Global Research

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.

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

***

The period from 1462 to 1815 is of special importance for the history of Russia and the Russian people as well as for the history of Eurasia for at least five good reasons:

1) Russia became modernized according to the European pattern;

2) Russia became liberated from the foreign occupants;

3) The Russian people became territorially united into a single national state;

4) Eurasia experienced Russian territorial expansion in all directions from its original administrative center in Moscow and later St Petersburg; and finally

5) Russia as the mighty empire became a member of the European concert of Great Powers and even the most powerful state in Eurasia after the Napoleonic Wars.

The period started with the realm of Ivan the Great (Ivan III Vasilievich, 1462−1505) to be ended with the final decisions of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. That was the Grand Duchy of Moscow, known as Moscovy, as the state created by the Grand Dukes of Moscow in north-east Russia to be destined to commit two great historical tasks:

1) To recover the territories lost to the Swedish, Polish, Lithuanian, German, Ottoman, and Mongol/Tartar occupants (in the west and south), and

2) To expand Russian authority across North Asia (Siberia) up to the Pacific Ocean.

However, it has to be noticed that in 1462 the crucial aspect of Russian participation in international relations was, in fact, zero as the state was almost in absolute isolation from the rest of the world. In other words, Moscovy Russia was in the mid-15^th century isolated from almost all contact with the outside communities simply by the hostility of its direct neighbors.

In particular, Moscovy Russia was not in a position to share in both scientific and cultural issues of Europe, and from this perspective became relatively backward compared with especially West Europe. However, lesser than four centuries later, in 1815 Russian Empire became the most powerful participant in European politics and international relations.

The territories of the Russian people ruled from Kiev (the Kieven Rus’) have been split due to the Mongol occupation in the mid-13^th century followed by the occupation by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into two parts: eastern and western. The eastern lands were under the authority of Mongols while the western territories became crucial parts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (including Kiev) to be after the Lublin Union of 1569 (signed between Poland and Lithuania) incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland. Nevertheless, under the shadow of Mongol overlordship, the Grand Duchy of Moscow succeeded to dominate its Russian neighbors and finally threw off the Mongol/Tartar yoke.

Image: Ivan the Great (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The growing power of the Grand Duchy of Moscow was gradual and finally obtained political independence from the Mongols/Tartars under the rule of Ivan the Great in 1480.

The political-military power of Moscovy was first exerted eastward and later southeastward. The northern territories of Novgorod have been the next (in 1478) followed by Pskov (1510). Nevertheless, one of the most successful and important conquests by Moscovyte Russia (from 1547 the Empire) was in 1552 when the Khanate of Kazan became subjugated to Russian rule. Consequently, this conquest opened the way for Russia to advance across the Urals and into Siberia.

Subsequently, the Tartar Khanate of Astrakhan became conquered in 1556 which gave Russia control of the Volga and all ways to the Caspian Sea.

However, in the second half of the 16^th century, Russia experienced certain setbacks during the Livonian War (1558−1583) under Ivan IV the Terrible (1533−1584) as this debilitating war for a quarter of a century on the Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish frontiers was, in principle, not successful for Russia. Moscow was in the year 1571 even sacked by the invading army of the Tartars from Crimea.

Nevertheless, Siberia became the biggest challenge of the Russian territorial expansion at the turn of the 17^th century. Originally, it was the fur trade that involved Russian merchants in the unknown and rarely settled territory of Siberia (that was, in fact, terra incognita).

Russians finally reached the coast of the Pacific Ocean in 1639 followed by the establishment of the holds (like the Americans did in the Wild West).

In essence, the plenty of Siberian rivers very much facilitated fast exploration that became soon inforced by strategic forts and trading posts. In fact, all of Siberia except the Amur region became acquired from native primitive peoples (Tungusy, Ostyaks, Lamuts, Koryaks, Chukchi, Yakuts, Evenki…) – the Amur was annexed from China in the 1650s but was given up in 1689 according to the Treaty of Nerchinsk with China. Parallelly, the opening of the Volga trade route led to the fast growth of the silk trade with Persia/Iran via the Caspian Sea.

After the Time of Troubles in Russian history, which followed the deaths of Ivan the Terrible (1584) and Boris Godunov (1605) in 1613 Michael Romanov became elected Russian Tsar/Emperor – the founder of the Romanov ruling dynasty (1613−1917).

The Romanovs in the 17^th century turned their attention to the recovery of West Russia which was for centuries under the Lithuanian-Polish occupation. At the beginning of this campaign, there were certain losses which have been caused mainly by the internal political chaos and disunity of the earlier period known as the Time of Troubles. However, important gains have been done from 1640 to 1686. For instance, in 1667, Kiev and the mid-Dneper territories were gained. The Cossacs of the lower Dniepr led by Bogdan Khmelnitski voluntarily accepted the Russian rule instead of the Polish Catholic yoke in 1654, and their land of Zaporozh’ye, therefore, became since that time claimed by Russia.

Image: Alexander I (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

In the second half of the 16^th century and throughout the 17^th century, Russian colonization spread across the Oka River in the south while some Eastern Slavs migrated from Poland into the forest-steppe zone.

At the time, several towns in this zone started their existence as borderland outposts like, for instance, Orel (1564), Voronezh (1586), or Kursk (1586). Nevertheless, at the time, isolation from Europe was the focal problem for Russia until the time of Tsar Peter the Great (1682−1725).

On one hand, there was a huge demand for different products from the Russian forest and land by West Europeans but, on the other hand, Russia was unable to profit from such demand for the very physical reason that Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire simply blocked both oversea and overland links with Europe.

It is true that the Brits for commercial purposes succeeded to open up a very dangerous northern route to the White Sea via the Barents Sea and that Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible established the seaport of Archangel in 1584.

However, Archangel as the outlet for the export of Russian products to Europe was workable only during the summertime for a few months. For several reasons, therefore, Russian Tsar Peter the Great accepted as his focal national aim in foreign policy to break through to the shores of the Baltic Sea and consequently, took from Sweden Estonia and Livonia after the Great Northern War (1700−1725) which, in fact, Swedish King Charles XII started against Russia. The seaport of Riga became acquainted and a new Russia’s capital on the Baltic Sea was established in 1703 – St Petersburg. Consequently, Russia became a Baltic power with open access via the sea to Europe and its market.

What was done by Peter the Great for Russia in the north (the Baltic Sea) was done later in the same century by Russian Empress (of German origin) Catherine the Great (1762−1796) in the south (the Black Sea). She was waging several successful wars from 1768 to 1792 against the Tartar Khanate in Crimea which finally led to the destruction of the Tartar state in the peninsula.

It was followed by the substitution of Russian for Ottoman control along the northern littoral of the Black Sea, in the Crimean Peninsula, around the Azov Sea, and across the adjoining steppes. The seaport of Odessa was founded in 1794 and became for the region of the Black Sea of the same importance as the seaport of Archangel (est. 1584) was for the White Sea or St Petersburg for the Baltics – the focal outlet for Russian exports to Europe.

From the time of the First Partition of Poland-Lithuania (the Republic of Two Nations) in 1772 to the Vienna Congress of 1814−1815 Russia moved her state territory westward for 600 miles at the expense of Poland-Lithuania.

By the three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, 1793, and 1795 Russian Empire gained much of the former Polish Kingdom and all Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After the collapse of Napoleon’s Grand Duchy of Warsaw, the Vienna Congress authorized Russian Emperor Alexander I (1801−1825) to become King of a reconstituted Kingdom of Poland. Russia became a leader of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria, and Prussia) up to the mid-19^th century and, in fact, the strongest power in continental Europe with borders from Warsaw to Vladivostok. At the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Russia included the region of the South Caucasus (1806−1813).

Russia during the period from Peter the Great to the Vienna Congress experienced fast economic development, especially in the military industry.

During that historical period, the Russian Empire was engaged in several wars for the purpose to obtain direct geophysical access to both the Baltic Sea in the north and the Black Sea in the south followed by pushing Russian borders westward into the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which main part of it was previously annexed from Russia and populated by Russians and other Eastern Slavs.

On these East Slavonic territories incorporated into Poland-Lithuania, the Eastern Orthodox Slavs have been experiencing systematic Catholization, forced acceptance of the church union with the Vatican, and denationalization (i.e., political Russophobia). Nevertheless, these wars required a huge investment in the armaments industry and, therefore, productive metallurgical foundations. These conditions were founded by Emperor Peter the Great according to the West European pattern, fundamentally in the Urals as this region was extremely rich in iron and copper ores as well as in huge forests which have been suitable for the production of charcoal.

The same Emperor founded factories, gave investment incentives, encouraged new management, and established the foundation for the further industrialization of Russia. In Central Russia, the textile and animal fat industries continued to be developed while by 1815, a new (third) industrial center arose in the north at a new capital St Petersburg.

Finally, Russia’s population in 1815 due to both territorial enlargement and prolific natural increase was significantly increased. For the year 1600, it is estimated that Russia (Moscovy) had circa 10 million inhabitants but when Peter the Great died, around 15,5 million.

According to the census data in the year of the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812, the Empire had already 42,75 million people (including from Europe and Asia). The population of Siberia, for instance, had grown from around 500.000 during the time of Peter the Great to some 1.400.000 when Napoleon attacked Russia. However, at that time, only 4% of the total of Russia’s population was living in the urban areas, of which 30% lived in the two biggest cities – Moscow and St Petersburg.

*

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.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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.

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

***

Background

Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.

Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.

Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.

And, all these come as American people are unhappy with a worsening economic situation. Earlier this week, the American rating agency Fitch downgraded the US government’s triple-A credit rating by one notch, putting it at double-A plus. The agency cited expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years as well as high and growing general government debt burden.

PressTV: Any comments?

Peter Koenig (PK): It is about time the American public wakes up to this scam of biblical proportions. Unfortunately, in Europe the awakening appears slower, because opposition is not made as public as in the US. Censorship in Europe has reached record proportions. We are way beyond George Orwell’s 1984.

However, similar inquiries made in secret with people in Europe would yield similar results – or even stronger against putting more tax-payers’ money into a bottomless, corrupt rathole, called Ukraine.

In the US, Republicans see apparently much clearer through the scam than so-called Democrats – Dems — do. By scam is meant a last-ditch US attempt to weaken Russia to the point of a “regime change”, to a regime à la Yeltsin, so that Russia’s wealth of natural resources would become open for privatization and foreign / US exploitation; last ditch – means, before this wannabe empire disappears from the horizon of importance.

In the US, Dems are indoctrinated by Globalism. Though, adherents to the Democratic Party in States like California and New York, would hardly admit that their originally noble socially-inclined points of view, as in helping those in need, have been gradually highjacked in the last at least 2 to 3 decades by an incessant well-funded globalist propaganda.

This is a worldwide western trend. In Europe – same happens with left leaning people and political parties. What was left, is now globalist; what was right is now anti-globalist, defending national sovereignty and personal freedom. They apparently have seen through the scams of the elite.

The traditional western world party system – left vs.  right – has disappeared. It is now simply globalists vs. anti-globalists.

And the western NATO provoked and incited Ukraine war is, next to the covid crime and the fake narrative on “climate change”, the worst crime the west is getting away with, because westerners are gullible to false media reports. And why is that so?

Because they love their comfort.

Going against the official narrative may risk their comfortable life, as they fear being exposed to ever more dictatorial regimes, if they do not obey.

But, quietly in their closed quarters and in their minds, in the US and in Europe, they have long discovered that money and ship-loads full of arms to Ukraine does not resolve the “problem” – that the war was not winnable, never was – against a mighty Russia.

Americans also recognize that there is an enormous poverty growing in the US. Countless homeless people are dotting the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and other major US cities. US unemployment is rampant, despite official “statistics” to the contrary.

Plus, US infrastructure is breaking down in warp speed. In many cases roads, bridges and railroads have become extremely dangerous to human life.

All these are good reasons, why and how US tax money could be spent to much better use at home.

Up to now we are talking about an estimated US-dollars 150-plus billion sent in the form of weaponry and “budgetary” transfers to Ukraine. And this within about 18 months, since February 2022.

Compare this with about US$ 38.4 billion unemployment benefits paid in the same 18 months, from February 2022, when the NATO war against Russia began, to June 2023. The US$ 150-plus billion, represent almost four times more than paid US unemployment benefits in the same period. See this.

If you add to the US$ 150 billion another, say US$ 60 – 70 billion-equivalent from Europe’s spending in weaponry and “gifts”, or officially “budgetary transfers”, you get a total of about 215 billion dollars equivalent put down the bottomless black Ukrainian abyss.

This is not only a ridiculous but an economy-killing amount.

In addition, literally 70% of all the weaponry that the west sends to Ukraine ends up on the black market, instead of at the front. This was already reported a while ago by BBC, CNN, and other mainstream media.

So, US and European governments know it, but continue doing it – why?

Because they may want to supply the black market with sophisticated NATO weaponry.

Most of these arms end up in what the west calls “terrorist groups” – precisely what the west wants, because terrorist activities, violent protests and the like, as we have witnessed in France and other countries in the past few months, they are not random. They are planned. They are justification for increasing militarization and dictatorship in the west.

In recent vicious protests in France, NATO weapons have been spotted and reported, but to no avail, not picked up by the mainstream.

PressTV: The US Fitch Rating Agency recently down-graded the US credit rating from AAA to AA-plus. Yet, the useless spending on Ukraine continues, against all common senses, and against US economic interests.

PK: Fitch Rating Inc. is a US-UK credit rating agency. Agency Fitch, or any rating agency, would only make a US rating decision in complete accord with, or even by mandate from the US government, in tune with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Even though in this case Treasury Secretary Yellen complained officially, she might as well have been the initiator of the down-rating.

A lower rating gives the US more leeway or flexibility with potentially controversial policy decisions, i.e., increasing base interest rates again later this year … and more. Yet, most economists know that the FED’s raising the base-rate does more harm to the economy, brings more enterprises to their knees, and transfers their assets to Big Capital, i.e., BlackRock style financial behemoths, than lowering interests, so that business and production enterprises could pick up steam and catch up with what they lost during the covid times.

Of course, the same applies to Europe, and to most countries of capitalist economies. The convenient excuse of fighting inflation, does not stand its ground. Never did.

And that is known to the politicians and their economic advisers.

*

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 Treason.news

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.

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

***

The would be masters of totalitarian control have turned-up the heat in a calculated push to make sure responsibility for the bush and forest fires that have broken-out in the Mediterranean during the recent heatwave, are squarely blamed on ‘global warming’.  

There has barely been a day during July when the ‘horror’ of these events hasn’t occupied the headlines of the UK mainstream press and other such top-down compliant media outlets.

The horror is no doubt very real where fires have got out of control, putting lives and property under direct threat – and we should spare a thought for those afflicted in this way.

But the continuous repetition of headlines shouting “Record breaking heat!” “Devastating fires!” “Hell on Earth!” have become suspiciously familiar to those who saw through the Covid fear mongering scams of 2020/2021.  An increasingly wary public are no longer so easily seduced by the mind controlling media manipulations employed to enforce public acceptance of the ‘great global warming hoax’.

Things haven’t being going so well for the ‘Net Zero’ lobby recently. Public sentiment is shifting away from the sort of ‘in-your-face’ simplistic headlines specifically designed to provoke fear and panic; especially when the fully insulated mainstream media agenda completely suppresses any attempt to express another opinion.

The Grecian islands of Rhodes and Corfu follow the pattern of much of mainland Greece. They have hot dry Summers. It is not uncommon for temperatures to reach the upper 30’s and low 40’s centigrade.

We have Vanessa Beeley, reporting for the UK Column News, to thank for pointing-out that the fires which were reported as breaking-out on Rhodes, actually caused significant damage in just three villages and surrounding farmland, some of which was badly scorched by wind driven fires, causing serious loss of income to the affected farmers, no doubt for years to come.

The World Economic Forum leadership has stated that it does not like small farms producing ‘real’ food. It’s ‘Green Deal’ wants such farms out of the way, to be replaced by synthetic laboratory look a’ likes. Such a view is now being taken up by all governments that subscribe to ‘The Great Reset’.

Greece has the highest number of small farms of any country in Western Europe. It’s farmers have frequently come out in support of ‘the people’ during political crises; selling staple foods direct from their farm trailers at give-away prices. However they rely heavily on the tourist trade in the Summer months, as sales during this season keep them solvent during the winter.

Scare mongering by the BBC and mainstream media in general, has kept visitors away this Summer, with fabricated reports of temperatures regularly exceeding the norm.

