters and the environment will also take an early hit. Oil drilling permits are included in the latter action list.

Deregulation in general will also appear early. Elon Musk will make recommendations cutting government regulations to save spending and Trump will act more or less perfunctorily on Musk’s recommendations. Much of that can be done via EOs as well.

A third area is tariffs. Trump’s promise to raise tariffs 10%-60% (latter on China imports) will come quickly. It’s not coincidental among his first appointments already is Robert Lighthizer as Trade commission.

Trump believes that an increase in government revenue from raising tariffs and a big cut to social programs spending and deregulation will result in a major offset to US budget deficits, which rose last year to $1.8 trillion and is currently running at a $2 trillion estimate for 2025. Tariff revenues, deregulation and even general Austerity social spending program cuts (coming in the spring by Congress) will not even come close to cutting the deficit by a $1 trillion!

Trump believes the fiction that cutting business taxes further in 2025 will result in stimulating economic growth and thus tax revenues. He believed that when he cut taxes in 2018 by $4.5 trillion. It didn’t have the effect on economic growth then. Continuing his 2018 tax cuts (estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost the government $5 trillion over the next decade) and even adding to more cuts in 2025 will not even come close to resolving the fiscal crisis and economic train wreck that’s around the corner in 2025 and after. But tax cutting will again be his and his Republican Congress’s priority in 2025 nevertheless. That too will come this spring.

Voters who put their hopes in a fundamental change in direction for the country voting for Trump and Republicans may be therefore disappointed. Not that that’s anything new. The economy will therefore continue as the number one issue of voters come the 2028 election.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s blog, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

Trump Between War and Peace. Manlio Dinucci

November 10th, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

The newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, who beat Kamala Harris by an overwhelming majority, has outlined the main thrust of his foreign policy as follows:

I want to tell the world community we will always put America’s interests first, and we will deal fairly with everyone – all peoples and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict.

Trump had already met with Putin during his previous term in office, which is why he was the subject of the first impeachment attempt in the United States. Today, with the majority in Congress, there is a possibility that he will reopen a negotiating table with Putin to end the Russia-Ukraine war, in other words, the war that NATO is waging against Russia under US command.

What should the Trump administration do in Europe?

1) Ensure that a ceasefire between NATO/Ukraine and Russia is implemented immediately.

2) Initiate summit negotiations between the presidents of the US and the Russian Federation.

3) Ensure that the entire European front is demilitarised and denuclearised through the withdrawal of US-NATO intermediate-range nuclear forces deployed in Europe in the proximity of Russian territory, and Russian intermediate-range nuclear forces deployed in Russian territory in the near vicinity of Europe and in Belarus.

4) The removal of sanctions against Russia and the restoration of political, economic and cultural relations between the US and Russia. 

5) Ensuring that an international conference for a negotiated settlement of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the establishment of a security system in Europe is convened under the auspices of the UN, with the participation of the US, NATO, the EU, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

The situation on the other front, the Middle East, is different. Trump, like all previous US presidents, supports Israel. According to the announced foreign policy lines, what should the Trump administration do in the Middle East instead?  

1) ensure that a ceasefire is immediately implemented in the region between all parties to the conflict, Israel withdraws its armed forces and settler settlements from Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palestinian territories are governed by bodies chosen by the Palestinians themselves;

2) ensure that an UN-sponsored international conference is convened – with the participation of all countries in the region, starting with Israel and Iran – for a negotiated solution to the conflicts and the establishment of a security system in the Middle East.

The situation is further made more complex by the fact that Trump was elected overwhelmingly by the 150,000 Americans (i.e., Jews with dual US-Israeli citizenship) living in Israel (a country with a population of ten million) and that 60,000 of them are settled in the West Bank: here they constitute 15% of the settlers who, armed and supported by the Israeli government, are taking over Palestinian land and other property.  Will the Trump administration in its foreign policy seek “common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict?”

The US public debt exceeds $35 trillion for the first time, a level equal to that of GDP.

US military spending far exceeds $1 trillion annually (including other items beyond the Pentagon budget), and continues to grow.

Interest on the national debt paid each year grows accordingly, and is now exceeding the level of the military spending.

This situation largely benefits Elon Musk, the world’s richest man who largely financed Trump’s election campaign and will probably have an important position in his administration.

Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, runs NASA’s rocket launch programme and the Pentagon relies on him to put most military satellites into orbit. The US war machine is in full swing because it is moves to open another war front against China.


*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image source


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

A study by Kim et al published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, titled, Psychiatric adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: a population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea, found that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a 68.3% increased risk of depression, 43.9% increased risk of anxiety disorders, and 93.4% increased risk of sleep disorders:

Depression (HR [95% CI] = 1.683 [1.520–1.863]), anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders (HR [95% CI] = 1.439 [1.322–1.568]), and sleep disorders (HR [95% CI] = 1.934 [1.738–2.152]) showed increased risks after COVID-19 vaccination.

.

.

The authors used the following methodology (note the massive sample size):

We recruited 50% of the Seoul-resident population randomly selected from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) claims database on 1, January, 2021. The included participants (n = 2,027,353) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service claims database were divided into two groups according to COVID-19 vaccination. The cumulative incidences per 10,000 of psychiatric AEs were assessed on one week, two weeks, one month, and three months after COVID-19 vaccination. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence interval (CIs) of psychiatric AEs were measured for the vaccinated population.

They correctly mention that the spike protein may be the primary driver behind the vaccine-induced psychiatric disorders:

“Our study suggests that neuroinflammation caused by spike proteins may contribute to occurrences of some psychiatric AEs such as depression and anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders.”

U.S. depression rates have risen to record highs since 2020/2021, partly due to the draconian pandemic control measures (lockdowns, mask mandates, job losses) and, as suggested by Kim et al, COVID-19 vaccination.

.

.

Large increases in the risk of depression and anxiety disorders provide yet another reason to immediately remove COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ from the 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation 

Featured image source


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

 

Dear Honorable Federal Councilors,

For the past several years You, the Swiss Government, have been gradually, silently – and without any public discussion – approaching NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Today, Switzerland has already an associated member delegation with six seats in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO-PA). See this.

This is clearly a step towards an anti-neutral Switzerland.

And anti-democratic, because You, honorable Swiss Government, never consulted the Swiss people.

NATO was set up in 1949, in the wake of WWII, as a defense apparatus – mainly under the pretext to defend Europe against the looming dangers of the then Soviet Union, today’s Russia.

NATO was THE organization to foster the Cold War, to indoctrinate then already the people with fear from an impending invasion of the Soviet Union. Later the world found out that there was never a danger of the USSR aggressing Europe, let alone the United States.

NATO should have been dissolved at the latest when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

The Warsaw Pact, set up in 1955 as a counterpart to NATO, was resolved in the early 1990s.

NATO was not.

NATO was never a defense association – NATO is a War Machine. 

And You, dear Federal Councilors, want to further approach NATO and possibly even join them?

*

In 1991 NATO had 16 member states. Today NATO has 32 members, 30 of which are in Europe. The only transatlantic members are US and Canada.

Today, NATO is represented in some 800-plus US military bases around the world; close to 700 of them are surrounding Russia and China.

Recalling Swiss Neutrality back to almost 210 years (in 1815), this quote from an internal CIA document of 23 April 1955 [OCI No. 3377/55, copy No. 2], may be a significant reminder of the importance of Swiss neutrality:

“Switzerland’s neutrality as envisaged by the Treaty of Vienna of March 2815 was not a new conception, nor was its recognition by foreign powers a novel idea”……”And the famous Act of Perpetual Swiss Neutrality and Inviolability, signed on 20 November 1815 by Austria, Great Britain, Russia and Prussia, declared Switzerland a perpetual neutral country and contains the much quoted lines, “The neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland and its independence from all foreign influences are in the true interests of the policies of the whole of Europe.””

The Swiss Foreign Department covets Swiss Neutrality on its website as an “inviolable” asset, with reference to The Hague Conventions of October 1907 – see this.

Yet, our Minister of Defense and current President of the Swiss Confederation, is moving Switzerland ever closer into the realm of NATO, without consultation of the Swiss people. 

Joining NATO would be the death knell of Swiss neutrality.

You know this, honorable Federal Councilors.

After all, a successful People’s Initiative for Swiss Neutrality was completed and submitted to the Federal Chancellery on 11 April 2024, with almost 130,000 valid signatures (100,000 are needed). It will be submitted to a popular vote, expected in 2025 / 2026, and if accepted, Neutrality will be enshrined in the Swiss Constitution.

NATO Budget 

Dear Federal Councilors, you may know that the total 2024 NATO Budget amounts to about US$1.4 trillion – of which about two-thirds are funded by the US and one-third by Europe and Canada. It is an “annual fund” for killing and destruction – and for enriching the international military-industrial-complex (IMIC). 

In his first term in Office, President Trump called on the European NATO members to increase their military budget to at least 2% of their GDP. Some countries may have done this, others are still far from meeting this target. 

See this for current NATO spending per member country.

.

Taken from Al Jazeera

.

It is conceivable that Mr. Trump, in his new term as US President, will repeat this call on European NATO members. 

The Swiss military budget for the coming 4 years – 2025 to 2028 — is approximately CHF 30 billion, about CHF 7.5 billion per year. This is equivalent to less than 1% of the estimated Swiss GDP for 2024 (CHF 784 billion). If Switzerland would join NATO and follow Mr. Trump’s mandate, the military budget would have to be doubled to about CHF 15 billion per year.

Alternative Spending 

With a fraction of the 2024 NATO budget of US$ 1.4 trillion, world famine could be eliminated. Oxfam estimates that eradicating world hunger in all its forms would require $31.7 billion, plus US$ 4 billion for debt relief of the world’s poorest countries, a total of about US$ 35.7 billion. This is less than 3% of the G7 annual military budget, or about 2.55% of NATO’s 2024 budget.

See this.

Dear Federal Councilors, do you believe Swiss citizens would want to participate in this monstrous and murderous endeavor, called NATO? And that, to the detriment of Swiss neutrality? 

Personally, I believe most Swiss do not want to become a NATO member, and give up their legendary Neutrality. 

Therefore, dear Federal Councilors, may I urge you to reconsider, as a sovereign Swiss Confederation – not accepting pressures from outside, and abandoning this anti-Neutrality move. 

A Neutral Switzerland would be able to mediate between conflict parties and help rebuild a stable, harmonious and Peaceful World Society.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Featured image source


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

So much is being written now about Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ presidential election. Few analyses however, if any, are paying attention to a remarkable development, namely the end of the Bush-Clinton era. You might have not paid much attention to it (in all likelihood, you never heard of it), but it started in the 1980’s, and lasted all the way to 2016. Let us go back in time, then.

This is how it worked: starting in 1981, either a Bush or a Clinton was in the White House (as a powerful Vice President or as the President himself) for years onwards. Or, later, in charge of foreign policy. If one recalls, from 1981 to 1989, Republican George H. W. Bush, also known as George Bush Senior, served as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. Being a former Director of the mighty Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it is only fair to describe Bush Senior as a powerful Vice President. As the founding father of an era, he deserves a closer look.

Those were the Cold War years, and the CIA was quite a big deal (it still is, of course). The Agency is well known for teaching torture technices to foreign groups, as well as promoting  “regime chances” (a code for coup d’état) false flag terrorist attacks, assassinations of foreign leaders, and the like. During the Regan years, keeping up with such a record, Bush admittedly played a role in the so-called Iran–Contra scandalwhich was about the illegal sale of arms to Iran and then clandestinely using the arms sale to fund the Nicaragua anti-communist rebel group known as the Contras. The Contras were involved in death squads, cocaine dealing, terrorism and torture. To make matters worse, the CIA was accused of getting involved in the Contras narcotraffic operations.

According to diplomat Peter Dale Scott, historian Alfred McCoy, and journalists Gary Webb and Alexander Cockburn, this is in line with a long record of CIA involvement in the dope trade. Back to the Iran-Contra affair: at the time, CIA agent Barry Seal took part in bringing at least three billion dollars worth of cocaine through Mena Airport (Arkansas). This is where Bush and Clinton meet: while Bush was part of the administration running the Iran-Contra, Bill Clinton, who later became President, was the then governor of Arkansas and was accused of being complicit in this operation. That is not the only alleged connection Clinton has to the organized crime world, by the way: his brother Roger Clinton had ties to the Gambino crime family and even served time for cocaine dealing – only to be later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.

Back to Bush Senior, he was so powerful a vice that when former American Nazi Party member John Hinckley Jr. shot and injured President Reagan in March 30, 1981, in an attempted murder, rumors and conspiracy theories were spread about Bush being involved in the deed so as to rise to the Presidency. The fact the Hincley family had connections with the Bush family did not help much in that regard: for one thing, the shooter’s brother (Scott Hinckley, Vice President of the family’s Vanderbilt Energy Corp) was friends with George Bush’s son (Neil Bush). Scott Hincley was in fact going to attend a dinner party at Neil Bush home before the incident. It is a small world.

Image: President G. H.W. Bush visiting the Troops during the First Gulf War (Source)

George Bush Senior did not become President in March 1981, but he did in 1989, thereby succeeding Reagan. One of his greatest legacies, so to speak, is the first Gulf War. As President, he did not make it to reelection and was then succeeded in 1993 by someone very dear to him, someone whom he considered as a son, the aforementioned Democrat Bill Clinton. Again, a small world. Suh was the rise of the New Democrats. For Clinton, I highlight two major achievements: pushing NATO expansion and having NATO bomb an European country which then ceased to be (the former state of Yugoslavia). The region is a ticking bomb to this day.

The family connection has remained strong – there are a number of Clinton-Bush initiatives, such as the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, and the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. It is no wonder Bushes and Clintons are so close – they took turns running the country for decades. President Clinton, preceded by Bush Senior (whom he called “dad”), was then succeeded, in 2001, by none other than Republican George W. Bush, that is, the son of Bush Senior. George W. Bush would often call Clinton his “brother”. Those were the neocon years. Bush legacies include the turning the country into a de facto dictatorship with the Patriot Act, and the two-decades long occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the former being a clear neocolonial enterprise, plus yet more NATO enlargement.

So there you have it with the Bush-Clinton era. That state of affairs lasted at least 28 years, that is, until 2009, when Hillary Clinton (none other than the former President’s wife) could not make it within the Democrat Party and, in a vicious internal struggle, Barack Obama instead was nominated and won in 2009. That’s not the end of the Bush-Clinton era yet. Obama still kept a Clinton (Hillary) in charge of foreign policy, as Secretary of State until 2013. She resigned after some scandals, and was replaced by John Kerry.

Kerry, if one recalls, is George W. Bush’s fellow bonesmen (both are members of the same elite secret society) who was defeated by him in the 2002 election – small word, once again. So much for American “anyone can become President” democracy. Even though Obama was then said to be “the least Atlanticist” President, Obama-Clinton-Kerry legacy includes the empowering of terrorist group ISIS/Daesh, adding fuel to the fire in the Syrian civil war, supporting the Maidan in Ukraine, the destruction of Libya by NATO bombing – and, again, further NATO expansion.

Then Clinton lost the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump in 2016. This ends the Bush-Clinton era. Trump was then defeated by Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 and was thought to be done with. Instead, he took control of the Republican Party, sidelining the Bushes and neocons. The Clintons did not make a comeback under Biden for a number of reasons. Biden-Harris’ administration legacy in any case include being complicit with Israeli genocide in Palestine and playing with world war by increasing tensions with both Russia and China (over Taiwan). So much for Biden’s “America is back” motto.

Now Trump is back, which seals the coffin of the Bush-Clinton era – and this time with full control of the Republican party, with a Senate majority and much more. Trump, as I wrote, is by no means a “peacemaker” and it is not quite true that his 2016-2020 presidency was marked by “no wars”. He assassinated Iranian General Soleimani for one thing and did facilitate the Abraham Accords, which lie at the root of today’s crisis in the Middle East in a lot of ways.

In any case, Trump’s previous administration certainly was no match for his Bush-Clinton predecessors in terms of war-mongering, genocide and nation-destruction – and no match for Biden, for that matter. In all likelihood this time too he will not exceed the aforementioned legacy of his precursors. If such turns out to be the case, and if the slightest restraint is exercised, this in itself should already be good news for the world. The Bush-Clinton era is over, amen to that.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on November 13, 2022

***

Watch Mislav Kolakusic, Croatian lawyer and Independent MEP talks about Mrs Von der Leyen, President of the EUC, known as Mrs 4.5 billion doses.

In recent developments  “EU corruption hunters are now officially investigating von der Leyen

For Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the news that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating her on suspicion of interference in public office, destruction of text messages, corruption and conflicts of interest may come at an inopportune time. After all, Mrs von der Leyen is in the middle of the EU election campaign.

Billions in damage caused by illegal agreements?

Various media report that the EU corruption hunters have taken over a case that originally originated in Belgium at the instigation of several EU member states and a group of MEPs. The case concerns allegations from the time of the pandemic and a more than questionable procurement of vaccines, in which Mrs von der Leyen is said to have intervened without having a mandate to do so. This involves several billion euros of damage that could have been caused to the European Union.

When will the CDU call on Mrs von der Leyen to renounce her election campaign?

It would be advisable for the German CDU to follow the example of other parties in the German Bundestag. In the event of misdemeanours by their members, they would press for the immediate resignation of the parties involved or at least for them to renounce their election campaigns. In any case, we consider Mrs von der Leyen’s actions to be highly criminal and irresponsible.  (April 2024)

*

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

  • Posted in English, Srpski
  • Comments Off on Video: The Pfizer Vaccine and “Mrs. 4.5 Billion Doses”. EUC President Von Der Leyen Involved in Censorship, Surveillance, Coercion and Corruption
  • Tags: ,

[We repost this article by the late Prof. Joseph H. Chung, first published by GR in January 2022. Prof. Chung was an indefatigable voice on the politics of Asia-Pacific, especially on the dynamics of the Korean Peninsula.]

One of the most popular and regular items of the Western media menu is the demonization of China, Iran and North Korea for their human rights violations. These media have three characteristics.

First, they give us the impression that human rights violation takes place only in those countries which are not friendly to Washington; they try to tell us that Washington-friendly countries do not violate human rights.

Second, the Western media limit their critics to the violation of civil and political rights such as oppression of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They do no talk about the violation of economic, social and cultural rights (foods, clothing, public housing, public health, public education) which China and North Korea are trying to respect and protect.

What makes me disturbed is that the violation of human rights is globalized and getting worse.

In this paper, I am asking the following question: “What is human rights?” and “How badly is it violated in Asia?” 

Definition of Human Rights

I define human rights in this way:

“Every normal human being has right to live a dignified and decent living.”

Decent living means the access to foods, clothing, housing, a job, health and education. On the other hand, dignified life means independence, autonomy and freedom.

Thus, we have two sets of inseparable human rights. One is the right to be autonomous and free from government intervention. This concept has led to international covenant on civil and political rights.

This concept of civil and political right is much influenced by English philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1558-1670) and John Locke (1632-1701). These philosophers have one thing in common, namely, the sovereignty of individuals and freedom for self preservation. The right to self preservation is a natural right.

However, the major difference between the two philosophers is their perception of the type of political regime. Hobbes goes for monarchy which is likely to better protect human rights. For Locke, non-authoritarian regime also can protect human rights. However, for him, if the government fails its job of protecting human rights, the government deserves to be replaced.

The idea of civil and political rights was enshrined in the Declaration of the French Revolution and that of American Revolution.

The right to individual freedom is called the first generation of human rights or negative human rights in the sense that the state should not infringe on individual freedom.

The concept of decent of economic, social and cultural rights is well defined by James Nickel. These rights are called the second generation of human rights.

“Human rights aim to secure for individual the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life. Public authorities, national and international, are identified as typically best placed to service these conditions.” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Human Rights)

The idea of economic, social and cultural rights derives from the need for mutual cooperation. This idea is inspired primarily by religious traditions. The Christian love of neighbours, the Muslims teaching of interconnectivity of humans, the respect for all living beings in Buddhism are sources of inspiration for the doctrine of economic, social and cultural rights.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) argues that one’s freedom should not harm the freedom of others. Marx emphasized the recognition and importance of economic, social and cultural rights.

These two schools of thought on human rights have invited a sustained debate, especially the debate on the universality of civil and political rights. One side of the controversy argues that human rights, especially the right to individual freedom, is universal; China’s oppression of individual freedom is human rights violation. James Nickel argues for the universality of human rights.

“The moral justification of human rights is thought to precede consideration of strict national sovereignty.” (James Nickel, 1992)

“Moral universalism posits the existence of rationally identifiable trans-culture and trans-historical moral trust.” (James Nickel 1992)

On the other hand, the argument for relative universality is also convincing. At the World Congress on Human Rights in Vienne in 1993, the Foreign Minister of Singapore said this:

“The universal recognition of human rights can be harmful, if universalism is studied to deny or mask the reality of diversity.”

The localized human rights become more convincing when it comes down to economic, social and cultural rights. These rights are also known as positive rights in the sense that the state has the positive duty to assure decent living or at least produce conditions conducive to such life.

The point is this: all human rights are of universal value, but depending on the local conditions, they cannot be realized everywhere to the same degree. In short, the degree of the guarantee of such human rights cannot be universal.

There are also third generation of human rights which are not covered in operational terms in the first and the second generation human rights; these rights are collective rights designed to protect specific groups of people such as women, religious and cultural minorities, elderly people, children, the disabled and so on. Later in this paper, a partial list of these rights will be shown.

Evolution in the Fight for Human Rights

The first fight for freedom was the Magna Carta of 1215. It was the fight against unpopular king and the protection of the right of the Church and Barons.

The most important battles for the human rights promotion were the Declaration of American Independence of 1776 and the Declaration of Man and the Citizen of the France’s National Constituent Assembly of 1789. The key message of these documents was the idea that “Man is born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

The first important international covenant on human rights was the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR) which was followed by two other international human rights covenants, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 and the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR)

Image: The universal declaration of human rights 10 December 1948 (Licensed under Public Domain)

The universal declaration of human rights 10 December 1948.jpg

This was one of the decent things ever done by human beings.

No less than 193 countries adopt the UDHR.

It has 24 articles roughly divided into three parts.

Part 1. (Articles 1 to 11): the judicial system suitable for human rights protection. For instance, Article 5 prohibits torture, while Article 11 argues for innocence before proven guilty.

Part 2. (Article 12 to 17): civil rights. For example, Article 12 is about privacy, while Article 17 is concerned with private property.

Part 3. (Article 18 to 24): political rights. Article 18 is about the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCOR)

Adopted by 179 countries.

It has four parts and 53 articles.

Part 1. Article 1 deals with the right to self determination (Article 1-1) and the duty of the State (Article 1-3).

Part 2. State responsibility (Article 4 to 5): Article 4-1 is concerned with racial discrimination. Article 4-1 explains the role of international institutions.

Part 3. (Article 6 to 27): the UN’s human-right related functions. For instance, Article 6-2 asks the abolition of death penalty. Article 18-3 merits our particular attention. It explains the limit of religious freedom:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religious or belief may be subject only to such limitation as are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or the fundamental rights and freedom of others.”

What this article is saying is that religious freedom is not absolute; it should be contextualized.

Part 4. (Article 28 to 45): the organization of the UN’s human-right related UN institutions including UN Human Rights Committee and Commission. Article 28-2 specifies that the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) is composed of 18 members. Article 41-1 specifies how inter-government human-right related dispute should be dealt with through the UNHMC.

Part 5. (Article 46-53): The legitimacy of the ICCPR. Article 46 says that the ICCPR does not impair the provisions of the UN Charter and the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the responsibility of UN agencies. 

The International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 (ICESCR)

Adopted by 171 countries.

It has 4 parts and 31 articles.

Part 1. (Article 1): deals with the right to self determination.

Part 2. (Article 2 to 5): international cooperation, rights of women: Article 2-3 is of particular interest: “Developing countries with due regard to human rights and their national economy may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.” This allows the developing countries some flexibility in the range of human rights protection.

Part 3. (Article 6 to 15): Labour, education, daily necessities. Articles 6 to 9 are concerned with labour rights. Article 10 is for education right. Article 11 is for the right to food clothing and housing. Article 12 is for public health.

Part 4. (Article 16-31): role of UN agencies for human rights, in particular the role of the UN Economic and Social Council.

List of Human Rights Conventions

In addition to UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR, we have the following international agreements on human rights and national declaration of human rights:

  • The Covenant on the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)
  • The International Convention of the Statute of Refugees (1951)
  • The European Convention on Human Rights (1954)
  • The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Language Minorities (1966)
  • International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966)
  • The UN Declaration on the Human Environment: The right to freedom and equality in the condition for life of dignity (1972)
  • International Convention against Torture and Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Punishment (1984)
  • The African Charter on Human Rights under the auspice of the African Union (1986)

It is interesting to notice that Article 19 guarantees the right to equality; Article 20 is about the right to self determination; article 21 the right to natural resources:

  • The UN Convention of the Right of Children (1989)
  • The UN Declaration on Indigenous People (2007)
  • The La Via Campesina Movement (2008)

This movement had a huge assembly in Jakarta to promote the international convention on the protection of peasants; 200 million peasants support it worldwide; the meeting was attended by representatives of 20 countries. The movement was approved by the UN General Assembly in 2018 supported by 121 countries.

  • The Beijing Declaration on Human Rights. In this Declaration, human rights are the unity of individual and collective rights. To be more precise, individual rights cannot be harmonized, if collective economic and social entitlement is not sufficient (2017).

Western critics think that this is an international blackmail against the West’s attachment to individual rights and freedom. The third world human rights are hostage with the notion that without more economic aid, economic and social rights cannot be enjoyed in the Third World.

This is true, indeed, because the Third World has provided cheap labour and natural resources which have made the West rich.

In recent years, there is a movement for the protection of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC), but there is no international convention.

There is one other group which is not covered by an international convention; it is the right of senior people who may need more protection than other groups.

One of the controversies on human rights is about the proliferation of international human rights agreements, which the former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was quoted to have said:

“Indeed, human rights proliferation is watering down and diluting focus on protecting basic liberty.”

Here, Pompeo is alluding to the individual freedom of American version which values the merciless competition for the sake of efficiency and business profit.

What he is saying is that the government should not interfere with the free action of individuals and businesses; he does not consider the cases where the liberty of one person can harm that of another person.

Take, as an example, the right to free public assembly. Most national constitutions guarantee the right to free expression, even in so-called authoritarian countries like Iran, China, Russia and North Korea.

However, there is one condition for the guarantee of this freedom; such freedom should not threaten national security. But, even in liberal democratic country like the U.S., violent public protest such as the “June 6 Washington protest” is a criminal act; its leaders are expected to be charged for their activities. In fact, as long as we live in a society, absolute freedom cannot be tolerated.

The authoritarian countries especially China and North Korea are criticized for violating  civil and political rights.

In the West, for individual liberty such as individual property, free assembly, free choice of religion, freedom of speech and other civil and political rights, the government should not interfere.

The Western perception of freedom may seem logical, but in reality, it is just impossible for a responsible government not to set up the red line which cannot be ignored. In other words, even in the U.S., individual rights cannot be tolerated without considering the danger of undermining the collective right of the American society.

In China, it is the official position that civil and political rights are vertically structured. The individual right is subordinate to the collective entity; the right of the collective entity is subordinate to the right of the State; the right of the State is subordinate to right of the nation. The basic idea is that individual rights and the collective rights are to be assured simultaneously.

Violation of Civil and Political Human Rights in Asia

The Western opinion makers try to make the world to believe that in Asia, human rights violation is the monopoly of China and North Korea.

Civil rights mean the right to healthy physical and mental life requiring safety, non-discrimination, freedom of opinion, press, religion, association and movement. On the other hand, political rights mean the right to vote, political party membership and other politics-related activities. It is to be noted that political and civil rights can be the same; the distinction is blurred.