Southern Greece appears to have been targetted for special treatment by whoever sets the ‘hit agenda’ meted-out to various countries unwilling to conform to the strictures of the insidious WEF ‘net zero’ climate change agenda.

Adding to the dilemma of a country already dry by most European standards, is the recent rush to erect banks of ‘green’ wind turbines in countryside locations.

As has been the experience in North Germany and North Poland in recent years, the blades of these turbines generate a unique air flow the effect of which is to reduce rainfall and subtly alter local weather patterns, thus making areas in which they are situated drier than normal. Fires, some of which the Greek press are reporting as likely cases of arson, have spread faster and been more damaging due to this drying out.

It is my contention that the anti-life forces behind the creed of anthropogenic global warming are upping their programme via a globally coordinated agenda of deliberate weather disruption and the simultaneous spreading of critically biased information.

To keep the ‘Stop CO2’ Net Zero scam on course, the powers that be within the World Economic Forum, United Nations and affiliated corporate and banking institutions, must come up with a regular menu of disasters ostensibly caused by excess CO2. They must promulgate stories of rising temperatures threatening the future of life on earth.

This is a policy the elite cabal has been running for more than three decades. It is set in stone – and all other activities/issues are subordinate to it. ‘Stopping global warming’ is quite simply the concocted alibi with which to impose every conceivable form of restriction on the basic rights of all humanity.

Consider the fact that recent CO2 spewing volcanic eruptions in a number of countries are being kept out of the news. Why is this? Are volcanoes somehow now categorised as ‘conspiracy theories’ to be fact-checked out of the public eye?

Might this be because the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by these eruptions dwarfs that contributed by man made activities? What if the public should wake-up to the fact that volcanic activity is not being factored-in as a serious threat to achieving the great Net Zero by 2045 agenda? In just the same way as ‘war’ has quietly been airbrushed out of the carbon contribution picture.

We should be on the lookout for a sudden ‘new scientific discovery’; something along the lines of “It has recently been established that previous analysis of matter released during volcanic eruptions was incorrect. Scientists have reanalysed recent data and discovered that CO2 only forms a minimal part of the elements released during eruptions.”

Strange isn’t it, that the composition of the upper atmosphere contains such a tiny proportion of CO2 – just 0.04% according to scientific research. But maybe not so odd, when one takes into account that CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air (oxygen). How much is going to make it to the upper atmosphere?

I frequently repeat such observations in my articles, because we need every mortal still capable of rational thought and the ability to experience an emotional response, to grasp the significance of this vast climate deception.

A deception whose successful perpetuation forms the critical mass upon which the entire deep state globalist take-over of the planet currently depends.

Puncture this deceitful global fabrication – this hyper inflated lie – and the false agenda upon which the entire New World Order ‘Great Reset’ is based – will come crashing down.  

Fires in Canada, fires in the USA; fires in China and fires in Europe. Now there will have to be such fires in the headlines every year. They will have to become more extreme, won’t they? If not, the story of disasters caused by continuous anthropogenic ‘global warming’ will cease to hold-up, and humanity will cease being spellbound by its horror.

Given such exceptionally high stakes, might not the perpetrators turn increasingly to the advanced EMF technology of scalar weapons and similar instruments of violence to start fires and keep them burning?

How long have such weapons – like HAARP – already been in use to provoke earthquakes and to change weather patterns?

What lengths will the psychopathic elite cabal go to achieve their ‘Net Zero’ Transhuman planet?

You know the answer.

But, as I also always stress in my writings, we who are awakening have it in our powers to put a stop to this demonic riot of destruction. We just have to get it into our heads that ‘they’ will stop at nothing, to achieve their Luciferian nightmare.

They will obliterate God’s work and replace it with their version, as professor Yuval Noah Harari has recently declared. Well, isn’t this the best possible incentive to prove him wrong?

Could there ever be a more powerful reason to channel our life energies into the unflinching defence of God’s creation?

Is there be a more powerful cause to commit to than that of freeing this jewel of a world, gifted to us as our physical home, from the deadly clutches of a small bunch of obsessed psychopaths?

Not in my book there isn’t.

*

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.

Julian is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is co-director of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside and a long time campaigner for the survival of small farms throughout the world. See his website www.julianrose.info. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

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.

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

***

This article was originally published in March 2014.

In this video we’re going to provide you with compelling evidence that the crimes against humanity committed in Kiev earlier this year [2014] were in fact committed by the new coalition government and that officials in the E.U. and the United States knew full well who committed these crimes and that they are protecting and financially supporting the real criminals.

On February 20th of 2014 the world was shocked by video footage of snipers firing on protesters in Kiev Ukraine. Twenty one people were murdered, and it was widely assumed that President Victor Yanukovich and his supporters were behind the attacks. However a phone conversation between EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton and Estonia’s foreign minister Urmas Paet leaked to the public on March 5th reveals that the snipers in were actually from the new coalition government, and that Western diplomats knew this and covered it up.

*

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.

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.

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

***

Ukraine’s war started in February 2014, not in 2022. As NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on 9 May 2023, “The war started in 2014.” He even was explicit that “You have to remember that the war didn’t start in 2022” (which was when Russia responded on 24 February 2022 by invading Ukraine). Here is the best short video (only ten minutes long) accurately showing in the original historic video clips how it started, and it is very clear there that the U.S. Government, U.S. President Obama, started it in February 2014, by means of a coup, which the Obama Administration had had in the planning stages for quite some time.

Screenshot from The Washington Post

The founder and head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor even called it “the most blatant coup in history”.

The smoking-gun piece of evidence proving that it had been a coup by the U.S. Government is this recording of Obama’s mastermind of the coup, Victoria Nuland, telling Obama’s Ambassador in Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, a month before the coup became climaxed, whom to get appointed to lead the post-coup Ukraine.

And, then, the smoking-gun piece of evidence proving that even the top officials of the EU didn’t know that it had been a coup instead of the ‘democratic revolution’ that the U.S. regime claimed, is this recording of the EU’s minister of foreign affairs being told in a phone call from Kiev, by her investigator there, immediately after the coup was over, that it had been a coup. On 4 November 2019, after enough verified evidence had become known about it and about how the war in Ukraine had actually been started by the U.S. Government, I headlined “The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base in Crimea”, which was the only part of Obama’s plan that failed; and that article documented also how the war had been started by that coup.

Screenshot from The Washington Post

So, as a matter of history now, there can be no question that

Jens Stoltenberg was telling the truth when he said that “You have to remember that the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014.”

But if that is all true, then you also need to ask yourself “Who started the war?”

And, without any doubt at all, the answer to that question is the United States Government. In fact, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton started immediately after Viktor Yanukovych became democratically elected in 2010 as Ukraine’s President, to pressure him to bring Ukraine into EU and then NATO and he refused, and this is the reason why the planning for the coup started by no later than June 2011.

In my article “The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base in Crimea”, I linked to all of the key items of evidence so that any reader can, on one’s own, verify all of these things. They are, by now, clear history, nothing that is rationally disputable.

On 2 August 2023, the U.S. propaganda agency Newsweek headlined “U.S. Troops Should be Sent to Ukraine, Third of Americans Say”, and reported an alleged poll — though without linking to it or otherwise verifying that it existed or anything about its methodology if it did — that

“A total of 31 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. support or strongly support American military forces heading to the battlefields of Ukraine, polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies has revealed.”

Even if the poll existed, and if it was scientifically done, and it found that 31% did support sending U.S. troops into the battlefield of Ukraine to wage war against Russia there in that country which borders Russia, then what national-security interest of the American people would be served by the U.S. Government’s doing that?

Would it not instead enormously endanger us? If America’s troops there would win a conventional war there against Russia, then would not Russia escalate the conflict there on Russia’s very borders, raise it by going nuclear against the U.S., in order to prevent the U.S. Government from placing its nuclear missiles only a five-minute flying time away from blitz-nuking The Kremlin?

On 5 August 2023, I headlined and documented that the “IMF Has ‘Loaned’ $115B to Ukraine Without Requiring Any Proof Where It Went”, but the U.S. Government and its taxpayers have lent and donated far more than that to Ukraine, and if even the IMF (of which America’s Government is the top financial backer) is constantly postponing any audit of its ‘investments’ there, then how could things be any better for the ‘investments’ and donations by America’s taxpayers in Ukraine?

According to the U.S. Government and its agents and allies, the war in Ukraine started by “Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022” and by “Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine” — and anything which would contradict that is mere ‘fake news’ which the social media and the traditional ‘news’ media ought to filter out so that the public won’t get to see or hear any such ‘Russian disinformation’. But even they cannot filter out (far less outright deny) the NATO Secretary General’s having said on 9 May 2023 that “the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014.”

America’s Government is on the wrong side of the war in Ukraine — the side of the aggressor. Where Stoltenberg lied there was when he continued by saying,

“And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.” Obviously, the U.S. Government’s being the aggressor means that its military alliance against Russia is not “collective defense” in this war but is instead collective offense in it — the aggressors. That is what makes all of them be on the side of the aggressor, on the side of the nation that started the war.

To the extent that this information is not publishable in those nations, it’s proof of the given nation’s being a dictatorship — controlled behind-the-scenes by the very same ultimate rulers who also control its news media and censor-out this information, and call this information by such phrases as ‘Russian disinformation’.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

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.

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

***

On August 6, 1945, the United States US Army Air Forces dropped the atomic bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, killing over 70,000 citizens and leaving at least as many ill from radiation sickness. It was the beginning of a horrible madness that seized the American soul.

The United States government dismissed all reports from Japan of radiation sickness, and other conditions, in the months that followed that bombing, claiming that such reports were just conspiracy theories. It would take enormous battles within the US, and around the world, to finally get the US to admit that this atomic weapon was different from a conventional weapon.

But everyone in the War Department knew exactly what sort of a bomb had been dropped and what it did to people. The Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb had undertaken horrible human experiments to determine the influence of radiation on the body, after all.

Moreover, the US government has never formally recognized the pointlessness and the brutality of this massive bombing at a moment that the surrender of Japan was a matter of days.

I want to take this opportunity, as an American running for president of the United States, to do what every previous president of the United States has lacked the decency to do. I want to take responsibility for this atrocity.

My deep apologies to the people of Japan, and to the people of the world, for what the United States did on August 6, 1945. I pledge that the United States will declassify all materials related to the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb and to the Army Air Force that planned the bombings and that the entire story will be made public for the world.

I believe that there were corporations and other distinct actors at the time who can be singled out as legally liable and that I think such a process of pursuing legal liability is meaningful.

I also pledge that the United States will eliminate all nuclear weapons from its arsenal in the next ten years, and that the United States will lead the effort to eliminate these weapons around the world. Only when we make such a commitment, and act upon that commitment, can we hope that other countries will stop their dreams of nuclear arsenals.

We are on the edge of an even more horrible nuclear war at this very moment. The time for action in the United States cannot be put off.

It is also worth mentioning that the journalist John Hershey broke the story of the radiation poisoning in Hiroshima in his article “Hiroshima” that was published in the New Yorker August 23, 1946.

I seriously doubt the increasingly fluffy and trite New Yorker today, aimed more at wealthy upper West Side homes than at thoughtful citizens, would be capable of publishing such an article today.

*

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.

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.

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.

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

***

Islamophobia in France: Stop the Fires of Hatred!

The summer period is notoriously prone to forest fires, a formidable threat to our natural resources and the surrounding biodiversity. However, there is an even more insidious danger spreading through our societies, undermining our values and cohesion: irresponsible hate speech. A reminder of some recent occurrences is in order.

Occitan Hearth

At the end of April, in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools in the Academies of Toulouse and Montpellier [French southern cities of the Occitania region], a survey on “absenteeism” during the month of Ramadan and the Eid al-Fitr holiday, particularly affecting priority education zones [underprivileged areas with a significant Muslim community], targeted exclusively Muslim pupils. Commissioned by the Interior Ministry, this survey was required from schools by the police and the Ministry of Education. This situation provoked a legitimate outcry.

Following the denunciation of these stigmatizing practices—which turn a basic practice of Islam into a security issue—fraught with illegality, since religious statistics (even non-nominative ones) are strictly regulated in France, the authorities, as usual, talked a lot of hot air: “clumsiness”, “badly formulated message”, “autonomous research by an intelligence officer”, “study of the impact of certain religious holidays on the operation of public services”… As if cops were known for carrying out sociological investigations in schools; as if a religion other than Islam had ever been in the line of fire; as if occasional absences, provided for in the Education Code and legally unassailable (for the time being), could harm the functioning of Europe’s most overcrowded classrooms—after Romania.

A wet-finger estimate in [the right-wing newspaper] Le Figaro, announcing a “record absenteeism rate” on the day of Eid al-Fitr 2023 due to an alleged “TikTok trend,” is said to have prompted this investigation, which is perhaps intended to provide more quantified data for future witch-hunts. The data, moreover, is hardly usable, for while some school heads and inspectors have encouraged staff to respond to these tendentious surveys, which we can only deplore and denounce, others have fortunately dissuaded them from doing so—not to mention the fact that it is difficult to presume the reason for an absence on a Friday just before the national school holidays.

The question immediately arose as to the motives behind such a survey. Was it “only” a question of stirring up yet another unfounded controversy at the expense of the Muslim community? Or is the government planning to call into question an acquired right that is in no way contentious, in the name of an ever more narrow and misguided interpretation of secularism (which could tomorrow attack pork-free or meat-free menus in school canteens, ban any refunding of half-boarding fees for Muslim pupils during the month of Ramadan, etc.)? Will staff be the next targets of these investigations? Already, some non-teaching staff have been refused a “religious holiday” leave, which is illegal and unacceptable. Any attempt to generalize these measures on the pretext of “combating separatism” and “ensuring the smooth running of the public education service” must be fiercely opposed.

PACA Hearth and Ministerial Fuel to the Fire

On June 15, the Mayor of Nice and President of the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur (PACA) Regional Council, Christian Estrosi, issued an alarmist press release denouncing “several extremely serious incidents” which had occurred the previous day in three Nice elementary schools, and which were reported to the School Inspection Office, then to the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes Department, and the Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne. The following day, the French Minister of Education, Pap Ndiaye, went even further, speaking of “intolerable facts,” the “mobilization of the Values of the Republic teams in all the schools concerned to ensure full respect for the principle of secularism on a permanent basis,” and the implementation of “the necessary government measures” to ensure respect for secularism—or “laïcité”—in schools.

Image: Pap Ndiaye and Christian Estrosi (Source: Norman G. Finkelstein)

The alleged “facts”? Some children in 4th and 5th grades were said to have “performed the Muslim prayer in their school playground” or organized “a minute’s silence in memory of the Prophet Mahomet[1].” These were nothing more than rumors, as the expressions of doubt (“it is reported to me,” “or”) and the conditional tense (“These unacceptable situations would also have taken place in secondary schools”) clearly underlines. Worse still, before even the slightest verification of these absolutely insignificant alleged facts (it’s just a handful of 9-10 year-olds having fun in the playground), Christian Estrosi likened these “attempts at religious intrusion into the sanctuaries of the Republic that are our schools” to “religious obscurantism attempting to destabilize us” and to “families who left to wage jihad in Syria,” who are reportedly beginning to return to France and sending their children “to our schools.”

And without even waiting for the results of “the General Inspectorate’s investigation to establish the facts precisely and draw the appropriate conclusions” (no kidding), the full force of the law was brought to bear against this allegedly dangerous “slide” (which at this stage has not even gone beyond the stage of gossip): “meeting with all the departments concerned to set up an action plan,” “reinforcement of State action to ensure that these attacks on secularism are firmly combated,” “campaign to prevent and combat radicalization,” “firm, collective, and resolute response,” setting up “secularism and values of the Republic training courses” which “will be the subject of a common module bringing together all personnel…” The joint press release from Christian Estrosi and Pap Ndiaye concluded with a fanfare worthy of this outpouring of catastrophist press releases, disproportionate means, and withering epithets: “the principle of secularism is non-negotiable in our Republic.” Such a display of paranoia and hysteria is not surprising from the reactionary clown Estrosi, whose secular fervor is otherwise well known, but considering what Pap Ndiaye was before he plunged body and soul into the political cesspool [Pap Ndiaye was a Professor at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, focusing his research on the compared history of racially discriminatory practices in France and in America, and the Director of the French national museum of immigration], one can only feel a bitter mixture of disgust and pity[2].

Christian Estrosi’s uncompromising crusade for secularism: “Defending our Christian traditions also means defending the heritage of our elders, who also built our Nice countryside”.

An Eternal Flame

The deep-seated motivations behind such Islamophobic outbursts are well known and have unfortunately become a constant in the discourse of Emmanuel Macron and his minions. Having faced massive popular opposition with the pension reform, they now resort to a despicable strategy of scapegoating, reminiscent of the darkest hours of France’s history. In a notorious debate with Marine Le Pen, President of the Far-Right Party “Rassemblement National” (National Rally), Macron’s Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin accused her of being “too soft” on Islam and refusing to “name the enemy”: “You say that Islam isn’t even a problem… You need to take vitamins, you’re not harsh enough!”

During a special evening dedicated to Samuel Paty [French teacher who was beheaded by a radicalized Islamist for showing his pupils derogatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam], Darmanin also denounced “communitarianism” and the “baser instincts” of “separatism” related to clothing or food (again, no kidding). He criticized clothing stores offering “community outfits” and the “halal sections” of supermarkets, portraying these as shocking practices. His aim was to link these cultural practices, which are perfectly harmless and consensual, to terrorism—a despicable process of amalgamation, stigmatization, and the appropriation of far-right discourse that is increasingly overt in the discourse and practices of Macron and his ministers.

Far from deterring the Rassemblement National’s electorate, this trivialization has only served to consolidate and grow it, providing a vigorous “vitamin” treatment regularly administered to hate speech by those in power and their media echo chambers.

The infamous Charlie Hebdo contributed on this ominous issue with a cartoon (“School reinvents itself” – “We bring our homework to school”) and a comment: “The question is how to deal with these cases, which involve particularly young children. The ten-year-old boy who incited his classmates to observe a minute’s silence for the Prophet was the subject of ‘worrying information’ sent to the Alpes-Maritimes departmental council, as the Nice education authority told Charlie Hebdo. An alert was also issued to the prefecture for ‘suspicion of radicalization’. ‘The child doesn’t become flagged as a serious threat to national security,’ we’re told. The idea is for the intelligence services to rule out any threat and check that the parents are not dangerous.’ In the meantime, the schoolboy has been excluded from the school canteen and has taken an early vacation. ‘We can’t afford another Samuel Paty,’ says a member of the Rector’s entourage.”

In any case, it wouldn’t be the first time that alleged TikTok “cyber-attacks on secularism” or other unverified gossip causes an uproar in the services of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of National Education. Let us mention the controversies surrounding the wearing of the abaya and the deployment of the Orwellian concept of “improvised religious clothing,” promoted during the dubious “laïcité” training courses imposed on all teaching staff throughout France. These courses provide instructions and even rhetorical and legal tools to track down alleged intentions behind the “suspicious” dresses of presumably Muslim girls. A dress bought at H&M could thus fall under the “law banning ostentatious religious signs” (which really only targeted the Islamic veil) and earn the targeted schoolgirls summons, reprimands, or even threats and exclusion if they refuse to dress in a “republican” manner: a “morality police” doubled with a “thought police” in short. And it seems that the French authorities have just introduced a “children’s games police.” Are we soon to see SWAT teams in primary school playgrounds? The degree of insanity is such that a sneeze from a swarthy pupil that sounds vaguely like “Allahu Akbar” would be enough to trigger such an intervention.

Extinguishing the Fires or Fanning Them?

At a time when violence, including far-right terrorism targeting our fellow Muslim citizens, is reaching worrying proportions, the government persists in fanning the flames of hatred with its pyromaniac actions, exacerbating the real dangers threatening civil peace. The government’s approach involves all-out repression, police and security abuses with total impunity [the French police are lately becoming seditious and openly rebellious, literally demanding a license to beat up and even kill without being bothered by any kind of justice procedure], and over-instrumentalizing trivial facts to raise the specter of fantasized threats. These tactics only serve to pit citizens against each other and divide the French society.

The republican school urgently needs resources, not diversionary strategies, artificial tensions, or a perpetual call into question of the status and fundamental rights of users and staff. The “non-negotiable” secularism promoted and ardently defended by the CGT Educ’action aims to ensure the serenity and cohesion of the educational community, not to transform staff into zealous police auxiliaries or confine an entire population to the status of suspect or “enemy within,” to be constantly monitored and held at bay.

The Republic guarantees freedom of worship and equal treatment for all its citizens. Anyone committed to republican ideals must protest against this frenzied desire to ignite bonfires from the most microscopic twigs, and against stigmatizing and discriminatory practices that tarnish France’s image abroad and regularly elicit condemnations from human rights associations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. National Education staff, in particular, must oppose these practices and report them to local union sections, which must vigorously defend all members of the educational community (staff, pupils, parents…) who fall victim to them.

*

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.

Notes

[1] The minute’s silence isn’t precisely a well-known practice in Muslim liturgy. As for the spelling “Mahomet,” we can only deplore the fact that despite the presence of the first name Mohammed in the top 10 of most given names in the current French population, and its position in the top 50 of names on French war memorials from the First World War, this backward-looking and contemptuous name dating from an era of antagonism between Christianity and Islam, and felt as an insult by millions of Muslims, remains in use.

[2] Like a downsized version of Voltaire fighting fanaticism in the days of the Inquisition, Pap Ndiaye has also taken to TV to denounce these “manifestations of religious proselytism in schools,” gargling in big words, notably BFM WC (“These facts are not acceptable in the School of the Republic… It is only natural that the Nice Academy, the Nice Rector, and the Nice Mayor should react firmly to ensure respect for the principles of secularism, which is why I have signed this joint declaration with the Nice Mayor… The parents have been summoned… The pupils have been reminded of their obligations with regard to religious neutrality, and they have been given training, because we’re talking about children after all… In secondary schools, [for similar acts] there can be sanctions [or even] temporary or permanent exclusions…”). Pap Ndiaye did not hesitate to spread false Islamophobic information, namely that these children all belonged to the Muslim faith, which was denied by Eliane’s testimony to BFM Côte d’Azur, whose non-Muslim grandson took part in these children’s games: “He should check his sources because my grandson was part of the group playing and imitating prayer. There was no intention, no religion in the middle, it was really just a game… The stigmatization of children is really lamentable… That’s why we no longer have confidence in politicians, because everything is blown out of proportion to unbelievable proportions, and this harms solidarity and life together.”

[3] Let us remind that to be valid, Muslim prayer (especially in congregations) requires the age of puberty, a precise timetable, ablutions, specific clothing, orientation towards Mecca, etc.; so many conditions that it is simply impossible to meet in an elementary school playground during the lunch break.

Featured image is from Muslim Mirror

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.

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

***

Some time ago, I wrote a blog post about a hypothesis I had regarding President Truman and the decision to use the atomic bomb. My basic thesis then (and continues to be) is that there is good reason to think that Truman did not understand that Hiroshima was a city with a military base in it, and not merely some kind of military installation. Truman’s confusion on this issue, I argue, came out of his discussions with Secretary of War Henry Stimson about the relative merits of Kyoto versus Hiroshima as a target: Stimson emphasized the civilian nature of Kyoto and paired it against the military-status of Hiroshima, and Truman read more into the contrast than was actually true.

I have kept poking around this issue for some time now, and written an article-length version of it (more on that in due time). I feel even more confident in it than before, having gone over the relevant documents very closely and talked about with many scholars (including at a conference in Hiroshima last summer), though there are some aspects of the original blog post that I would refine or revise.

But I thought I’d share one set of documents that I found extremely illuminating and interesting, and useful for thinking about how the “narrative” of Hiroshima changed over a very short period of time in August 1945. I have not seen any reference to these in the work of any other historians, not because they are slouches (they are not), but because you have to be asking very specific questions to think they are a possible source of the answers.1

The press release sent out under Truman’s name after the bombing of Hiroshima was not written by him. It was largely written by Arthur Page, a Vice President at AT&T and the “father of modern corporate public relations,” at the request of the Interim Committee of the Manhattan Project. Page was an old friend of Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, and Stimson wanted the first statement to be a very carefully-written document, as it was meant to credibly describe a new weapon and outline possible paths forward for the Japanese. Truman was shown the final version of it, but he didn’t add or remove anything from it. It is interesting (for my purposes) to note that if you did not know whether Hiroshima was a city or an isolated military base, the initial announcement would not clarify that for you, even if you were (like Truman) the one reading it aloud.

A far more interesting case is the second speech that Truman gave which mentioned the atomic bomb. This was a radio address given on the evening of August 9, 1945, not long after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. The atomic bomb only occupies a small part of the overall speech — it is really a speech about what had happened at the Potsdam Conference the weeks previous. But the parts on the atomic bomb are fascinating to read. Here are the parts I’d like to draw your attention to in particular:

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction. […]

Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.2

Two things interest me about the above. One is that the first paragraph emphasizes that Hiroshima was a “military base,” and that they wanted to avoid, “insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” Now, Hiroshima was not, strictly speaking, a military base — it was a major city that contained a military base. There is a difference there, and fewer than 10% of the casualties were military.3 The paragraph further warns that bombing cities might occur — it doesn’t ‘fess up to having already done it, but puts it as a thing for the future.

The second paragraph quoted does something a bit different: it justifies the bombing, first by saying that the Japanese were awful and deserved it, then by saying that the use of the bomb was really a humane act, and using it would “shorten the agony of war,” and would save American lives.

We will come back to both of these in a minute. Let’s instead ask: who wrote this speech? Given the background of the first press release, one might be surprised to find that the answer is… Harry Truman. Well, he wrote the first draft. As he wrote in a note on August 10th:

“While all this has been going on, I’ve been trying to get ready a radio address to the nation on the Berlin conference. Made the first draft on the ship coming back. Discussed it with [James] Byrnes, [Samuel] Rosenman, Ben Cohen, [William] Leahy and Charlie Ross. Rewrote it four times and then the Japs offered to surrender and it had to be done again.”4

When Truman says he “made the first draft on the ship coming back,” he’s referring to his travel back from Europe aboard the USS Augusta. In fact, there is a photograph in the Truman Library that claims to be showing him writing this very draft:

“President Harry S. Truman at his desk aboard the U. S. S. Augusta, returning from the Potsdam Conference. He is preparing his “report to the nation.” August 6, 1945.” Source: Truman Library, 63-1453-47; scan from Wikimedia Commons

So, while many hands were no doubt involved, we can say with some reliability that Truman was very involved in the drafting process. How involved is a hard thing to say — but it gives us something to think about when looking at the specific language used, to question how much of it reflects the President’s own thoughts (something we cannot do with the original Hiroshima press release, which was written without Truman’s input).

I wrote the Truman Library awhile back and asked if they had any information about this statement, and they helpfully sent me a whole sheaf of papers taken from the papers of Samuel Rosenman, who was a Truman speechwriter and staffer. They included not only five different drafts of the radio address, but also many pieces of correspondence that helped contextualize it. For example, I was interested to find that the radio address as a means of communication was decided upon around July 20, 1945, as an alternative to giving Congress a full address, because Congress was going to be out of session when he got back.5

The drafts are of course themselves the most interesting part. There are, as noted, five in the folder. They are all typed, and numbered but not dated. The fifth draft is not exactly the same as the version that Truman delivered, so we can deduce that there was at least one last round of changes, perhaps by Truman himself, perhaps not. There are, as we will see, some ways to date some of the drafts, based on the relationship between their content and some of the other letters in the folder.

The first draft, presumably related to the version first developed by Truman while on the USS Augusta (August 2–7). The atomic bomb was only mentioned very briefly, and in no detail:

What we are doing to Japan now — even with the new atomic bomb — is only a small fraction of what would happen to the world in a third World War. […] We have laid down the general terms on which they can surrender. Since then they have seen what our atomic bomb can do. They can foresee what it will do. They would be wise if they would accept the inevitable before it is too late; otherwise their fate will be even worse than Germany’s.6

That’s it. I suspect this was written before Hiroshima, when Truman knew the bombing was scheduled to occur. What’s really interesting, though, is that underneath the final paragraph quoted above, someone has written in (by hand), the following: “Why we dropped bomb on Hiroshima.” So we can put some kind of boundary on when this draft was written: potentially before Hiroshima (as early as August 6th), but sometime soon after the bombing someone decided that there needed to be more on the atomic bomb in it.

“The scrawl,” as I think of it.

How does this scrawl date it? Hiroshima was the preferred target for the first atomic bomb but it wasn’t until the mission was successful that anyone would have known it was the actual target. There were two backup targets as well (Kokura and Nagasaki); it is only on August 6th that it would have been talked about definitively as the bombing of Hiroshima. (Whose scrawl is it? I don’t know. Could it be Truman’s? Maybe. I am not a handwriting expert and it is not much to go by on itself.)

The second draft of the statement is much the same on the passages already quoted, but true to the penciled suggestion on the first draft, a new statement about the bombing of Hiroshima was added:

The world will note that the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima which is purely a military base. This was because we did not want to destroy the lives of women and children and innocent civilians in this first attack. But it is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on war industries and thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge the Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities and save themselves from destruction.7

This is not so dissimilar to the language in the final statement but the differences are important. Let’s put them side by side:

• Draft #2: The world will note that the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima which is purely a military base.
• Final: The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.

First, we have a confusion about how many bombs (singular or plural) were dropped. I don’t read much into that other than as an indicator of how quickly this was probably written.

Second, the original language is even more emphatic about the military status of Hiroshima: here it was purely a military base. “Purely” is a very strong modifier. Ask yourself under what conditions you would describe a city as being “purely a military base” — it’s hard to come up with any that are honest, if you understood the target to be a city. It is interesting, as well, that in the final version, Hiroshima is still listed as a military base — but the “purely” has vanished. Still a misleading statement (again, it was a city with a base in it), but it’s not as egregious as the original draft.

• Draft #2: This was because we did not want to destroy the lives of women and children and innocent civilians in this first attack.
•  Final: That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This is another interesting and, I think, important juxtaposition. In the first one, it is claimed that “women and children and innocent civilians” were spared in the first attack. In the final version, this has been watered down quite a lot — only “civilians” (not even innocent!) are mentioned, the killing of which was only avoided “insofar as possible.”

Am I reading too much into language? I don’t think so. Because, strikingly, this language mirrors very closely another Truman passage, his Potsdam journal entry of July 25th, 1945, which he wrote just after making final decisions about the question of the bombing of Kyoto:

I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.8

These two phrases are pretty distinct. Truman wants to avoid the killing of “women and children.” This is a phrase he uses again and again when talkig about the atomic bombs — first in talking about how his choices would avoid it, later to emphasize that this is what atomic bombs do. For example, in a speech he wrote in December 1945, Truman noted that the bomb would involve, “blotting out women and children and non-combatants.”9 In 1948, he told a group of advisors and generals that the atomic bomb was not a regular weapon of war, because, “it is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.”10 I just point this out because Truman (like many people, including myself) has distinct turns of phrase that he deploys and redeploys repetitively, what at least one historian has called “Trumanisms.”

From the third draft (emphasis added).

Even more striking is the repetition of the “purely military” phrase, which is much more extreme and particular to Truman. No one today would describe Hiroshima as “purely military,” and the scientists and military men who chose it as a target explicitly noted that it was not one. At the Target Committee Meeting at Los Alamos in May 1945, it was recommended that “pure military” targets not be considered: “It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage” — that is, a city, an urban area — “in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.”11

In my interpretation, the timeline so far looks something like this:

• Prior to the Hiroshima bombing (sometime between August 2 and sometime August 6), Truman drafts the radio address (little to no mention of atomic bomb)
• After the Hiroshima bombing (August 6), but before Truman knows the full extent of civilian casualties, Truman and others revise it to talk about Hiroshima
• Sometime before the final version is released (August 9), it is revised to indicate an awareness that Hiroshima was not “purely military” and that civilians were in fact killed in great numbers

On the second point — do we know that Truman himself modified the statement? We know he was (by his own account) involved in the revisions over the days. And the language is strikingly similar to his Potsdam journal. I suspect he was to some degree (even just in discussions) involved in forming that language, but the other possibility is that the Potsdam journal was used as “raw material” for writing that section (and it may have been why he kept the journal; Truman was not a diarist, and the Potsdam journal is unusual).12

Do the rest of the drafts help us refine this timeline and the shifts in language? A bit. By the third draft, the singular/plural nature of the bombing of Hiroshima was resolved (“the first atomic bomb was dropped”), but it is still “purely a military base.” Most importantly, though, is that someone has added a line to it (on page 5) indicating that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan the day before, putting it at around August 8th or 9th in Washington (midnight in Tokyo is 10am the previousday in Washington, DC).13

The fourth draft moves the paragraphs about the atomic bomb towards the end (from page 6-7 to page 17), which is an interesting change by itself. But it otherwise does not change them.14

In the fifth draft, however, a change occurs. The language about Hiroshima as “purely” a military target still remains. But a new bit of text has been added:

Its production and use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. But we knew our enemies were on the search for it. We now know they were close to finding it. And we knew the disaster that would come to this nation, to all peaceful nations, to all civilization, if they found it first. […]

We won the race of discovery against the Germans.