What we will see in this section is how difficult it is to find countries that are free from human rights violations. There are always the strong and the weak ones. The strong wants to despise and exploit the weak. Such is human nature. In other words, violation of human rights is a part of human life. No country, whether liberal or authoritarian, can say it is clean. Therefore, what is wise and constructive is to avoid labelling other countries as human violators and rather cooperate to fight against human rights abuse.

None of the Asian countries I discuss here is free from being violator of human rights. I will discuss the human rights violations by types.

I have decided not to mention the names of the violators and the violated to respect their confidentiality.

The Sexual violence: The case of rape of women is particularly high in India. In September 2020, a Dalit woman was raped and murdered by a group of upper-class men in Hathra District in Uttar Pradesh and she was cremated by the police without consulting her family. There are dozens of other reported cases where low-class women were raped by upper-class men.

The crime of rape is not confined to India. In many countries, lot of girls are raped every day by the rich and the powerful. Lots of women are raped by close life-partners in developed countries.

Mass killing of people: Mass killings by the government or large corporations in complicity with corrupt governments are widespread. In India, since the BJP took over the power in March 2017, 77 people were killed and 1,100 were injured by 2020. In the Philippines, a Major General killed thousands of political activists. In Malaysia, on 25th of August 2018, the military assisted by several ethnic groups attacked Rohingya villages, raped and massacred the poor people. More than 362 villages were destroyed, more than one million Rohingya people were excluded from the Census; 12,800 were displaced.

Immunity Killing: In India in February 2020, violence erupted that killed 50 Muslims. On April 18 in Uttar Pradesh, a Muslim man died in a hospital after being beaten by the police. In July 2020 in Kashima, three young workers were killed by the Indian army in an apple orchard. In Cambodia, a prominent political commentator was murdered after a Cambodian general ordered the army to kill anyone who foments turmoil. One of the worst mass immunity killings took place in Indonesia between 1965 and 1966. Millions of Indonesian communists, Chinese, trade union leaders and others were killed.

The violation of the right to freedom of speech, expression, opinion and the press: In India in recent years, 49 people including cinema-related people were convicted of sedition charges for having written a letter to the Prime Minster expressing concern over hate crimes. A journalist with Hindustar was killed for writing about the political leaders.

In Pakistan on the 29th of May 2011, a journalist of the Pakistan Bureau of the Asia times was abducted and killed. In Cambodia, the authorities revoked the license of Mohanokor Radio which broadcasts for Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. In Indonesia in March 2017, two French journalists were deported from Papua for a reporting that may have displeased the authorities. In Malaysia in April, 2017, the government threatened to withdraw the license of a Chinese language newspaper because of the publication of a satirical cartoon about the parliament’s debate on Islamic law.

In Myanmar in December, 2018, the police arrested two reporters for reporting on the violence of the security forces against the Rohingya people. They were charged for possessing leaked documents related to the security forces operations. In Thailand in March 2017, Voice TV, Spring News Radio, Peace TV, TV24 were forced to temporarily close operations because of their critical reporting against the government.

The violation of the freedom of press occurs when government prevents by force the reporting of unfavourable news. But, is the government’s sin of violating the right to free press always bad? Suppose that the press use the freedom of press to topple the good government. In such case, would it not be justified to restrict the freedom of press?

Take the case of South Korea. The government of Moon Jae-in did his best to free the Korean people from injustice committed by the corrupted conservative elite. Under Moon’s government, the press is completely free. But the press does everything to topple Moon’s government so that they can have a part of wealth stolen by the corrupt conservative elite group. To what extent should we allow the right to free press?

In many developed countries, the press abuse their freedom to promote the interests of corrupt privileged groups. Hence, we have to be careful before labelling certain countries for the violation of the freedom of press.

Persecution of human rights activists: The violation of the right to the promotion of human rights is another wrongdoing of many countries. In Cambodia in 2017, the government detained four senior staff member of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC). In August 2018, a Women’s Rights defender was arrested during “Black Monday”, day of protest for the release of five ADHOC members. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In August 2019, the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs closed the US-funded Democratic Institute and expulsed foreign staff members.

In Myanmar on January 1, 2017, a prominent Muslim lawyer, senior advisor to NLD (National League of Democracy under Aung Saan Suu Kyi) was shot to death. In Vietnam in 2017, 40 human rights activists were arrested under the National Security Law.

Racial/Religious Discrimination: In India in February 2020, the India Supreme Court ruled to evict two million people from tribal communities. In August 2020, the government of India published the National Registration of Citizens excluding three million people mostly Muslims. In Indonesia in March 2017, a Jakarta court handed down 5-year imprisonment to two leaders of non-Muslim religious community. On May 9, former Jakarta governor, a Christian, got 2-year prison life for blaspheming Islam.

In Malaysia in August 2018, the government has ordered to remove a statue of a woman with wings from a park for being atheist. In Myanmar, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Buddhist religions are threatened on a daily basis. In Vietnam, the Christian Church and Buddhist Temples are under constant surveillance.

The Violation of the Right to Assembly: In Malaysia, the Society Act requires that all organizations of 7 persons or more must register. In Thailand in August 2017, several academic people who attended the International Conference on the Thai Studies in the province of Chiang Mai were charged with the violation of NCPO (National Council for Peace and Order) policy.

On November 27, the Thai police dispersed peaceful protests in a province against the construction of a coal power plant. In Vietnam, no labour union is allowed; no assembly for human rights is allowed. In Singapore, public assembly is allowed only at predetermined place, namely Hong Lun Park, where the “speaker corner” is located; no foreigner is allowed.

Abduction: There are many cases of abduction without trace. In the Philippines in August 2016, a girl was abducted on her way to work with no trace.

In 2019 in Asia as a whole, there were 2,500 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances. In Thailand in August 2004, it was found out that a Muslim lawyer disappeared since 1980.

Other Violations of Human Rights: There are cases of violations of the rights of children. For example, in Indonesia, thousands of children were working on tobacco fields risking exposure to pesticides.

Unlawful detention seems to be widespread. In Singapore, under the Internal Security Act and Criminal Laws, persons can be arrested and detained for unlimited period without any charge of judicial review. In Thailand, under the law of NCPO (National Council for Peace and Order) the military can detain for 7 days without charge and without a lawyer.

To sum up, the human race has been trying for centuries to promote and respect human rights. An impressive number of institutions and international agreements have been established in order to combat the violation of human rights. The UN has allocated an important amount of scarce resources to the protection of human rights. Furthermore, every country has some sort of mechanism created to uphold and improve human rights.

However, the reality is not encouraging. Every country is a victim of human rights violations.

It is perhaps inevitable as long as there is the strong and the weak; as long as there is the rich and the poor. It is human nature that the strong exploit the weak; the rich despise the poor.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to label a certain country as human rights violator. What we can do is to minimize the destructive effects of human rights violations. For this, we need more international cooperation and, especially, more binding laws.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Study Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM. 

He is Research Associate of the Center of Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of Human Rights Violations: “The Right to Live a Dignified and Decent Living”
  • Tags: ,

 

Author’s Note and Update

The World has been in a state of crisis for more than three years despite the fact that the WHO and the CDC (with the usual innuendos) have unequivocally confirmed that the RT-PCR test used to justify every single policy mandate including lockdowns, social distancing, the mask, confinement of the labor force, closure of economic activity, etc. is flawed and invalid.

The same applies to the roll-out of the mRNA Vaccine in December 2020. 

This article was first published on March 21, 2021 focussing on the WHO’s Mea Culpa dated January 20, 2021.

The WHO advisory was then followed a few months later by the bombshell decision of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (July 21, 2021) to withdraw the PCR test as a valid method for detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2.  

As of December, 31 2021, the PCR test is longer considered valid by the CDC in the U.S. 

For more details see

Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 29, 2021

What this implies is that both the CDC and the WHO have formally acknowledged the failures of the RT-PCR test, without however implementing a shift in the methodology of  detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2.

The Mainstream Media Now Reluctantly Acknowledges that the PCR  Test is Flawed

After having sustained the propaganda campaign, the mainstream media has now tacitly acknowledged that the PCR TEST IS INVALID.

Below is an excerpt from London’s Daily Mail on something which has been known and documented by scientists and the independent media from the outset of the corona crisis in January 2020.

The report below is convoluted. It is an obvious understatement:

“Did flawed PCR tests convince us Covid was worse than it really was?  …

It has been one of the most enduring Covid conspiracy theories: that the ‘gold standard’ PCR tests used to diagnose the virus were picking up people who weren’t actually infected.

Some even suggested the swabs, which have been carried out more than 200 million times in the UK alone, may mistake common colds and flu for corona.

If either, or both, were true, it would mean many of these cases should never have been counted in the daily tally – that the ominous and all-too-familiar figure, which was used to inform decisions on lockdowns and other pandemic measures, was an over-count. (Daily Mail, March 12, 2022, emphasis added)

It is carefully worded with a view to protecting the decision-makers.

The PCR Test is the Smoking Gun. There is No Pandemic

We are not dealing with mistakes as suggested by the above media report.

If the PCR test is invalid and meaningless, this means that there is no such thing as a “Covid-19 Confirmed Case”

The results of the PCR test routinely tabulated by the WHO have been used to justify the lockdown policies imposed on more than 190 member states of the United Nations.

Economic and social chaos has been triggered Worldwide, and these actions adopted by corrupt governments in the course of the last three years are of  criminal nature. They are not mistakes.

And if there is no Pandemic, there is no need for a vaccine.

The Covid-19 mRNA “Vaccine” is the BIGGEST FRAUD IN MEDICAL HISTORY

For further details see my E-Book (15 Chapters) entitled:

The  Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 2022

 

See also my recent article on the failed identification of 2019-nCoV, which is related to the flawed RT-PCR test. 

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 08, 2023

Video: The Non-existent “New Corona Virus”?

Michel Chossudovsky, Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media

 


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 9, 2023

 

***

 

 

 

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed:

Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless.

Both the Lockdown and the “Vaccine” Have No Scientific Basis

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

March 21, 2021

 

Nobel Prize Laureate Kary B. Mullis was the inventor of  the polymerase chain reaction technique, which is analyzed in this article.

Dr. Kary B. Mullis, who passed away on August 7, 2019 at age 74, stated emphatically that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with the RT-PCR. His legacy will live. 

“PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick.  … The measurement is not accurate”. 

Mullis described the RT-PCR as a “technique” rather than “a test”.  

It is a useful technique which allows for “rapid amplification of a small stretch of DNA”.  

 

Introduction

There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions in the course of the last 20 months.

The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID. 

From the outset in January 2020, all far-reaching policy decisions upheld and presented to the public as a “means to saving lives” were based on  flawed and invalid RT-PCR case positives. 

These invalid Covid-19 “estimates” have been used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, as well as the mRNA “vaccine” launched in November 2020. 

The RT-PCR Test

The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the  SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of  a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)

Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. (See original WHO document here as well as in Annex)

While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).

The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)

The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.

If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 18 months are invalid.

According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.

The WHO’s Mea Culpa

Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”. The full text with link to the original document is in annex:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.  

 


I should mention that there are several other related flaws regarding the PCR test which are not addressed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book: click to download The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity  (Chapter III)


From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of  the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.

And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore,  the official “covid numbers” are meaningless.

It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.

Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.

According to scientific opinion:

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)

As outlined above, “the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”: It follows that using  the >35 cycles detection will indelibly  contribute to “hiking up” the number of “fake positives”.

At the time of writing (mid-March 2021), despite the WHO retraction, the PCR test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to sustaining the fear campaign, justifying the ongoing lockdown policies as well as the implementation of the Covid vaccine.

Ironically, the flawed numbers based on “invalid positives” are in turn being manipulated to ensure an upward trend in so-called “Confirmed Covid -19 Cases”.

Moreover, those PCR tests are not routinely accompanied by a medical diagnosis of the patients who are being tested.

And now, national health authorities have issued (fake) warnings of a “Third Wave” as part of their propaganda campaign in support of the Covid-19 Vaccine.

The WHO confirms that the Covid PCR test procedure as applied is invalid. There is absolutely no scientific basis for implementing the Covid Vaccine.

Both the WHO and the scientific assessment of Pieter Borger, et al (quoted above) confirm unequivocally that the tests adopted by governments to justify the lockdown and the destabilization of national economies are INVALID.

Invalid Data and the Numbers’ Game

It should be understood that these “invalid estimates” are the “numbers” quoted relentlessly 24/7 by the media in the course of the “First Wave” and “Second Wave”, which have been used to feed the fear campaign and “justify” ALL the policies put forth by the governments:

  • lockdown,
  • closure of economic activity,
  • poverty and mass unemployment,
  • bankruptcies
  • social distancing,
  • face mask,
  • curfew,
  • the vaccine.
  • the health passport

Invalid Data. Think Twice Before Getting Vaccinated

And Now we have entered a so-called “Third Wave”. (But where’s the data??)

It’s a complex “Pack of Lies”.

It’s a crime against humanity. 

***

VIDEO

click lower right hand corner to access vimeo / full screen

CENSORSHIP: The original video was taken down by Vimeo on March 5, 2022

Below is version on Rumble

***

Our thanks to Vaccine Choice Canada 

 

 

The Video is produced by Ariel Rodriguez, Global Research

Followup Reading 

For an in-depth analysis of the Corona Crisis crisis see Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book (15 Chapters) entitled:

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État against Humanity

***

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

***

Postscript

Since its release on March 21, 2021, quite unexpectedly tens of thousands of people have read this article.

My intent was essentially to Refute and Reveal the Big Lie (focussing on scientific and statistical concepts) without directly addressing the broader implications of the lockdown and closure of economic activity.

This diabolical project which emanates from the upper echelons of the financial establishment (including the World Economic Forum) is destroying people’s lives Worldwide. It is creating mass unemployment, triggering famines in developing countries.

With some exceptions including Tanzania, most of the 193 member states of the United Nations have endorsed the WEF’s “corona consensus”.

The Truth is a peaceful yet powerful weapon.

Now is the time to confront those governments and demand a repeal of the lockdown policies which are triggering poverty and despair Worldwide.

The WHO’s BIG LIE is refuted by the WHO.

The alleged pandemic is a scam. That is something which cannot be denied or refuted.

And that was the object of this article.

It’s a complex scam based on “a pack of lies” with devastating consequences.

In the course of the last 14 months starting in early January 2020, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the Covid crisis. From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic.

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

Click to consult:

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity 

(E-Book, 15 Chapters)

Also please forward this article. Your support is invaluable.

Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research


Full text of the WHO directive dated January 20, 2021

 

Annex

 

Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) Technologies that Use Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Date: 13 January 2021                                                                      

WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

  1. Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
  2. Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
  3. Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
  4. Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Notes

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

*

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

The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

November 10th, 2024 by Dean Henderson

 

Of relevance to the current crisis, this carefully researched article was first published by Global Research more than ten years ago on June 1, 2011.

***

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.

According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]

So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?

This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.

One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]

J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches.

He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York.

Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3]

The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.

Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4]

The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as “conspiracy theory”. Yet the facts remain.

The House of Morgan

The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.

Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds. In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”. [5]

Author Gabriel Kolko stated, “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild.” [6]

The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe. Morgan Grenfell operated in London. Morgan et Ce ruled Paris. The Rothschild’s Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia.

The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont. Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.

By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt’s central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects. A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan’s power. That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]

Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts. In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller’s budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship.

The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control. A New York Herald headline read, “Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust”. J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, “Competition is a sin”, now opined gleefully, “Think of it. All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men.”[8]

Morgan and Edward Harriman’s banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehman, Goldman Sachs and Lazard joined the Rockefellers in controlling the US industrial base. [9]

In 1903 Banker’s Trust was set up by the Eight Families. Benjamin Strong of Banker’s Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the US government. If their overseas loans went unpaid, the oligarchs could now deploy US Marines to collect the debts. Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate.

The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy. The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty. By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the US. The first American wave of mergers was in its infancy and was being promoted by the bankers. In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers. By 1899 there were twelve-hundred. In 1904 John Moody – founder of Moody’s Investor Services – said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. [10]

Public distrust of the combine spread. Many considered them traitors working for European old money. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie’s US Steel and Edward Harriman’s railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds.

Several Western states banned the bankers. Populist preacher William Jennings Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908. The central theme of his anti-imperialist campaign was that America was falling into a trap of “financial servitude to British capital”. Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this spreading populist wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.

In 1912 the Pujo hearings were held, addressing concentration of power on Wall Street. That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her substantial shares in New York’s Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust. Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interlocking board directorates. In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed.

Jack Morgan – J. Pierpont’s son and successor – responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production. He argued that the US needed to enter WWI. Goaded by the Carnegie Foundation and other oligarchy fronts, Wilson accommodated. As Charles Tansill wrote in America Goes to War, “Even before the clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan & Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100 million, a substantial part of which was to be left in the US to pay for French purchases of American goods.”

The House of Morgan financed half the US war effort, while receiving commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO. All were Morgan clients. Morgan also financed the British Boer War in South Africa and the Franco-Prussian War. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts. [11]

In the 1930’s populism resurfaced in America after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bank and others profited from the Crash of 1929. [12] House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, “It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all”.

Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936. Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the US into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry. Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to “the old goddess of democracy trick”, through which Japan could be used to lure the US into WWII.

In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of “America’s 60 Families”. Historian Ferdinand Lundberg later penned a book of the exact same title. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas decried, “Morgan influence…the most pernicious one in industry and finance today.”

Jack Morgan responded by nudging the US towards WWII. Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families – Japan’s two wealthiest clans – who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates. When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident. Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank liaison during WWII. After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. [13]

The House of Rockefeller

BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds. [14]

BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France.

Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan,

“to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements.”

The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference. Instead the Eight Families’ power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank. The US Federal Reserve only took shares in BIS in September 1994. [15]

BIS holds at least 10% of monetary reserves for at least 80 of the world’s central banks, the IMF and other multilateral institutions. It serves as financial agent for international agreements, collects information on the global economy and serves as lender of last resort to prevent global financial collapse.

BIS promotes an agenda of monopoly capitalist fascism. It gave a bridge loan to Hungary in the 1990’s to ensure privatization of that country’s economy. It served as conduit for Eight Families funding of Adolf Hitler- led by the Warburg’s J. Henry Schroeder and Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam. Many researchers assert that BIS is at the nadir of global drug money laundering. [16]

It is no coincidence that BIS is headquartered in Switzerland, favorite hiding place for the wealth of the global aristocracy and headquarters for the P-2 Italian Freemason’s Alpina Lodge and Nazi International. Other institutions which the Eight Families control include the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference and the World Trade Organization.

Bretton Woods was a boon to the Eight Families. The IMF and World Bank were central to this “new world order”. In 1944 the first World Bank bonds were floated by Morgan Stanley and First Boston. The French Lazard family became more involved in House of Morgan interests. Lazard Freres- France’s biggest investment bank- is owned by the Lazard and David-Weill families- old Genoese banking scions represented by Michelle Davive. A recent Chairman and CEO of Citigroup was Sanford Weill.

In 1968 Morgan Guaranty launched Euro-Clear, a Brussels-based bank clearing system for Eurodollar securities. It was the first such automated endeavor. Some took to calling Euro-Clear “The Beast”. Brussels serves as headquarters for the new European Central Bank and for NATO. In 1973 Morgan officials met secretly in Bermuda to illegally resurrect the old House of Morgan, twenty years before Glass Steagal Act was repealed. Morgan and the Rockefellers provided the financial backing for Merrill Lynch, boosting it into the Big 5 of US investment banking. Merrill is now part of Bank of America.

John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920’s. The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller’s power. His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship. The Kuhn-Loeb’s had financed – along with Rothschilds – Rockefeller’s quest to become king of the oil patch. National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry. The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870’s, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]

One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank. Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella. Two of James Stillman’s daughters married two of William Rockefeller’s sons. The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]

In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life. Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19] Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman’s of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.

Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.

The Rockefeller Foundation has close financial ties to both Ford and Carnegie Foundations. Other family philanthropic endeavors include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, General Education Board, Rockefeller University and the University of Chicago- which churns out a steady stream of far right economists as apologists for international capital, including Milton Friedman.

The family owns 30 Rockefeller Plaza, where the national Christmas tree is lighted every year, and Rockefeller Center. David Rockefeller was instrumental in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The main Rockefeller family home is a hulking complex in upstate New York known as Pocantico Hills. They also own a 32-room 5th Avenue duplex in Manhattan, a mansion in Washington, DC, Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, coffee plantations in Ecuador, several farms in Brazil, an estate at Seal Harbor, Maine and resorts in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. [20]

The Dulles and Rockefeller families are cousins. Allen Dulles created the CIA, assisted the Nazis, covered up the Kennedy hit from his Warren Commission perch and struck a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to create mind-controlled assassins. [21]

Brother John Foster Dulles presided over the phony Goldman Sachs trusts before the 1929 stock market crash and helped his brother overthrow governments in Iran and Guatemala. Both were Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders and 33rd Degree Masons. [22]

The Rockefellers were instrumental in forming the depopulation-oriented Club of Rome at their family estate in Bellagio, Italy. Their Pocantico Hills estate gave birth to the Trilateral Commission. The family is a major funder of the eugenics movement which spawned Hitler, human cloning and the current DNA obsession in US scientific circles.

John Rockefeller Jr. headed the Population Council until his death. [23] His namesake son is a Senator from West Virginia. Brother Winthrop Rockefeller was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and remains the most powerful man in that state. In an October 1975 interview with Playboy magazine, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller- who was also Governor of New York- articulated his family’s patronizing worldview, “I am a great believer in planning- economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”

But of all the Rockefeller brothers, it is Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded the family’s fascist agenda on a global scale. He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta. He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.

Nixon asked him to be Secretary of Treasury, but Rockefeller declined the job, knowing his power was much greater at the helm of the Chase. Author Gary Allen writes in The Rockefeller File that in 1973, “David Rockefeller met with twenty-seven heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China.”

Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]


Read Part II:

History: The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild

By Dean Henderson, May 08, 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] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91

[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95

[3] “The Federal Reserve ‘Fed Up’. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02

[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[5] Ibid. p.53

[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142

[7] 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.57

[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990

[9] Marrs. p.57

[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.178

[11] Chernow

[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148

[13] Chernow

[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000

[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112

[16] Marrs. p.180

[17] Ibid. p.45

[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981

[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977

[20] Ibid

[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992

[22] Marrs.

[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296

[24] Marrs. p.53


Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network: Henderson, Dean: 9781453757734: Amazon.com: BooksBig 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.

Ukraine’s people have experienced the most extreme distress in recent times, the kind of extreme distress that had not been since the Second World War. What is more, the future of the country has become extremely grim and uncertain. It is not at all clear just now when the ongoing war will stop, but in addition what is no less uncertain is how the enormous reconstruction and rehabilitation after the war that is obviously needed will be financed.

When the war ends, to what extent will Ukraine be indebted? This also brings in the question of to what extent all the ‘help’ that Ukraine has been receiving from its western supporters is a grant and to what extent this has to be paid back, and if a significant part of this has to be paid back, will interest be charged on this.

The IMF recently stated in an estimate that if the war ends in late 2025, Ukraine’s debt will be 108% of GDP around that time, and this can only start to fall in 2028. If the war continues into 2026, debt can rise to 136% of GDP.

If peace is to be reached soon at the initiative of Trump-led USA, Russia from its strong position can be expected to drive a hard bargain. It is highly unlikely then that Russia’s ‘stolen money’ in the form of profits derived from its frozen assets in the west will be available for Ukraine and any reparations are even less likely. It is in the context of this growing indebtedness and economic crisis that the post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation challenges must be considered by all well-wishers of the Ukrainian people.

In these difficult times can the Ukrainian establishment led by the President Mr. Zelensky provide appropriate leadership for peace? He is widely identified with positions on the basis of which it will be extremely difficult to clinch peace when the window of opportunity opens for this. 

Senator J.D. Vance, whose words now carry much greater weight in his capacity as Vice President elect, had written in The New York Times on April 12, 2034 (‘The Math on Ukraine does not add up’) that the American and Ukraine leadership should accept that Mr. Zelensky’s stated goals for the return to 1991 borders are not at all realistic. In the same article Senator Vance had also criticized those in the USA who were arguing that arms supplies to Ukraine help US industry. He stated—the notion that we should prolong a ‘bloody and gruesome war’ because it has been good for American business is ‘grotesque’.

So, on the one hand, the position of the Ukrainian president is unrealistic and, on the other hand, this is unlikely to get the support of the new or incoming US administration. So can there be any justification for prolonging the war further with all the immense distress including loss of human lives that it involves on daily basis? This is a question that both Mr. Zelensky and several of his supporters among European leaders will have to ask themselves and seek an honest answer keeping in mind foremost the interests and safety of the Ukrainian people.

However as the indications so far are that the Ukrainian establishment led by Zelensky is unable to articulate the best interests of the Ukrainian people, there is clearly need for independent platforms, created by the Ukrainian people (perhaps among the diaspora if there are too many internal constraints) which can make possible continuing dialogue and discourse on how the interests of the common Ukrainian people are best achieved, moving forward, and how their safety and security can be best ensured. Such a continuing discourse, conducted sincerely and honestly, can play a very important role at this critical juncture, in making available and spreading various information, ideas and suggestions which can help a lot in finding the best path forward for Ukraine. Apart from obtaining and circulating the views of Ukrainian people, these platforms can benefit from the views of various senior and experienced scholars and statesmen of the world who have been known for their deep commitment to peace with justice.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

Featured image: Sputnik / Evgeny Kotenko


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

This document was translated from Arabic by Amir Nour.

I am Yahya, the son of a refugee who turned exile into a temporary homeland, and turned a dream into an eternal battle. As I write these words, I recall every moment that has passed in my life: from my childhood in the alleys, to the long years of imprisonment, to every drop of blood that was shed on the soil of this land. 

I was born in Khan Yunis camp in 1962, at a time when Palestine was a torn memory and forgotten maps on the tables of politicians. I am the man whose life was woven between fire and ashes, and who realized early on that life under occupation meant nothing but permanent imprisonment. I knew from a young age that life in this land is not ordinary, and that whoever is born here must carry an unbreakable weapon in their heart, and be aware that the road to freedom is long. 

My will to you starts here, from that child who threw the first stone at the occupier, and learned that stones are the first words we utter in the face of a world that stands silent before of our wound.

I learned in the streets of Gaza that a person is not measured by the years of their life, but by what they give to their homeland. This was my life: prisons and battles, pain and hope. I entered prison for the first time in 1988, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, but I did not know a way to fear. In those dark cells, I saw in every wall a window to the distant horizon, and in every bar a light illuminating the path to freedom. In prison, I learned that patience is not just a virtue, but rather a weapon, a bitter weapon, like drinking the sea drop by drop. 

My will to you: do not fear prisons, for they are only part of our long journey toward freedom. Prison taught me that freedom is not just a stolen right, but rather an idea born of pain and refined with patience. When I was released in the “Loyalty of the Free” prisoner exchange deal in 2011, I did not emerge the same; I emerged stronger and so did my belief that what we are doing is not just a passing struggle, but rather our destiny, one that we carry until the last drop of our blood. 

My will to you is that you continue to cling to the gun, to the dignity that cannot be compromised, and to the dream that does not die. The enemy wants us to abandon resistance, to turn our issue into an endless negotiation. But I say to you: do not negotiate over what is rightfully yours. They fear your steadfastness more than they fear your weapons. Resistance is not just a weapon we carry, but rather it is our love for Palestine in every breath we take, it is our will to remain, despite the siege and aggression. 

My will to you is that you remain loyal to the blood of the martyrs, to those who departed and left us this path full of thorns. They are the ones who paved the path of freedom for us with their blood, so do not waste those sacrifices in the calculations of politicians and the games of diplomacy. We are here to continue what the first generation started, and we will not deviate from this path no matter the cost. Gaza was and will remain the capital of steadfastness, and the heart of Palestine that never stops beating, even if the world closes in around us.