Having found it we have used it. […] We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of Americans.15

This is an interesting addition: it is the justification for having made it (the Nazis were going to make one) and having used it (we wanted to save lives). That it takes until the fifth draft — the last one in the archival file — for this to appear is fascinating. It is almost as if the speech drafters realized, all of the sudden, that they were going to have to account for its use, to make a case for the manufacture and use of the bomb that went further beyond their original one.

So when and where did this language enter into this text? Fortunately, there is another piece of documentation in the file that helps us. The Assistant Secretary of State (and former Librarian of Congress) Archibald MacLeish sent a letter to Rosenman dated August 8th, with “a paragraph which has some ideas you might wish to use about the atomic bomb.” It is not an exact match for the fifth draft’s language but it is so close on many points as to be the obvious source: “Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. … Only the certainty that the terrible destructiveness of this weapon will shorten the agony of the war and will save American lives has persuaded us to use it against our enemies.”16

So that indicates clearly that the fifth draft was finished sometime after MacLeish sent his memo on August 8th. What happened on August 8th that would provoke MacLeish and others to think they needed to justify the creation and use of the atomic bomb? On the morning of August 8th, the first damage reports came back from Japan. These included the famous aerial photograph of Hiroshima, which was shown to Truman by Stimson that morning:17

Damage map of Hiroshima, 8/8/1945. Source: National Archives and Records Administration / Fold3

The Japanese also began to talk about the bomb damage for the first time in their newspapers, as the survey team sent to Hiroshima by the Japanese high command had finally sent its report back. (Someday I will write something here on this — it is its own interesting topic.) American newspapers on August 8 and 9th were reporting huge casualties: “Atom Bomb Destroyed 60% of Hiroshima; Pictures Show 4 Square Miles of City Gone” (New York Herald Tribune, 8 August); “200,000 Believed Dead in Inferno That Vaporized City of Hiroshima” (Boston Globe, 9 August). This latter estimate of the dead too high — it was created by just assuming 60% of the Hiroshima population were killed, as opposed to 60% of the area destroyed. But this is the sort of estimate that would persist until full surveys, by the Japanese and Americans, were done in the postwar.

If Truman believed that Hiroshima was “purely” military, there is no way he could have continued to believe that after August 8th. So sometime between that final draft in the Rosenman files (the fifth draft) and the final version delivered, the language about Hiroshima’s military status, and the sparing of civilians, got significantly watered down.

Is this conclusive? Not at all! This is highly interpretive, based on a smattering of sources. But history is the work of interpretation, and if one wants to understand the interior mental states of the long dead, one has to engage in this kind of triangulation of sources. I think it is plausible that Truman did not understand the nature of Hiroshima, and was rudely surprised by it on August 8th. That another atomic bomb would be used on another city on August 9th, I suspect, came as a surprise to him (he was not given any immediate prior warning).

Boston Globe (9 August 1945), page 2. Notice the typo in the first sentence: “Horoshima.” Just a typo, to be sure, but perhaps reflective as to how quickly this news was coming out, how unfamiliar these cities were to the American populace…

In my full paper, I discuss a bit what I think my conditions are for choosing one plausible interpretation over another. In this case, I think my interpretation solves some of these tricky questions about why Truman would persist in many ways to label Hiroshima as a “purely military” target. But more usefully, it also explains Truman’s sudden change in language after August 8th and 9th, in which he bluntly acknowledges that the atomic bomb was a killer of civilians. At his December 1945 speech mentioned earlier, he — in his own handwriting — refers to the atomic bomb as “the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings.”18

This is not the language of a man who is under a misapprehension about what the bombings did. On August 10th, he told his cabinet that “he had given orders to stop atomic bombing” because, as Henry Wallace recorded in his diary, “the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids.’”19 This is a far cry from his initial reaction to hearing that the Hiroshima mission was successful: “This is the greatest thing in history!” I think something changed in him, and I think it was a horrible realization of his own misunderstanding of what this weapon would do.

Account of the cabinet meeting of 10 August 1945 in the diary of Henry A. Wallace.

We remember Truman primarily as the person who was president when the atomic bombs were first used. We should also remember him, as I have argued before, as the person who ordered that the atomic bombs stop being used. And the person who, over the course of his presidency, did the most to establish that atomic bombs were not weapons to be deployed lightly ever again. One might see this as irony, but in my interpretation, it is not: it the reaction of someone who realized he had been badly out of the loop once, and wore that on his conscience, and determined it would not happen again.

*

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.

Notes

1. It is a general point that sometimes comes up when talking about the work of history: a lot of people think new work is driven exclusively or even primarily by access to new sources. New sources can play a role but usually it is new questions that drive historical innovation. The new questions can provoke re-reading of old sources, and can point towards overlooked sources as well. The hardest thing in any field of knowledge is coming up with a new, interesting question to ask — answers are much easier to find and deal with than new questions.
2. Harry S. Truman, “Radio Report to the American People on the Potsdam Conference” (9 August 1945), Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, MO. 
3. Barton Bernstein, “Reconsidering the ‘Atomic General’: Leslie R. Groves,” Journal of Military History 67, no. 3 (July 2003), 889-920, esp. 904-905.
4. Longhand note of Harry S. Truman (9/10 August 1945), transcript and copy available in Harry Truman Library.
5. Samuel Rosenman to Charles Ross (20 July 1945), Samuel Rosenman Papers, Harry Truman Library, “Report to the Nation (Potsdam).” 
6. “Draft of a Speech by President Truman on Berlin Conference,” (n.d., first draft), Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam),” pages 2 and 6.
7. “Draft of a Speech by President Truman on Berlin Conference,” (n.d., second draft), Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam),”, page 5.
8. Harry Truman, Potsdam Journal entry for 25 July 1945, Harry Truman Library.
9. Harry S. Truman, “Draft of the Gridiron Dinner Speech,” (15 December 1945), Harry Truman Library.
10. Diary entry of 21 July 1948, in David E. Lilienthal, Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Volume II: The atomic energy years, 1945-1950 (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 390-391. 
11. J.A. Derry and N.F. Ramsey to L.R. Groves, “Summary of Target Committee Meetings on 10 and 11 May 1945,” in Correspondence (“Top Secret”) of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942-1946, microfilm publication M1109 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1980), Roll 1, Target 6, Folder 5D, “Selection of Targets.”
12. See Barton J. Bernstein, “Truman at Potsdam: His Secret Diary,” Foreign Service Journal (July/August 1980), 29-34. 
13. “Draft of a Speech by President Truman on Berlin Conference,” (n.d., third draft), Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam).”
14. “Draft of a Speech by President Truman on Berlin Conference,” (n.d., fourth draft), Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam).”
15. “Draft of a Speech by President Truman on Berlin Conference,” (n.d., fifth draft), Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam).” 
16. Archibald MacLeish to Samuel I. Rosenman (8 August 1945),Papers of Samuel I. Rosenman, Harry Truman Library,  “Report to the Nation (Potsdam).”
17. “I showed the President the teletype report from Guam showing the extent of the damage; also, the Wire Service bulletin showing the damage as reported by Tokyo at nine A.M. August 8th. I showed him the photograph showing the total destruction and also the radius of damage which Dr. Lovett had brought me from the Air Corps just before I went. He mentioned the terrible responsibility that such destruction placed upon us here and himself.^” “Memorandum of Conference with the President” (8 August 1945), attached to Henry L. Stimson diary entry of 8 August 1945, in The Henry Lewis Stimson Diaries, microfilm edition retrieved from the Center for Research Libraries, original from Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, New Haven, Connecticut. 
18. See the “Gridiron Dinner” speech, previously cited. 
19. Henry A. Wallace diary entry of 10 August 1945, in Henry A. Wallace, The diary of Henry Agard Wallace, January 18, 1935-September 19, 1946 (Glen Rock, N.J.: Microfilming Corp. of America, 1977). 

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.

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

***

Seventy-eight years ago, an act of international criminality and infamy took place, the consequences of which have posed an existential threat to humanity ever since. For the first time, a species had created the capacity to not only bring about its own extinction, but also to threaten virtually all life on our planet.

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. military bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, died instantly or later succumbed from burns, malnutrition, and radiation-related illnesses, and their cities levelled to the ground. Those notorious acts will forever be remembered as the first time the devastating impact of nuclear warfare was unleashed.

There was absolutely no justification for this wanton attack. Unclassified documents have confirmed the lie of the constructed ‘myth’ that the atomic attack was necessary to spare the lives of U.S. servicemen and end the war. In fact, Imperial Japan was already on the verge of collapse and surrender by early August 1945. The U.S. Truman Administration proceeded anyway to showcase its awesome new weaponry, thus guaranteeing U.S. military dominance in the post-war period. Hiroshima was the opening salvo in the “cold war” which was to dominate international politics and spur a nuclear arms race for the next half-century.

The experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an object lesson and dire warning for all humanity. All wars spell calamity for its victims, but nuclear weapons – weapons of mass destruction – are in a horrific category of their own, and their use must never, ever again be contemplated or tolerated.

Albert Einstein placed it best when he wrote:

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction. The splitting of the atom has changed everything except the way we think. Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.”

And yet today, more than three-quarters of a century later, the world again stands dangerously close to the edge of self-destruction. NATO, the aggressive military alliance which includes Canada, clings stubbornly to its ‘right’ to the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, and the U.S. and its allies are pouring billions into scientific research to make their nuclear arsenals even more lethal and ‘effective’ (sic). And much of nuclear R&D is directed to developing delivery systems and war game strategies which will make nuclear wars “winnable” and “survivable”. This is pure insanity! The only way to prevent a nuclear exchange is by banning the research and production of new thermonuclear weapons and eliminating existing stockpiles, as called for in the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Britain and the U.S. are providing the Ukrainian government with depleted uranium shells for battlefield use in the conflict in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian government officials are now speaking openly of their preparedness to use nuclear arms as well, if they sense an ‘existential threat’ from NATO and its proxies in the region.

At the same time, tensions are also growing in the Asia-Pacific with the formation of AUKUS (including 12 new nuclear-powered subs), and the construction of four new U.S. bases in the Philippines, completing a pearl-like string of bases surrounding and hemming in the People’s Republic of China, and provoking a dangerous conflict with China over Taiwan.

These are only a few indicators that the world is drifting to the very precipice of the nuclear abyss. In January 2023, the Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds before midnight, reflecting the growing risk of nuclear war.

In early August, the journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated the following:

“Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term, and potentially cause a global ‘nuclear winter’ that could kill 5 to 6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.” [emphasis added]

“We now call on health associations to inform about the threat to human survival and … to support efforts to reduce the near-term risks of nuclear war, including immediate steps on the part of nuclear-armed states and their allies: first, adopt a no first use policy; second, take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; and third, urge all states to pledge publicly and unequivocally that they will not use nuclear weapons in conflicts. We further ask them to work for a definitive end to the nuclear threat by supporting the urgent negotiations among the nuclear-armed states for a verifiable, time-bound agreement to eliminate their nuclear weapons, opening the way for all nations to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”

And What of Canada’s Role?

One would expect that in the face of this apocalyptic danger, the Canadian government would be in the forefront of international efforts to eliminate this threat and avert catastrophe. But no such good fortune. Instead, the Trudeau government has repeatedly refused to consider – much less ratify – the TPNW treaty, claiming that there is no real danger, and prohibiting nuclear weapons is both a ‘pie in the sky’ and ‘motherhood’ issue.

In July, it was reported that the federal agency Internal Public Safety Canada is updating nuclear preparedness measures, including a highly secret plan to ensure the federal government can continue to function in a severe [nuclear] crisis, and ‘finalizing a protocol to advise the Canadian public of an incoming ballistic missile attack.’ This sounds very much like the Cold War BS of the 1950s that the way to ‘survive’ a nuclear war is by building more bomb shelters, and stocking up on anti-radiation medicines and canned beans!

And Canada is doubling down on its NATO commitments, further increasing defence spending, purchasing a new fleet of F-35 fighter jets and naval frigates, and sending more troops and weaponry to Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Instead of more war preparations, the Canadian government should adopt a foreign policy of peace and disarmament, sign the TPNW treaty, get out of NATO and NORAD, and cut the arms budget, redirecting those massive expenditures to job creation, funding healthcare and education, building affordable housing, and addressing the scourge of climate change, to the benefit of working people in Canada and around the world.

The clock is ticking. The time to speak out and mobilize against the growing war danger is NOW! Support the work of the Canadian Peace Congress and its affiliates across the country; join the Canada-wide Peace & Justice Network; and build a local peace organization or coalition in your own communities.

No More Hiroshimas!

Take Peace Action Now!

*

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.

“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   

Hiroshima: A “Military Base” According to President Harry Truman

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 06, 2023

Did you know that tactical nuclear weapons or so-called mini-nukes with an explosive capacity between one-third and six times a Hiroshima bomb are considered, according to scientific opinion, on contract to the Pentagon as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”? It’s a lie.

Counting the Dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Prof. Alex Wellerstein, August 06, 2023

How many people died as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There is one thing that everyone who has tackled this question has agreed upon: The answer is probably fundamentally unknowable. The indiscriminate damage inflicted upon the cities, coupled with the existing disruptions of the wartime Japanese home front, means that any precise reckoning is never going to be achieved.

Hiroshima-Nagasaki: Remembering One of Humanity’s Worst Catastrophes, 78 Years On

By John Steinbach, August 06, 2023

President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki set the groundwork for an era of U.S. global hegemony and enriched corporations like General Electric, DuPont, Union Carbide, Bechtel and Westinghouse which made hundreds of billions of dollars developing generation after generation of “first-strike” nuclear weapons.

The Moral Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, August 06, 2023

When U.S. President Harry S. Truman decided on his own to use the atom bomb, a barbarous weapon of mass destruction, against the Japanese civilian populations of the cities of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki on August 6 and on August 9, 1945, the United States sided officially on the wrong side of history.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Brett Wilkins, August 06, 2023

President Harry S. Truman, who only learned about the Manhattan Project after being sworn in following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12, approved a plan to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. Planners sought undamaged cities where military facilities were located near civilians, and the decision was made to detonate the bombs hundreds of meters in the air for maximum destructive effect.

“In a Nuclear War the Collateral Damage Would be the Life of All Humanity”. Fidel Castro

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 06, 2023

The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” could  change the course of World history. The  objective is to prevent the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens to destroy life on planet earth.

How So Many Americans Learned to “Stop Worrying” and “Love the Nukes”

By Edward Curtin, August 06, 2023

I recently wrote an article about the dangers of the fourteen U.S. Trident submarines. These subs constantly cruise under the oceans carrying 3,360 nuclear warheads equivalent to 134,400 Hiroshima bombs. All are on first strike triggers. And of course these are supplemented by all the land and air based nukes. My point was not very complicated: now that the United States government has abrogated all nuclear weapons treaties and continues to escalate its war against Russia in Ukraine, we are closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before.

Hiroshima Day: The Movie and the Moment: An Oppenheimer Review Through the Lens of an Anti-War Activist

By Marcy Winograd, August 06, 2023

Only those with a global death wish or on the payroll of Northrop Grumman, the military contractor with the nuclear “modernization” contract, could watch this film and still root for US nuclear rearmament, a horror show now underway with the blessings of DC politicians. Unless people rise up in fury, unless this Hollywood movie sparks a second nuclear-freeze movement, a repeat on steroids of the 80’s nuclear weapons freeze, Congress and the White House will raid the treasury to expand our nuclear arsenal.

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not to End the War or Save Lives.

By Washington’s Blog, August 06, 2023

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

750 U.S. Military Bases Globally, $7.2 Trillion US Nuclear Weapons Expenditure Since Hiroshima, Nagasaki

By Shane Quinn, April 01, 2023

From 1940 to 1996, Washington spent about $5.5 trillion on its nuclear program. This figure does not include the $320 billion, pertaining to the annual storage and removal costs of more than 50 years worth of accumulated radioactive waste, and the $20 billion needed for the dismantling of nuclear weapons systems and removal of surplus nuclear material.

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.

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

***

First published in September 2016.

18 years later, the US and its NATO allies still have troops in Afghanistan with no plans on leaving.

We were told this was about 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden, but these were lies.

So why are the troops still there?

What was the war in Afghanistan really about?

The decision to invade Afghanistan was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks and that Al Qaeda was supported by the Afghan government.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization joins us to explain.

James Corbett and Michel Chossudovsky (Interview conducted in 2016)

October 7, 2001: Waging America’s 9/11 War of Retribution Against Afghanistan

The immediate response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden. By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) is an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security. Under any stretch of the imagination, the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon cannot be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001 and early October, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away.

Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. The war on Afghanistan was already in advanced planning stages prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, almost immediately following 9/11 with the adoption of the PATRIOT legislation and the setting up of a Homeland Security apparatus, under the pretext of protecting Americans. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

-Michel Chossudovsky, September 12, 2019

*

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.

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 0-9737147-1-9

List Price: $9.50

Product Type: PDF File

click here to order

Price: $9.50

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.

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.

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

***

The AUSMIN 2023 talks held between the US Secretaries of State and Defense and their Australian counterparts, confirmed the increasing, unaccountable militarisation of the Australian north and its preparation for a future conflict with Beijing. Details were skimpy, the rhetoric aspirational. But the Australian performance from Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was crawling, lamentable, even outrageous. State Secretary Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III could only look on with sheer wonder at their prostrate hosts.

Money, much of it from the US military budget, is being poured into upgrading, expanding and redeveloping Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases in the Northern Territory city of Darwin, and Tindal, situated 320km south-east of Darwin, the intended to “address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.” Two new locations are also being proposed at RAAF Bases Scherger and RAAF Curtin, aided by site surveys.

The AUSMIN joint statement, while revealing nothing in terms of operational details or costs, proved heavy with talk about “the ambitious trajectory of Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation across land, maritime, and air domains, as well as Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maintenance Enterprise (CoLSME).” Additionally, there would be “Enhanced Air Cooperation” with a rotating “US Navy Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft in Australia to enhance regional maritime domain awareness, with an ambition of inviting likeminded partners to participate in the future.”

Further details have come to light about the money being spent by the Pentagon on facilities in Darwin. The unromantically titled FY22 MCAF Project PAF160700 Squadron Operations Facility at the RAAF Darwin base “includes the construction (design-bid-build) of a United States Air Force squadron facility at the … (RAAF) in Darwin, Australia.” The project is deemed necessary to add space “for aircrew flight equipment, maintenance and care, mission planning, intelligence, crew briefings, crew readiness, and incidental related work.” Some of the systems are mundane but deemed important for an expanded facility, including ventilating and air conditioning, water heating, plumbing, utility energy meters and sub-meters and a building automation system (HVAC Control system).

Correspondents from the Australian Broadcasting have gone further into the squadron operations facility, consulting US budget filings and tender documents to reveal cost assessments of $26 million (A$40 million). A further parking apron at RAAF Darwin is also featured in the planning, estimated to cost somewhere in the order of $258 billion. This will further supplement plans to establish the East Arm fuel storage facility for the US Air Force located 15 kilometres from Darwin that should be able to, on completion by September this year, store 300 million litres of military jet fuel intended to support US military activity in the Northern Territory and Indo-Pacific region.

According to the tender documents, the squadron operations facility also had a broader, more strategic significance: “to support strategic operations and to run multiple 15-day training exercises during the NT dry season for deployed B-52 squadrons.” The RAAF Tindal facility’s redevelopment, slated to conclude in 2026, is also intended to accommodate six B-52 bombers. Given their nuclear capability, residents in the NT should feel a suitable degree of terror.

Michael Shoebridge, founder and director of Strategic Analysis Australia, is none too pleased by this state of affairs. He is unhappy by Canberra’s reticence on US-Australian military arrangements, and none too keen on a debate that is only being informed by US-based sources. “A public debate needs to be enabled by information and you can’t have a complete picture without knowing where the money is being spent.”

While it is hard to disagree with that tack, Shoebridge’s outfit, in line with such think tanks as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is not against turning Australia into a frontline fortress state ready for war. What he, and his colleagues take issue with, is the overwhelmingly dominant role the US is playing in the venture. Those in Washington, Shoebridge argues, seem to “understand the urgency we don’t seem to.” Rather than questioning Australia’s need for a larger, more threatening military capability to fight phantoms and confected foreign adversaries, he accepts the premise, wholeheartedly. Canberra, in short, should muck in more, pull its weight, and drum up Australian personnel for the killing.

Anthony Bergin, a senior fellow of Strategic Analysis Australia, teases out the idea of such mucking in, suggesting a familiar formula. He insists that, in order to improve “our national security, we should be looking at options short of conscription which wouldn’t be as hard to sell to the Australian people.” He thought the timing perfect for such a move. “There’s now a latent appetite for our political leaders to introduce measures to bolster national resilience.”

This silly reading only makes sense on the assumption that the Australian public has been softened sufficiently by such hysterical affronts to sensibility as the Red Alert campaign waged in the Fairfax Press.

Options to add padding to Australia’s military preparedness include doubling or tripling school cadets and cadet programs of the “outdoor bound” type based in the regions. But more important would be the creation of a “national militia training scheme”. Bergin is, however, displeased by the difficulty of finding “volunteers of any kind”, a strange comment given the huge, unpaid volunteer army that governs the delivery of numerous services in Australia, from charities to firefighting.

Alison Broinowski, herself formerly of the Australian diplomatic corps, safely concludes that the current moves constitute “another step in the same direction – a step that the government has been taking a series of for years; accepting whatever the United States government wants to place on Australian soil.” More’s the pity that most details are to come from Washington sources, indicating, with irrefutable finality, Canberra’s abject subordination to the US imperium and its refusal to admit that fact.

*

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.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: ‘B-52 Stratofortress bombers arrive at RAAF Base Darwin‘, 29 November 2018. (Source: Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability)

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.

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

***

Fierce and deadly clashes between rival factions in Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon have killed two children and 10 others, while at least 56 have been wounded according to sources at Al Hamshari Hospital. 

The extremist groups Jund al Sham and Shabab al Muslim have been facing off against Fatah fighters in the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, near the city of Sidon, close to the Israeli border.

The UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has reported that more than 2,000 people were forced to flee in search of safety since the beginning of the clashes.

The camp was formed in 1948 to shelter Palestinian refugees fleeing the formation of Israel, where they had been forced from their homes, lands and businesses in a program of ethnic cleansing, which is ongoing in the Jewish State of Israel.

The fighting broke out Saturday night, and into Sunday morning, while a cease-fire was reached late Monday, but broke down as new clashes erupted on Tuesday.

The violence began when an unknown gunman attempted to assassinate Mahmoud Khalil, but killed his companion instead.  In retaliation, militants assassinated Abu Ashraf al Armoushi, a Palestinian military general from the Fatah group and three escorts.

Israeli Defense Forces Chief of staff Herzi Halevi and President Isaac Herzog made separate trips Wednesday to Israel’s northern border with Lebanon amid heightened tensions. 

Ousama Saad, Member of the Lebanese Parliament, blamed Israel for the violence. Saad said,

“The Zionist enemy is escalating against Lebanon and Palestine, and we must not help it by fomenting sedition inside Palestinian camps, which is in the Israeli interest.” 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing a huge domestic political crisis which threatens civil war after a judicial reform bill passed in the most religious extremist government in Israeli history. Netanyahu often has resorted in the past to creating violence among Palestinian groups in an effort to unite his domestic Jewish citizens. However, this time it might backfire on him, as many Israeli military personnel have pledged to not report for duty as a personal form of protest to the law which many say has taken away democracy from Israel. 

Palestinian resistance groups in the Occupied West Bank have been carrying out operations to resist the occupation of their land, and the lack of human rights and dignity at the hands of the brutal Israeli military.

On Sunday, factions blazed away with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers and lobbed hand grenades in the refugee camp as ambulances zoomed through its narrow streets to take the wounded to the hospital.

Lebanese reaction

Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Ashraf Dabbour met with the commander of the Lebanese army, Gen. Joseph Aoun, on Wednesday to discuss developments in the camps and attempts to secure a new cease-fire.

Some sniper bullets and shells crossed the outskirts of the camp into the nearby neighborhoods in Sidon city, and a “B7” shell exploded near a point where several photographers and media staff were stationed, but no injuries were recorded.

Many Lebanese soldiers were deployed in the area, and Interior Minister Bassam Mawlawi stressed that “the army is carrying out all its duties in this region, as in others, despite all the difficult circumstances.”

The Lebanese army said in a statement that a mortar shell hit a military barracks outside the camp and wounded one soldier, whose condition is stable.

Some residents in Sidon neighborhoods near the camp fled their homes as stray bullets hit buildings and shattered windows and storefronts.

UNRWA said two of its schools that serve some 2,000 students were damaged in the fighting, and it had suspended all its operations in the camp.

Lebanon’s caretaker prime minister, Najib Mikati, condemned the clashes.

“We call on the Palestinian leadership to cooperate with the army to control the security situation and hand over those meddling with security to the Lebanese authorities,” Mikati said in his statement.

*

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

This 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 is from MD

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.

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

***

July 31, 2023 – NFL Broncos waive 24 year old KJ Hamler after he was recently diagnosed with “mild pericarditis” (click here).

KJ Hamler announced on his Instagram account he has been diagnosed with a “mild heart irritation, called pericarditis.” He said he would miss some time but intended to be back on the field this season after treatment with medication.

The Broncos waived Hamler with a non-football illness designation on Monday. Sources told ESPN the move was made to let him undergo treatment and potentially bring him back later if he is cleared.

Hamler said in his Instagram post he had experienced chest pains during workouts before training camp began.

July 21, 2023 – NFL Cleveland Browns wide receiver, 32 year old Marquise Goodwin has blood clots in his legs and lungs, the team announced (click here).

Goodwin, 32, was placed on the non-football illness list last Friday after feeling discomfort in his legs and shortness of breath during team workouts this spring.

The blood clots will force the receiver, who is entering his 10th season in the NFL, to miss the start of training camp, the Browns said. “It was really alarming at first because I’ve experienced injury throughout my career, but it’s never been anything like this that could turn into something detrimental if it’s not taken care of,” he told the team website.

“It was frightening at first, but now I’m at ease with it. I’ve prayed and just given it over to God.

Goodwin doesn’t know when he will be able to get on the field again.

July 29/30, 2023 – Four bizarre retirements from NFL announced within 24 hours: ages 23, 25, 27 and 28. No explanations given for any of them!

International Soccer Players “Retired Suddenly”

July 28, 2023 – 28 year old Ex-Premier League player Nabil Bentaleb has his $4 million transfer to Lille held up due to “medical concerns” – he failed his recent medical exam. (click here).

July 26, 2023 – 22 year old Ex-Premier League (Brighton Club) soccer player Lars Dendoncker forced to RETIRE after being diagnosed with a “heart condition” (click here).

July 10, 2023 – 23 year old Noah Fadiga, a Senegal player in French Ligue 1 Club Brest, had his contract terminated over “irregular heartbeat”. He also had his license to play soccer in France revoked and must look outside of France to continue his career (click here).

French soccer authorities apparently have a “zero tolerance policy on cardiac issues” which is wildly ironic.

July 4, 2023 – 22 year old Luca Beckenbauer, grandson of professional German soccer player Franz Beckenbauer, was forced into retirement due to “heart condition” allegedly caused by COVID-19 (much more likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination).

Jan. 15, 2023 – 25 year old soccer player Enock Mwepu was forced to retire from Premier League Brighton Club after suffering a suspected heart attack while driving!

Jan. 12, 2023 – German professional soccer player Marcel Scheifl has been disabled since COVID-19 vaccination and has been fighting for a normal life for 1.5 years (click here).

My Take… 

Mainstream media is not covering these stories, which is not surprising.

These are serious injuries that are ending the careers of athletes in their 20s – once again we see injuries typical of COVID-19 vaccination such as myocarditis, pericarditis, unspecified “heart conditions”, arrhythmias and of course blood clots.

I believe there is a logical reason why the COVID-19 vaccine injured, including professional athletes, are treated so horribly.

The COVID-19 vaccine “died suddenly” individuals offer a crime scene that can be easily scrubbed and then forgotten. If an autopsy is done, an “indeterminate” result is acceptable or the cause of death is blamed on something else and everyone moves on. The “vaccine crime” can be wiped clean.

The COVID-19 vaccine injured, however, present a crime scene that cannot be scrubbed. Their untreatable injury is a constant reminder of the crimes committed by their doctors, employers, in this case sports officials, and more broadly speaking politicians, judges and health leaders.

The COVID-19 vaccine injured ARE evidence of crimes that cannot be scrubbed and won’t go away quietly. They are the open crime scene that constantly points at the perpetrators of the crimes who are trying to avoid consequences.

This may explain, in part, the behavior of French soccer authorities and their “zero tolerance policy” regarding heart injuries they themselves caused and are legally liable for.

*

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.

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.

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. 

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.

***

This article was originally published on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in August 2020.

How many people died as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There is one thing that everyone who has tackled this question has agreed upon: The answer is probably fundamentally unknowable. The indiscriminate damage inflicted upon the cities, coupled with the existing disruptions of the wartime Japanese home front, means that any precise reckoning is never going to be achieved.

But beginning in 1945, people have tried to estimate the number of the dead and injured. The casualties from the first atomic bombings are not of mere historical interest. They are part of how we understand the effects of nuclear weapons today — for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thankfully, remain the only instances of these weapons being used in warfare, and thus provide an invaluable “data set” upon which to base other understandings and simulations. The estimated casualties also play a nuanced role in the various narratives and arguments about the end of World War II.

Click here to view interactive graphic

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.

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

First published on July 7, 2023

***

Social psychosis is widespread. In the words of the British psychiatrist, R. D. Laing, “The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man.”

He was not referring to raving, drooling, hitting-your-head-against-the-wall lunacy but a taken-for-granted acceptance of a world long teetering on the edge of nuclear extinction, to take the most extreme example, but surely only one of many. The insouciant acceptance and support of psychotic rulers who promote first-strike nuclear war is very common. First strike nuclear policy is United States policy.

I recently wrote an article about the dangers of the fourteen U.S. Trident submarines. These subs constantly cruise under the oceans carrying 3,360 nuclear warheads equivalent to 134,400 Hiroshima bombs. All are on first strike triggers. And of course these are supplemented by all the land and air based nukes. My point was not very complicated: now that the United States government has abrogated all nuclear weapons treaties and continues to escalate its war against Russia in Ukraine, we are closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before.

This conclusion is shared by many esteemed thinkers such as the late Daniel Ellsberg who died  on June 16, 2023 and whose 2017 book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, makes clear that nuclear war, waged intentionally or by mistake or accident, is very possible. In the months before he died, he warned that this is now especially true with the situation in Ukraine and the U.S. provocations against China.

The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal recently addressed the UN Security Council on the danger of U.S. actions in Ukraine and asked:

Will we see another Douma deception, but this time in Zaporizhzhia?

Why are we doing this? Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and sabotaging negotiations at every turn?

Finian Cunningham has just raised the specter of a thermonuclear catastrophe initiated by a U.S./Ukrainian false flag attack on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.

So my article was in no way unusual, except for my concentration on the Trident submarines.

When, against my better judgment, I read some commentators’ responses to my piece at a few websites where my article was posted, I was taken aback when I read the following [all emphases are mine]:

“Like many other boomers, Edward J Curtin Jr is caught up in ‘nuclear terror’ … whereas on 4chan you see that a large portion of the young generation has come to accept the massive evidence that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chemically firebombed like Tokyo, and ‘nuclear weapons’ most likely do not exist at all. The 10 alleged ‘nuclear powers’ have had reasons to hoax together, just like the global collusion on ‘covid’ & ‘vaccines’.

So, the point is? Subs with nukes have been cruising around the world’s oceans for over 60 years, back to the time when they tried to scare us with the Cuban missile crisis. I was on a fast attack sub during the Vietnam war, friend of mine got boomer duty, which is what they call the ones that carry the missiles. They’re there for show, they aren’t going to use them. Yes, they should be banned internationally, just in case. But as with the Nuremberg trials and principles, that’s not nearly enough. We’re going to need to create our own New World Order

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper

        I vote for the bang!