When I took over the leadership of Hamas in Gaza in 2017, it was not just a transfer of power, but rather a continuation of a resistance that began with stones and continued with rifles. Every day, I felt the pain of my people under the siege, and I knew that every step we take toward freedom comes at a price. But I tell you: the cost of surrender is much greater. 

Therefore, hold on firmly to the land as roots cling to the soil, for no wind can uproot a people who have chosen to live. In the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood, I was not the leader of a group or movement, but the voice of every Palestinian dreaming of liberation. I was guided by my belief that resistance is not just an option, but a duty. I wanted this battle to be a new chapter in the book of Palestinian struggle, where the factions unite and everyone stands in one trench against an enemy that has never differentiated between a child and an old man, or between a stone and a tree.

The Al-Aqsa flood was a battle of spirit before it was a battle of bodies, and of will before a battle of weapons. What I have left behind is not a personal legacy, but a collective one, for every Palestinian who dreamed of freedom, for every mother who carried her son on her shoulder as a martyr, for every father who wept bitterly for his daughter who was killed by a treacherous bullet.

My final will to you is to always remember that resistance is not in vain, nor is it a bullet fired, but a life that we live with honor and dignity. Prison and siege taught me that the battle is long, and that the road is difficult, but I also learned that peoples who refuse to surrender create miracles with their own hands. Do not expect the world to do you justice, for I have lived and witnessed how the world remains silent in the face of our pain. Do not wait for fairness, but be the fairness. Carry the dream of Palestine in your hearts, and make every wound a weapon, and every tear a source of hope.

This is my will to you: do not lay down your weapons, do not throw away your stones, do not forget your martyrs, and do not compromise on a dream that is rightfully yours.

We are here to stay, in our land, in our hearts, and in the future of our children.

I entrust you with Palestine, the land I loved until death, and the dream I carried on my shoulders like a mountain that never bends.

If I fall, do not fall with me, but carry for me a banner that never falls, and make my blood a bridge for a generation that will rise from our ashes stronger. Do not forget that the homeland is not a story to be told, but a reality to be lived, and that with every martyr a thousand more resistance fighters are born from the womb of this land.

If the flood returns and I am not among you, know that I was the first drop in the waves of freedom, and that I lived to see you continue the journey.

Be a thorn in their throat, a flood that knows no retreat, and do not rest until the world acknowledges that we are the rightful owners, and that we are not just numbers in the news bulletins.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

On September 5th, the European Commission representative signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law on behalf of the European Union. According to the statement by the European Commission the Convention will be implemented in the EU by means of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act.

In the Convention preamble, it is stated that one of the reasons why this convention should be approved is due to the concern that the artificial intelligence systems can be used “for repressive purposes in violation of international human rights law, including through arbitrary or unlawful surveillance and censorship practices that erode privacy and individual autonomy”.

It also states that the AI systems “have the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy and the rule of law”, that the Convention is meant to oblige the government signatories to introduce in their legal systems measures that would prevent such abuse of AI systems.

It says:

“Each Party shall adopt or maintain measures to respect human dignity and individual autonomy”

“Each Party shall adopt or maintain measures to ensure that adequate transparency and oversight requirements…are in place … including with regard to the identification of content generated by artificial intelligence systems “

“Each Party shall adopt or maintain measures to ensure accountability and responsibility for adverse impacts on human rights, democracy and the rule of law resulting from activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems”

“Each Party shall ensure that, where an artificial intelligence system significantly impacts upon the enjoyment of human rights, effective procedural guarantees, safeguards and rights, in accordance with the applicable international and domestic law, are available to persons affected thereby”

“Each Party shall seek to ensure that important questions raised in relation to artificial intelligence systems are, as appropriate, duly considered through public discussion and multi-stakeholder consultation in the light of social, economic, legal, ethical, environmental and other relevant implications”.

The Convention is supposed to enter into force on December 5, 2024 in the USA, EU, United Kingdom and six small European countries, which signed it on September 5.

It is hardly questionable, whether signature of this convention will stop the abuse of human rights, which is already ongoing in the world for up to 40 years according to the hearing entitled “Silent weapons: Examining foreign anomalous health incidents, targeting Americans in the homeland“, that was held this past May by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, where the Havana syndrome was discussed.

The witness Christo Grozev from Bellingcat investigative group said there that Russian diplomats made similar complaints in the 1980s. A Member of the Homeland Security Committee Eliah James Crane asked witnesses, if the use of the same weapons against Russians “might have something to do with part of the CIA’s motive to cover up the existence of this tech and these weapons”. Grozev replied “that is a very logical possibility”.

Mark Zaid, American attorney, who represents several patients with Havana syndrome symptoms and who holds a security clearance replied to the question on whether there are people outside of the U.S. Government employees in the USA, who complain about Havana Syndrome attacks:

“There are many people, who believe they are victims of AHI [anomalous health incidents]. All you have to do is to look at my Twitter feed, whenever I post on the topic”.

On June 10, 2016, the New York Times published the article “United States of Paranoia”, about Americans claiming to be victims of neuro-technological attacks. It wrote about a “group organized around the conviction that its members are victims of a sprawling conspiracy to harass thousands of everyday Americans with mind-control weapons and armies of so-called gang stalkers. The goal, as one gang-stalking website puts it, is ‘to destroy every aspect of a targeted individual’s life’. The New York Times stated: “The community, conservatively estimated to exceed 10,000 members, has proliferated since 9/11”.

It is rather evident that to those people the Convention on Artificial Intelligence will not help, since it states:

“Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of this Convention”.

The Russian politician Vladimir Lopatin, who was fighting for the ban of those neurotechnologies by the end of the last millennium, in 1999 wrote in the book Psychotronic weapon and the security of Russia” that psychotronic war is “actually taking place without declaration of war”. This may easily mean that people, who are part of this war or people who are being experimented on as part of preparations for this war, will be considered to be a part of government activity related to national defense.

Under such circumstances the war will continue until one of the superpowers wins it and will control the brain activity of people around the world.

Why do you believe that the CIA and the U.S. Government would otherwise prevent the U.S. Congress from publication of the use of those technologies against American diplomats and employees of security agencies?

Why do you believe the U.S. Government would allow the continuation of Havana syndrome attacks on its employees?

Why do you think the USA is refusing the use of Chinese Huawei systems for 5G technology and American government employees must not use Chinese Tik Tok?

What do you think the U.S. computers, Facebook and other components of internet could be used for?

Can you guess what will happen if 6G will connect human brains to the internet?

It is high time for the world to wake up and demand the international ban of the use of those technologies, controlled by the democratic United Nations Organization without veto powers.

Another severe warning people should take into account is that the Convention does not disclose what technology AI could use to produce adverse impacts on “human rights, democracy and the rule of law”. How can the general public participate in the discussions on the dangers connected with the use or abuse of AI, if they do not know, how those impacts could be produced? And where is the transparency that was promised?

In August of this year, 12 human rights organizations from around the world proposed to 1790 world media for publication an article explaining, how the artificial intelligence systems could be used for this purpose and only few alternative servers afforded to publish it.

In the mass e-mailed letters to editors we suggested that they should join other addressees of this article to participate in the rebellion against the classification of mind control technologies, since collective rebellion against the rise of new totalitarian superpowers cannot be punished in the democratic world. There seems to be only a little hope that those technologies will be declassified and the ban of the use of mind control technologies will be publicly discussed and implemented in a way that will allow the public or the human rights organizations and the UN to oversee the implementation of this ban.

Without public control of the use of AI systems, there will be no guarantee that the governments will observe the measures introduced to prevent the use of those technologies against its own or foreign citizens or for experimentation on their citizens for “defense purposes”.

The European parliament’s Artificial Intelligence Act does not present any positive changes. When reading the Report of the Human Rights Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council entitled “Impact, opportunities and challenges of neurotechnology with regard to the promotion and protection of all human rights“ you will realise that the United Nations are not authorized to disclose the principles of functioning of neurotechnologies that could be used to abuse the fundamental human rights and destroy democratic political systems. However the UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet said in September 2021,

“AI technologies can have negative, even catastrophic, effects if they are used without sufficient regard to how they affect people’s human rights”.

Readers can sign the petition asking the European Union to declassify the mind control technologies and can also help introduce the international ban of the use of neurotechnologies abusing the fundamental human rights by disseminating information about those neurotechnologies on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.

*

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.

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War 

Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in  communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since 1981 until 1988 lived in emigration in the USA. Since 1996 he has published articles on different subjects mostly in the Czech and international alternative media.

In 2010, he published a book on the 9/11 attacks in the Czech language. Since the 1990s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.

Featured image copyright Markus Schneeberger

First published on May 15, 2024

The world is dangerous to live, 

not so much because of those who do evil, 

but because of those who watch and let it happen. *

Let’s not go around the bush. 

I am referring to the so-called COVID-19 pandemic that led to the injection of a product of composition still unknown to billions of people, from 2021, under a pretext advanced as an indisputable dogma, that of stopping the said pandemic.

So-called experts took turns on all the radio and television waves of the world to tell us that this infection was fatal and that the only way to stop it was to be injected with a product presented as a new generation, effective and harmless vaccine.

And billions of people believed it and received this injection, not once, but for a large number, several times. And it is not over and continues to be advocated, strongly recommended for pregnant women, children and old people.

 

Today, in May 2024, what can we say about it, by being humble, honest, scientific, the most impartial examiner possible of the facts, free from any conflict or even any link of interest and only seeking to get as close as possible to the truth, whether we like it or not?

As soon as I perceived the discrepancies in the official speech (the canary in the mine**), fully assuming my function as anesthesiologist-resuscitator, intensivist, at the front lines in a large acute hospitalization service in Belgium, I published an article entitled:

COVID-19, check your sources. War against…corruption? “, April 12, 2020 [1].

The term “war” refers to the expression used six times by French President Emmanuel Macron in his speech of March 16, 2020, We are at war“, implied, for him, against a virus while a war against pandemic scientific and media corruption would save many more human lives!

It was premonitory because it is vital in this kind of crisis to discern the truth of the lie; to verify what we are told, especially when the author of the lie is presented as an expert and expresses himself without citing any of his sources, relying only on his largely manufactured reputation and on the complicity, conscious or not, of journalists who do not question anything that this expert says.

Beware that the most effective lies are half-truths or are sown in the otherwise coherent discourse, like almost invisible, imperceptible grains.

The devil is always in the details.

This is what has happened to almost all the official statements denounced in the last four years as indisputable truths by our “benevolent” authorities, assertions subsequently denied, quickly or later, by the facts and serious, independent and courageous analysts given the extreme censorship and extensive intimidation to which they have been subjected.

For my part, I refer you to the many articles written between April 2020 and January 2023, on this site www.mondialisation.ca, addressing almost all the subjects concerned, confinements, early treatments including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, RT-PCR diagnostic technique, vaccines, masks and totalitarian drift [2].

For almost everything, the facts will have proved me right.

I’m far from being the only one.

I only come back to a few illustrative points.

Hydroxychloroquine, an old and well-known treatment, with marginal side effects if the pharmacology and dosages (doses) are respected and which has been shown to be effective in the early treatment of COVID-19. 

With other doctors, including many fields, from many nations, I said this very early and the facts confirmed this truth yet offended by official experts, including the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, which withdrew its hostile and fraudulent article 12 days after its publication [3] creating the scandal called Lancetgate.

However, you will notice, and it is a habit, that all the doctors in the world, those in the field called general practitioners or family doctors, have not been warned of this rehabilitation of hydroxychloroquine by these same media from all countries, unanimous and very noisy when it came to spreading a lie, discreet or even silent when it came to restoring the truth.

We can make the same observation with ivermectin [4].

As a doctor, I personally treated hundreds of people with acute respiratory infection labeled COVID-19 in 2021 with correctly dosed ivermectin.

This treatment has been safe and effective, often from the first day of treatment, including in people at risk and fragile, very old, obese, chronic heart or respiratory insufficiency, thus avoiding changes to more serious forms, reducing hospital overload and the period of contagiousness; with an inexpensive, harmless drug that can be prescribed to pregnant women without risk to the fetus, and known since the 1980s, widely prescribed in Africa in particular.

Where are the articles and documentaries relating this truth, in all our written or spoken media?

Have you seen a rehabilitation of these really effective and safe treatments (at the recommended dosages) since the facts proved right to all those who advocated them as early as 2020 or 2021?

Me, no.

On the contrary, doctors, among others, who have treated and talked about their success have been (and still are) threatened with radiation, suspension, prosecution and defamed in this press that continues to lie and support the vaccine in its entirety.

While the facts prove us right. And the so-called “vaccine”?

Based on current data and the decline since 2021, in England, it has been known since September 2023 that COVID-19 vaccinated people die more than unvaccinated people: Further Proof: The “Age Adjusted Argument” has been Crushed by the mRNA Data Avalanche. While this will thankfully Crush mRNA investment, sadly it has also Crushed so many Victims along the way. (substack.com), as analyzed by the French statistician Pierre Chaillot, author of a remarkable book, COVID-19, which is revealed by the official figures, éditions l’Artilleur. Here is the video where Pierre Chaillot analyzes English statistics: Revelation of a new English study: we know who dies the most! (youtube.com).

Really, I encourage you, 4 years after my first article, to reread them all.

On the one hand, we have inexpensive treatments, effective especially since they are early, harmless in case of use according to the prescription rules, treatments that have proven their worth (I can attest to it personally), 

And on the other hand, we have injections of a product with an unknown complete composition, fraudulently called “vaccines”, very expensive but very profitable for the shareholders of the companies that manufacture them and all those they have corrupted, and which we now know to cause excess mortality and an outbreak of side effects in populations around the world (cancers, autoimmune diseases, degeneration, acceleration of cellular aging…).

But our authorities, the press, the official “experts” continue their way without blinking, continuing to shoot honest scientists and caregivers who are independent of any financial link with the globalized system, and who contradict them by relying on the facts.

Why do the vast majority of people continue to let it happen? And to let yourself go? Because the key to the exit door is in them.

In each of us.

It’s about our survival.

Now, I will give more of my personal opinion, my deduction. 

It’s only that, my opinion, even if the past showed that I had seen clearly on many of the subjects concerned, do not believe me on my word or by friendship.

Check, check, read articles, books, watch the videos I inform you to enlighten you, and make your own opinion.

Everything I say from now on can still evolve. 

This is the true honest science, never to freeze on a position, a belief that would become an unbeatable dogma, regardless of the contradictory facts or the painful need to admit to having been wrong. No. Especially not.

While having the courage to affirm what we think at some point, whether we like it or not, even if it attracts us trouble, suspension, cancellation, tax control, or even worse.

I hope that all readers on this site will therefore have understood that we have been lied to; sometimes intelligently and subtly, more often in a rude and authoritarian way, using human weaknesses through fear, conformism, selfishness and lazioness.

Why?

To depopulate an overcrowded land, using odious means, an almost imperceptible, “sweet” genocide, in which, if we do nothing, do not react, we are all accomplices, by action or omission.

It began with the abandonment of vulnerable and fragile people, the elderly, isolated, dead of dehydration, deprivation of affection, love, and the most basic care on the pretext of… saving them!

This continued by prohibiting early treatments that were safe and effective and by inducing immense fear in people, since they were told to wait to get worse, that while waiting for that, they could do nothing (impotence) except ingest paracetamol, toxic to the only element that could still protect them, glutathione.

I will always remember this elderly doctor, abandoned to his fate, and crying when he came to my house, just because I had listened to him and reassured him.

This has been amplified by launching this global campaign to inject a toxic, ineffective and yet presented as safe and effective product and of which we know today, at least on the basis of the statistics of the countries that want to publish them, that it kills more than it saves.

While everything or almost everything is forbidden in pregnant women, magically, it had become acceptable to “violate” their immune-compromised sacred body, endangering the most vulnerable being, totally dependent on others for its survival, the human fetus.

How many miscarriages, stillbirths, malformations in the world today, in connection with this criminal policy?

This video, the first chapter of a series that has three, based on serious and documented research (sources cited in the video), will enlighten you on the issues and the underside of this tragedy.

🧠Eugenist 2.0 & Transhumanist: their open war against peoples – 1/3🗣️ Alain Schollaert – CrowdBunker

It is on the Crowdbunker platform, because on YouTube, immediately published, immediately censored which, indirectly, is a strong indication that it really disturbs liars, as only the truth can do.

The following episodes will be published on May 19 and May 26.

Watch, listen and draw your conclusions.

It is vital because we want to train you in a world that you, here, do not want, neither for you, nor above all, for your children.

Depopulation. 

It is in this case of a cruel, revolting cynicism because those who decide to do so do it in their golden bunker, well sheltered, having proclaimed themselves kings of the world simply because they have looted this world, stolen the riches that belong to all humanity and that strong of their dollars and euros, their relationships, their “powers”, they decide who will die or live. 

They use lies brilliantly and coldly, they exploit the flaws of the democratic system and above all, rely on our weaknesses skilfully excited by all the means at their disposal, drugs, sports, music, television, agitation, sex…

We have become too many for them, walking on their flower beds and they have launched what corresponds to the 2030 agenda. Yes, you read well, it’s for 2030 and we are there!

Psychological manipulation pushed to its climax, fears, invisible or little visible attacks for many years [5] by chemical pollution of air (chemtrails), water, electromagnetic waves (4G, 5G, but also our Wifi, televisions, electrical appliances…), and today, these nanomolecular poisons directly injected into the human body.

As a corollary, it is a question of removing cash and replacing it with all-digital.

To make the human as inert and predictable as a machine without a soul or own mind, much easier to direct and exploit.

This video developed by the Corsican-Belgian researcher Alain Schollaert, on the channel of the very good Akina, the Media Front, also talks about a delicate but oh so vital subject, too!

The manufactured, so-called “controlled” opposition. The false opposition or Trojan horse that participates in a perverse, sometimes unconscious way, in the dissemination of the official narrative and its fulfillment by capturing dissenting wills.

How to find your way around without paranoia or discouragement?

Here again, these are my deductions, I assume them but make your own opinion.

However, do not delay or make a mistake because this is what your life is at stake, yours and that of your loved ones.

The decisions you will make, the actions you take will all depend on the information you have chosen to trust, the whistleblowers you have chosen to follow because yes, there are false ones, more or less aware of what they are doing.

First, beware of the “heroes” made by this tragedy. 

Seek humility, discretion, true modesty in those who speak to you.

There are no heroes. No pedestal, no resistance elites, no prestigious characters! 

Look for those who can talk about everything, without taboos, both messenger RNA and graphene oxide, programmed genocide and the deadly vaccine industry! Look for those who admit their mistakes, are tolerant, those who do not take others from above, who do not present themselves as experts in turn, which would mean that by their title alone, we should listen to them religiously.

Do you remember the Swiss researcher Astrid Stuckelberger, censored in a congress of “resistants” just because she wanted to address the subject of graphene oxide, as if some could decide their sole authority on what we can talk about or not.

We are all ordinary citizens immersed in extraordinary circumstances that have revealed what our true nature is made of. 

Those who spoke and acted, some of whom were very conformist in normal times, those who resisted, refused to blindly follow the orders only did so because they could not do otherwise, yet very lucid about the terrible risks they ran, dismissal, harassment, imprisonment, poisoning, social or fiscal murder.

It is not out of heroism but out of moral obligation.

It is in these circumstances, at the heart of the action, that we really discover who we are. Not before.

Then, look at who was visible, carried to the clouds even, and who was ostracized, very quickly or gradually. 

Look at who is censored especially on YouTube and who is not or less so. Do not draw hasty conclusions but make your spirit of deduction work.

When some have been able to publish books without problems, translated even into several languages, talk about them on radio, you have other serious authors who are never talked about and translated. It’s a sign.

Do you know Didier Raoult, Louis Fouché, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Jean-Dominique Michel, Xavier Azalbert…? 

I’m sure it is. The “tenors“, the “pillars“…

And Melody Feron, Denis Rancourt, Sasha Latypova, Tess Lawrie, Alain Schollaert, Laurence Kayser? Much less, right?

But again and it’s crucial, make your own opinion.

The real whistleblowers are invisible. It makes sense. The lie does not tolerate the truth that destroys it with a single glance. 

The real resistance fighters are excluded, even by the so-called resistant or awakened circles, who therefore do what they criticize precisely in the other camp, elitism and selection.

The video report by Alain Schollaert, sourced, connecting all the points of this labyrinth of corruption and secret objectives, speaks for itself.

The intention of these forces of evil is terrible.

It is Primum Nocere: above all, harm (as opposed to the oath of any caregiver, primum non nocere, above all not to harm).

These are conspiracies. This is not a theory and those who still tell you this are either individuals of the mental age of a child preferring a false world but they know, or dishonest or even complicit people.

All the evidence of this plot against humanity is there, before our eyes, today. As evidenced by the enormous work of lawyer Reiner Fuellmich now imprisoned [6]. 

And it will not be the well-known collectives, which have become well-oiled and admitted machines for some time, nor the so-called resistant press organs that will help you get out of there.

It’s you, us, me, you, him, her.

We. Together.

Everyone defending their soul and spirit in the face of the devastating attack.

Starting by freeing yourself from the evil influences that capture you and lock you in a dead end of the labyrinth. They have foreseen an impasse for each of us, since the time they have been working on this diabolical project.

They knew very well that some would not swallow their lies and would have the courage to resist. They left nothing to chance. They tried to plan everything, to propose an alternative solution for each of us.

Whatever the name of this trap for you, I pray that as many people as possible, after reading this article and especially the vision of Eugenist 2.0 & Transhumanist: their open war against the peoples, directed by Alain Schollaert, will see clearly and take back the personal power they have at the bottom of their soul and we will survive all this.

Because they won’t win. 

They cannot violate your soul without your consent, which is why they do everything to deceive it, mislead it, weaken it and steer it in the wrong direction.

Be brave, lucid, calm, think and then act, be afraid of nothing and allow the best in you, brighter, good and beautiful, the love force of your blazing heart to radiate and extinguish all this darkness.

Dr. Pascal Sacré

Featured image: Screenshot. Whistleblower.

* I do not put an author because this kind of sentence is attributed to one or the other, without the possibility of verifying it. It is the sentence itself, universal, that is important because it summarizes the whole current problem.

** the canary in the coal mine: What does it mean to be a canary in a coal mine? – Spiegato

Endnotes: title translated into English, link to the original French

[1] COVID-19 – Check your sources. War against… corruption? | Globalization – Center for Research on Globalization

[2] Dr. Pascal Sacré | Globalization – Globalization Research Center

[3] The corruption of science. The scandal of the hydroxychloroquine study. Who was behind all this? Anthony Fauci’s intention to block the HCQ on behalf of major pharmaceutical companies | Globalization – Center for Research on Globalization

[4] COVID-19, a simple change of method and it’s over | Globalization – Globalization Research Center 

[5] Read the author Claire Séverac, and her book “the war against the peoples”: Claire Séverac – The secret war against the peoples: Claire Séverac: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive. This courageous activist was murdered through a mysterious dazzling disease in December 2016 (The death of Claire Séverac, an activist who disturbed the “establishment” – Health and Well-being – Sott.net)

[6] This is the beginning of the trial of Reiner Fuellmich (youtube.com)

*

Pascal Sacré has graduated in medicine, in Belgium, since 1995, at the University of Liège. He began a specialty in anesthesia-resuscitation in 1997, completed in 2002 and supplemented by a specialization in critical care in 2003.
He worked in a hospital environment, mainly in intensive care, for 18 years without anything ever being blamed for.
In his department, he worked on the development of a protocol for the management of pain, drug sedation and neurological complications such as delirium, a protocol retained by many peers in other hospitals.
Dismissed in 2020 from the hospital where he had been working for 9 years, due to positions contrary to the official health policy and a conflict with management over the COVID-19 crisis, he continued to defend his point of view despite adversity (dismissal without compensation, summons to the police station, defamation in the press, blacklisting in all Belgian intensive care services despite the recognition of his competence and professionalism, invisibility).
In 2021, he found an anesthesio-intensivist position at the center of the great burns, at the military hospital, in Belgium. This center depends on the Ministry of Defence and not directly on the Ministry of Health.
Dr Sacré trained at the University of Liège (Professor M-E Faymonville) in hypnotherapy in a medical environment.
Interested in everything that can help his patient get better, Dr. Sacré considers that nothing can be a priori rejected, such as the addition of natural medicines to chemical practices recognized in hospital settings, or conversely, a priori considered an untouchable dogma such as vaccination.
Everything deserves open-mindedness, tolerance, curiosity and honest research, with humility and good faith.
His mantra: “think for yourself”.
 Dr. Sacré, in order to help each person regain control of his health without waiting for interested circles to do so, gives training in the management of the mind, emotions, stress through the tools he has himself learned (cardiac coherence, breathing, language, self-hypnosis) and organizes workshops on health topics such as digestion, endocrine glands (thyroid, adrenal…), vagus nerves, in a language that is simple and accessible to all.
Its website: www.pascal-sacre.be and the associated email: [email protected] 
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization since 2009.

“A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.” — Silvia Guerini, radical ecologist, in ‘From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Posthuman Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology’ (2023)  

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. [1]  

Image source

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. [2]  

The billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.  

It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.  

Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.  

The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.        

Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.  

What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?  

To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.  

Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.  

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.  

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.  

People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.  

Silvia Guerini, whose quote introduces this article, notes the importance of deep-rooted relationships and the rituals that re-affirm them. She says that through rituals a community recognises itself and its place in the world. They create the spirit of a rooted community by contributing to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community.  

Professor Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.  

Humanity’s relationship with farming and food and our connections to land, nature and community has for millennia defined what it means to be human.  

Take India, for example. Environmental scientist Viva Kermani says that Hinduism is the world’s largest nature-based religion that:  

“… recognises and seeks the Divine in nature and acknowledges everything as sacred. It views the earth as our Mother and hence advocates that it should not be exploited. A loss of this understanding that earth is our mother, or rather a deliberate ignorance of this, has resulted in the abuse and the exploitation of the earth and its resources.”  

Kermani notes that ancient scriptures instructed people that the animals and plants found in India are sacred and, therefore, all aspects of nature are to be revered. She adds that this understanding of and reverence towards the environment is common to all Indic religious and spiritual systems: Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.  

According to Kermani, the Vedic deities have deep symbolism and many layers of existence. One such association is with ecology. Surya is associated with the sun, the source of heat and light that nourishes everyone; Indra is associated with rain, crops, and abundance; and Agni is the deity of fire and transformation and controls all changes.  

She notes that the Vrikshayurveda, an ancient Sanskrit text on the science of plants and trees, contains details about soil conservation, planting, sowing, treatment, propagating, how to deal with pests and diseases and a lot more.  

Like Nicholls, Kermani provides insight into some of the profound cultural, philosophical and practical aspects of humanity’s connection to nature and food production.  

This connection resonates with agrarianism, a philosophy based on cooperative labour and fellowship, which stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of urban life, capitalism and technology that are seen as detrimental to independence and dignity. Agrarianism, too, emphasises a spiritual dimension as well as the value of rural society, small farms, widespread property ownership and political decentralisation.  

The prominent proponent of agrarianism Wedell Berry says:  

“The revolution which began with machines and chemicals now continues with automation, computers and biotechnology.”  

For Berry, agrarianism is not a sentimental longing for a time past. Colonial attitudes, domestic, foreign and now global, have resisted true agrarianism almost from the beginning — there has never been fully sustainable, stable, locally adapted, land-based economies.  

However, Berry provides many examples of small (and larger) farms that have similar output as industrial agriculture with one third of the energy.  

In his poem ‘A Spiritual Journey’, Berry writes the following:  

“And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles,
no matter how long,
but only by a spiritual journey,
a journey of one inch,
very arduous and humbling and joyful,
by which we arrive at the ground at our feet,
and learn to be at home.”