The nuke is exaggerated. Reality is that too many will survive a nuclear WWIII.

There will still be too many useless eaters and psychos left in the underground bunkers no matter how many nukes we drop. Like Chernobyl it will only develop to paradises for animals, natives and homeless on food stamps, while we the exceptionals will suffer from an underground life for 50 years without seeing natural light .

A global virus and for double insurance a coupled vaxx, will be a much more effective tool to clean the filth and double shareholders profit..

Dear Ed the sea monsters about as real as nukes.

Another one of the “elites” hoaxes.”

To hear that there are no nuclear weapons and never were; to learn that some in their embrace of nihilism hope for a nuclear holocaust; to read that nuclear weapons are never going to be used because they only exist for show – well, this at least confirmed my suspicion that many who comment on articles are either bonkers or trolls or both.  

Some probably have nothing better to do than inform writers how wrong they are.  It frightened me.  It made me wonder how many of the millions of silent ones think similarly or have come to embrace hopelessness as a way of life – the feeling that they have no power because that has been drilled into them from birth.  I have long thought that cultural normality can be understood as the use of one’s freedom to create a prison, a cell in which one can convince oneself that one is safe because the authorities have established a sacred umbrella to protect one from an apocalyptic hard rain that they never think is going to fall.

The Pew Research Center recently surveyed the American public on their sixteen greatest fears.  Nuclear war was not one them. 

It was as if nuclear weapons did not exist, as if they have been buried in the cellar of public awareness.  As if Mad Magazine’s  Alfred E. Newman’s motto was the national motto: “What? Me worry?”  No doubt more Americans are aware of the gross public spectacle of Joey Chestnut stuffing his mouth with sixty-five hot dogs in ten minutes than they are of the Biden administration’s insane escalation toward nuclear war in Ukraine.  We live in Guy Debord’s “Society of the Spectacle.”

Although he was writing years ago, Ronald Laing’s words sound ironically prescient today after so many years of endless propaganda, the destruction of human experience resulting in destructive behavior, and the relentless diminishment of human beings to the status of machines:

At this moment in history, we are all caught in the hell of frenetic passivity. We find ourselves threatened by extermination that will be reciprocal, that no one wishes, that everyone fears, that may just happen to us ‘because’ no one knows how to stop it. There is one possibility of doing so if we can understand the structure of this alienation of ourselves from our experience, our experience from our deeds, our deeds from human authorship. Everyone will be carrying out orders. Where do they come from? Always from elsewhere. Is it still possible to reconstitute our destiny out of the hellish and inhuman fatality?

That is the key question now that more than fifty years have elapsed since Laing penned those words in his now classic book, The Politics of Experience(isbn.nu).  He said then, which is exponentially truer today, that “machines are already becoming better at communicating with each other than human beings with each other.”  Talking about deep things has become passé for so many.

If we don’t start worrying and unlove the machines, we are doomed sooner or later.  Sooner is probable.  Nuclear weapons are very real.  They are poised and ready to fly. 

If we continue to live in denial of the madness of those who provoke their use while calmly promoting first-strike policies as the U.S. government does, we are worse than fools.  We are suicidal.

As Daniel Ellsberg told us, “Don’t wait ‘till the bombs are actually falling.”  That will be too late.  There is no doubt that before a nuclear war can happen, we must go insane, normally so.

Let’s make the few protest voices in the wilderness the cries of hundreds of millions:

End nuclear weapons now before they end us.

Stop escalating the war in Ukraine now.

Make peace with Russia and China now.

“There is such a thing as being too late,” Martin Luther King, Jr. told us on April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated in a U.S. government plot.

“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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 The Unz Review

“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   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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 August 11, 2022

President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki set the groundwork for an era of U.S. global hegemony and enriched corporations like General Electric, DuPont, Union Carbide, Bechtel and Westinghouse which made hundreds of billions of dollars developing generation after generation of “first-strike” nuclear weapons.

U.S. leaders, intent on provoking wars with China and/or Russia, appear willing to use these weapons again—if we don’t stop them.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 78 years ago, marked the crucial turning point in the history of the 20^th century. By the end of World War II, Europe, the Soviet Union and the Japanese Empire lay in ruins, and the United States was in a position of unprecedented power with sole possession of the Bomb.

Unfortunately, the U.S. used this power to launch the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and initiated a nuclear build-up that has impoverished the entire world and brought us to the brink of nuclear oblivion. The question remains: Why did the U.S. government decide to initiate the Cold War with the atomic bombings instead of pursuing a course of diplomacy and negotiated settlement?

There is broad consensus among serious historians that the atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war with Japan. By 1945 Japan was a destroyed and starving nation desperately seeking a negotiated surrender and the Soviet Union was preparing to enter the Pacific war in early August, eliminating the need for an invasion of the Japanese mainland. For the Truman administration, the use of the Bomb served two purposes: a demonstration of the terrible power of the split atom to be held against the entire world, and a means to deny the Soviet Union a major role in the post-war settlement.

On August 6 at 8:15 a.m. (August 5, 7:15 p.m. EDT), Hiroshima was annihilated in a flash by a single uranium bomb.

Three days later, on August 9, and one day after the Soviets entered the Pacific war, Nagasaki was likewise eradicated by a plutonium bomb.

More than 200,000 Japanese civilians and Korean laborers were slaughtered unnecessarily to expedite the promotion of U.S. foreign policy throughout the world.

But to truly understand the decision to use the Bomb and initiate the Cold War, it is crucial to understand who benefited the most.

The big winners were the claque of corporations which stood to “make a killing” if the U.S. were to initiate a massive nuclear build-up and launch a Cold War. Corporations led by General Electric, DuPont, Union Carbide, Bechtel and Westinghouse made hundreds of billions of dollars developing generation after generation of “first-strike” nuclear weapons and “conventional” weapons.

The entire spectrum of Corporate America applauded the government policy of using military force and nuclear threats to compel a dependable supply of cheap labor, cheap natural resources and markets, primarily from impoverished Southern Hemisphere nations.

Pantex production technicians prepare B61s for surveillance tests. The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile. Pantex is one of six production facilities in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s “Nuclear Security Enterprise.” Corporations like Pantex have made a killing from the nuclear arms race triggered by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [Source: nukewatch.org]

In 1945, the U.S. launched a first strike with atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to consolidate and advance its unprecedented position of economic, political and military power.

Today, the U.S. remains resolutely prepared to do precisely the same!

Its strategy has been and continues to be to threaten use of nuclear weapons to advance U.S. interests and, if deemed necessary, to launch a first strike. In the words of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rebuttal to Jimmy Carter’s 1977 proposal to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 200 warheads,

“U.S. nuclear strategy maintains military strength sufficient… to provide a war-fighting capability to respond to a wide range of conflict in order to control escalation and terminate the war on terms acceptable to the United States.” ^[1]

And, in the 1977 Nuclear Posture Review, submitted on Jaunary 14, 1977, outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote:

“The most ambitious (damage limiting) strategy dictates a first strike capability against an enemy’s strategic offensive forces which seeks to destroy as much of his megatonnage as possible before it can be brought into play. An enemy’s residual retaliation, assumed to be directed against urban-industrial targets, would be blunted still further by a combination of active & passive defenses, including ASW (anti-sub), ABMs, anti-bomber defenses, civil defense, stockpiles of food & other essentials, and even the dispersal & hardening of essential industry.”^[2]

Following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. nuclear policy continued to be first strike, at least up to the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaties which, for the first time, actually raised the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The ABM and INF treaties were, arguably, the most important arms control treaties because they both raised the threshold to nuclear war and, at that time, marked the beginning of a tentative retreat from a first-strike strategy. It is no coincidence that both of these nuclear risk-reducing treaties have been abrogated by the U.S. in its pursuit of global hegemony in the face of a rapidly emerging multi-polar world.

Source: rferl.org

Analysts like Arjun Makhijani, Daniel Ellsberg, and Michio Kaku have pointed out that the U.S. government has threatened to use nuclear weapons dozens of times since Nagasaki, usually against Third World nations exercising their rights to self-determination. They argue that, from the beginning, the central function of U.S. nuclear weapons has been as a primary foreign policy instrument, and not for deterrence.

Ellsberg explains:

“Again and again, generally in secret from the American public, nuclear weapons have been used: …in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it at someone’s head in a direct confrontation, whether or not the trigger is pulled.”^[3]

Source: berkeleyside.org

Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki Matter Today

Although the number of nuclear weapons has been reduced to about 13,000, today’s weapons are vastly more accurate, sophisticated and usable. Scientists estimate that even a tiny fraction of these weapons, as few as a hundred, if detonated against cities would result in a global nuclear winter and countless deaths.^[4]

Currently, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is set to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest ever. This is in part due to the existential threat posed by climate change, but also to the current radically lowered threshold to nuclear war posed by a range of factors including the U.S.-Russia proxy war in Ukraine, rapidly deteriorating U.S.-China relations, the emergence of a multi-polar global economy rapidly replacing U.S. hegemony, the end of the era of plentiful and cheap fossil fuels and other critical resources, and the absence of the ABM and INF treaties. In the words of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking during opening ceremonies of the 2022 NPT Review Conference, “Today, humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.”^[5]

Nuclear war is more likely because of military interventions caused by increased regional resource wars and conflicts such as the current conflict in Ukraine. As resources dwindle, we can expect to see more and more regional conflicts, any one of which can quickly devolve into nuclear war. With the two most important nuclear weapons treaties gone, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), currently under review, there is little to prevent a regional conflict from “going nuclear.”

Absence of the ABM or INF treaties, and NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders leaves U.S./NATO and Russia face to face, each side with nuclear weapons poised to launch on warning. If either side felt threatened enough to launch a nuclear missile, the warning time would be about five minutes. Russia considers this situation to be existential to its survival and has made this “Red Line” clear for the past 30 years, including under Yeltsin.

The sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and NATO since February 24, 2022, were intended to quickly collapse the Russian economy and isolate Russia from the rest of the world. The results have had a spectacular opposite effect. While the value of the ruble has dramatically strengthened, Russia has reached out to nations like China, India, Iran and others to establish new trade agreements and alternative payment arrangements.

Meanwhile, the European Union is suffering economic blowback from the sanctions, with rising inflation and the prospect of a freezing winter without affordable fuel. The inexorable emergence of a multi-polar world to replace U.S. hegemony has been accelerated by the sanctions. It is exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. will willingly accept this change in the global status quo, a likelihood that portends future clashes.

Global climate change adds to the political instability and, itself, lowers the threshold to nuclear war. Scientists warn that, unless radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occur within the next decade, the consequences are catastrophic. We already see millions of climate refugees crossing political borders to escape the changing climate.

It seems like every day there is a new flood, drought, hurricane or other “thousand-year” event. With adversarial nations like India and Pakistan each possessing hundreds of nukes, and Israel possessing hundreds of nuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system with which to threaten its neighbors and even Moscow, the slightest incident could trigger a nuclear attack. (Jonathan Pollard was convicted of espionage and imprisoned for providing Israel with top-secret targeting information about the Soviet Union.)

Finally, political and economic relations between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China are rapidly deteriorating. After years of hostility toward China from Obama’s “pivot to Asia” to the March 18, 2021 summit that ended in a tense confrontation, to the recent visit to Taiwan by Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. has steadily ratcheted up its hostility toward China.

An August 3 editorial in the Global Times underlines the gravity of the situation: “China’s countermeasures will not be one-off but a combination of long-term, resolute and steadily advancing actions.”^[6] 

Immediately following Pelosi’s controversial visit, China responded by announcing the establishment of six large exclusion zones around Taiwan starting on Thursday, and lasting for four days. In an unprecedented move, three of the six zones penetrate Taiwan’s 12-mile limit. As the Global Times editorial notes, this will be the first of undoubtedly many responses to Pelosi’s visit by China. This escalating clash of economic titans could easily lead to another nuclear flashpoint.

Source: tippinsights.com

Challenges for the Movement

The challenge for the peace, justice and environmental movements is to quickly organize a broad political base capable of challenging the presently prevailing corporate power structure. Their nearly absolute corporate control over the media, including public broadcasting, complicates our already difficult task, a task made even more difficult by the unprecedented corporate capture of both political parties.

To educate and mobilize the public we must adopt strategies that reflect the current political and technical realities, increasingly emphasizing the inter-connectedness of issues and the importance of networking.

Protests such as this one in New York City, on August 2, need to continue. The man in the center holding the sign, with blue shirt and blue hat, is a Hibakusha, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was nine months old at that time. [Source: Michaela Czerkies/Brooklyn For Peace]

The key to preventing the use of nuclear weapons—an act which will inevitably have calamitous consequences for the entire world—lies in the ability of the anti-nuclear, anti-war, social justice and environmental movements to understand that their issues are inextricably linked. The best strategy for abolishing nuclear weapons is to broaden and strengthen the people’s movement to challenge all aspects of the corporate imperial state.

In Dialectics of War, Martin Shaw writes,

“By the time nuclear war is even likely, war-resistance may be largely beside the point. The resistance to nuclear war has to be successful in the period of general war-preparation. The key question is the relationship between militarism and antimilitarism, and the wider social struggles of the society in which nuclear war is prepared.”^[7]

Each anniversary of the atomic bombings provides us a unique opportunity to study and reflect on the horrors of possible nuclear war and the massive destruction already wrought by pursuing nuclear madness.

The Hibakusha (living survivors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki) remind us that any use of nuclear weapons cannot be limited and will not be survivable. Their message is especially urgent as the world faces the “unparalleled catastrophe” prophesized by Albert Einstein at the dawn of the Nuclear Age.

*

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

John Steinbach, activist and author, has written extensively on environmental, economics, energy, social justice and nuclear energy issues. His works include the map and database Radiation Hazards USAco-authored with his late wife Louise Franklin-Ramirez. Steinbach’s 2002 article in CovertAction Quarterly (CAQ), “Palestine in the Crosshairs: U.S. Policy and the Struggle for Nationhood,” received a 2004 Project Censored award. John lives and works in Prince William County, Virginia. He is active in several peace and justice organizations and was the recipient of the 2007 Prince William Human Rights Award. John can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

1. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod, To Win A Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans(Boston: South End Press, 1987), p. 184. 

2. Robert Aldridge, The Counterforce Syndrome: A Guide to U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Strategic Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Transnational Institute, 1978), p. 9. 
3. Daniel Ellsberg, “A Call to Mutiny,” Protest and Survive, E.P. Thompson and Dan Smith, Eds. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981), p. 1. 
4. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205. 
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/02/world-one-miscalculation-away-from-nuclear-annihilation-un-chief-says 
6. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272069.shtml 

7. Martin Shaw, Dialectics of War: An Essay in the Social Theory of Total War and Peace(London: Pluto Press, 1988), p. 102. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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.

***

We bring to your attention this article, first published by Common Dreams on August 6, 2020, in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing.

***

Seventy-five years ago, the United States waged the only nuclear war in history. Among the truths held self-evident by millions of Americans is the notion that the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, both American and Japanese. The choice, Americans are told starting as school children and throughout their lives by largely uncritical media, was between nuclear war and an even bloodier protracted invasion of Japan, whose fanatical people would have fought to the death defending their homeland and their divine emperor.

As with so many other dark chapters in US history, the official narrative of the decision to unleash the most destructive weapon humanity has ever known upon an utterly defeated people is deeply flawed.

‘Anxious to Terminate’ 

The Japanese had in fact been trying to find a way to surrender with honor for months before the atomic bombs were dropped, and US leaders knew it. Japan could no longer defend itself from the ruthless, relentless American onslaught; years of ferocious firebombing had reduced most Japanese cities, including the capital Tokyo, to ruins. General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, commander of strategic bombing, even complained that there was nothing left to bomb there but “garbage can targets.”

After years of war and privation, Japan’s people had had enough, and so had many of its leaders. The Allies, through a secret cryptanalysis project codenamed Magic, had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Shigenori Togo, the Japanese foreign minister, to Naotaki Sato, the ambassador in Moscow, stating a desire to end the war.

“His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible,” Sato cabled on July 12. However, saving face was imperative to the Japanese, which meant retaining their sacred emperor. Unconditional surrender was, for the time being, out of the question.

In a secret memo dated June 28, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that “the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.” In a 1960 interview, Bard reiterated that “the Japanese were ready for peace and had already approached the Russians” about capitulating.