But in the cold, centralised, technocratic dystopia that is planned, humanity’s spiritual connection to the countryside, food and agrarian production are to be cast into the dustbin of history.  

Silvia Guerini says [3]:  

“The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory… a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth”.  

This dehumanised humanity severed from the past is part of the wider agenda of transhumanism. For instance, we are not just seeing a push towards a world without farmers and everything that has connected us to the soil but, according to Guerini, also a world without mothers.  

She argues that those behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now have their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs, which would cut women out of the reproductive process. Guerini predicts that artificial wombs could eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a right for everyone, including transgender people. It is interesting that the language around pregnancy is already contested with the omission of ‘women’ from statements like ‘persons who can get pregnant’.  

Of course, there has long been a blurring of lines between biotechnology, eugenics and genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops, gene drives and gene editing are now a reality, but the ultimate goal is marrying artificial intelligence, bionanotechnology and genetic engineering to produce the one-world transhuman.    

This is being pushed by powerful interests, who, according to Guerini, are using a rainbow, transgenic left and LGBTQ+ organisations to promote a new synthetic identity and claim to new rights. She says this is an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial” and adds that all ties to the real, natural world must be severed.  

It is interesting that in its report Future of Food, the UK supermarket giant Sainsburys celebrates a future where we are microchipped and tracked and neural laces have the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms that could work out exactly what food (delivered by drone) we need to support us at a particular time in our life. All sold as ‘personal optimisation’.  

Moreover, it is likely, according to the report, that we will be getting key nutrients through implants. Part of these nutrients will come in the form of lab-grown food and insects.  

A neural lace is an ultra-thin mesh that can be implanted in the skull, forming a collection of electrodes capable of monitoring brain function. It creates an interface between the brain and the machine.  

Sainsburys does a pretty good job of trying to promote a dystopian future where AI has taken your job, but, according to the report, you have lots of time to celebrate the wonderful, warped world of ‘food culture’ created by the supermarket and your digital overlords.  

Technofeudalism meets transhumanism — all for your convenience, of course.  

But none of this will happen overnight. And whether the technology will deliver remains to be seen. Those who are promoting this brave new world might have overplayed their hand but will spend the following decades trying to drive their vision forward.  

But arrogance is their Achilles heel.  

There is still time to educate, to organise, to resist and to agitate against this hubris, not least by challenging the industrial food giants and the system that sustains them and by advocating for and creating grass-root food movements and local economies that strengthen food sovereignty.  

*

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.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Notes

[1] See Food, Dispossession and Dependency: Resisting the New World Order.  

[2] See Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth  

[3] A debt of gratitude is owed to Paul Cudenec and his article Truth, reality, tradition and freedom: our resistance to the great uprooting on the Winter Oak website, which provides quotes from and insight into the work of Silvia Guerini. 

As of the present, the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been the steady trend among universities worldwide as well as among educational institutions in our contemporary educational milieu. Artificial Intelligence is here with us to stay and it is counterproductive and counter-intuitive for both educators and learners to adapt the “Fight-Flight-Freeze” reaction in the shadow of the pervasive and prevalent utilization of AI in our contemporary education.

It is therefore incumbent upon all educational stakeholders, namely: administrators, support staff, and indeed teachers and students to respond proactively in an integral and holistic manner than react in an unreflective and piecemeal way regarding the issues of utilization and integration of Artificial Intelligence in our contemporary day-and-age. 

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education has opened up a world of possibilities, promising personalized learning experiences and streamlined administrative tasks. However, as I delve deeper into this realm, I find myself confronted with a myriad of ethical dilemmas that demand my careful reflection and consideration. In this essay, I will share my personal exploration of the complex ethical problems associated with the incorporation and utilization of AI in education and propose strategies to navigate and resolve these ethical complexities.

I.) The Problematics of AI Use in Education from the Perspective of Legality, Ethicality, and Authenticity

A.) The Problematics of Algorithmic Bias in Artificial Intelligence:

One of the most pressing ethical concerns in AI-driven education is algorithmic bias. AI algorithms, trained on the collation and gathering of data from the internet based on mainstream trending, may inadvertently perpetuate biases related to race, gender, or socio-economic status. For instance, automated grading systems may favor certain writing styles or penalize students from underrepresented backgrounds, leading to unfair outcomes and exacerbating existing inequalities in education.

As a teacher, algorithmic bias in AI hits close to home, stirring up deep concerns about fairness and equity in education. It is heart-wrenching to witness how these systematic errors in computer systems can sow seeds of injustice among my students. It means that resources and opportunities might be recommended based on skewed data driven by an algorithm bias fed by skewed computer algorithmic elitism, perpetuating inequalities in data and information fed by computer using its own algorithm. It is a gut-wrenching realization that biased assessments from AI algorithms could unfairly affect the students view and perspectives on issues and events, undermining their research results and limiting their view of the world.

Every day, I grapple with the weight of algorithmic bias in education, knowing that it has the power to shape the trajectory of my students’ viewpoints. It is deeply personal to me because I see the faces of those students who might be unfairly judged and limited by these biases fed by AI programmed algorithms. This issue is more than just algorithms and data; it’s about the very essence of education: the belief that every student deserves to know the complete facts and data and not just selected facts driven by selective algorithm fed by computer apps on them. As I reflect upon this problem of algorithmic bias and the problem of skewed data, selected facts, and twisted information fed by the algorithm of AI apps, I am driven by a fierce determination to advocate for my students, demanding transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the technologies that shape their learning experiences. Because as a teacher, my greatest hope is to create a classroom where every student’s potential can flourish, unencumbered by the shadows of selective and skewed information fed by the algorithmic biases coming from AI apps, AI-driven systems, as well as AI companies.

B.) Information Privacy and Data Security:

The issue of privacy and data security strikes a chord with me as I realize the magnitude of sensitive information amassed by AI-powered educational platforms. The thought of student data being vulnerable to breaches, unauthorized access, or misuse fills me with grave concern. Protecting this data is not just a matter of compliance; it is a matter of respecting the privacy rights of students and maintaining trust between educational institutions and their stakeholders.

C.) Transparency and Accountability:

As someone who values transparency, integrity, and accountability, I find the opacity of AI algorithms in educational decision-making processes deeply unsettling. Unlike traditional teaching methods where educators provide rationale for their decisions, AI-driven systems often operate as “black boxes,” leaving me questioning the accountability behind their recommendations. It is essential for me to understand how these systems arrive at conclusions or recommendations to ensure fairness and mitigate the risk of cognitive biases and factual errors.

D.) Digital Divide and the Need to See that No Student is Left Behind in the use of Digital Media and AI:

The digital divide poses yet another ethical dilemma that weighs heavily on my conscience. The thought that unequal access to AI technologies and digital infrastructure among students could widen the gap between the privileged and the marginalized students fills me with a sense of injustice. Bridging this divide is not just about providing equal opportunities; it is about addressing systemic inequalities and ensuring that all students have access to the tools they need in order for them to succeed.

E.) Impersonalized Education and Depersonalization of Learning:

The prospect of depersonalizing learning experiences through over-reliance on AI troubles me deeply. While AI can offer personalized learning recommendations based on data analysis, it lacks the human touch, the personal sensitivity, the emotive warmth, and the authentic person-to-person interaction that educators bring to the classroom. I fear that this depersonalization could hinder students’ socio-emotional development and detract from their integral and holistic learning experiences.

II.) Problems of Inauthenticity, Deception, Cheating, Plagiarism, Privacy, and Intellectual Property Rights: Possible Strategies and Recommended Resolutions to Address Ethical Challenges Posed by AI Use in Contemporary Education

For me, prioritizing algorithmic transparency is not just a recommendation; it is both legal and ethical imperative. Disclosing how AI systems operate, including the data inputs, decision-making processes, and potential biases, is essential for fostering accountability and trust. Transparent AI algorithms empower stakeholders, including educators, students, and parents, to understand and critique the system’s outputs.

Establishing robust data privacy regulations is another area where I feel very crucial in exploring the ethical and legal use of AI. These regulations should include strict guidelines for data collection, storage, sharing, informed consent, and data or information privacy; thus ascertaining that AI providers, AI programmers, and AI corporations fully and absolutely comply with ethical standards and legal requirements. Additionally, implementing encryption and other security measures is very crucial for protecting sensitive student data from breaches or cyberattacks.

Actively identifying and addressing biases in AI algorithms is a responsibility that I feel must be taken seriously by Artificial Intelligence programmers. Diversifying training data, conducting algorithmic bias audits, and incorporating fairness metrics into AI development processes are essential steps in minimizing the risk of algorithmic discrimination and skewed data or information selectivity. Furthermore, providing ongoing training and education to AI developers and stakeholders in recognizing and mitigating biases is crucial for promoting AI fairness and equity.

As someone who strongly believes in the power of inclusive education to transform lives, I am deeply concerned of this formidable challenge of bridging the digital and information divide. Prioritizing digital inclusion initiatives that provide equitable access to AI technologies and digital resources for all students is not just a goal; it is an ethical imperative. This involves educational institutions investing in digital infrastructures, providing subsidies for AI technology adoption, and offering training programs for faculty and students alike to enhance digital literacy skills to all educational stakeholders and to the marginalized communities deprived of access and training of digital technologies especially AI.

Emphasizing a human-centered education and person-centered teaching is at the core of my approach to addressing ethical challenges in AI education. AI technologies should complement, rather than replace the human educators’ active roles in the educational process. AI-driven technologies should be designed to augment teachers’ capabilities, facilitate personalized learning experiences, promote student-teacher learning collaboration, and enhance critical thinking skills among students, while preserving the warm and living human touch in imparting education to the studentry.

To close this essay, I must reiterate that Artificial Intelligence is here to stay and it is counterproductive and counter-intuitive for both educators and learners to adapt the Fight-Flight-Freeze reaction in the shadow of the pervasive and prevalent utilization of AI in our contemporary education.

Therefore, the incorporation and utilization of AI in education must be marked by a deep sense of responsibility to navigate ethical and legal quagmires surrounding AI prudently and responsibly.

By addressing issues related to algorithmic bias, data and information privacy, transparency, digital inclusion, and human-centered design, there is indeed a very serious ethical need and solemn responsibility for teachers, students, school administrators, and AI providers to harness the potential of AI to enhance teaching and learning experiences while upholding ethical principles and safeguarding student welfare. It is my sincere hope that by engaging in ongoing dialogue and collaboration, these education stakeholders can ensure that AI serves the best interests of teachers, learners, and the society as a whole.

*

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  

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-7 of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City, Philippines. He was Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014, and Program Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu from 2015-2016 and from 2018-2019. He is presently the Focal Point Faculty for Gender and Development in the University of the Philippines (UP) Cebu, College of Social Sciences. 

Prof. Espiritu’s research interests include Theoretical and Applied Ethics, Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence (Sunni Fiqh), Islamic feminist discourses, Islam in interfaith dialogue initiatives, Islamic environmentalism, Classical Sunni Islamic pedagogy, the writings of Al-Ghazali on pluralism and tolerance, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, Turkish Sufism, Ataturk Studies, Ottoman Studies, Genghis Khan Studies, Central Asian Studies, Marxian Political Thought, Muslim-Christian Dialogue, Middle Eastern Affairs, Peace Studies, Public Theology, Political Economy, Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Postmodernism in Philosophy.

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

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

[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.

Brave New World

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.

Nineteen Eighty Four (Version may vary) : Orwell, George: Amazon.ca: Books

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

[Incisive article by Peter Koenig first published by Global Research on June 14, 2023]

DARPA Neurologist and Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program at Georgetown University, Washington DC, Dr. James Giordano, who is also a weapons expert, started his presentation at West Point NY Military Academy by saying, “The brain is and will be the 21st Century battlefield. End of story.” 

.

.

.

DARPA stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a Pentagon thinktank.

Dr. Giordano talks about how Directed Energy can be and is being weaponized. Individuals’ brains can be targeted by microwaves, the type of 5G and soon to come 6G, of which you see antennas growing like mushrooms all over the word.

They tell you, it is to make your internet, and ever more sophisticated computers and smart phones faster, with more outreach capacity – and to help advance digitization.

This may all be true to some extent, but the real reason behind these microwave towers is to target YOU, the individual.

Why? From other sources we know that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is in full implementation.

Klaus Schwab, eternal CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF), published his book, “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution”, already in 2018.

In it he writes about such significant topics as Embedding Values in Technologies; The Internet of Things; Data Ethics; Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; and a special chapter on “Altering the Human Being”.

In this chapter, Schwab addresses biotechnologies, and neurotechnologies, transhumanism – precisely the science that Dr. Giordano was talking about in 2018 at the West Point Military Academy, and which is in full implementation.

If we connect the dots, we realize that the “Brain as the Battlefield of the Future” is NOW and that we were warned way ahead. According to Dr. Giordano, the science of neurotechnologies has started some 40 years ago and he, Giordano, has been part of it for at least 35 years. Therefore, warnings have been all over the place, at the latest by Klaus Schwab’s “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (available from Amazon).

The Death Cult has again given people warnings, according to its “rules” – way ahead of time, so, They may be successful.

Why is it, that we never take note of such warnings?

Because we do not believe in so much built-in evil in humanity? Or, because we do not want to leave our “comfort zone”, our dystopian view of a “safe world”? They know it. And we MUST break that boundary between comfort and reality. If not, we are doomed.

“If you are targeted there is virtually nothing you can do,” says William Binney, ex-NSA Technical Director and whistleblower. The NSA is the US National Security Agency, one of 15 US Intelligence Agencies.

If you want a lead-demonstrator to stop demonstrating, you target his brain with ultra-shortwaves.

We by now know them as 5G. You make them depressed, so they do not want to demonstrate anymore; you make them suicidal and the problem is resolved. You do this as many times as you want and create an ambiance of depression. These are paraphrased words of Barry Trower, ex-MI5 Microwave scientist and whistleblower.

Mr. Trower adds, that low-level micro-waves can cause all sorts of cancers and leukemias and further elaborates that for the past 40 years or so the UK Government, plus basically all the Anglosaxon governments, have been lying to their people, to protect not only the high-flying profits of these “industries of death”, but perhaps more importantly for not divulging the evil objective of total surveillance and enslavement that they have planned.

Today, we gradually see what this “plan” entails.

Through “Electronic Telepathy”, Trower adds, we are able to monitor the brain. If at one point, technology foresaw that tiny, hardly visible chip-implants were necessary in the brain to be able to electronically access individuals’ thinking – hence the highly magnetic graphene oxide in many of the covid vaxx-injections – this may no longer be necessary.

In other words, we are all vulnerable – vaxxed or unvaxxed – to mind interference through the worldwide coverage of 5G shortwaves. And the worst is, we may not even notice when it “hits” us.

Mind manipulations may take many forms. One of them is that people physically hear voices – it is not that people are imagining voices, but they can physically hear voices… it can be anything, anything you want to hear, or you are scared to hear, angelic voices or diabolical voices; to repeat the words of neuroscientists.

This technology may have been applied to the US Embassy personnel in Havana, first reported by US and Canadian Embassy staff in Havana, Cuba. The so-called Havana Syndrome, of 2016. This may be a cluster of idiopathic symptoms experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel. The symptoms range in severity from pain and ringing in the ears to cognitive dysfunction.

The Havana Syndrome has apparently now also been reported by US Embassy staff in China.

DARPA let a couple of contracts in 2011 / 2012 with the University of California for what is called “electronic telepathy”, to be able to monitor the brains of people at distance and to determine what they are thinking.

Under a separate contract the university was to investigate sending in signals to the brain of a person, literally sending them messages saying what they must think – and do. This is where the technology is today.

This could be used in your private life, as well as your professional life. It means, already today, they could make you do and behave as whatever they would like. They could make you a murderer, a cheater or just simply obedient to orders that may follow.

To repeat: “What you must know is that the brain is and will be the 21st Century’s battlefield”, says Dr. James Giordano, DARPA neurologist, during his talk at the Modern War Institute at West Point NY.

It is important to remember, especially since we should pay more attention to our surroundings, to people’s behavior, than what we are used to. We may deduct many lessons. So, that we may continue and expanding the field of connecting the dots.

In the video below, you will see a chart, indicating that Neuroscience, Neurotechnology in the Narcotics and Special Investigation Division (NSID), part of DARPA, has been “Valid, valuable and already in NSID use since 2014.”

The technology could be used to prompt you to commit mass murder. Are some of the “sudden and unexpected” school and shopping mall mass shootings are triggered by such mechanisms?

This is a distinct possibility, because in most cases the shooter is not apprehended and brought to justice, but immediately killed on the scene by the police, lest he might recall what happened to him and divulge the secret in court, the NSID use of the brain as a battlefield. In most cases the police simply say the “culprit” was know to the police, and / or had already a police record. This is to disguise you from thinking further.

Why are they doing it? They, being the “monsters”, which cannot easily be called humans.

To create terror, constant fear, to keep you on your toes. To get you used to terror and violence, as worse, much worse is to come, if they have their way. And we just comply, become depressed and passive, instead of rebelling in unison and Peace, but strongly rejecting the dominion of a few over us, the many.

Curiously, the Fourth Industrial Revolution does not give one single valid reason why all digitization, transhumanism, total control of humanity is good for humanity and for Mother Earth; nor does the Great Reset, nor does UN Agenda 2030.

We must stop this abuse of humanity, the human enslavement for the benefit of a few. For example, we can do so, among other actions, by collectively and in solidarity disabling the 5G / 6G antennas; by staying away as much as possible from vaxxes, from medication altering your brain activities, like causing depression, and extreme cheerfulness. Stay away from mainstream medication and especially from short-wave antennas.

Remember, scared people are easier manipulated. And that is one of the end goals, to manipulate you according to their will.

The DARPA expert, Giordano, who is also a prominent scientist in the US Health and Human Service Department – that speaks for itself – also talks about non-invasive technologies, such as the so-called “N3 Program”, the neurosurgical, neuromodulation and narcotics program.

“The idea is to put minimal size electrodes in your brain, for only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain function. In real time. Remotely….. influencing in ways that are kinetic and non-kinetic the attitudes, believes, thoughts, emotions, activities; look at the power and tools that brain sciences afford.”

This was the level of science in 2018, when Dr. Giordano gave his infamous speech at West Point. In the meantime, neuroscience has leaped forward, so that implants are no longer necessary.

Ex-MI5 Microwave scientist, Barry Tower, explains how they destroy a targeted individual. He says,

“If you want to cause a specific psychiatric illness, you would have the microwave beam always target a specific gland, or a specific part of the brain, or an eye, or a heart…” And there is nothing you can do. “If that doesn’t work, they can always send the FBI, take a photo, and then take you out in other ways.”

Intelligence communities, even those within governments, with the help of their algorithm-assisted surveillance tools, become so powerful that they escape the boundaries of the state for which they are working, become independent, and control the state that should control them.

We are moving in warp speed towards a Nazi-Stasi State which we see coming, but are incapable of doing anything against it, because we are not connected with each other, we are kept apart as individuals, with our little individual advantages and special treats – keeping us on individual leashes, purposefully away from uniting with others.

“Stasi” – for those, too young to remember, is a colloquial term to describe the East-German Ministry of State Security.

This affects not only the United States, but countries all around the world, especially the western world, which is still intent to remain THE Empire, emerging into a One World Order (OWO).

This can happen only with (i) a massively reduced population, to reduce resistance; (ii) with a scared-to-death population; and eventually, (iii) with the survivors transformed into easily manipulable transhumans.

How that works has very eloquently been demonstrated in the video above. Below is a summary version but equally explicit (23 min. video).

Is that the future that awaits us?

It sure looks like it, especially since most people, maybe as many as 99.999% of the people, have no clue, and are totally vulnerable but, as such, perfect guinea pigs for trials, to perfect their “brain battlefield”, so to speak.

This is not a life worth living. But suicide is not the answer. To the contrary, stepping out from under this diabolical system, being openly promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) with “The Great Reset”; WHO, with the international QR code-based vaxx and travel certificate enslavement; and the United Nations Agenda 2030, that may be read at par with The Great Reset.

The UN, what you may least believe, the UN with their Agenda 2030, with targets and goals virtually identical with the WEF’s Reset, has ceased to be what we all believe it is and what it was supposedly created for – supporting and enabling World Peace.

This cessation of “Peace Maker” of the UN system has started gradually, already decades ago. In fact, as far back as the Club of Rome’s “Limits of Growth” (1972), when inspired by the Rockefeller Brothers, the UN was to gradually follow the Limits of Growth agenda which had to do with massive depopulation and – yes, climate change.

A corner stone of change was the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. From then on followed almost on an annual basis the infamous UN sponsored COP conferences (COP – Conference of the Parties).

The last one, COP27, took place in November 2022 in Egypt. The annual repetition of COPs is a well-studied method of social brainwashing, manipulation à la Tavistock – has worked wonders. It is today hard to find anybody under the common people, who does not believe in the CO2-emitting man-made climate change. No matter what evidence to the contrary is produced.

The UN sell-out to a corrupt elite has taken a visible and giant step forward with the beginning of the Decade 2020, i.e., with the UN Agenda 2030. All of this must first sink into the brain of most people, before we can even start resisting and move into another sphere of vibration.

However, like with everything spiritual and dynamic, once a critical mass has started with critical thinking the move into the Light may be fast.

Moving into the Light is what is predicted for 2023 / 2024. In no ways should this prediction be taken as a “lean-back” and watch-what-happens encouragement. To be FREE is only a right, if we defend it and fight for it. Let us not leave cracks for diabolical seduction.

Before we can step out, we must recognize these diabolical “Illuminati” methods and stand up in unison against them.

This writing is about spreading this information on the brain as the ongoing and next battlefield”. Many will find it so off their current-thinking matrix, they will just shake their heads in disbelief, or calling such facts and news “misinformation”. Many of us, have been there. It does not matter. We must continue the offense with the truth.

The field of those who start thinking on their own, is growing; of those who come to the same conclusions, that we are being enslaved by a small but powerful elite, and the evidence that it is high time to escape this enslavement, is overwhelming.

Indeed, the era where our brain is the next battlefield needs to be fought against with all our vigor.

We do not want battlefields of any kind. We want PEACE.

*

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.

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 lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and 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.

Featured image is from the US Army

[This can be read in 51 languages via the “Translate Website” dropdown menu above. This can also be downloaded as PDF by clicking the PDF button above the featured image.]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

World War III Is “On” But the Empire Has Already Lost.

An American Civil War Looms.

Spiritual transformation is the only way to prevent extinction.

 

 

By Richard C. Cook

 

 

Global Research E-Book, September 2024


This eBook is dedicated to the memory of the millions of human lives lost in WWI, WWII, and now WWIII.


 

Featured photo: “Sacred Ground”

Dunker Church remained standing at the center of the Antietam Battlefield, Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862, “the bloodiest day in American history.”

Photo courtesy Karen Tintle-Cook

Based on an article originally published on VT Foreign Policy. 

Copyright 2024 by Richard C. Cook. 

Copying, printing, transmission, and translation are authorized under Fair Use. 

Direct all inquiries to [email protected] including notification of reprinting or translation.

 


 

About the Author

 

Richard C. Cook is co-founder and lead investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute.  Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Space Shuttle, documenting his story in the book “Challenger Revealed.” After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. See his new book, Our Country, Then and Now, Clarity Press, 2023. Also see his Three Sages Substack at https://montanarcc.substack.com and his American Geopolitical Institute articles at https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/category/agi/

“Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014. Also download the Kober Press edition of The Book on the Living God here. 

 


Table of Contents

 

Preface 

Chapter 1:

Introduction 

Chapter 2:

How Did We Get Here? 

Chapter 3:

Key Dates: 1880-1990 

Chapter 4:

Key Dates: 1991-2024 

Chapter 5:

The Plan is Population Reduction 

Chapter 6:

American Civil War II? 

Chapter 7:

Spiritual Transformation 

Addendum 1:

The Fourteen Holy Helpers 

Addendum 2:

Richard Wagner (1813-1883) 

Addendum 3:

Jesus on a White Horse 

 

A Note on Documentation: Major sources have been indicated, but every statement made in this eBook has documentary backing which may or may not be cited. Of course, the author takes responsibility for the entire content. Also, while some of the statements in the text may be shocking to some readers, it is still necessary that they be made. Finally, the text has been reviewed in its entirety by several responsible experts, so that it is in this sense the product of a community of individuals that has been interacting for some time. 


 

Preface

 

I was born in 1946 in Missoula, Montana, then the heart of one of the most wild and remote parts of the continental U.S. Mom had grown up in the wilderness around Seeley Lake, where her dad worked in the lumber camps. My dad was attending Montana State College on the GI Bill. My memories are impressionistic: a small house at the foot of a mountain, dressing up like an Indian, wandering off one night and being found by neighbors. 

Dad was hired by Dow Chemical, so we lived in Midland, Michigan, until the summer of 1960. It was a typical family life in a small Midwestern factory city: School and church. Baseball and football seasons. A chemistry set for Christmas. Howdy Doody on TV. But also an awakening to American history around the 8th grade, especially Civil War history. The question of the day: Should Communist China be allowed to join the UN? The shock of Sputnick. 

When I was 13, Dad was transferred to a Dow/Badische plant near Williamsburg, Virginia, and life suddenly changed. We lived near the Restored Area of Colonial Williamsburg (CW) that had been created through the philanthropy of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. High school had two social classes: the town kids coming mainly from families associated with CW or the College of William and Mary, and the country kids whose families went back to Confederate days or even earlier. Of course, the schools were segregated.

And moving from a place in Michigan where there were lakes, farms, and forests surrounding the town, I now lived a mile from the CIA “farm” and close to one of the largest conglomerates of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Aerospace facilities in the world. Military-industrial-complex-land!

Our high school sent its top students to Ivy League universities, so I was on track for Yale. But the morning of November 22, 1963, I was called to the office, where I learned President John F. Kenney had been shot. Maybe it was a coincidence, but my life seemed like it was falling apart after that. I later started at Yale but dropped out after six weeks. Nothing there resonated. But I ended up making Phi Beta Kappa at the College of William and Mary and a career with the federal government. 

I’d like to mention a peculiar incident from my senior year. 

I was then the student head of the James Blair High School International Relations Club. Our faculty adviser had gotten us an invitation to a conference being held at the Williamsburg Lodge. We showed up, but before our group was able to attend any sessions, I got word that we had been disinvited due to the “bad behavior” of some of our student members. It was a surprise. I had never witnessed any of this. The date was April 11, 1964. 

Or maybe someone was hiding something. 

Many years later I learned that the conference was being put on by the Bilderberg Group. At this conference there took place the first meeting between Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei and mega-banker David Rockefeller. It was the start of the merger between globalist finance and worldwide population reduction that is still going on and ruling world events today. 

From the assassination of JFK and the meeting between Peccei and Rockefeller, there is a straight line that marks the trajectory of the catastrophe that I characterize in this eBook as the start of World War III and possibly the American Civil War II. 

I have been a close-up witness to that trajectory, including 32 years as a federal government analyst and the years of writing I have done since then. It’s what I have witnessed that this eBook is about. 

Thanks for reading. I hope you get something out of the pages that follow. Many thanks to Michel Chossudovsky and his colleagues at Global Research for publishing them. Let me know what you think. 

“Be Not Afraid.” 

 


 

Chapter I:

Introduction

 

We have seen many dire warnings that the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East risk escalation into World War III, a war between the U.S. and its “allies” vs. Russia, Iran, and China (RIC), three nations labeled by U.S. military doctrine as “threats” or “adversaries.” Not far behind on the hit list are North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and a host of fence-sitting nations from the “Global South.”

I contend that the hot phase of World War III actually began with the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

A more accurate name for what the U.S. is fronting for is the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire, whose aim for over a century, as we shall discuss, has been total world conquest. 

In today’s warnings, World War III is equated with a global nuclear conflict. Of course, since the end of World War II, a nuclear “first strike” on Russia by U.S. military planners has never been off the table. 

But a global nuclear conflict lies at the far extreme of the potential for devastation. If we can acknowledge that World War III has already begun, I contend further that the Empire and its signature globalist ideology have already lost. The Empire in fact is imploding. The globalists are in a panicked retreat, trying to cover their rear ends with noise, threats, provocations, lies, and bluster. The number of people fooled by all this shrinks by the day. 

The question then becomes, what happens next? I contend that the sequel has also already begun and is revealing itself within the U.S. as a possible American Civil War II, which is arguably a continuation of the first Civil War of 1861-1865. This should not be surprising, as history repeats itself in long waves that engage the same underlying forces. 

Along with many Americans, Europe has also begun to liberate itself from the Empire to which it has been subservient for over a century. Even staunch backers of NATO and its pretentions, like Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, have stated that, as quoted by Simplicius, “There is no willingness in Europe to have a war with Russia. This is an absolute red line.” 

Besides Russia, the focal point of the next phase of European history is likely, as we shall further discuss, the German-speaking world, where even German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, long viewed as a U.S. lapdog, is now calling for negotiations to end the crisis in Ukraine. 

But will the Empire blow up the world first? 

Where Is the “Declaration of War”?

The more-than-semantic difficulty is that even though the U.S. has been at war with somebody almost continuously since World War II, “war” has never been declared by Congress, such declaration seeming to naïve people as being required for armed conflict by that relic of bygone days, the U.S. Constitution. 

Instead, there have been various congressional “resolutions” authorizing force, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution during the Vietnam War or the 2001Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), days after 9/11. (Here we’ll refrain from talking about “false flags.”)

Following 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, bombed Libya, and inserted proxy jihadist forces into Syria against its legitimate government, with no congressional declaration of war. These conflicts came after the U.S./U.K./NATO destroyed Yugoslavia, finishing it off with Bill Clinton’s 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia. 

Not to mention U.S. sponsorship of a mind-numbing quantity of “color revolutions” fomented by the CIA and other Deep State agencies, including NGOs run by the Soros gang and multiple “think tanks” like RAND, to overthrow insufficiently-compliant regimes via “democratic” street demonstrations, etc. U.S. support of jihadist groups like ISIS has also been part of the mix, including in Syria and against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine.  

So how in this environment of lunacy and ambiguity do you tell when a war has really begun? The problem became worse when initiatives like the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992—see below) opened the door to preemptive attacks on countries that just might be plotting harm to U.S. “interests.” How could you even get a congressional resolution to justify that? With the aforesaid “first strike” on Russia, for instance, it would be difficult to gain the needed surprise while the action was being debated in Congress! 

Semantics aside, many aver that a full-blown hot world war may be in the offing, with the customary practice of the U.S. picking off what they think are low-hanging fruit not possible against the RIC. Journalist Pepe Escobar defines what is happening as a final showdown between the Empire, which he calls the “Hegemon,” and Eurasia, with the RIC at its core and the growing BRICS+ community also coming into play. 

Escobar writes from the standpoint of the Middle East crisis: “The Hegemon is calculating for a World War to halt multipolarity. It supports Israel’s Gaza genocide as a necessary evil to win hard in West Asia, figuring who’s going to care once the war goes global? 

Conflict in Ukraine

The Ukrainian conflict is a proxy war by the U.S. and its NATO allies against Russia, most vociferously the U.K., with Ukrainian soldiers dying by the hundreds of thousands in a vain attempt to weaken Russia and bring about regime change against the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Russia would then be Balkanized into a collection of “statelets” subservient to Western economic power. 

The Ukrainian conflict is an extension of the West’s desire to bring about a strategic defeat of Russia and thereby gain final victory in a rivalry that began with the post-World War II Cold War, was extended through the collapse of the Soviet Union during the 1990s, and continued with the push of NATO to the borders of Russia. Next to join NATO were to be Ukraine and Georgia, with Belarus also targeted, opening the door to the stationing of nuclear weapons on Russia’s doorstep.

Actually, the rivalry with Russia dates to the British “great game,” where Britain saw the expanding Russian Empire as endangering British hegemony in the Middle East and India. Napoleon tried to harness Russia in his own series of wars against Britain, an attempt which failed. The bitterly-fought Crimean War of 1853-1856 saw Russia’s southward expansion thwarted by a coalition of Britain, France, Piedmont-Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire, but Russia recovered quickly and was able to send its fleet to New York and San Francisco as a show of strength in support of the Union during the American Civil War. 

.

undefined

State flag of Ukraine behind a wall of anonymous protesters in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

.

Fast forwarding to today, the current war began with the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of Ukraine’s neutral regime in the pro-Western “Maidan” coup of 2014. Then came the arming and training of Ukraine’s armed forces (AFU) by NATO, then the AFU’s assault on the Russian-speaking Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, all taking us into 2022. With this provocation, and the refusal of Ukraine, Germany, and France to uphold the UNSC-approved Minsk Accords, came the Russian invasion of Donbas in its Special Military Operation starting in February 2022. Russia had annexed Crimea in 2014, location of its Black Sea port of Sevastopol, but now followed-up with four eastern Ukrainian oblasts in 2022. Each annexation was approved locally by an overwhelming popular vote.

U.S. President Joe Biden labeled the Russian invasion as “unprovoked.” It has been longstanding practice of the U.S. in war to goad the adversary into attacking first in order to persuade the voting public that the U.S. or its military was not at fault. This was done, for instance, by the Roosevelt administration when it beguiled Japan into attacking at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Something similar was done in provoking the 2022 Russian attack on Ukraine. These events are documented in my recent book Our Country, Then and Now (Clarity Press, 2023). 

The U.S. and its NATO partners deny that they are “parties” to the Ukraine war. But the massive amount of money, munitions, and other forms of support, including multiple anti-Russian economic sanctions, make it clear that without continual U.S. and NATO complicity, the war would be lost by Ukraine within weeks or even days. Sanctions against Russia, along with sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, have weakened the economies of Germany, Britain, and the E.U., while Russia has actually benefitted from increased economic self-reliance and the opening of new markets for Russian gas and oil. 

The claim that the U.S. and NATO are not parties to the war is a lie perpetrated by the U.S., the U.K., and their echo-chamber media. And the fact that the war has brought two nuclear-armed superpowers face-to-face in what for Russia at least is an existential conflict may confirm us in asserting that World War III in fact is underway. It can also be said that if Ukraine falls, so does NATO, and without NATO, the U.S. must revert to being an insular power. The best assessment of the military aspects of the Ukraine conflict has come from Andrei Martyanov, whose book America’s Final War (Clarity Press, 2024) I am in process of reviewing. 

Israel and the Middle East

This brings us to Israel and the Middle East. 

Yours truly, along with many others, were taken by surprise by the attack by Hamas against Israel, carried out on October 7, 2023. Some have stated that October 7 was a preemptive attack against an Israel already plotting a genocidal assault against the Palestinians in order to hasten the creation of Eretz Israel, the seizure of oil and gas resources along the Gazan coastline, and the building of a new canal from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. 

The massive IDF retaliation, seen by much of the world as confirming its genocidal intentions against the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank, showed a level of desperation unknown in Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As with Ukraine, neither Israel nor the IDF could survive a day without U.S. financial and military support, always guaranteed to be approved by the U.S. government—the president and Congress—due to the overwhelming clout of AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby. This lobby is just as strong, though less overt, in the U.K.

What is new to Western public consciousness is the presence in and around Israel of the “Axis of Resistance,” made up not only of Hamas, but also of non-state actors in Lebanon—Hezbollah, and in Yemen—the Houthis (Ansar Allah), plus PMU militias in Iraq, all backed by the governments of Syria and Iran. Since October 8, 2023, Hezbollah, Yemen, and Iran have exposed Israel’s vulnerability to missile assault. Emigration by its citizens out of Israel is growing by the day, with tens of thousands displaced from their homes in the north and in the south, while meanwhile the Israeli economy is collapsing.

Image: President Joe Biden participates in a restricted bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Hotel Kempinski in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, October 18, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

As Pepe Escobar has indicated, the Israel government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, seems to be trying to provoke a major regional war between the U.S. and Iran, thereby leading to a hot regional or world war. Netanyahu is backed by the U.S. Neocons, who have been agitating ferociously for war with Iran for decades. 

My own personal contacts with informants in the region have made it clear that they have no doubt whatsoever, that the “settler state” of Israel is on the cusp of being destroyed. For definitive detail, see Fadi Lama’s article: Israel: The Jewish Settler State in the Levant: A Prognosis. Fadi Lama is one of the principals of the Three Sages Substack. Also see the on-line publication The Cradle and its series of commentaries on the war.

Presently in dire jeopardy is the project some believe has been in place during the entire history of Zionism, whereby those who control the Rabbinic Talmud believe they will someday become the rulers of mankind. After all, they have already conquered America, Great Britain, and much of Western Europe ideologically. What irony if their home base—Israel—were now to cease to exist, an outcome ranked as possible, if not likely, by numerous commentators. For a more complete explanation of the historical roots of the crisis, the classic source is the late British journalist Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion. 

So Has World War III Really Begun?

In my estimation, the obviously pre-planned proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, combined with the shock of the surprise conflagration in Israel and the Middle East, with both reaching the boiling point before completion of Biden’s single term of office, do in fact mark the start of WWIII. 

I would go further by stating that the reason the U.S. “establishment” was so anxious to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president in 2016, to impeach him after he was elected, to defeat him in his bid for reelection in 2020, to disrupt his administration through the COVID “plandemic,” and to prevent him from running again in 2024, has been because he was not fully on-board with the overall plan in the way Obama and Hillary Clinton were, Biden has been, and Kamala Harris is now. 

Fully aligned with the plan are the Neocons, the legacy mainstream media, the Hollywood “stars,” and the past and present leaders of the National Security State, all bought and paid for over decades. Trump’s background is as a businessman, not a war machine mouthpiece, who proved his “unreliability” in office by refusing to engage in the long-planned assault on Syria, much to the chagrin of the war-mongers even within his own national security team. 

But with the U.S. behind the 8-ball with the coming collapse in Ukraine and the failure of Israel to gain the upper hand after almost a year of screamingly hideous genocidal conflict not just on its borders but within its own territory, the crazies, including Ukraine’s Zelensky, the U.K.’s Keir Starmer, and Netanyahu very well could instigate pushing of the nuclear button rather than face the nightmarish consequences of the Empire’s threatened collapse. Among the most terrifying of these consequences is the ongoing loss of U.S. dollar hegemony at the hands of BRICS+ and other nations. 

Slippage of the dollar strikes at the heart of the Empire’s usury-based global financial dominance and is indeed the writing on the wall. Once the U.S. government can no longer sell its debt, the fat lady has sung. The billionaires know this, which is why they are scarfing up all the derivatives in sight. 

The circumstances that incite the West to its present state of growing panic have been documented by Fadi Lama in his book WHY THE WEST CAN’T WIN: From Bretton Woods to a Multipolar World (Clarity Press, 2019).

For additional background, see my own analyses on VT Foreign Policy: Is World War Three About to Start? and Is World War Three About to Start or Has It Already?

 


 

Chapter 2: 

How Did We Get Here?

 

We cannot understand the present dilemma without reference to history. This was why I wrote my most recent book, Our Country, Then and Now. Encompassing American history from the first Puritan settlers, with extensive reference to Native Americans and blacks brought first as slaves, the story focuses on the gradual descent from various peoples’ search for freedom to today’s almost total submission to the globalists and the financial oligarchy. This oligarchy derives its power from the 500-year course of Western fractional reserve banking and the reign of usury. 

The following narrative is based on the sections of Our Country, Then and Now which begin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was then that the U.S. succumbed to its own greed and fear in becoming a major component of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire; namely, that component charged with fighting and dying in the Empire’s wars. Remember what Henry Kissinger said: “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” The same might be said of America’s ruling class. 

Characteristics of the Empire

The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire embodied the convergence of two major historical currents:

1) the transformation of the British Empire into a larger global enterprise knit together at first by British maritime power until this expanded by the mid-20th century into a gigantic naval/air complex managed primarily by the U.S. military; and

2) the development of a nihilist social-political construct exemplified by the Terror of the French Revolution; the appearance and growth of Communist internationalism after Marx’s publication in 1848 of the Communist Manifesto and in 1867 of Kapital; the conquest of Tsarist Russia by Rabbinic Judaism, aka, the “Russian Revolution”; and the subversion of American consciousness by the commercialism and philistinism of a social, educational, medical, and media system controlled by the Rockefellers and other British and American oligarchs. Many were Jewish, including many in the U.S. who controlled Hollywood, liquor, and gambling. 

It may be puzzling to some that I include communist influences in the above list, but if you consider the concept of capitalism for the rich and communism for everyone else, this may be more clear.   

The net effect of these developments is today’s reign of the billionaires, combined with the near-complete subservience of the individual to the power of state/corporatist tyranny. The underlying purpose is violent world-conquest and massive larceny of all planetary resources. The best literary depiction of this apparatus remains the epochal novel 1984. 

These developments began to emerge by around 1905, and through the agency of the British “clubs” and the monetary power of Cecil Rhodes and Nathaniel Rothschild and their “Round Table,” the Empire that now came into existence set out:

1) in Rhodes’s words, “to recover American for the British Empire”; and

2) to annihilate Britain’s main continental rival: Germany. 

Side-by-side with these measures was the growth of Zionism, which began to influence world events after the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 granted the region of Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, to the Jews as a perpetual “homeland.” 

It is essential to emphasize that even though the creation of Israel in 1947-1948 was claimed to be a reaction to the WWII “Holocaust,” the decision to implant a Jewish national state in Palestine was made long before. Indeed, it was part of British foreign policy well before the turn of the 20th century. 

Among the reasons the British brought the U.S. into World War I was to free a large portion of the British army stationed on the Western Front to be sent to seize Palestine from the Ottomans, with the intention of future Jewish occupation. 

Geopolitically, this seizure would secure the southern terminus of the “Mackinder Line,” named for a British professor, Sir Halford Mackinder, by which Britain planned to control the world’s “Heartland”; i.e., Eurasia. This line starts in the Baltic region, runs south along Poland and through Ukraine, then across the Dardanelles and Turkey to the Levantine coast. 

Of course, this is precisely the locale where WWIII has now commenced. (Speaking of the Dardanelles, will Turkey flip and leave NATO to join BRICS+?)

Later, during World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made a secret deal with Hitler, whereby Germany would recall its North African army poised to seize the Suez Canal and Palestine, in exchange for British acquiescence in Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The bringing about of this invasion with full knowledge that Germany would thereby be destroyed, was the cornerstone of Churchill’s World War II strategy. These historical facts have been explained in Guido Giacomo Preparata’s masterful Conjuring Hitler: How Great Britain and America Created the Third Reich and Destroyed Europe.

It was the destruction of Christian Europe, with the German-speaking world at its core, that became the overriding objective of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire and has remained so to this day. An early key to this strategy was the so-called “Russian Revolution,” carried out by Jewish forces controlled by Rabbinic Talmudism and financed by Western bankers. Again, the best source on this aspect of the world conspiracy is British journalist Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion.

In fact, through World War I alone, the British-led coalition (with the paid-for help of the Bolsheviks) succeeded in destroying four empires with strong religious heritage: the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian, and the Ottoman.

We can also observe that the creation of an oligarchical anti-Christian state based on banking and finance—usury—was at the core of a long-term project of transferring priorities and practices from the Italian city-state of Venice to the rest of Western Europe that began to influence England around the year 1520. For more detail see Francis Leader’s Substack of September 3, 2024, based on a lecture by Gerry Rose entitled The Venetian Takeover of England. Also see Francis Leader’s Substack of September 18, cross-posting “The Venetian Virus: How England Was Conquered from Within,” by H. Graham Lowry in The Duke Report. See here.

Speaking of Venice, William Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice around 1596-1598 based on Italian sources. Shakespeare was wired into the highest echelons of English society, and we may take his drama as a warning of what was going on at a time when usury was becoming widespread. Many of England’s aristocratic youth were falling victim to both Jewish and gentile money-lenders operating freely in Renaissance London. Shylock’s “pound of flesh” was an effective symbol of the deadly stakes of the game.

Financial Hegemony

In the field of economics, the Empire’s program is to secure economic, social, and political control of the world through financial hegemony, based, as stated above, on fractional reserve banking and usury. This system, originating in Venice and now over 500 years in the making, was intended to assure the constant flow of all money (spending power/liquidity/means of exchange) into the hands of the Western bankers. The door was opened to this historical disaster when the Papacy rescinded its centuries-long prohibition on usury under pressure from the wealthy class. 

The money thence stolen from society would be valued in terms of gold, with fractional reserve banking multiplying the gold into the amount of desired paper money—credit—released into circulation. The gold itself would be held by the bankers in their vaults. In time, every weekday morning a group of the wealthiest men in England would meet at the Rothschild Bank in the City of London to set the price of gold during the upcoming day’s trading. They thus controlled the monetary value of every article bought or sold in the world.

The modern-day London Gold Fix was first held on September 12, 1919, to kick-start London’s gold market after the end of the First World War. For 85 years until 2004 the five member banks of the London Gold Fix would meet face-to-face at the offices of N.M. Rothschild on St. Swithins Lane in the City of London. 

The money thus accumulated as bankers’ profits would be selectively doled out to proxies, including the mass media to control the minds of the masses, then their incomes, living conditions, health care, food supply, etc., even their life span. The following article discloses what is likely the tip of the iceberg, or close to it. See here.

A key part of population control would become the manufacture and distribution of addictive drugs by the CIA and other Deep State agencies. Closely related was the prescription drug regime of Big Pharma. The profits from both legal and illegal drug sales today support the Deep State’s “black” agenda, enrich the monetary centers, especially the City of London and Wall Street, and prop up the global financial system, always on the verge of over-extension and collapse as happened with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2009.

Targeting of Germany

Germany was the original target of the Empire once it had consolidated itself. Germany was targeted not only because, as everyone knows, the German Empire, formed in 1870 but with deep historic roots, was Britain’s chief naval and commercial rival, but also because Germany, during the 19th century, had become the focal point within Europe of numerous profound spiritual currents related to Europe’s Christian heritage. 

.

undefined

The German colonial empire and its protectorates in 1914 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

.

These currents not only promised to revitalize Christianity, but also hoped to attain breakthroughs in spiritual fields related to study of Eastern religions, including those of India, China, and Japan, tolerance and unity with Islam sheltered by a budding alliance between Germany and the Ottomans, and the appearance of advanced teachings of comparative spirituality. 

The latter were exemplified, for instance, by the discourses of Rudolf Steiner and the even more important teachings of Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), whose books garnerned over a million readers in the German-speaking world. 

The way had been paved by the rich traditions of German music, culminating in the works of composer Richard Wagner, German literature exemplified by Goethe, Schiller, and the Grimm Brothers, and scientist/historians like Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. In the words of H. Graham Lowry. “Leibniz’s writings, particularly his essays on justice and happiness, profoundly influenced republican movements in both England and the American colonies. His ideas of universal benevolence and happiness as central to human purpose directly challenged the Venetian model of imperialism and financial control.” 

German philosophy had also made major breakthroughs. Immanuel Kant “had enshrined the principle of autonomous reason, of ‘always thinking for oneself,’ as the essence of the Enlightenment. G.W.F. Hegel, Kant’s commanding successor, unveiled a grandiose theory of progress, in which a World Spirit guides history toward a utopian future.” (Alex Ross, Wagnerism: Art and Politics in the Shadow of Music, p.24)

Further back in history were the treasures of medieval and Renaissance mysticism, exemplified by Meister Eckhart and religious reformers like Martin Luther and the German Anabaptists. Thousands of German artists, musicians, and writers carried these teachings forward around the world, with special impact in Japan and America. The brilliant fiction of America’s greatest woman writer, Willa Cather, testifies to this movement with her persistent motifs of German thought and spirit, especially regarding Wagner. 

It took World Wars I & II to reduce Germany to ashes, but the German economic miracle of the 1950s and 1960s showed that nation’s irrepressible spirit. Once again today, the Empire has targeted Germany by forcing it to buy into “Project Ukraine” at the cost of its own cheap energy sources from Russia. But the failure of the Empire’s assault on Russia in Ukraine may also lead to the liberation of Germany and the rest of the E.U. from the shackles the Empire so painstakingly forged through the wars of the 20th century. 

Uniqueness of Wagner

The great German composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883), persecuted in his youth as a social radical, had figured out the bankers’ tricks. In the Ring of the Nibelung, Wagner portrayed the evil dwarf that sought to control the world through the power of the gold ring that he stole from the safekeeping of the Rhine Maidens. This ring gave power over everything in the world. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is the English-language version of the story. The Star Wars sagas also draw heavily on Wagner’s story lines, as well as the thematic music. 

The British bankers knew they were the evil dwarves Wagner had highlighted and that the rest of the world was finding out too. So Germany had to go. Wagner had also discovered, through his production of Parsifal, that there existed in the world an order of high spiritual guardians who kept the secret of the Holy Grail—Christ’s path to the Spirit. 

Access to the Grail’s sacred potency had been interrupted by human failings, but a new community of innocents was discovering it, so Wagner had to be eliminated on these grounds too. Young people especially were not to be allowed to realize that a new spiritual age was dawning, one free from the curse of materialism.  

Of course, today’s money masters have attempted to scare people away from Wagner by harping on the fact that Hitler liked to listen to his music. But so have millions of people around the world for almost two centuries now. 

Similarly, the Empire felt compelled to destroy Russian culture along with the German. A quick look at American “streaming” TV tells you what they replaced these classics with and why a majority of people today are without bedrock values.  

 


 

Chapter 3:

Key Dates—1880-1990

 

The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire is, above all, the Empire of the bankers, the financiers, the hedge fund owners, and the stock brokers. Everyone else slaves for them—including the managerial and professional classes, government workers, and the military—besides, of course, the workers. Among the key dates marking the modern history of the Empire, since just before the turn of the 20th century, are as follows:

1880-1902: Boer Wars complete theft of South African gold and diamond wealth by British Empire from Dutch and native occupants, with African colonies now under control of the Rothschild banking conglomerate and the Cecil Rhodes-funded Round Table. At the same time, the Zionist movement, originating in Eastern Europe, joins with the British government in advancing plans for creation of the state of Israel. Prior to Zionism, three million European Jews had successfully migrated to the U.S. and were peacefully assimilating as hardworking law-abiding citizens with no thought of a Jewish national state. For them the “Promised Land” was America. While some later donated money to the settlement of European Jews in Palestine, virtually none had an interest in ever moving there, much less a terrorist war to seize the land from its occupants.  

1902-1909: Anglo-American Pilgrim Society is formed to advance imperial agenda and assure Cecil Rhodes’ dream of “recovering America for the British Empire.” Program implemented to control U.K./U.S. mainstream media as instrument of mass propaganda in support of imperial financial hegemony and worldwide colonialism and wars of conquest. Key U.S. imperial propaganda organ was, and remains, the New York Times. 

1913: Federal Reserve Act and Revenue Act are passed by Congress through influence of Rothschild interests combined with U.S. Money Trust run by Morgans and Rockefellers. (The Rothschilds wrote the Federal Reserve Act.) Main purpose is to channel U.S. industrial wealth into credit advanced to Britain and France to fight war of annihilation against Germany. These measures transfer monetary and financial policy and consequently economic policy in the U.S. to private bankers. Thus, effectively, the U.S. was no longer a sovereign state, but a vassal of the money powers. Additional purpose is to finance Rabbinic Talmud assault against the Russian monarchy, aka, the “Bolshevik” or “Russian” Revolution. Era of mass multigenerational genocide against Russian Christian population follows, with tens of millions killed. 

1914: World War I begins. British diplomacy has created the Triple Entente, consisting of Britain, Russia, and France, to assure that the planned “Great War” will force Germany to fight on both Eastern and Western fronts. Germany attacks westward through Belgium to assure a quick knock-out, but conflict bogs down into trench warfare protracted to bleed Germany economically. Britain manipulates U.S. into joining war in Europe so it can send its army to take over Palestine from the Ottomans. U.S. propaganda machine goes full-bore to paint Germans as the “Hun” and imprisons dissenters. U.S. peace movement is led by Republican politicians like Charles Lindbergh, Sr., but is suppressed. Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch takes over and runs U.S. war economy. 

1916: President Woodrow Wilson, a bankers’ puppet who signed the Federal Reserve Act, is reelected on the campaign slogan, “He kept us out of war.” U.S. enters war on Allied side soon afterwards. 

1917-1919: Britain issues Balfour Declaration promising Palestine to the Zionists as a future Jewish “homeland” and assures through the Treaty of Versailles that Britain will control Palestine as a League of Nations “mandate.” The treaty imposes a crushing peace on Germany, setting the stage for another world war with Germany still the target. 

1921-1929: U.S. profits from financing the war have caused large amounts of gold to be transferred from Britain and Europe that now fuel the “Roaring Twenties” buoyed by banks lending “on margin” to inflate the stock market. The Bank of England crashes the market when the Federal Reserve agrees to restore gold to Britain. The Great Depression follows. Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected president in 1932, confiscates privately-owned gold, removes the U.S. from the gold standard, and finances social and economic recovery programs with large infusions of government debt. 

1933: Hitler is named chancellor of Germany as the Depression hits, following a lengthy preparatory period where Anglo-American capital provides means to rebuild Germany’s war machine. Britain and the U.S. also secretly arm the Soviet Union. The aim is to finish off Germany by instigating a German attack on the Soviet Union. British deceptive diplomacy leads Hitler on by appearing to “appease” territorial ambitions. Hitler swallows the bait. 

1939-1941: As World War II starts in Europe, the American “internationalists” assert themselves by tarring the anti-war movement with the label “isolationist.” Meanwhile, the U.S. arms Britain, France, and the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease, while goading Japan to attack in the Pacific. Government debt and war budgets eliminate unemployment while creating huge standing army of uniformed military, defense contractors, bureaucrats living off the federal budget deficit, and ordinary citizens dependent for a living on government payments. Enough of these people vote Democratic to assure Roosevelt’s election in four consecutive presidential contests. 

1940-1941: Using Rockefeller Foundation funding, the Council on Foreign Relations develops a series of studies that it submits to the government advocating that the U.S. establish a permanent policy of gaining and maintaining global military supremacy. This policy is implemented as the central U.S. war aim and is never rescinded. Nevertheless, Roosevelt himself favors downsizing of the British Empire and a global balance of power among the U.S. and its Western allies, with the Soviet Union in Europe, and China in Asia. This policy is implemented through the U.N. charter and Security Council membership for the U.S., Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China. However, Roosevelt dies, and Truman drops atom bombs on Japan, sets up the National Security State, commences the Cold War against the Soviets, recognizes Israel, and goes to war in Korea. 

1945: World War II leaves Germany and Japan in ruins, while the U.S. and Soviet Union share the spoils of war. The U.S. now has the world’s greatest industrial plant, while the Soviet Union controls much of Europe. The Soviets also prepare to transfer fighters and weapons for Jewish gangs to conquer Palestine with financial help from U.S. Jews. Britain facilitates the founding of NATO and induces the U.S. to rebuild Germany via the Marshall Plan. World financial control continues to rest with the City of London, which backs U.S. dollar hegemony through Bretton Woods, the IMF, and the World Bank. The U.S. will need dollar hegemony to finance the war machine. 

1948: Israel expels 700,000 Palestinians in its terrorist Nakba and declares its statehood as a Jewish settler state. Israel is recognized immediately by the Soviet Union and the U.S. With Churchill having declared the existence of the “Iron Curtain,” the Soviets are now pushed out of the “Western Alliance.” The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire has taken its final form, with the U.S. creating the CIA and the National Security State to engage the Soviets in what will become the Cold War. The U.S. and the Soviets jostle for position in Korea, the Middle East, Africa, and along the East-West divide in Europe. 