On July 26, the leaders of the US, Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding unconditional Japanese surrender and vowing “prompt and utter destruction”—the US had successfully tested the first atomic bomb in New Mexico 10 days earlier—if Japan refused. The declaration was originally written so that Emperor Hirohito would not be removed from the Chrysanthemum Throne, with Japan to be ruled as a constitutional monarchy after the war.

However, Secretary of State James Byrnes removed that language from the final declaration. It would be unconditional surrender or total annihilation.

President Harry S. Truman, who only learned about the Manhattan Project after being sworn in following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12, approved a plan to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. Planners sought undamaged cities where military facilities were located near civilians, and the decision was made to detonate the bombs hundreds of meters in the air for maximum destructive effect.

Tokyo, which in early March suffered firebombing that killed more people than either of the atomic bombs, was off the table as a target. Kyoto was spared due to its cultural significance. Kyoto’s good fortune would mean the Nagasaki’s destruction. Hiroshima, Japan’s largest untouched target, would die first.

Widespread Opposition 

Seven of the eight five-star US generals and admirals in 1945 opposed using the atomic bomb against Japan. One of them, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later said that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

“Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary,” President Eisenhower wrote in 1954. “I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.”

Despite so much high-level misgiving, the US did “hit them with that awful thing.” The idea of giving Japanese officials a live demonstration of an atomic bomb on a remote island, proposed by Strategic Bombing Survey Vice Chairman Paul Nitze and supported by Navy Secretary James Forrestal, was rejected. The US was already destroying multiple Japanese cities every week; it was believed that such a demonstration would likely not have moved the Japanese any more than the ongoing destruction of their actual cities.

Throughout the spring and summer of 1945, Japanese officials increasingly sought an honorable end to the war. Although they had no way of knowing that the US was planning to wage nuclear war against them, they knew that the defeat of Nazi Germany meant that a Soviet invasion, first of Manchuria and Korea and then of Japan itself, was now imminent.

“The Japanese could not fight a two-front war, and were more anti-communist than the Americans were,” Martin Sherwin, an historian awarded the Pulitzer Prize for co-authoring a biography of Manhattan Project leader Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, said a recent webinar sponsored by over two dozen international peace organizations. “The idea of a Soviet occupation of Japan was their worst nightmare.”

Historian and professor Peter Kuznick, who with Oliver Stone co-authored the bestselling The Untold History of the United States, also spoke at the webinar, adding that “the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly reported that if the USSR should enter the war then Japan would realize that defeat is inevitable.” Kuznick also noted that General George Marshall, the only five-star US officer to approve of using the atomic bomb, said that a Soviet invasion would likely lead to Japan’s swift surrender.

Truman knew this too. On the opening day of the Potsdam Conference, he had lunch with Joseph Stalin. Afterwards he wrote in his diary that the USSR “will be in the Jap war by August 15. Fini Japs when that occurs.”

Regardless, Truman pressed ahead with the plan to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki while attempting to convince himself that there was some humanity in the act.

“I have told Secretary of War Stimson to use [the A-bomb] so that military objectives… are the target, not women and children,” the president wrote in his diary on July 25.

“Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo],” he added. “The target will be a purely military one.”

The First Nuclear War 

At 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress dropped “Little Boy,” the first nuclear weapon ever used in war. It exploded above Hiroshima with the force of 16 kilotons of TNT, destroying everything and everyone within about a 1-mile (1.62 km) radius. The heat, blast wave and ensuing inferno killed as many as 90,000 people. Tens of thousands more were injured, many of them mortally. Tens of thousands more people perished from radiation over the following weeks, months and years.

Three days later, Nagasaki suffered a similar fate as “Fat Man,” the second and so far the last nuclear weapon used in war, obliterated Nagasaki in a 20-kiloton air burst. As many as 75,000 people died that day, with a similar number of people wounded and tens of thousands more dying later from radiation.

Despite Truman’s attempt at self-delusion, most of the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were women, children and old people, as most of the men were away fighting the war, or dead from it.

The same morning that Nagasaki was destroyed, Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki addressed the Japanese cabinet, declaring that “under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war.”

Why Japan Really Surrendered 

Suzuki did not learn about Nagasaki until the afternoon of August 9. But he did know that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan the previous day. This, Japanese officials and historians on both sides of the Pacific agree, precipitated Japan’s surrender more than the A-bombs, although it also slammed the door shut on attempts to negotiate a surrender via Moscow.

“The destruction of another city was just the destruction of another city,” said Sherwin. “It was the entry of the Soviets into the war that really threw the Japanese into a complete panic.” They knew that if they didn’t surrender soon to the US, they would lose not only their overseas empire, but also Hokkaido.

An exhibit at the National Museum of the US Navy in Washington, DC states that “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria changed their minds.”

“The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all,” General LeMay stated flatly in September 1945.

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan,” agreed Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”

It is probably too much to say the atomic bombings had nothing to do with ending the war. Hirohito, after all, spoke of “a new and most cruel bomb” that could “lead to the total extinction of human civilization,” in his surrender broadcast. It is also important to note that the decision to capitulate was not unanimous; in fact, a cabal of hard-line military officers attempted to stage a coup the day before the emperor’s announcement.

Target: Moscow 

Not only were Hiroshima and Nagasaki the last battles of World War II, they were also the first battles of the Cold War. American leaders knew very well that the Soviet Union would feature prominently in the postwar world order.

The US wanted to maximize its own position as the dominant world power, and what better way to do this than to show the Russians that the United States had the cold resolve necessary to unilaterally wage nuclear war, even when it enjoyed an atomic monopoly and dropping the bomb wasn’t even necessary?

Stimson acknowledged that some US officials saw nuclear weapons as “a diplomatic weapon,” and that “some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to carry the bomb as their ace-in-the-hole” and wanted “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.”

“I’ll certainly have a hammer on those boys,” Truman reportedly said, referring to the A-bomb and Soviet leaders.

According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, Secretary Byrnes believed that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

But instead of “managing” Russia, some US officials admitted that waging nuclear war actually empowered it, encouraging Moscow to rush to develop its own nuclear arsenal, which it did in 1949.

‘A Nice, Round Figure’ 

As for the common claim that a US invasion of Japan would have cost a million lives, Kai Bird, who shared the Pulitzer Prize with Sherwin for their Oppenheimer biography, said it is simply not true.

“This figure was never given to Truman or bandied about by Stimson,” Bird told the webinar audience. “I asked [Stimson protégé] McGeorge Bundy about it, and he sheepishly admitted that he chose 1 million because it was a nice, round figure. He pulled it out of thin air.”

There is no doubt that an invasion of Japan would have been horrific for all involved, as demonstrated by the bloody battle for Okinawa, in which over 12,000 US invaders and six times that number of Japanese defenders died, along with as many as half of the island’s 300,000 civilians, many of whom committed mass suicide rather than fall under enemy occupation. However, the probability of Japan remaining in the war by the time the US was ready to invade was extremely low, especially given the Soviet Union’s declaration of war.

Plus, the claim that the United States cared anything about the lives of Japanese people, who were portrayed in wartime propaganda as sub-human barbarians, beggars belief. US bombs and bullets had killed over a million Japanese people by 1945, and back in the United States, Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals—who had been banned from even immigrating to the US since the 1920s—were still languishing in a network of concentration camps.

Representatives of the Empire of Japan stand aboard USS Missouri prior to signing of the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945. (Photo: US National Archives/Army Signal Corps)

Being mere “dirty Japs” made it easier for the Americans to try out their ultimate weapon, in which so much time and treasure had been invested. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would make perfect laboratories in which to test the atomic bomb, as some US officials later acknowledged.

“When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used [the Japanese] as an experiment for two atomic bombs,” said General Carter Clarke, the intelligence officer in charge of intercepted Japanese cables.

Tough Luck 

Many of the very men who invented the A-bomb also had grave misgivings, even before it was used. These Manhattan Project scientists wrote what came to be known as the Franck Report in May 1945. It recommended a demonstration of the bomb to the Japanese and questioned whether using it would really bring Japan to its knees when massive conventional bombing had failed to do so.

“If no international agreement is concluded immediately after the first detonation, this will mean a flying start of an unlimited armaments race,” the report prophetically stated.

One notable participant in the events of August 6, 1945 had no regrets. Paul Tibbets flew the B-29 bomber, named Enola Gay after his mother, that let loose “Little Boy” over Hiroshima on that fateful morning. Asked at age 87 about doing it again, Tibbets, who died in 2007, said he “wouldn’t hesitate if  I had the choice.”

“I’d wipe ’em out,” he said. “You’re gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we’ve never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn’t kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: ‘You’ve killed so many civilians.’ That’s their tough luck for being there.”

A False Choice 

Seventy-five years later, a slim majority of Americans still believe the nuclear war against Japan was justified. Millions of Americans believe the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of “necessary evil,” while ignoring alternatives to the standard narrative that the only choice was between nuclear war and invading Japan.

What if the United States had clarified its unconditional surrender stance to assure that Hirohito would not be hanged? Or announced that he would be allowed to remain in a position of ceremonial leadership? After all, General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander, would ultimately allow Hirohito to remain emperor, even if only as a figurehead.

“It is possible,” wrote Stimson in his memoir, “that an earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the emperor could have produced an earlier ending to the war.”

It is also possible, adds Sherwin, “that unconditional surrender would have been qualified earlier” if the atomic bomb wasn’t being developed and tested for use.

“Most historians know this, but most Americans regurgitate the official narrative,” Bird told the webinar audience.

The official US narrative blames the Soviet Union for starting the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, which on numerous occasions over the following decades brought the world within reach, and once to the brink, of thermonuclear annihilation. But it was the United States that fired the first fiery salvo, forcing the Soviets to scramble to develop their own deterrent and launching an arms race in which there are now thousands of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of a record number of countries, with the risk of nuclear armageddon as real as it has ever been.

Americans must admit that the nuclear war against Japan was one of the greatest atrocities in human history. For the first time ever, we humans now have the power to bring about our own extinction. There is absolutely nothing “necessary” about this evil.

“If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been tried as war criminals,” General LeMay remarked, according to Robert McNamara, who brought maximum efficiency to B-29 bombing during the war and maximum death and destruction to Vietnam as secretary of defense during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

He added: “What makes it immoral if you lose but not immoral if you win?”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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.

Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based freelance author and editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived at www.brettwilkins.com.

Featured image: In this handout picture released by the U.S. Army, a mushroom cloud billows about one hour after a nuclear bomb was detonated above Hiroshima, Japan on Aug. 6, 1945. (Source: U.S. Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO)

Global Research Editor’s Note

Of  relevance to recent developments in Israel, we bring to the attention of our readers the following letter by Albert Einstein, et al, to the NYT published on December 4, 1948.

It is of utmost significance to reflect upon a historical process initiated at very outset of the State of Israel.

What is outlined in this letter depicting the atrocities committed against the people of Palestine in 1948 in the Village of Deir Yassin vividly describe what is currently ongoing, more than 75 years later in the State of Israel. 

The signatories of the 1948 letter were:

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe and Stefan Wolpe.

See below.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 5, 2023

***

Letters to the Editor
New York Times

December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.

It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base.

On April 9 [supported THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants,  240 men, women, and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.

Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Dear Readers, Please forward this important article by Manlio Dinucci.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads.

US-NATO is preparing to wage nuclear war. 

First published on June 3, 2023

***

The United States has begun a training programme for the Ukrainian Air Force in the use of F-16 fighters. Several European NATO countries participate in this programme: Denmark, Holland, Poland, Norway, Belgium, and Portugal. Other countries have offered to help with the training. The same countries will supply Ukraine with F-16 fighters. They are conventional dual-capable and nuclear fighters.

An F-16 aircraft was used in the B61-12 nuclear bomb test firing, which the US is already deploying in Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Probably, the B61-12 bombs are also supplied by the USA to Poland: Polish F-16 fighters have been participating in NATO nuclear attack exercises since 2014.

Vladimir Kozin – chief expert of the Moscow Political-Military Studies Centre – declares, in an interview on Grandangolo TV programme, that there is a deep suspicion based on precise facts, that US nuclear weapons have also been deployed in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, or could be rapidly sent to their territories and also to that of Poland.

These countries participate in the “Baltic air patrol“, close to Russian territory, with dual conventional and nuclear capability aircraft. In addition, US strategic bombers, certified to carry nuclear weapons, are engaged in “exercises” over the Baltic Sea and other areas adjacent to Russian territory,

After having unsuccessfully proposed negotiations to the USA and NATO to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict in Europe, Moscow is deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus in a position close to the US-NATO nuclear bases in Europe in agreement with Minsk.

To Grandangolo’s question:

“Do the tactical nuclear weapons deployed by Russia in Belarus have a range beyond Poland and therefore constitute a deterrent to US nuclear weapons deployed in Italy and other European countries?”,

Vladimir Kozin replies:

“Yes, Russian tactical nuclear weapons that will be deployed in Belarus and possibly in the Kaliningrad region and the Crimean Peninsula can achieve various military objectives in Poland, Italy and many other European NATO member countries.”

The US-NATO escalation against Russia brings Europe ever closer to the threshold of nuclear war. The political-media complex falls a curtain of silence on all this as not to alarm European public opinion and prevent it from reacting.

click screen / link to view Italian

https://www.byoblu.com/2023/06/02/allucraina-gli-f-16-da-attacco-nucleare-grandangolo-pangea/

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.

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

***

August 6 from 1 – 4 pm EDT Humanity for Peace (HumanityforPeace.net) will be holding a demonstration on the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima — along with the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki probably the most heinous crimes committed in human history.

Location: Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, E 47th St, New York, NY 10017

Current list of speakers include:

Gerald Celente – Founder/Director of the Trends Research Institute and Publisher of the weekly Trends Journal magazine.

Mike ter Matt – Candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. 

Scott Ritter – Former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer. 

Garland Nixon – Veteran progressive radio and talk show host. 

Diane Sare – Independent candidate for U.S. Senate in New York 2024. 

Muhammad Salim Akhtar – National Director of the American Muslim Alliance and the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections. 

Jose Vega – Sare for Senate staffer and LaRouche activist/interventionist since 2014. 

Ahmadou Diallo – President and founder of the Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom. 

Rev. Dr. Terri L. Strong – Chairwoman of the Action and Global Concerns Committee for the National Church Women United Organization.  

Aaron Day – Former Chairman of the Free State Project; author of the book The Final Countdown: Crypto, Gold, Silver and the People’s Last Stand Against Tyranny by Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

Jude Elie – leader of the Haitian diaspora in the United States; President of the Haitian Salesians of Don Bosco Past Pupils Worldwide. 

Malcolm Burn – Grammy Award-winning record producer; host of the weekly “The Long Way Around” radio program heard on Radio Kingston, WKNY in Kingston, NY.

Demands are as follows:

1) The immediate ending of all funding and weapons to Ukraine.

2) Convene immediate unconditional peace talks.

3) The Dissolution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

4) A new international security architecture must be created to end the division of the world into blocs, eliminating geopolitics. This new architecture must take into account the security concerns of every sovereign nation, large or small.

The demonstration will be livestreamed by the Schiller Institute at this link and by Humanity for Peace at this link.

Contact us at [email protected], follow us on X @4peacehumanity.

Below is the Mission Statement of the demonstration:

The danger of nuclear war has escalated to a point that no thoughtful person on the planet can ignore it any longer. Yet, in this atmosphere, there are still some who think there should be more weapons, more sanctions, and who think that a nuclear war can be won against Russia. It is very clear that those who have provoked the war, and continue to escalate it, do not care about the lives of the people of Ukraine or any other nation on the planet for that matter. This is NOT acceptable to those of us who care about the well-being of ALL of humanity — those who do not wish to see the human race wiped off the face of the earth.

We, therefore, call on the citizens of the world to come together and raise our voices against this madness. Humanity For Peace is building a unified coalition, above ideologies, to stop this unfolding escalation towards nuclear war. We refuse to let humanity perish at the hands of insanity.

August 6 will be the 78th anniversary of the unnecessary and genocidal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima by the United States, which was followed days later by the same crime against Nagasaki. Humanity For Peace is proud to announce that on this occasion, August 6, 2023, an international rally will be held to remind the world that nuclear war should never be fought and can never be won. Humanity is better than that, and we must reject the destiny of inevitable war as a morally repugnant and horribly cynical view.

The main rally will be held at the United Nations in New York City, NY, from 1-4pm, which will be live streamed over the internet. In solidarity with this, sister rallies will be held in other cities around the world. Please get in contact with us if you are interested in organizing another sister rally.