1953: U.S. inaugurates era of CIA “regime change” operations by overthrowing the elected president of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. U.S., Britain, and France divide up Iran’s oil assets. 

1961: President Dwight Eisenhower warns of the growth in power of the “military-industrial-complex.” Election of John F. Kennedy as president is followed by Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy’s vow to “break the CIA into a million pieces,” Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kennedy’s American University address for world peace. Victory of the National Security State over the last semblance of authentic American democracy is assured by its assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Not by coincidence, Kennedy was coming out in opposition to a U.S. war in Vietnam and in the acquisition by Israel of nuclear weapons. 

1963-1974: Vietnam War leaves Southeast Asia in ruins and American society profoundly divided between the establishment war machine and a growing anti-war movement. CIA attacks youth with MK Ultra mind-control program and promotion of illicit drugs like LSD. CIA sponsors illegal drug epidemic in American cities. CIA Project Mockingbird fastens ironclad control on mass media in favor of war and financial exploitation worldwide. 

1964: Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei and banker David Rockefeller meet in Williamsburg, VA, at Bilderberg Conference to begin the merger between globalist finance and worldwide population reduction.

1965-1968: Assassinations of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., profoundly affect American society and culture and cement growing control by globalists and Deep State.  

1974: Resignation of President Richard Nixon after CIA set-up. Nixon had been trying to rein in power of CIA after working with National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger in reaching rapprochement with Russia and “Opening to China.” 

1973: David Rockefeller founds the Trilateral Commission to begin movement toward globalist control of world economy via division among U.S., Europe, and Japan. This is the era of growing power of secret societies and behind-the-scenes control of events by shadow groups like Bilderberg, the Rockefeller and other tax-exempt foundations, “think tanks” like RAND and the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum (founded in 1971), National Endowment for Democracy, NGOs like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, etc. Combined with secret maneuvering of Deep State agencies like the CIA and NSA, secrecy by the Federal Reserve and globalist corporations, plus massive involvement of the U.S. military in development of biological and chemical weapons, the U.S. population, along with much of the world, is under near-total influence and control of hidden forces accountable to no one except hidden financial, military, and intelligence power centers.   

1979: Islamic Revolution takes place in Iran, whereby Iran becomes the first major nation to break away from control by the Empire. In Afghanistan, CIA begins funding of Al Qaeda to fight Soviet presence. CIA funding started before Soviets entered Afghanistan to create a Vietnam for the Soviets. The Soviets were subsequently invited to enter by the Afghan government. Beginning of large-scale funding of jihadist groups by Empire to launch terrorist attacks against its enemies in the Islamic countries of Southwest Asia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and North Africa, most recently being ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 

1980s-1990s: Era of financial deregulation—leveraged buyouts, stock buybacks, explosion of hedge funds, Michael Milken junk bond scandal, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. Monetary assaults take place against SE Asia, Africa, and Latin America, particularly Mexico. We now see the complete conversion of the U.S. economy to one of Wall Street financial control and the corresponding takeover of governance by the rentier class. Middle class wealth also shifts from home ownership to stock market assets with conversion of savings and retirement accounts to tax-deferred programs. 

1981: “Reagan Revolution” and formation of Neocons through merger of two cadres: Staff members of Senator Henry Jackson (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) and “Straussians”—revolutionary followers (Trotskyites) of University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss who avers that only with U.S. global conquest will Israel be safe. The Neocons begin today’s rule of U.S. foreign policy in support of the doctrines of endless war, globalist economic control, and repression of traditional Christian faiths and nationalistic socio-economic ideals. Conversion of U.S. to Venetian finance-usury model is complete. 

1986: Murder of Barry Seal, chief CIA drug and weapons smuggler out of Mena, Arkansas, after Governor Bill Clinton opened state to be drug and arms conduit between U.S. and Central America. Clinton, a Rockefeller favorite and Rhodes Scholar, told by CIA operatives that he was in line to become president. 

1988: Former CIA director George H.W. Bush elected president. Neocons cement control of U.S. military and foreign policy with Dick Cheney as secretary of defense. 

1990: Iraqi attack on Kuwait becomes casus belli for first Iraq War when U.S. under Bush invades in “Operation Desert Storm.” Invasion halted before reaching Baghdad, leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

1990s: Simultaneously with takeover of U.S. foreign policy by Neocons, the Israel Lobby, headed by AIPAC (founded 1954), takes effective control of U.S. Congress. Representatives entering Congress swear fealty to Israel and are assigned a “minder” to assure compliance. Rep. Thomas Massie has stated he is the only current Member of Congress without a “minder.”

1990s: Rapid development of vaccines as what billionaires view as a means of societal control, Big Pharma enrichment, and population reduction through a vast drop in male fertility, threatening mankind. Also, growth of stress-related chronic illness, deaths from iatrogenic causes, and deaths and injuries from adverse drug reactions, including explosion of autism in children. 

 


 

Chapter 4: 

Key Dates: 1991-2024

 

1991: Fall and breakup of Soviet Union as U.S.-managed “shock therapy” leads to massive sell-off of Russian state assets to oligarchs and Western bankers. Russian economy and standard of living crash under CIA-sponsored Boris Yeltsin presidency. Empire’s dream of destruction of Russia now in sight. 

1992: Wolfowitz Doctrine promulgated in expurgated and unexpurgated editions, stating U.S. intentions for world military domination in Neocon update and extension of earlier CFR pre-World War II declarations. Paul Wolfowitz is deputy secretary of defense under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and a leading Neocon ideologue. With the Soviet Union now defunct, the Empire moves a giant step toward planned world conquest. 

1992: Bill Clinton elected president. North American Free Trade Agreement commences major period of U.S. industrial outsourcing to Third World nations. By the end of Clinton’s term, China is included as outsourcing haven, launching era of global supply chains as determining factor in world economy. U.S. and U.K. have now completed their shift to financialized service economy. E.U. nations follow suit, except for Germany, which remains Europe’s only manufacturing hub. 

1993: Clinton signs National Voter Registration Act mandating that all social service programs include a voter registration component that opens the door for large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants to become voters. Later Obama opens social service programs to non-citizens. Combined with today’s open borders and unlimited illegal immigration presided over by Biden Administration, the stage is set for endless stealing of elections by the Democratic Party. Padding the voter rolls with immigrants is a time-honored Democratic ploy. 

1994: Articles 8 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which are concerned with investment securities in the U.S. are modified in all 50 states. The modifications effectively remove personal ownership of securities and allow “Protected Class” to have first rights to collateral. This is explained in detail by David Rogers Webb in The Great Taking. Similar commercial laws are enacted in the E.U. by 1998. 

1996: Telecommunications Act allows consolidation of media companies to the point where five now own 90 percent of U.S. communications media. Today the consolidation extends to the internet where Facebook and Google account for over 70 percent of users directed to the websites of major news publishers. U.S. mainstream media, including social media, now under complete control of Deep State. 

1998: Military funding of Google and start of the National Surveillance State. Hidden government infiltration of the internet and social media lead to ongoing long-term societal degradation of education, religion, and individual consciousness, along with disappearance of personal privacy. 

1999: John F. Kennedy, Jr., along with his wife and her sister, die in crash of his private plane while approaching a landing at Martha’s Vineyard airport. Government claims the crash resulted from pilot error, but allegations persist that the plane had been sabotaged and that Kennedy had been assassinated as he was about to start a political career. 

1999: Vladimir Putin succeeds Yeltsin as president of Russia. Rebuffed in trying to join NATO, Russia under Putin begins long-term program of state-sponsored economic recovery and military rebuilding. 2000s arms race with the U.S. leaves Russia ahead in missile technology, industrial weapons production, and other elements of land warfare, nuclear weaponry, and strategic air defense. Undercurrent of cyberwarfare grows steadily with increased reach of internet, spy satellites, etc. 

2001: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) forms as a Eurasian political, economic, international security, and defense organization established by China and Russia. Other member states are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus. 15 other states are observers or “dialogue partners,” and six more have applied for membership. U.S. application for observer status rejected in 2005.

2001: U.S. Full Spectrum Dominance is first defined in April 2001 as: “The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment, which includes cyberspace, that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.” This is the operative iteration of the 1939-1941CFR plan for total U.S. global military dominance and the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1991. Full Spectrum Dominance has not been achieved. 

2001: Project for a New American Century (PNAC) had called for a new “Pearl Harbor,” followed by 9/11 “terrorist” attacks and the plan for regime change against seven Middle Eastern countries, to culminate with Iran. U.S. Secretary of State General Colin Powell lies to U.N. about Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. 2001-2003, wars against Afghanistan and Iraq begin. 

2006: Former Vice-President Al Gore publishes An Inconvenient Truth, advancing the Climate Change/Global Warming hoax which spreads the deception that “Global Warming” is caused by release of man-made emissions into the atmosphere, threatening a CO2 overload that will result in global extinction. This lie forms the basis for proposals of massive societal changes with the outlook of crashing the global food supply and causing worldwide famine. The WEF and related elite groups seize on Climate Change/Global Warming as a primary means of population reduction planning. 

2006: Christians United for Israel incorporated by Rev. John Hagee, completing Christian Zionist support of Israel. Christian Zionists, their leaders often funded by Israel, fully swallow “dispensationalist” hoax, causing them in many cases to become cheerleaders for Armageddon.  

2006: Julian Assange founds Wikileaks. In 2010, Assange publishes leaks about military war crimes from former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. After gaining refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy, Assange is arrested by British police and detained until 2024, when he is released through a plea deal with the U.S. Edward Snowden leaks documents in 2013 from his job with the NSA showing massive illegal government surveillance of individuals. Snowden gains refuge and later citizenship in Russia. 

2007: Anticipating election of a Democratic president, former Bill Clinton DOD staffers found Center for a New American Security (CNAS) “to restore America’s credibility, influence, and power in the world and, in so doing, strengthen America’s national security.” Founders state: “The next president will have to convince the American people and their representatives in Congress to reject the neo-isolationist impulses they may feel in the wake of Iraq in order to embrace a smarter and more selective form of engagement….The United States has been and will continue to be the preeminent leader in the international community, and we cannot protect or advance our interests in a globalized world if we do not continue to serve in that role.” Funding for CNAS is provided by Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. See this.

2008: Housing bubble, caused largely by Federal Reserve and rating agencies’ promotion of “liars’ loans,” leads to a global financial crash that turns into the “Great Recession.” Barack Obama, elected U.S. president on slogan of “change,” oversees multi-trillion-dollar bailouts of banks and financial corporations like AIG. Federal Reserve reduces interest rates to near-zero while buying massive amounts of U.S. government debt under program of “quantitative easing” that continues today. With $35 trillion in debt, much held in limbo by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. government is functionally bankrupt. 

2009: The “Good Club,” a gathering of U.S. billionaires led by Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, and George Soros meets at Rockefeller University in New York to continue planning for worldwide population reduction. Group has been meeting for a decade. (See Our Country, Then and Now, p. 428.)

2009: BRICS founded among Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to create a new economic alliance among non-hegemonic nations. One goal of BRICS is to replace the U.S. dollar with trade in national currencies. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE have subsequently joined, leading to BRICS+, with many more nations applying. 

2009-2017: President Barack Obama is awarded Nobel Peace Prize. Obama’s subsequent wars include  2011 attack on Libya with assassination of Gadaffi, 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine, failed regime change in Syria, multiple color revolutions, including “Arab Spring,” targeted drone assassinations, etc. 

2013: Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI after U.S. cut off Vatican from SWIFT payment system. Benedict is forced out due to his conservative positions on theological and social issues and replaced by Jesuit neoliberal Pope Francis. Several key opponents of Pope Francis are expelled from the church.

2016: Republican candidate Donald J. Trump elected president through votes from what defeated candidate Hillary Clinton calls “Deplorables.” Clinton campaign falsely claims Russia threw the election to Trump. The “Shadow Men,” globalist enforcers identified in Our Country, Then and Now, start series of “lawfare” attacks on Trump, including two impeachments, that continue after Trump loses the presidency in 2020 to Joe Biden. 

2017: President Donald Trump announces that the United States would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on “climate change” mitigation, contending that the agreement would undermine the U.S. economy, and put the U.S. at a permanent economic disadvantage.

2020: On January 30, the World Health Organization announces a global emergency due to spread of COVID-19. On March 13, President Donald Trump declares a nationwide emergency and issues an additional travel ban on non-U.S. citizens traveling from 26 European countries due to what many will later call the COVID-19 “Plandemic.” Introduction of mRNA vaccines results in millions of excess deaths worldwide. COVID lockdowns shatter U.S. economy, destroying small businesses and causing massive unemployment. 

2020: Death of George Floyd in Minneapolis followed by BLM and Antifa-instigated riots across U.S.  

2020: Election of Joe Biden as president. FBI lies about authenticity of “Hunter Biden laptop” with incriminating content as Biden campaign solicits claims by former security officials that the existence of the laptop is Russian disinformation. 

2020: Consumer price inflation hits hard, especially in food and housing, fed by $2 trillion in COVID relief payments to individuals and businesses. Not by coincidence, stock market soars with huge capital gains accruing to individual investors, Wall Street, retirees, and non-profits with stakes in the financial markets. Federal deficit pushes to $35 trillion, including nearly $200 billion in arms and aid to Ukraine and Israel. Rising Federal Reserve interest rates add to deficit.

2021: January 6 pro-Trump rally at U.S. Capitol turns violent with Trump then charged in his second impeachment. In April, Biden withdraws U.S. forces from Afghanistan but supports large-scale Ukrainian artillery attacks on Russian-speaking civilians in east of country.

2021: Biden opens southern border to deliberate influx of millions of illegal immigrants, large numbers being military-age men. Vice-President Kamala Harris called “Border Czar” by media but takes no effective action.

2022: Russia commences its Special Military Operation against Ukraine. U.S. stands accused of surreptitiously blowing up German-Russian Nord Stream pipelines in Baltic Sea or at least allowing it to happen. Conflict in Ukraine becomes largest European military conflict since World War II. Europe slips toward recession due to skyrocketing energy costs resulting from loss of cheap Russian gas and oil. U.S./U.K./E.U. decree vast number of sanctions against Russia, including expulsion from SWIFT, in failed attempt to destroy Russian economy. 

2022: Russia announces discovery of U.S.-funded bioweapons labs in Ukraine that conduct research into microbes specifically targeting Slavic gene pools. 

2022: Ukraine and U.S. hedge fund BlackRock, world’s largest asset manager, announce joint plan to “focus in the near term on coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channeling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy.” Ukrainian President Zelensky thanks BlackRock CEO Larry Fink “for the work of the professional team that BlackRock has allocated to advise on structuring the reconstruction projects.” BlackRock investments start with preparations to purchase vast quantities of prime Ukrainian farmland.

2023: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., launches campaign for the presidency of the U.S., seeking first the Democratic nomination but switching to becoming an independent after being blocked from participation in Democratic Party primaries. Kennedy had published best-selling exposé of the misdeeds of Anthony Fauci in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy, and Public Health. 

2023: Hamas attacks Israel in Gaza region on October 7. Israel retaliates with genocidal attacks against Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. 

2024: Biden withdraws from presidential campaign in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, completing a coup d’etat by Democratic Party managers. As Dr. Naomi Wolf wrote on her “Outspoken” Substack on August 21, 2024, advocating for RFK, Jr. to merge his campaign with that of Donald Trump: “But since a coup has taken place in the United States of America, with between 18 and 30 million military-age men deployed around our nation, including at strategic locations, likely awaiting direction; and since the coup was engineered by the DNC, with help from our enemies, I no longer think that it is partisan for me to advocate for those leaders and alliances that can restore our Republic and our freedoms.” 

2024: Looming Russian victory in Ukraine, coinciding with U.S. loss of arms race to Russia, especially in strategic air power and air defense. 

2024: Failure of U.S. weapons in support of Ukraine explodes myth of U.S. Full Spectrum Dominance, followed by the Gaza war, internal collapse of Israeli economy, looming IDF defeat at hands of Axis of Resistance, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthis in Yemen, and pending civil war between Netanyahu reactionary government backed by orthodox militants vs. liberal elements of IDF and Israeli political elite. Large-scale emigration out of Israel continues by Jewish citizens, with close to 100,0000 residents displaced by fighting. 

2024: Evidence continues to mount worldwide that billions of people have been poisoned by COVID vax, leading to rising death tolls from turbo-cancers, myocarditis and heart failure, amyloidosis, and “Long-COVID” effects. See this. Deaths and injuries have also resulted from COVID medical treatment protocols, denial of known COVID remedies, and Draconian lockdown policies. Evidence also rises of aggressive globalist plans to crash world economy via carbon-capture, banning of meat, sequestering of farmland, and other attacks on the world food supply. See here.

2024: USDA prepares policy to implement the Sustains Act, determining who will own “environmental services” like the air we breathe, plant photosynthesis and pollination, and the health benefits of “open space.” Viewed critical for UN “sustainable development” agenda.

2024: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump during campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. RFK, Jr., suspends campaign and endorses Trump, as does former Democrat and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. 

2024: “Debate” between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on ABC Network discloses Democratic Party intention to use biased mainstream media to steal 2024 election, combined with growing reports of use of illegal immigrants as fronts for election fraud. Col. Douglas McGregor forms group called Our Country Our Choice to contest expected fraud along with other citizens’ groups fearing a “Black Swan” event. Trump refuses any further “debates.” 

2024: In response to threats by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Russian President Vladimir Putin announces that any Western aid to Ukraine in launching long-range missiles into Russian territory will be considered an act of war. Putin said: “This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries, are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, then bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will take appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us.” In the spirit of “Let’s you and him fight,” Starmer is reading from the same script in trying to provoke war between the U.S. and Russia as was followed by British leaders in their actions of getting the U.S. to fight World War I and World War II against the Germans. 

2024: An employee of ABC News who blew the whistle on the Trump-Harris debate being “rigged” is killed in a car accident near Bethesda, MD, the morning of September 13. Employee had filed a sworn affidavit the day before the debate alleging that Harris had been provided questions in advance, certain topics had been ruled off-limits, Trump but not Harris would be “fact-checked,” Harris’s podium would be smaller than Trump’s, certain camera directions flattering to Harris would be followed, etc. For details See here.

2024: Second attempted assassination of Donald Trump with arrest of accused shooter at Trump’s West Palm Beach, Florida golf club where Trump was playing. Shooter, identified as Ryan Wesley Routh, age 58, a vehement Ukraine partisan, captured after fleeing the scene with shots fired by the Secret Service. Suspect reached 300-500 yards of the former president with a scoped AK-47 rifle. “As to why the would-be assassin was able to get that close to the former president despite a previous assassination attempt on him in June, the authorities said that the security perimeter could only be so wide due to him being a presidential candidate as opposed to a sitting president.” Was Routh part of a Deep State plot to kill Trump and blame it on Iran? See here.

2024: September 17-18 attack on Lebanon with thousands of exploding pagers attributed to Israel. Pagers originating in Hungary delivered to Hezbollah. Thousands injured or killed. 

2024: In obvious election ploys favorable to Democrats, Federal Reserve cuts interest rates and gasoline prices slashed. 

 


 

Chapter 5: 

The Plan Is Population Reduction

 

This brings us to the inescapable observation that the quintessence of the Empire’s plan has been to assure the permanent wealth and power of its ruling billionaires by drastic reductions in the world’s population. The process has been underway since the 1960s, when it was discovered that gain-of-function bioengineering could be performed on viruses to make them more lethal. The population could also then be frightened into taking an increasing diet of harmful vaccines. 

In a 1981 French book entitled L’Avenir De La Vie (“The Future of Life”), author Michel Salomon, a journalist and doctor, quoted Jacques Attali, who at the time was an adviser to socialist French President François Mitterrand, who said:

“In the future it will be about finding a way to reduce the population. We will start with the old, because as soon as he is over 60-65 years of age, man lives longer than he produced and costs society dearly. Then the weak and then the useless who do nothing for society because there will be more and more of them, and especially finally the stupid ones.”

This quote from Jacques Attali, adviser to a prominent left-wing European politician, exposes what is essentially an atheistic/materialistic perspective on human life. This reduces human beings to slaves working in a societal anthill controlled by the state. 1984 again. 

This is precisely the perspective that is projected today by the Western mass media and the military-industrial complex that rules the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire and its vassals in Europe and elsewhere. It is the perspective of the ruling billionaires. 

Attali continued:

“Euthanasia targeting these groups, euthanasia will have to be an essential instrument of our future societies, in all cases. Of course, we cannot execute people or set up camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good. Too large a population, and for the most part unnecessary, is something economically too expensive.”

The country that is furthest along in sponsoring state-supported euthanasia is Canada. In fact, one is inclined to think that this may be the best Trudeau’s totalitarian brand of globalism can offer. In other countries, including the U.S., hospitals clearly have a role in culling the elderly population, especially with the COVID “plandemic.” Death from iatrogenic illness is often facilitated or even planned, as happened during the “plandemic” with protocols handed down to hospitals by the CDC. There are ER nurses who call these protocols murder.  

More from Attali:

“We will find something to cause it, a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the big [sic], it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and the stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care to have planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will thus be done by themselves: they will go to the slaughterhouse on their own.” Source: Robin Westenra Substack: September 4, 2024.

Reportedly, Henry Kissinger said something similar at a 1990s conference: that once people are made to accept vaccines, it’s “game over.” Added to this horror since then would be the coming likelihood of famine induced by “Climate Change/Global Warming” hysteria and the move within Western nations toward deindustrialization.  

The attempt by Western nations to produce famine through deindustrialization has been exposed by the writings of Matthew Ehret, editor-in-chief of the Canadian Patriot Review and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. See in particular Ehret’s September 17, 2024, article, BRICS+ vs. the WEF: The Clash of Two Green Paradigms.

Ehret starts by recalling China and India’s derailing of the 2009 COP14 agenda in Copenhagen, “which had promised to establish legally binding emission cuts to guide the de-carbonization (and deindustrialization) of much of society.”

Ehret continues:

“Amidst a supposed pandemic and economic meltdown, puppet leaders like Sarkozy, Merkel, and Obama championed a new era of green global governance and promised to consolidate a legally binding treaty to enforce decarbonization onto the nations of the globe. But it didn’t happen.”

Ehret goes on to contrast the plans of BRICS+ for sustainable development based on advanced technology, including nuclear, vs. the “neo-Malthusian” intent of the Western powers to kill off much of mankind by literally returning to the pre-industrial era. 

On the CO2 “carbon capture” hoax, see Dr. Lewis Coleman’s article Here. In Britain, thousands of elderly people are expected to die in the approaching winter due to the government’s having withdrawn the annual winter fuel allowance as part of its “green” agenda. See here.

In fact, disease, vaccines, and famine are the most favorable methods yet discovered by the elite to engineer massive population reduction in a short period of time without the people of the world become wise to what is going on until it is too late. War, while not eliminated, has been proven to be less effective, more expensive, and too risky to the perpetrators. 

Testimony of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

On COVID, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said, “The COVID pandemic was used to fundamentally change the relationship between U.S. citizens and their government. The government’s public health response was not a medical response, but instead a test of technocratic power to see how the population would respond to totalitarian edicts masked as medical interventions. The government also selected the lockdown winners and losers, transferring nearly four trillion dollars in wealth from the middle class and small business to Silicon Valley and big box stores.” 

Testimony of Dr. Francis Boyle

In a Florida case filed by Dr. Joseph Sansone involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of COVID 19 injections in the state of Florida. Dr. Sansone stated: 

“Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that COVID 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections,’ ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections,’ and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).”

Testimony of Dr. Meryl Nass

Dr. Meryl Nass is an internist residing in Maine whose medical license was suspended by the state for the entirely legal practices of prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to COVID patients. While contesting the suspension, Dr. Nass has been publishing a massively popular Substack blog, attending major conferences worldwide, and has founded a 501c3 organization and website called Door to Freedom that states: “We exist to help people make sense of a rapidly changing world, to stop efforts by the WHO and UN to centralize control during emergencies, and to preserve traditional farming and the production of healthful foods.”

On the origin of COVID, Dr. Meryl Nass stated in her August 23, 2024, Substack: 

“I have always said that the two COVID origin issues are:

  1. Whether it was a lab leak or a deliberate release. I favor deliberate but I’m not certain. 
  2. Next question would be who did it, if deliberate. 

“I have pointed out that the humanized mice that probably were used to design SARS-CoV-2 came from [Ralph S.] Baric’s lab [in North Carolina] originally, but were shared with the Chinese. The ‘no-see-um’ technology came originally from Baric. Other U.S. coronavirus researchers who may have created part or all of the genome of SARS-CoV-2 include Stanley Perlman at Ames (U Iowa), Vince Munster at NIH’s Rocky Mountain lab, or Vineet Menachery in Galveston, Texas. I could be missing some. There are others scattered around the U.S. and the rest of the world. 

“There were so many interesting areas of the genome (by that I mean created/selected for inclusion by humans), I think it was stitched together from parts that probably were developed in multiple labs. Who put the finishing touches on it? I don’t know.

“If it leaked, it likely leaked from a Wuhan lab. If it was a deliberate spread, it could have come from the Americans or anywhere, originally, and may have been spread only in Wuhan or in multiple locations. 

“The issue is always cui bono. Who benefited if this was a crime, as I suspect it was, $4 trillion moved from the U.S. poor and middle classes to the billionaire class. Potentially quadrillions are up for grabs if you impoverish the world, tokenize nature, find ways to grab our property, etc., and the super elite take over the planet’s assets.”

Testimony of Dr. Lewis Coleman

In a personal communication, a summary of the current situation has been offered by Dr. Lewis Coleman, the third principal of the Three Sages, along with Fadi Lama and myself. Dr. Coleman is author of the seminal work 50 Years Lost in Medical Advance: The Discovery of Dr. Hans Selye’s Stress Mechanism.  

Dr. Coleman writes: “The only legitimate purposes of government are to protect its population from crime and other governments and provide a universal medium of exchange to optimize technological and economic advance. Unfortunately, government is little more than a disguised mafia on steroids that primarily serves the interests of those who control it. When it comes to their political mischief, anything is possible. 

“Starvation has often been employed to destroy populations for various reasons, none of which are justifiable. Eisenhower starved thousands of captured and surrendered German soldiers to death by penning them up in barbed wire enclosures without adequate food, clothing, and shelter. Mao Tse Tung starved more than 60 million Chinese to death in the early 1960s, apparently at the behest of Western ‘banksters’ to whom he was beholden for armaments and financial support. Pol Pot liquidated millions in Cambodia for unknown reasons. Stalin starved the Kulak farmers in Ukraine to eliminate their resistance to his communist plans (which didn’t work). Sherman slaughtered the buffalo to conquer the Indians after his infamous march through the South starved the Confederacy into submission. 

“However, I expect that the method of choice will be more versions of the COVID conspiracy, such as the ‘monkeypox’ and bird viruses that already lurk in government laboratories, along with their lethal mRNA injections that are being prepared even now. Never before has a government inflicted so devious and perverse a form of mass murder on its own population. The American public remains so innocent and naive that the majority of citizens are still totally trusting and unsuspecting. They are virtual ‘sitting ducks’ and lambs awaiting their slaughter. They will ignore the warnings.”

Dr. Coleman adds in a separate communication: “Big Pharma is committing mass murder by mass producing weaponized viral RNA and disguising this worthless and inherently lethal poison as ‘vaccines.’ They are using inexpensive enzyme technology to mass produce these toxic substances at negligible cost and reap outrageous profits. It is no accident that they are deliberately by-passing all vaccine safety testing standards and using their political influence to ‘legalize’ mass murder. They are committing the crime of the century, and its consequences will devastate civilization unless it is stopped. It is small wonder that these corporations have attempted to smother free speech. Corporations are government creations, and they should therefore be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as the government itself. Like Dracula, they live forever. Like Frankenstein, they have powers denied to living human beings. The ‘American Experiment’ to restrain government abuse has failed.”

See Dr. Coleman’s March 13, 2024, article on the genocidal intent of the COVID vaccinations here.

Also see Dr. Coleman’s Three Sages article, “COVID Mass Genocide Can Only Be Understood by Reference to Stress Theory.”

Nuclear Armageddon?

The plan for population reduction has been the overriding program of the controllers of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire, with the mass media like the New York Times, etc., in collusion, to be carried out simultaneously with the military/economic project aimed at destroying Russia, keeping China in thrall as the supplier of consumer goods to the West, and ever-evolving forms of neocolonialism, dollar hegemony, and genocide toward the Global South. 

Within the U.S. alone, this enterprise costs well over a trillion dollars a year in direct costs. Most of this expenditure flows back to the billionaires and their corporations that produce the weapons, create the vaccines and other medications, pay the salaries of the millions of bureaucrats who do the “work,” and allocate fabulous sums to the stars and celebrities who act in the movies and TV shows or in sports arenas to keep the population in a depraved stupor. Today this entire apparatus has been “goosed up” to amplify the hysteria behind the Harris/Walz campaign. 

But with the humiliating loss by the U.S. of its proxy war in Ukraine now looming, combined with the failure of the Eretz Israel project in the Middle East, the Empire has been defeated in the opening stages of World War III. There is simply no place to which the Empire can now retreat, having been exposed in its pretensions to global conquest on two critical geopolitical flanks. The only “way out” would be for them to launch all-out nuclear war. 

I do not know whether we are heading toward nuclear Armageddon. 

One would think that the Empire’s elites are too concerned with their personal survival to sign their own death warrants. They are essentially parasites, living off other people’s labor. In fact, much of the Empire’s elites, including important segments of the U.S. Deep State and military, seem to have surreptitiously  realized the coming defeat on the global stage. 

But not everyone has accepted defeat. The top political leadership of the U.S. has no reverse gear. Nor do their Neocon cheerleaders. These people would destroy the world and every living thing upon it before admitting defeat. They are the domestic U.S. equivalent of Israel’s “Samson option.” 

But the real decision makers may be the leadership of the CIA and top military intelligence. Thus on September 13, 2024, during British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington, President Biden was forced by the military top brass to read a statement set in front of him that Ukraine would not be allowed to fire long-range missiles at Russian territory. 

This possible glimmer of sanity reflects that Russia has won the arms race, and at least some within the Empire realize it cannot win a protracted Eurasian land war. U.S. air and sea power, always its military backbone, can today be neutralized by Russian air defense and missiles in a war anywhere in Europe. As Andrei Martyanov puts it, the U.S. Armed Forces “cannot fight a peer or better than peer opponent and win such a fight.” (America’s Last War, p. 167.) 

This means U.S. Full Spectrum Dominance has been defeated once and for all. It never came to pass and never will. This includes the intention of total control over all print and electronic communications. Unless what is meant by that term is a suicidal nuclear holocaust once all conventional means of warfare have been countered and checkmated by the rising BRICS+ powers.

Moreover, Russia at any time can provide the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East the weaponry needed to obliterate Israel entirely. But Israel too will disappear as a causus belli, as within five to ten years it will likely cease to exist in lieu of a new Palestinian state with freedom of settlement and religion. The Axis of Resistance is certain of such an outcome. 

Where we are clearly heading is toward a world divided between East and West with what remains of the Empire in competition with BRICS+ for control of the Global South. Thus we are likely looking at a lengthy era of border wars that may yet cause much upheaval and suffering. 

Or, as Pepe Escobar recently put it: “The War on Terror has been debunked; it is now dead. But get ready for serial wars of terror by a Hegemon unaccustomed to not owning the narrative, the seas, and the ground.”

See here. 

While these border wars will provide fodder for endless reams of commentary by cadres of fake analysts and endless opportunities for self-aggrandizement by politicians and grifters of every stripe, they are of no lasting importance. Much better would be a decision by the Empire to finally live in peace with the rest of the world. 

Fadi Lama has depicted the East-West split in his article The west’s Plan B: Secure the realm.

East Is East and West Is West

It is increasingly clear that the world is naturally divided between East and West as reflected, among other things, in their respective religious orientations. British poet Rudyard Kipling emphasized a profound truth by writing that, “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” 

The West is definitely far more influenced by Christianity than the rest of the world. The East consists of a number of related religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Confucianism, with Islam a bridge between Eastern and Western persuasions. 

The Empire made its big mistake in trying to conquer the East and inflict upon the majority of the world’s population its materialistic obsessions. The hatred this has stirred up will take a long time to dissipate. The Empire is trying to maintain its grip on the Asian rim via the string of nations beginning with Australia and New Zealand and including the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. But cracks are developing in this scene of imperial hegemony also. 

While BRICS+ will see the development of nation-states along the lines of civilizational entities,

the West, stripped of its globalist pretentions, will be wise to look inward at what it has become, what it must atone for, and how it is to survive going forward. 

Survival of the West is not guaranteed, having completely lost its metaphysical center when everything its leaders do is an expediency justified by claims of reacting to imaginary external enemies. 

When governance is based on hysteria and paranoia, survival will not be an easy task. It involves a serious search within Western society for our civilizational roots, including the core ideas of the Christian religion that have been erected into dogmas of intolerance. It involves fighting the forces of dissolution: “Wokeism,” etc. It involves throwing the totalitarians out, such as the WHO, the WEF, etc. And it involves stripping the power of the billionaires. 

Behind all these lurk the cults of revolutionary nihilism. The nihilists still may win control over the West, but never over the entire globe. In the East, they are being defeated by the great historical civilizations. 

So what we now must deal with in the West is the still-lingering elite obsession with destroying the health and sanity of its own population. The right-to-exist of the Western peoples must be recognized and affirmed. Non-Western peoples living in the West should become law-abiding citizens or go back to where they came from. And the Zionists need to shut up, get real jobs, and get on-board with Western values and Western civilization. 

One other factor involves censorship and freedom of speech as specified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I have been engaged in a study of the Habsburgs and am now reading about Philip II of Spain. He had inherited the Philippines as part of the Spanish Empire and was contemplating using it as the springboard for the invasion and conquest of Indochina, followed by China itself. That is, after he conquered and took over England with his invincible Armada.

Well, we know what happened with that! But he also firmly backed the Spanish Inquisition, introducing it in Spanish America in 1570-1571. The historical result of the Inquisition was that the Spanish intelligentsia and nobility was so terrified of persecution that Spain was permanently stunted. Original thought and scholarship never returned. This was likely what was responsible for Spain’s permanent decline and its status today as a non-entity among nations. 

What we are now seeing in Europe and America, and especially the U.K., is the modern version of the Inquisition. It is going to have the same effect in that it will destroy the ability of those nations ever to mount any original thought or innovation out of fear of the “Woke” police like Keir Starmer. This above all is what is likely to ensure the permanent decline of the West and quite possibly the collapse and demise of the U.K. and U.S. themselves. By the time this happens, and it is happening now, Europe will have jumped off the sinking ship.   

 


 

Chapter 6:

American Civil War II?

 

Are we in a new American Civil War to resolve the above issues, if in fact they can be resolved? 

The conflict appears most clearly in the division between the Democratic and Republican Parties. The differences between the two parties have existed since they were created, dating back to the early 19th century when their modern versions came into existence—the Democrats in 1828 and the Whigs/Republicans around 1840.  

The modern Democratic Party was born with the victory of Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828 over incumbent John Quincy Adams, the last president of “The Era of Good Feeling.” The phrase “to the victor go the spoils” was attributed to Jackson and points to the longstanding practice of the Democrats of using the nation’s wealth to create a standing bureaucracy and military to assure its electoral dominance. Of course this is legalized bribery. 

The Republicans, by contrast, have been the party of limited government spending and promotion of private sector economic growth. Even when the Republicans created the army needed to win the Civil War, that army was disbanded soon afterwards. 

Much later it was the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt who created the massive taxpayer-funded military machines that fought World Wars I and II and, in Roosevelt’s case, the bureaucracies of the alphabet agencies that put much of the nation on the “dole” during the Great Depression.

Andrew Jackson is famous for having destroyed the Second Bank of the United States, which, despite its benefits to oligarchic interests, had become the only engine of national economic development or means of stabilizing the currency that the country possessed in that era.

Jackson sequestered federal tax revenues in an “Independent Treasury,” where they were not available for infrastructure projects such as roads and canals under the Whigs’ proposed “American System.” The result of Jackson’s policies, which were carried forward under his successor Martin Van Buren, was the devastating Panic of 1837, known then as “the Great Depression.” 

At the same time, Jackson utilized as his personal banker the Rothschilds of London. Under Rothschild agent August Belmont, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1837, the Rothschilds gained a foothold in the New York banking community that they never relinquished. 

August Belmont became an immediate success by buying assets for pennies on the dollar during the Panic of 1837. Known as “King of the Money Changers,” Belmont became one of the richest men in America. 

The Democrats were the party of slavery and its expansion into the territories, and potentially into Cuba and Latin America, factors which loomed large in the run-up to the Civil War. The Republicans were emphatically the party of free labor. 

The Democrats, before the Civil War, were closely allied with the bankers of New York and London and favored low tariffs so they could purchase cheap manufactured goods from England. The Whigs and Republicans favored high tariffs to protect the growth of American domestic industry. This continued until the McKinley Tariff of 1890. By contrast, low tariffs and “free trade” have always been the program of the globalists whose policy is to reduce worker living standards to the lowest possible common denominator—to poverty and starvation if need be.  

Such is the case with the Democratic Party today. It is no accident that the Democrats under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have admitted millions of illegal immigrants, with many of those who have jobs working at wage-slave levels, while living in housing subsidized by local Democrat-controlled municipal governments. The crime waves that follow are brushed off by prosecutors elected with money from Soros and his ilk. 

By the time of the Civil War in 1861, with Lincoln having been elected to defend the Union, the Rothschild bankers controlled the Democratic Party behind the party chairmanship of August Belmont. Sounds incredible, but look it up; it’s a fact of history conveniently forgotten by the Democrats of today. 

Behind Belmont, and behind him the Rothschilds, they ran the disgraced Union General George McLellan against Lincoln in the 1864 election on a platform of compromise with the South but lost decisively. The voters could see the bankers’ snake in the grass.

After the war, the Democrats identified with the aristocrats of the defeated South who regained political power when Reconstruction ended by political compromise in 1876. Democratic senators formed the backbone of the “Solid South” until the election of 1968, when Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began to build Republican Party strength in Dixie in alliance with Republican conservatives elsewhere in the country.

From Lincoln onwards, the Republicans favored nationalistic economic policies, including a high tariff and infrastructure investment, all the way through to the presidency of William McKinley who was assassinated in 1900. The exception to the string of Republican presidencies was that of Democrat Grover Cleveland, a lawyer who had been governor of New York. It was Cleveland who went hat-in-hand to the J.P. Morgan/Rothschild banking syndicate for a bailout in 1893 when the U.S. government faced bankruptcy due to its gold deficit.

As indicated above, the Democrats are the party of unlimited immigration, which in the 19th century swelled the ranks of Democratic voters in cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago, where party machines handed out jobs and welfare benefits in exchange for votes. The same thing was done to get Woodrow Wilson and FDR elected and is happening today with the Democrats having opened the borders to a flood of would-be voters to get Biden and now Kamala Harris elected. In every respect, the Democrats are acting true to form, including their out-of-control spending and their globalist orientation and allegiances. 

Above all, the Democratic Party is a front for the billionaires who would destroy our nation for profit. Where do you think their fabulously wealthy donors come from who cover their tracks with “woke” platitudes?

It was a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that opened the floodgates to control of U.S. finances by the international banking cartel run out of the City of London. In fact, it was the Rothschilds who actually wrote the Federal Reserve Act. See Our Country, Then and Now. 

It was FDR who took us into World War II by inducing the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. In both cases, the Republican Party included a strong anti-war element that was suppressed and vilified. In 1948, the Republican rank-and-file wanted to nominate Senator Robert Taft as president. Taft was a conservative senator who opposed Truman’s National Security State. But the Rockefellers threw their weight to get internationalist Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated and elected instead, so the Cold War moved along without a break. 

John F. Kennedy was an economic nationalist who broke the mold of Democratic presidents in 1960. But he was killed by the warmongers who moved ahead with their Vietnam project, followed later by the Neocon takeover under Reagan. 

Obviously influences change with the wind, with both political parties implicated in the era of endless wars we are now suffering through, but today there is no question that the Democrats have reverted to historical form by being the party of massive bureaucracies, the suffocating war machine, open borders and immigration without limits, the overwhelming power of the Deep State, censorship, erosion of constitutional rights, unlimited governmental surveillance, and corruption—in short, a continuing criminal enterprise vastly more powerful and dangerous than any we have ever had. 

The Democratic Party today is a Mafia gang disguised as a political party. In suppressing freedom of speech, the gang is deeply in cahoots with similar creatures from the U.K. See this. I don’t call it the ANGLO-American-Zionist Empire for nothing. 

Image: Tim Walz and Kamala Harris together in March 2024, prior to the start of the Harris 2024 campaign. Walz would go on to become the campaign’s vice presidential candidate. (From the Public Domain)

Heading the Democratic Party are two candidates—Kamala Harris and Timothy Walz—nominated by the leadership clique on the basis of identity politics and who have no qualifications whatsoever to govern a nuclear superpower with the respective arsenals of the U.S. and Russia on hair-trigger alert. To picture two such non-entities at the head of American government is beyond appalling. It points to a nation of criminals, lunatics—and traitors. 

The Republicans, by contrast, have nominated for president and vice-president two individuals—former President Donald Trump and Republican Senator J.D. Vance—who are clearly in the tradition of American economic nationalism similar to the Republicans of by-gone days. Now added to their support is another American nationalist—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has been forced to leave the Democratic Party that nurtured his father and uncle.

It is interesting that the Democrats and their controlled press—led as always by the elitist New York Times—is attacking and ridiculing Trump much as Lincoln was attacked and ridiculed way back when. 

Cheerleading the attacks are millions of hangers-on who “work” at all levels of government, at NGOs, for the military, for the Deep State, for “think tanks,” for international institutions, or for “non-profits,” and who think nothing of bleeding taxpayers for the benefit of their own status, aggrandizement, and profiteering. 

Indeed, this class pays itself handsomely as it poses as America’s aristocracy.

I add to this list the vast cadres of “work-at-home” employees who have benefited from the tragedies of the COVID pandemic and the “virtual” workplaces appearing on internet platforms conjured up by Silicon Valley. What will become of all these people when someone pulls the plug like Russia is doing to Ukraine’s late, great power grid?

Then there is the mass of civil service, military, and Social Security retirees whose annual COLAs—compounded—are a huge source of inflation and also serve to create a permanent voting bloc to cover Democratic Party grift. 

Given all these factors, it is difficult to see how the Republicans will ever win another presidential election, but we shall see. The conflict between the two parties is permanent and endemic. But it is just as difficult to see how a nation governed by grift, backed by a military that has not won an actual war or proxy conflict since Japan surrendered in 1945, can survive in an age when BRICS+ is advancing at breakneck speed to make world commerce its own.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is, and has always been, a political amateur, which was proven by the ease with which the Deep State manipulated and bamboozled him during his previous presidency. This included being conned by Israel to support moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and Anthony Fauci blithely suckering him into actively promoting the fake pandemic through “Operation Warp Speed,” etc. 

J.D. Vance has the potential to become a master politician, but he is just getting started. Kennedy had trouble gaining traction throughout his truncated campaign. His loss of master-politician Dennis Kucinich as campaign manager was an early disaster, and his economic program which embraced Bitcoin as an economic panacea remained anemic. 

The opponents of this trio among the Shadow Men and intelligence operatives who now trot Harris-Walz across the stage are consummate professionals at assassination, false flags, and other mayhem and have their long knives at the ready, as already shown by the infamous January 6, 2021, set-up; the July 13 and September 15, 2024, Trump assassination attempts; the current unresolved “lawfare” attacks against Trump by Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, et.al.; and the rigged travesty of the September 10, 2024 Harris/Trump “debate.”

Failure by Both Parties to Address the Banking System

Unfortunately, neither political party has addressed the financial system that lies at the root of so many problems. This is the system run by the central banks of the Western nations based on fractional reserve lending and usury. A strong case can be made that ultimate control over this system comes out of Europe and the ancient families that have ruled the Old World for centuries. The Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, is often mentioned as the system’s institutional overseer. None of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates offer a clue that they have ever even heard of this system which is explained in my book Our Country, Then and Now and many other sources. 

Further, every utopian scheme put forth by such collectives as the UN, the WEF, NATO, or the respective governments of the Western nations presumes a “rules-based” order with the financial billionaires at the top. When I was at the U.S. Treasury Department post 9/11, we had meetings defining the banking system as “critical infrastructure,” meaning it was to be defended by all available means, including military force, and that any attempt to disrupt it was defined as “terrorism.”  

A better term than “rules-based” would be “usury-based.” And it’s this usury-based system that persists only through military power that is destroying humanity. As I wrote in a recent article: 

“The U.S. is in long-term economic decline due to geopolitical factors—the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, for example—causing a major reduction in dollar hegemony internationally and an increase in the federal debt which now amounts to over $35 trillion.

“At the same time, the overall goal of the U.S. economy is to keep the stock market growing at an average rate of 3-5% compounded. Given an economy where economic growth is essentially stagnant; i.e., the only added value is through inflation, every company must cut costs even more. This means lowering wages relative to workers’ cost of living and reducing product quality, including that of food.”

Three Politicians Who Have Challenged the System

Our ruinous financial system has been challenged by only three living politicians. One is former U.S. representative Ron Paul, who has been calling for many years to “audit the Fed.” 

The second is former U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich, who proposed the National Emergency Employment Defense Act in 2011 that would replace the Federal Reserve with a system of national currency. I describe the NEED Act and my own role in helping to bring it to pass in the Appendix to Our Country, Then and Now. 

The third is representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), who proposed legislation on May 16, 2024, to abolish the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, Mr. Massie has not given any indication of what he would replace it with. The NEED Act, which Mr. Massie must know about but failed to reference, would satisfy that concern. 

In the area of globalist banking, the willful ignorance of the U.S. political class is staggering. No wonder we are far along the path of losing our country altogether. Under the rubric “Wagging the Dog,” they used to start wars to distract attention from economic problems. I don’t think that will work anymore. 

Public Banking

There is a promising development in the field of public banking being led by the Public Banking Institute founded by Ellen Brown, author of the classic Web of Debt. Brown cites as an exemplar of public banking the century-old Bank of North Dakota, the only government-owned general-service bank in the U.S. It is the legal depository for all state funds in North Dakota, and uses these deposits to fund business development, farming, and small business. Florida has now come up with a plan for its own Florida State Sunshine Bank. One of its purposes is to keep private banks from “debanking” customers on political or religious grounds. 

Ellen Brown points out, however, that “Florida may run up against Federal Reserve and FDIC rules for obtaining a Fed master account, which is required for the Sunshine Bank to join the federal payment system.” See here. Thus, no matter what, the globalist central banking system controls access to the banking game. Any bank that is part of the system must adhere to the Fed’s interest rate policies, where any interest rate above 1%, which is the break-even point for banking expenses, should be considered usury, according to the late Stephen Zarlenga, head of the American Monetary Institute. The same applies to banks owned by Indian tribes on reservations, which is another form of public banking, but equally beholden to the globalist system. 

Trump’s Economic Program

On September 5, 2024, the Trump campaign introduced an eight-point plan “to defeat inflation, make America affordable again, and return the United States to explosive economic growth.” See Here. 

The centerpiece of the plan is to rebuild U.S. industry through protective tariffs, which is a time-honored Republican policy centerpiece that the globalist Democrats have always opposed vociferously. The plan also entails scrapping the “Green New Deal,” expanding extraction of fossil fuels, investing in a healthy food supply, creating new affordable housing, and setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund for infrastructure investment. 

The plan also calls for “making America the world-capital for crypto and Bitcoin.” While this is far from comprehensive monetary reform, the provision mirrors RFK, Jr.’s, advocacy for a peoples’ currency free from the control of central banks. The next step would be to abolish the Federal Reserve altogether in favor of a new national currency as Rep. Kucinich proposed in 2011.

Meanwhile, the madcap Christian Zionists attribute our peril to their “God” and look forward to, or even call for, the very Armageddon that may be unavoidable. I attribute our peril to our own stupidity, greed, ignorance, and cowardice that may require many centuries to run its course. One thing seems certain: implosion and collapse. 

And what is the alternative to radically-enforced eugenics and genocide to making earth a happy home? It is to create a decent, wholesome society where all members of the Human Family can grow up as sane, productive, positive members of society. 

This does not mean a “perfect” world. 

Nor does it mean the massive “planning” documents such as Biden’s January 10, 2023, “Declaration of North America” or similar documents proclaimed by the UN, WEF, WHO, etc., which are written by bureaucrats in favor of more government “programs” to solve often non-existent problems by spending taxpayer money for salaries of even more “experts,” to solve even more non-existent problems ad infinitum, forever and ever, amen. 

To beat a dead donkey, let’s once again point out that all this grift is the staple of today’s Democratic Party. 

Real change would mean government and its “experts” getting out of the way so ordinary people can live their lives in peace according to the Golden Rule. 

Civil War Is Worldwide

While this section focuses on the U.S., civil war may be breaking out not only here but also in Israel and Europe. There too the battle may go violent as the Empire’s hegemony collapses worldwide. But individuals everywhere in the West also sense new opportunities alongside ramped up repression by the endangered elites. 

As stated earlier, crucial to the outcome is the war being waged by the globalists against freedom of speech, particularly freedom of expression on the internet and social media. Abolishment of free speech is one of their primary aims. Here the war is being fought daily by every individual who cares about the future of humanity. 

The war is also being fought with respect to attempts by globalist institutions like the UN, the WHO, the WTO, and others, to strip nation-states of sovereignty. These attempts are being opposed by figures within the Republican Party and groups like the Door to Freedom and Our Country Our Choice. 

 


 

Chapter 7:

Spiritual Transformation

 

What can bring about peace in the world? I don’t believe any “reforms” will ever do that without changes to the human personality which can only be self-directed. 

Nor will anything ever make life on earth “perfect,” because human beings are not in their essence earthly beings. All real religions point potentially to a higher spiritual state than mere terrestrial satiety or safety.  

But there is the possibility that through Spirit, people may learn to get along through cooperation and compromise instead of war. 

There can be a spiritual outcome, however, only when we see self-directed improvements in the lives of the individuals involved, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or ideology.  But each person’s spiritual path is unique. 

My Journey

Until age 16, I attended the Episcopal Church with my family. Things began to fall apart with the societal disintegration that came with the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and the CIA’s assault on young Americans, with the distribution of LSD on college campuses and the infliction on the population of crippling psychotropic medication. 

Doctors were giving it out like candy, emptying the mental hospitals by turning their patients into vegetables. I witnessed and suffered greatly from all this, but was still able to recover and get a job with the federal government. 

It was also the era of “cults,” Scientology being one notorious example. I’m not afraid to admit that for 12 years I was an active member of a cult operating out of Washington, D.C., at the same time that I was starting to work as a federal government analyst. This particular cult promised its followers they could “wake up” and not be just “automatons” reacting to “external influences.” Various complex “tasks” and mathematical exercises set to music were given.

The cult was highly placed within Washington, D.C., society. You can read something about it in a book called Mary’s Mosaic.  If you questioned the leaders, broke secrecy, or—heaven forbid—quit the organization, you were viewed as one who had “died.” I broke these rules and had to move out of a cult-owned residence after a fire I believed was set deliberately.

For the next few years our family lived in a run-down farmhouse a couple of hours commuting distance from work. I worked at several jobs to make ends meet. Efforts to join a local church proved pointless. I then began to study Islam and read the Koran. But I had long been interested in Eastern religions, so was able to get in touch with an ashram in India devoted to a deceased Hindu saint named Ramdas. 

This seemed like the real thing. I corresponded with Ramdas’s successor, a man named Satchitananda, and was given the name “Ramcharandas,” which means, “Servant of the Feet of God.” 

I began to feel a need to learn how to meditate, with the idea that only by going deeply within could I find the peace that had eluded me my whole life. In May 1998 I attended a retreat in the New York Catskill Mountains put on by a woman Indian teacher named Karunamayi. She had published a book where she said that the greatest living Indian meditation master was a guru named Shivabalayogi. I made contact and learned that a man named Shivabalayogi would be visiting Roanoke, Virginia, the coming September. 

I traveled with “Swamiji” on his U.S. summer tours for seven years. It was one thing to read about these teachings and another to spend time with people who lived them. I did in fact learn to meditate and continue to this day. My account of Swamiji’s teaching may be found in a book I wrote entitled, In the Footsteps of the Yogi.

What I learned during this period was life-changing, but by now I was 60 years old. In 2007 I retired from the federal government and published two books reflecting my government service: Challenger Revealed on the 1986 Challenger disaster that I witnessed at NASA and We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform on what I had learned about the U.S. monetary system while working for the U.S. Treasury.  

Both books were “off the beaten path”: way off. But I also continued my spiritual search, trying to relate what I had learned about meditation to Western spiritual teachings. This brought me to two books by the German spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle: The Power of Now and The New Earth. 

An article I came across about Eckhart Tolle spoke of his childhood and youth when, as a post-World War II German, he was suffering deep depression and had gone to Spain to live with his father. It turned out that his father was a reader of the works of German spiritual master Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943). I learned that books by Bô Yin Râ were becoming available in English translation through the Kober Press of Berkeley, CA, and another publisher in Amsterdam. 

I began reading everything by Bô Yin Râ I could find and have never looked back. I am now starting to read his books in German. My wife Karen and I visited his birthplace in Franconia, Germany, and I am in touch with his German Stiftung. 

Though Bô Yin Râ was raised a Roman Catholic, his teachings apply to all faiths and religions. His books are particularly inspiring, and intensely practical, when speaking of prayer. His book On Prayer is the best on the topic I have ever read, and I cannot recommend it too highly. Clearly prayer is desperately needed in today’s crisis. 

Here is an article I wrote for Three Sages on Bô Yin Râ’s teachings, focusing on his primary text, Book on the Living God. Also see this review of his The Book on Life Beyond.

Bô Yin Râ writes of a better time ahead as more people are born who have a spiritual orientation. He writes that even in his day, signs could be seen, and that was a century ago. 

 


 

Addendum 1:

The Fourteen Holy Helpers

 

In his book More Light, Bô Yin Râ speaks of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, who are saints that appeared in the 14th century to help people in Germany suffering from the Black Death. The presence of the Fourteen Holy Helpers is expressed in the following nighttime prayer:

When at night I go to sleep,
Fourteen angels watch do keep,
Two my head are guarding,
Two my feet are guiding;
Two upon my right hand,
Two upon my left hand.
Two who warmly cover
Two who o’er me hover,
Two to whom ’tis given
To guide my steps to heaven

I firmly believe in the help available to human beings from the heavenly realm. The names of the Fourteen Holy Helpers and the conditions they treat are said to be as follows. 

May you find some of the help you seek in our own plague-filled era by directing your prayers to one or more of these saints or to any others you choose to follow. I also know that St. Michael and St. Anthony always stand ready to help. I also know that for prayers to be answered, we first must ask.

.

 


 

Addendum 2:

Richard Wagner (1813-1883)

 

When citing German culture, we return to Richard Wagner, creator of The Ring of the Nibelung, the great 19th century prophecy of the coming of the modern age in which Wagner depicts allegorically the travails through which humanity must past to achieve its promised future. The Empire has been trying in vain to block this future from arising, as such a future has no place for the exploitation of humanity.  

.

File:Siegfried dans la forge de Regin.jpg

Siegfried at Regin’s forge to receive the sword he will use to slay Fafnir the dragon in Richard Wagner’s cycle Ring of the Nibelung: Painting 1880 by Wilhelm Ernst Ferdinand Franz Hauschild (1827-1887), Neuschwanstein Castle collection  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

.

In contrast to the dwarves and dragons whose grip on the world is passing away, Wagner wrote:

“Love in its most perfect reality is only possible between the sexes; it is only as man and woman that human beings can truly love….It is an error to look on this as only one of the forms in which love is revealed, as if there were other forms coequal with it, or even superior to it….It is only in the union of man and woman by love (sensuous and supersensuous) that the human being exists…”

Perhaps the best source for Wagner’s adulation of the Eternal Feminine is his opera Tannhäuser. 

Source of quotation: George Bernard Shaw, “The Perfect Wagnerite: A Commentary on the Niblung’s Ring,” Dover edition, 1967, p. 99-100.

 


 

Addendum 3:

Jesus on a White Horse

 

See here.

Canadian economist Prof. Michel Chossudovsky criticizes the U.S. government for promoting nuclear war propaganda and advocating for the ‘safe use’ of nuclear weapons in conventional war. He highlights the brainwashing of decision-makers and the dangers of their own power.

Chossudovsky discusses the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and the recategorization of nuclear weapons. 

The short video below also addresses the role of Victoria Nuland in U.S. foreign policy and the neo-Nazi agenda embedded in regime change efforts.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

****

Introductory Note by Michel Chossudovsky 

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout Worldwide .

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”. 

The  August 6-8 2003 “Privatization of Nuclear’ War secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

It was conducive to a $1.3 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program initiated under the Obama administration, which is slated to increase to 2 trillion dollars by 2030. 

Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2024

Towards a World War III Scenario:

The Privatization of Nuclear War

Michel Chossudovsky

August 7, 2011.

 

Introduction

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

The casualties from the direct effects of blast, radioactivity, and fires resulting from the massive use of nuclear weapons by the superpowers [of the Cold War era] would be so catastrophic that we avoided such a tragedy for the first four decades after the invention of nuclear weapons.1

During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.

In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined. The dangers of nuclear weapons have been obfuscated.

Tactical nuclear weapons have been upheld as distinct, in terms of their impact, from the strategic thermonuclear bombs of the Cold War era.

Tactical nuclear weapons are identical to the strategic nuclear bombs. The only thing that differentiates these two categories of nuclear bombs are:

1) their delivery system;
2) their explosive yield (measured in mass of trinitrotoluene (TNT), in kilotons or megatons.

The tactical nuclear weapon or low yield mini-nuke is described as a small nuclear bomb, delivered in the same way as the earth penetrating bunker buster bombs.

While the technology is fundamentally different, tactical nuclear weapons, in terms of in-theater delivery systems are comparable to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

The Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review envisaged so-called “contingency plans” for an offensive “first strike use” of nuclear weapons, not only against “axis of evil” countries (including Iran and North Korea) but also against Russia and China.2

The adoption of the NPR by the US Congress in late 2002 provided a green light for carrying out the Pentagon’s pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production. Congress not only rolled back its prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons, it also provided funding “to pursue work on so-called mini-nukes”. The financing was allocated to bunker buster (earth penetrator) tactical nuclear weapons as well as to the development of new nuclear weapons.3

Video. James Corbett Interviews Michel Chossudovsky 

Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters

On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, [twenty two years ago] commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima.

The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.

In a cruel irony, the participants to this secret meeting, which excluded members of Congress, arrived on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and departed on the anniversary of the attack on Nagasaki.

More than 150 military contractors, scientists from the weapons labs, and other government officials gathered at the headquarters of the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska to plot and plan for the possibility of “full-scale nuclear war”, calling for the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons – more “usable” so-called “mini-nukes” and earth penetrating “bunker busters” armed with atomic warheads.4

According to a leaked draft of the agenda, the secret meeting included discussions on “mini-nukes” and “bunker-buster” bombs with nuclear war heads “for possible use against rogue states”:

We need to change our nuclear strategy from the Cold War to one that can deal with emerging threats… The meeting will give some thought to how we guarantee the efficacy of the (nuclear) stockpile.5

The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage

The post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine was in the making, with America’s major defense contractors directly involved in the decision-making process.

The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the “privatization of nuclear war”. Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons industry, which includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon and Boeing in the lead.

It is worth noting that barely a week prior to the historic August 6, 2003 meeting, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) disbanded its advisory committee which provided an “independent oversight” on the US nuclear arsenal, including the testing and/or use of new nuclear devices.6 

The above text is an excerpt from Michel Chossudovsky’s Towards a World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War.

please note: at the moment, this book is only available in PDF format

Financing the Culture of War

There are more than 5000 US nuclear weapons deployed. And now the US is committed to developing a generation of “more usable” low yield tactical nuclear weapons (bunker buster bombs) which are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.

“Blowing up the Planet” on a first strike basis as a instrument of peace and global security.

Those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own lies.

And what the US public does not know that is that on September 15, 1945, confirmed by declassified documents, the Truman administration released a secret plan to bomb 66 Soviet cities with 204 atomic bombs, at a time when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.

And those who dare to say that the use of nuclear weapons threatens the future of humanity are branded as “conspiracy theorists”.

The Privatization of Nuclear War 

Video. James Corbett Interviews Michel Chossudovsky 

 

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.

Featured image is from Countercurrents


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   

Trump tra Guerra e Pace

November 8th, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

Donald Trump, appena eletto presidente degli Stati Uniti con una maggioranza schiacciante rispetto a Kamala Harris, ha così enunciato le linee portanti della sua politica estera: “Voglio dire alla comunità mondiale che, mentre metteremo sempre al primo posto gli interessi dell’America, tratteremo in modo equo con ciascuno – tutti i popoli e tutte le altre nazioni. Cercheremo un terreno comune, non l’ostilità; la partnership, non il conflitto.” Poiché già nel precedente mandato Trump incontrò Putin, e per questo negli Stati Uniti fu sottoposto al primo tentativo di impeachment, c’è la possibilità che oggi, avendo la maggioranza nel Congresso, riapra un tavolo negoziale con Putin per mettere fine alla guerra Russia-Ucraina, ossia alla guerra che la NATO sotto comando USA conduce contro la Russia.

Che cosa dovrebbe fare l’Amministrazione Trump in Europa? 1) Fare in modo che venga immediatamente attuato un cessate-il-fuoco tra Nato/Ucraina e Russia. 2) Aprire un negoziato al vertice tra i Presidenti di Stati Uniti e Federazione Russa. 3) Fare in modo che venga demilitarizzato e denuclearizzato l’intero fronte europeo, ritirando le forze nucleari USA-NATO a raggio intermedio schierate in Europa a ridosso del territorio russo e le forze nucleari russe a raggio intermedio schierate in territorio russo a ridosso dell’Europa e in Bielorussia. 4) Togliere le sanzioni alla Russia e riallacciare i rapporti politici, economici e culturali tra Stati Uniti e Russia. 5) Fare in modo che venga convocata, sotto l’egida dell’ONU, una Conferenza Internazionale – con la partecipazione di USA, NATO, UE, Ucraina, Russia e Bielorussia – per una soluzione negoziata del conflitto Russia-Ucraina e l’instaurazione di un sistema di sicurezza in Europa. Diversa è la situazione sull’altro fronte di guerra, quello mediorientale. Trump, come tutti i precedenti presidenti degli Stati Uniti, sostiene Israele.

In base alle preannunciate linee di politica estera, che cosa dovrebbe invece fare l’Amministrazione Trump in Medio Oriente? 1) Fare in modo che venga immediatamente attuato nella regione un cessate-il-fuoco fra tutte le parti in conflitto, che Israele ritiri da Gaza e Cisgiordania le sue forze armate e gli insediamenti di coloni, che i Territori Palestinesi siano governati dagli organismi scelti dai Palestinesi stessi. 2) Fare in modo che venga convocata, sotto l’egida dell’ONU, una Conferenza Internazionale – con la partecipazione di tutti i Paesi della regione a partire da Israele e Iran – per una soluzione negoziata dei conflitti e l’instaurazione di un sistema di sicurezza in Medioriente.

La situazione è resa ancora più complessa dal fatto che Trump è stato votato a grande maggioranza dai 150.000 Americani (ossia Ebrei con doppia cittadinanza statunitense e israeliana) che vivono in Israele (paese con 10 milioni di abitanti,) e che 60.000 di questi sono insediati in Cisgiordania: qui costituiscono il 15% dei coloni che, armati e sostenuti dal governo israeliano, si stanno impadronendo delle terre e altre proprietà palestinesi. Potrà l’Amministrazione Trump, nella sua politica estera, cercare “un terreno comune, non l’ostilità; la partnership, non il conflitto”? Il debito pubblico statunitense supera per la prima volta i 35 mila miliardi di dollari, un livello pari a quello del PIL.

La spesa militare USA, che supera ampiamente i 1.000 miliardi di dollari annui (comprese altre voci oltre il budget del Pentagono), continua crescere. Crescono di conseguenza gli interessi sul debito pubblico pagati ogni anno, che stanno superando il livello della stessa spesa militare. Di questa beneficia largamente Elon Musk, l’uomo più ricco del mondo che ha largamente finanziato la campagna elettorale di Trump e probabilmente avrà un importante incarico nella sua Amministrazione. La società missilistica di Musk, SpaceX, gestisce il programma di lancio dei razzi della NASA e il Pentagono si affida a lui per portare in orbita la maggior parte dei satelliti militari. La macchina bellica statunitense è in piena azione perché sta aprendo un altro fronte di guerra, quello contro la Cina.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

“Everybody knows the boat is leaking/Everybody knows the captain lied” – Leonard Cohen, “Everybody Knows”

When the polls closed on Tuesday, November 5th, I was sound asleep, like a baby rocking gently in his cradle, lost to the frenzied rants or joyful shouting of the different political claques.  Even though I missed the results of what the mass media had been telling us was the most important election in our lifetimes, I was happily oblivious to their cant.  I remember hearing that nonsense many times before.

I gave up on my country’s electoral system more than 50 years ago.  Every presidential election is a contest between two sides of the ruling monied elite, chosen to represent their interests.  It is corrupt beyond repair and was so even then.  Do most people have a clue that their country is owned and run by a small group of the super-rich and ten or so financial institutions, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, etc., the big banks and financial interests that in 1947 formed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to spearhead the U.S. warfare state around the world in support of its economy that is reliant on endless war?

The electorate continually puts its hope in the performers that the spectacle’s producers put up to front for their interests, failing to grasp that the rulers’ interests are not theirs.  Arguing and anguishing over certain policy differences between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, they fail to see that both exist to serve global capital, not regular people, that exchanging presidents is a counterfeiter’s con-game with the voters the scammers’ marks.

Trump’s current victory is an example of that, as was Biden’s in 2020.  If Harris had won, it would have proven the same.  They are two sides of one coin.  That the system is rigged by the oligarchs should be obvious but isn’t.  Or maybe it is obvious but people secretly harbor a perverse liking for it.  Stranger things are true, as on personal levels people embrace the symptoms of their neuroses because the symptoms are their disguised solutions, their ways of staying stuck because change is hard and frightening and requires admitting repressed realities.

The cliché that all politics is local has a certain appeal and a trace of veracity, but 99 + % of the truth lies elsewhere.  Approximately 145 + million Americans just lined up to vote like puppies looking for a bone to be thrown their way by the people who own the country.  They do get a bone here and there, which keeps them looking for the meat, but that is reserved for the fat cats, as always.

I understand why people prefer upbeat words, but very often the upbeat is really the downbeat of hopelessness in disguise.  A coverup.  And seemingly hopeless words, such as that our presidents are the public personae of the rapacious oligarchy, are actually far more hopeful, even though they reveal long-held assumptions to be delusional.

Imagine what might happen if a great portion of people refused to vote for the charlatans chosen to run for president.

The fear that there was even a slight chance that this might happen lies behind all the pep talks and moralizing about doing your civic duty, which is such “a privilege.”  Vote, even if it’s for the “lesser of two evils.”

But please, let us not mention the great evil that lies behind these lessers.  Vote and we’ll give you a sticker. A sticker that signifies your gullibility.

There is a “system,” as young radicals referred to the U.S.’s political-economic structure back in the 1960s.  I was one of them, a conscientious objector from the Marine Corps and a graduate student studying sociology, deeply influenced by the work and moral voice of C. Wright Mills and his powerful books, The Power Elite, The Causes of World War III, and Listen, Yankee, and William Domhoff’s Who Rules America, a work that has gone through seven updated editions.

There were (and are) many other books that told the story truly, but even reading them won’t help unless you are willing to dispense with the obvious illusions and face the bleakness of a corrupt system.  Willing to take it personally.  Willing to recognize the systemic evil that under-girds the System.  Willing to accept the void that the Trappist monk Thomas Merton termed the Unspeakable:

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.

This void is the fact that the U.S. political economy is controlled by a small group of the wealthiest nihilists and is maintained through lies, a military-industrial economy, and perpetual wars around the world to maintain and increase their wealth.  It is a death cult that people worship by their participation.

Although in subsequent years it became fashionable to decry the use of the term “the system,” there was a system then and there is one now, run by the upper class elite whose wealth has increased exponentially over the years throughout Democratic and Republican administrations.  This system is tightly entwined throughout the social structure of the country, part of the everyday fabric of American life.  It is fueled by the corporate mass media of all political persuasions.  Understanding it helps to explain most of what is going on today, including the farcical election just concluded.  A battle between two candidates who represent the forces that oppress the common people, support the genocide of the Palestinians, and are figureheads for the warfare state.

The system has evolved its methods of control since the 1950s but is essentially unchanged.  It is now monopoly global capitalism joined with the steroidal injection of digital technology and the Internet to create a seamless marriage of economic exploitation and non-stop propaganda that has coopted and controlled the working classes and leftist intellectuals alike. Those middle to upper middle classes who like to consider themselves liberal or progressive accept the status quo because it rewards them at the expense of struggling peoples at home and abroad.  They can afford to play along and look away, being typical Babbitts.  And the right-wing was always in the pocket of the power elites.

Elections are said to be about pocket-book issues, which is largely true, but the oligarchic control of the nation’s pocketbook is not the focus.  Small stuff is.

Book cover for Titans of Capital

Listen to Peter Philips, a sociologist in Mills’s tradition, who tells the truth that most can’t bear to hear and will never accept. His latest book is, Titans of Capital.  Here he is being interviewed by Robert Scheer, These Ten Companies Run Our “Democracy.”

It’s nothing new, but to accept it would require an American revolution, which isn’t coming.  No, it’s not coming when so many people “do their civic duty” and vote for presidential candidates fronting for the upper class’s interests.

As I am finishing writing these words, a headline appears at The New York Times Corporation to make me laugh and give me that all-over happy tingle.  It reads: “Popularist Revolt Against Elite’s Vision of the U.S.”   Subheaded with these introductory words: “In the end, Donald Trump is not the historical aberration some thought he was, but a force reshaping the modern U.S., writes Peter Baker in an analysis.”

Not an historical aberration!  Then he must not be a deviation from the normal type of American president.  Trump is a good old normal American president, claims the Times.  Is this a Freudian slip?

The “elite’s vision?”  So the Times is also admitting that there is an elite and they have a vision for the common people?  I wondered what kind of confession was to follow?  So I followed.

The article by Baker has a strangely punctuated title with an ambiguous meaning that its text contradicts: ‘Trump’s America’: Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country.”  It opens with the introductory words I quoted above, as if to reinforce the point.  Not an historical aberration, which for anyone who understands the English language means he is normal.  But then Baker mixes his illogical word salad with dressing.

He writes, as if there were some logical connection between his sentences:

Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.

.

Screenshot from the NYT

.

Is he not saying that there is an elite that the common people are rebelling against by voting for Trump and that Harris has been chosen by these same elites.

But if Trump is not an historical aberration and therefore has also been chosen by the elites, then the “popularist revolt” is no revolt at all but a con job played out by the billionaire elites who support Trump.  Baker and all the “experts” he quotes are loathe to admit openly that the ruling oligarchy is split; that both Harris and Trump are candidates of the elite who war among themselves but who in the end reap the spoils of the system.  That they are allied in an overall goal.

Baker tells us about Kamala Harris, who was not chosen by the people but by the elite who control the Democratic party, that

“Once she took the torch from Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris initially emphasized a positive, joy-filled mission to the future, consolidating excited Democrats behind her, but it was not enough to win over uncommitted voters.”

Joy didn’t work.  Well what the heck!

Baker also tells us that trashing Trump and emphasizing unity didn’t either because the American people want a strongman.

What? A non-aberrational strong man?

But Baker goes on to castigate Trump as a criminal, a liar, a fraud, a conspiracy theorist, etc. while the joyful Harris just miscalculated and underestimated popular discontent.  This is the usual Times’ schtick.  Turn to the New York Postfor the obverse and have a chuckle at the absurd game the media play on the public.

Baker’s headline tells us that Trump’s win signals that the U.S. is now a different kind of country because so many people are fed up with how it’s being run.  Different from 2016 when Trump won?

If only it were a different country, but it isn’t.  The same elite money forces run the show.  Elections don’t change that.  People continue to be suckers.

Baker lets it slip again with these words:

The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away on Tuesday night by a red current that swept through battleground states – and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties.

Yes, the “ruling elite.”  One elite.  Both parties.  And nothing was swept away.  This ruling elite is just laughing and no doubt secretly applauding the stenographers who serve their interests, such as Peter Baker, who portrays them in typically deceptive Times’ gobbledygook fashion as “perplexed.”  Have a laugh!

“Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows”

Do they?

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Featured image is from rawpixel.com / Sergeant Matt Hecht


Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

Com maioria no Senado e muito provavelmente na Câmara dos Deputados, Donald Trump terá um maior controle sobre a política norte-americana. Além disso, tudo indica que ele aprendeu um pouco com os erros de seu primeiro mandato e desta vez terá homens de alta confiança nos principais postos governamentais. Há muita preocupação, entre os elementos tradicionais do establishment, que ele reorganize toda a burocracia estatal e construa um Deep State próprio.

A força avassaladora de Trump, comprovada nestas eleições, indica que os donos tradicionais do Deep State podem ter de adotar a máxima do “se não pode com ele, junte-se a ele”. Os grandes jornais, prevendo a vitória do republicano, decidiram não declarar apoio a nenhum candidato, apesar de sua cobertura ter sido claramente anti-Trump e pró-Harris. Nos últimos meses da campanha, também foi possível verificar um aumento no financiamento da candidatura Trump por grandes corporações, em comparação com o período anterior à entrada de Harris na disputa (embora esta, mesmo assim, tenha recebido o dobro de dinheiro do republicano). As previsões mais recentes dos mecanismos do mercado financeiro também indicavam uma vitória de Trump, contrastando com o empate técnico verificado nas pesquisas de intenção de voto.

Apesar disso, caso o regime político estadunidense se adapte a Trump, seus representantes farão de tudo para colher concessões do presidente eleito. As principais publicações que orientam os formuladores da política externa americana, como a Foreign Affairs, têm publicado artigos alertando para o mal que uma política trumpista pura representaria para os Estados Unidos. Em outras palavras, como o isolacionismo enfraqueceria o sistema imperialista de dominação global.

O caso brasileiro e latino-americano

Contudo, se na Europa e na Ásia a política externa de Trump pode resultar na debilitação do intervencionismo americano, o cenário na América Latina provavelmente não seguirá essa tendência. Claro, o imperialismo está numa fase histórica de decadência, mas, por ser o quintal dos Estados Unidos, o continente tem maiores dificuldades de reagir contra a dominação imperial. As classes dominantes dos nossos países não passam de vassalas de Washington, que, devido à proximidade geográfica, exerce um controle mais efetivo sobre elas do que sobre as de outros continentes.

Somos um dos pontos de menor divergência entre a ala trumpista e a ala “globalista” da burguesia americana. As duas concordam que o Hemisfério deve ser de controle exclusivo dos Estados Unidos. A Doutrina Monroe faz parte do ABC político dessas duas alas. A armadilha da dívida externa escraviza nossos povos sob o jugo do FMI e do Banco Mundial. Os abundantes recursos naturais nos tornam presas imediatas para os grandes monopólios industriais. Trump tem uma política extremamente favorável à voracidade das grandes petroleiras, e Brasil e Venezuela cheiram a petróleo. Elon Musk, o mais proeminente magnata trumpista, olha para as reservas de lítio de Brasil, Argentina, Chile e Bolívia com uma cobiça indisfarçável (basta lembrar de suas palavras quando do golpe na Bolívia).

Nos últimos anos, os Estados Unidos escalaram a ofensiva sobre o nosso continente. Se Trump, em seu primeiro mandato, adotou uma política relativamente pacifista com relação ao resto do mundo, na América Latina ele quase derrubou os governos de Nicarágua (2018) e Venezuela (2019), além de ser bem-sucedido com o golpe de Estado na Bolívia (2019) e a eleição de um fantoche no Brasil (2018).

Ao mesmo tempo que mantinha o espólio dos nossos países, o protecionismo de Trump (seguido, em muitos aspectos, por Joe Biden) afetou duramente as exportações do Brasil. Ele impôs uma tarifa de 25% ao aço brasileiro, acusando-nos de ser uma “ameaça à segurança nacional dos EUA”. Biden manteve essa medida e agora todos consideram que as tarifas também prejudicarão a exportação de milho, soja, ferro, biocombustíveis e partes de maquinário.

As transações comerciais com os EUA já tiveram um déficit de 1,1 bilhão de dólares em 2023 e a redução das exportações, motivada pelas altas tarifas, deverá elevar ainda mais esse déficit. A política econômica de Trump também deverá elevar os juros e valorizar o dólar, conduzindo ao aumento da inflação no Brasil. A grande imprensa monopolista brasileira – sucursal dos veículos estadunidenses – já está usando isso para pressionar ainda mais fortemente por um arrocho fiscal, porque os bancos internacionais precisarão compensar as perdas com o protecionismo nos EUA aumentando o espólio dos outros países.

A necessidade de um reposicionamento do Brasil

Se for mantida a política de submissão (que Lula não tem conseguido superar) diante dos EUA, a crise econômica no Brasil vai piorar vertiginosamente. Claro que os primeiros a senti-la (e os que a sentirão mais profundamente) são os pobres, os trabalhadores e os camponeses. Mas os empresários que não pertencem – totalmente – ao seleto grupo de sanguessugas e parasitas antinacionais também serão fortemente afetados.

O Brasil vai presidir o BRICS no primeiro ano de mandato de Trump nos Estados Unidos. Uma das principais tarefas do País será avançar com o processo de desdolarização dentro do bloco, iniciado e impulsionado por China e Rússia. Dentre os seríssimos equívocos do governo com relação ao BRICS, está o de optar por um processo mais lento de abandono do dólar como moeda exclusiva de negociação. Diante da nova realidade, isso terá de ser revisto e revertido, porque a redução e – oxalá – o fim da dependência do dólar é uma necessidade imperativa para qualquer nação que pretende ser soberana.

Com efeito, a presidência brasileira do BRICS em meio ao relacionamento econômico crescentemente negativo com os EUA de Trump abre uma oportunidade imperdível de distanciamento dessa dependência quase escravagista. Ao ver dificultada a exportação de soja para os EUA, por exemplo, o Brasil pode orientá-la para a China. O aço também pode ser dirigido para os Emirados Árabes e a América Latina e Caribe, grandes importadores do Brasil.

Além do BRICS, abre-se também uma chance de fortalecimento da integração latino-americana através dos mecanismos regionais como a Celac e o Mercosul (desde que a política desse organismo seja reorientada para os interesses nacionais). Agora que os democratas tomaram uma surra e foram escorraçados da Casa Branca, do Congresso e do Senado, pode ser que o presidente Lula também se sinta menos amarrado às suas pressões, volte atrás nos ataques do governo à Venezuela e à Nicarágua e busque retomar as boas relações com os dois países, o que seria vital para o fortalecimento do Brasil e da região diante da ofensiva que virá. Porque se o governo continuar com suas hostilidades contra os países irmãos, estará objetivamente aliando-se a Donald Trump. Isso vai deixar claro para todos os ingênuos dirigidos pela Globo que o ataque à Venezuela não passa de um alinhamento à extrema-direita nacional e internacional.

Aqui entra um ponto delicadíssimo que merece profunda reflexão de Lula e do PT. A vitória de Trump impulsiona os instintos golpistas de toda a oligarquia latino-americana e, particularmente, da extrema-direita, ainda em crescimento. Ela não fica apenas animada e motivada, mas vai também receber apoio material para desestabilizar os governos minimamente nacionalistas da região. Se Javier Milei já demonstrou ser a ponta de lança da ofensiva imperialista na América Latina, com Trump no poder nos EUA essa parceria vai crescer.

A pressão sobre o Brasil vai dobrar. Jair Bolsonaro acaba de declarar que a eleição de Trump “é um passo importantíssimo” para ele mesmo voltar ao governo – e, se não for possível, alguém apoiado por ele. Mas o capitão reformado não escondeu suas esperanças no apoio do novo governo dos EUA: “acredito que o Trump gostaria que eu fosse elegível.” Demonstrando sua disposição apaixonada de servir novamente ao imperialismo americano, como se estivesse balançando o rabinho para o dono, Bolsonaro disse que “sabe o seu lugar”: “estou para ele como o Paraguai está para o Brasil.”

É tão claro como a água que a oposição bolsonarista vai tentar tirar o máximo proveito do fato de Trump assumir o governo para prender ainda mais o Brasil sobre o colo do Tio Sam. Porque, embora Trump não seja um representante típico do sistema imperialista americano, os bolsonaristas – amantes da bandeira americana – o veem como o grande símbolo do poder e da força dos Estados Unidos, que devem reinar eternamente sobre a face da Terra. No Congresso brasileiro há muitos exemplos dessa vassalagem, a começar por Eduardo Bolsonaro, que esteve abraçando Trump em Mar-a-Lago.

Mas os agentes dos EUA estão espalhados por todo o Congresso e também pelos governos estaduais, prefeituras e todos os órgãos de poder no Brasil. Lula e o PT terão de enfrentá-los de maneira contundente, o que significa abandonar as alianças que fazem até mesmo com os próprios bolsonaristas – o PT apoia 52 prefeitos que também são apoiados pelo PL. A imprensa está aproveitando tanto o resultado das eleições municipais quanto o das americanas para fazer campanha por um governo de centro, ou seja, da direita oligárquica neoliberal e lacaia dos EUA – ou de uma frente ampla à qual Lula se submetesse com medo do espantalho do bolsonarismo. Mas essa quinta coluna, que também está dentro do governo, é tão agente do regime americano quanto os bolsonaristas, por isso seus ataques retóricos a Trump ou a Bolsonaro não devem ser mal-interpretados como nacionalismo. Uma deposição de Lula (seja nas eleições ou não) pode servir tanto aos interesses de Trump como aos do establishment imperialista.

A conclusão, mais uma vez, é a de que o governo Lula ainda pode reduzir a dependência brasileira do imperialismo americano, aproveitando-se do enfraquecimento do Deep State e do regime como um todo com o isolacionismo de Trump. Mas para isso terá a obrigação de combater os agentes dos EUA no Brasil, que poderiam se unificar para evitar que o Brasil se afaste dessa dependência.

Eduardo Vasco

 

*

Eduardo Vasco é jornalista especializado em política internacional, correspondente de guerra e autor dos livros-reportagem “O povo esquecido: uma história de genocídio e resistência no Donbass” e “Bloqueio: a guerra silenciosa contra Cuba”.