There are currently over 20 organizations sponsoring the event. If your organization would also like to sponsor the event, please contact us. More information, including the current speakers list, can be found at HumanityForPeace.net.

As President Kennedy said in his famous address to American University in 1963, war is not inevitable — but only if we work instead to create peace. The leadership in the United States and NATO is currently not working towards this goal, but rather are further escalating and inflaming the situation in Ukraine. For this reason, an international chorus of voices must be raised against this policy, and sound the call for peace!

Join us August 6 — we must make this sentiment the dominant voice in the world!

*

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 the author

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.

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

***

When a globalist mafia cartel — or a garden-variety tyranny — wish to silence dissent, they like to make ‘examples’ of those who resist. Here in New Zealand, under the sway of PM Jacinda Ardern’s ‘single source of truth’, a few doctors who three years ago raised their voices against the government’s woefully destructive covid measures — measures that included severe lockdowns, ineffectual masking, anti-social distancing, and the vehement suppression of early treatment, so that the one-size-fits-all Covid 19 vaccine death jab could be introduced as our salvation — found that their practising certificates were suspended by the FSMB-directed Medical Council of New Zealand. I was unfortunately one of these, as I discovered when I went to renew my certificate in November 2021.

If any other doctors dared to uphold the principles of their profession and inveigh against the demolition of informed consent, individualised treatment, and the Hippocratic Oath they swore when they received their medical degrees, they knew what was coming. Thus the silence of the sheep, which paved the way for the consequence of excess deaths and debilities thanks to the mandated jab, along with all of the other globalist paraphernalia, most of which I have described in many other essays.

As I write a number of good decent doctors who dared, for example, to prescribe Ivermectin, or who opposed the topsy-turvy institutional recommendations to jab as many people as possible so that we may all ‘stay safe’, are being persecuted and harassed when they should in fact be commended by the very Medical Council that purports to be protecting the public weal.

Suppressing dissent is something far more contagious than covid, and the New Zealand Law Society, taking a leaf out of the Medical Council’s playbook, decided to go after intrepid lawyer Sue Grey, hauling her before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal​ for charges of misconduct and ‘unsatisfactory’ conduct.

Ms Grey represented herself at the Tribunal hearing and a decision has been rendered in her favour.

I frankly admit to being shocked by this decision — not because I questioned Ms. Grey’s fact-founded defense, but because I had resigned myself to believing that the fix was in.

Fortunately, we now have glimmers that truth will come out, that not all institutions are irrevocably corrupt, and that standing tall in defense of the rights and principles of free speech can result in victory even within a system that is itself compromised.

This is our first real legal victory, in my opinion, a victory that paves the way for others, such as physician Peter Canaday who, fifteen weeks after his appearance at the Health Professionals Disciplinary Tribunal, has yet to receive a decision.

We’ve been fighting a long and irregular war in defense of freedom and good medical and legal sense, a fight against mandates and against the upending of professional duty and responsibility.

Sue Grey has been a beacon all along and her surprising triumph deserves accolades.

It reminds me, if you will permit a moderately hyperbolic analogy, of George Washington’s pivotal battle against British forces in Trenton on the day after Christmas 1776. Washington’s crossing of the Delaware was a highly risky enterprise that came after a string of woes; with it he turned the tide and the rest, as they say, is history.

Sue Grey has made history. Let us now go forward and press our rightful and truth-inspired advantage.

*

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.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

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.

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

***

TASS drew attention on Friday to an article in Vedomosti the day prior about the previously unannounced summit on 4 August in Ashgabat between the leaders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, which comes around five weeks before the upcoming Central Asian Summit in Dushanbe. They cited the local Neutral Turkmenistan outlet that was the first to report on this gathering and which reported that those leaders are coming together due to their shared Afghan and connectivity interests.

This is an accurate assessment since Turkmenistan is nowadays actively transforming itself into an integral part of the region after largely self-isolating since independence. Its constitutionally neutral status makes it a natural mediator with Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers, whose Qosh Tepa Canal risks depriving downstream Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan of the Amu Darya’s waters. Those two and Tajikistan are also at risk of Afghan-emanating terrorist threats like those posed by ISIS-K.

On the connectivity front, Turkmenistan joined the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) megaproject with Russia, Iran, and India last month, which will enable it to serve as the last-mentioned’s first point of economic contact with Central Asia along the eastern branch of this route. Around the same time, the governor of Russia’s Astrakhan Region announced that Turkmenistan will connect his country with Central Asia via the newly created “Southern Transport Corridor” (STC).

That aforesaid route is costlier and longer to transit than continuing to trade via Kazakhstan, but it can function as an irreplaceable workaround in the event that Astana’s further compliance with the West’s anti-Russian sanctions threatens to cut off Moscow’s trade with Central Asia. Additionally, the STC is the most direct way for Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to trade with the South Caucasus, Turkiye, and the EU, plus it can also give them access to Afro-Asian markets via neighboring Iran’s southern ports.

Since “PAKAFUZ’s Connectivity Potential Is Totally Dependent On Troubled Pakistani-Taliban Ties”, it’s unlikely that these countries will be able to rely on that trans-Afghan railway to this end anytime soon, hence the importance of pioneering alternative routes to the global ocean in the meantime. This strategic role therefore imbues Turkmenistan with unprecedented importance for its regional partners, which is heightened even further when remembering its possible role in mediating with the Taliban.

Factors beyond Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan’s control, namely the continued uncertainty in Afghanistan and Kazakhstan’s disturbing compliance with some of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions, have combined to push these three together into an unexpected alliance of convenience. Despite being the least populated and with an artificial economy dependent entirely on energy exports, Turkmenistan has suddenly become the key to ensuring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan’s continued growth.

Neither of those two can depend on Kazakhstan for facilitating their trade with Russia, Turkiye, and the West nor Afghanistan for doing the same with the Global South, and they also don’t want to become dependent on China, which is why they’re now forced to rely much more on Turkmenistan. Ashgabat’s newfound role in keeping those two’s economies alive and thus preempting any potential political unrest that could have far-reaching security implications for the region endows it with outsized influence.

That country’s previously isolationist policymakers don’t have the experience playing such a role, nor could they have foreseen that they’d ever have this opportunity, but they’re doing pretty well so far. This can be attributed to President Serdar Berdimuhamedov’s visionary leadership since he assumed office in March 2022. He’s the comparatively young and forward-looking son of the country’s second president, and it’s under him that Turkmenistan has become indispensable to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan’s future.

It’ll be interesting to see how he leverages this to his people’s benefit since it’s imperative that he proactively diversifies the economy from its near-total dependence on energy exports. Investing in connectivity infrastructure that capitalizes on Turkmenistan’s central role in linking Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and those two’s mutual Kyrgyz neighbor with the rest of the world makes the most sense, and all indications suggest that this is the path that President Berdimuhamedov has chosen to embark on.

*

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

This article was originally published on 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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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.

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

***

The Biden Administration is implementing a plan to draw Taiwan into a direct military confrontation with the People’s Republic of China. The plan bears many similarities to the strategy that was used in Ukraine where Russia was goaded into invading the country in response to emerging threats to its national security. In this case, Beijing is expected to react to mounting challenges to its territorial integrity by US proxies and their political allies operating in Taiwan. These incitements will inevitably lead to greater material support from the United States which has stealthily worked behind the scenes (and in the media) to create a crisis. The ultimate objective of these machinations, is to arm, train and provide logistical support for Taiwanese separatists who will spearhead Washington’s proxy war on China. According to a number of independent reports, there is already growing operational collaboration between the Taiwanese Army and US Armed Forces. That collaboration will undoubtedly deepen after hostilities break out and the island is plunged into war.

The plan to confront China militarily was outlined in the 2022 National Security Strategy in which the PRC was identified as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge” who expressed its “intent to reshape the international order.” This NSS analysis was followed by an explicit commitment to prevail in the struggle to control the “Indo-Pacific” region which “fuels much of the world’s economic growth and will be the epicenter of 21st century geopolitics.”...(“No region will be of more significance to …everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific.”) Biden’s NSS emphasizes the critical role the military will play in the impending confrontation with China: “We will…modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers”… “America will not hesitate to use force to defend our national interests”.

Drawing China into a Taiwan quagmire is the first phase of a broader containment strategy aimed at preserving America’s top spot in the global order while preventing China from becoming the region’s dominant economy. The plan also includes economic, cyber and informational elements that are designed to work in concert with the military component. In its entirety, the strategy represents Washington’s best effort to roll-back the clock to the heyday of the unipolar world order when America set the global agenda and the United States had no rival.

Trouble in Taiwan

Taiwan is not a country. Taiwan is an island off the coast of China much like Santa Catalina is an island off the coast of California. No one disputes that Santa Catalina is part of the United States, just as no one disputes that Taiwan is a part of China. The issue was settled long ago, and the US agrees with the results of that settlement. For all practical purposes, the issue has been resolved.

The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan’s independence nor do the 181 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China. In fact, the UN adopted a General Assembly Resolution back in 1971 acknowledging the “People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government representing the whole of China.”

The One-China policy explicitly relates to the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is part of China, that’s what the One-China policy means. Nations that want to have relations with China must agree on the status of Taiwan; it is the foundational principle upon which all relations with China are based. The issue is not debatable. One can either accept that ‘Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory’ or take their business elsewhere. There is no third option.

The United States claims that it is committed to the One-China policy. In their recent visits to Beijing, all three senior-level officials from the Biden Administration (Anthony Blinken, Janet Yellen and John Kerry) publicly stated their unwavering support for the One-China policy. This is an excerpt from an article at Forbes:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated the U.S.’ position on its One China policy as he met with China’s leader Xi Jinping Monday, saying it does not support Taiwanese independence and that containing China’s economy was not an American goal….

Blinken said the U.S. held a “One China” policy and does not support Taiwanese independence, but is concerned about China’s “provocative actions” along the Taiwan Strait. Blinken Tells Xi Jinping U.S. Does Not Support Taiwanese Independence, After Meeting To Quell Tensions, Forbes

President Joe Biden has also stated his support for the One-China principle on many, many occasions, which is what you would expect since it is the official position of the United States government. Here’s a short recap on the issue from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The US made the following commitments to China regarding the one-China principle in the three China-US joint communiqués.

In the Shanghai Communiqué released in 1972, the US explicitly stated that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position”.

In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations released in 1978, the US clearly stated that, “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”.

In the August 17 Communiqué released in 1982, the US unequivocally stated that “In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the United States of America, the United States of America recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and that “it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’”. (China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The western media would like their readers to think there is some “gray area” here and that the issue regarding China’s sovereign territory has not been settled. But—as we have shown—it has been settled. Taiwan is China. We must assume therefore that the media is being intentionally misleading in order to garner support for an “independence” movement that serves only one purpose; to legitimize the arming and training of US assets and insurgents that will be used in a bloody conflagration with China. In truth, the United States is laying the groundwork for a proxy-war on China, and Taiwan has been designated as the frontlines in that war. The independence movement is merely the cover Washington has chosen to conceal its real objectives.

This is why Taiwan has become a flashpoint in US-China relations. This is why numerous US-led delegations have visited Taiwan expressing their tacit support for Taiwan independence. This is why Congress has allocated millions of dollars to provide lethal weaponry for the Taiwanese military. This is why the US Navy has sent warships through the Taiwan Strait and conducted massive military drills on China’s perimeter. This is why Washington continues to provoke Beijing on the one issue that it is most sensitive. All of these incitements were conjured-up with one goal in mind: War with China. This is from Politico:

The Biden administration announced a $345 million weapons package for Taiwan on Friday, the first tranche in a total of $1 billion the U.S. has allotted to be transferred directly from Pentagon stockpiles to the island this year.

The move is sure to anger China as Washington has been trying to rebuild relations with Beijing. Senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, recently visited China, but the outreach has done little to quell tensions over a range of issues, from U.S. support to Taiwan to Beijing’s spy balloon program.

“We take our responsibilities to Taiwan and to improving their self-defense capabilities very, very seriously,” John Kirby, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told reporters ahead of the announcement on Friday. “U.S. announces $345M weapons package for Taiwan, Politico

Repeat: “The move is sure to anger China.”

Indeed, the move was designed to anger China. That was clearly the point. But, why? Why is Washington challenging China on an issue on which there is virtually universal agreement?

Two reasons come to mind:

1. To goad China into overreacting and thus alienating itself from its allies and regional trading partners.
2. To turn public opinion against China by portraying the country as a violent aggressor that poses a clear threat to its neighbors.

Here’s more from the World Socialist Web Site:

The US announced last Friday that it will provide Taiwan with $345 million in weapons as the first tranche of an annual $1 billion in military equipment. The announcement marks another step to arm Taiwan to the teeth as Washington escalates its provocative confrontation with China….

the Biden administration has used the same provision to supply Ukraine with billions of dollars in US military equipment to intensify the war against Russia. Just as it goaded Russia into a conflict in Ukraine, the US is deliberately provoking a conflict with China over Taiwan.

… a Chinese embassy spokesman in Washington, Liu Pengyu, stated: “China is firmly opposed to US’s military ties with and arms sales to Taiwan.” He warned the US to “stop selling arms to Taiwan, stop creating new factors that could lead to tensions in the Taiwan Strait and stop posing risks to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”

The US is intentionally undermining the One China policy, which de facto acknowledges Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan, and formed the basis of US-Chinese diplomatic relations established in 1979. Washington knows full well that China has long warned that it would respond with force to any declaration of independence by Taipei.
Preparing for war with China, US provides $345 million in arms to Taiwan, World Socialist Web Site

Imagine if China sent millions of dollars of lethal weapons to a budding secessionist movement in Texas. Imagine if they offered to arm and train Texan separatists in counterinsurgency warfare so they could kill as many American soldiers as possible. Imagine if China sent one political delegation after the other to Austin (Texas) to embolden the rebels and to offer them moral and material support. Imagine if China deployed part of their fleet and airforce to ports and bases near Texas so they could join in the fray when blows were exchanged and the fighting broke out.

How would Washington react to those developments? Would they be as restrained as the Chinese leadership has been in dealing with the relentless US meddling and provocations?

And, ask yourself this: Haven’t we seen this drill before? Didn’t this same scenario unfold in Ukraine following the CIA-backed coup in 2014 after which the US armed and trained Ukrainian forces to dig-in and provoke hostilities with Russia? Didn’t Washington deliberately choose an issue on which Russia was particularly sensitive in order to ‘get a rise’ out of Moscow?

Of course, they did. In his 22 years in office, President Putin has never started a war. In contrast, in America’s 247-year history, there have been only 16 years when the US was not at war. It is an astonishing record of violence that has no equal. As former President Jimmy Carter said, “The United States is the most warlike country on earth.”

People who have been following developments closely in US-China news, know that Team Biden has been playing a game of “good cop, bad cop” in which US diplomats have been making every effort to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese leadership (to assuage the allies) while—at the same time—pumping Taiwan full of weapons hoping to incite Beijing. The objective of this charade is to preserve so-called “strategic ambiguity” on the one hand while ratchetting up the savagery on the other. Regrettably, the tactic seems to be working. Chinese leaders are getting progressively more irritated which leads us to believe that, eventually, Uncle Sam will get the war he is looking for. At least, that is how things played-out in Ukraine. Here’s more from the WSWS:

Last week the Taiwanese military carried out its annual, multi-day war games known as the Han Kuang exercises, focused on repelling a Chinese invasion of the island. This year’s drills dealt more heavily than previously on threats to major infrastructure and transportation hubs, including the island’s main Taoyuan international airport….

Speaking to the media, Taiwan’s premier Chen Chien-jen justified the exercises, declaring: “Today’s drills in Tainan, include the simulation of wartime scenarios, is not only because of the increased international sensitivity triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine. It’s even more a reflection of the constant threats and provocations from China directed at our country.”

The reality is that the US, not China, has upended the status quo in North East Asia, setting the stage for a conflict in the Indo-Pacific between nuclear-armed powers, even as it intensifies the war with Russia in Ukraine. Just as it has sacrificed countless Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, so it is prepared to do the same in Taiwan and is marshalling its regional allies including Japan, South Korea and Australia, for war. World Socialist Web Site

All of these developments suggest that US plans for a kinetic conflict with China are in a very advanced stage and that the Taiwan powder-keg could be ignited at any time.

A number of recent polls indicate that the American people—who remain completely ignorant of the events we have discussed here—have been conditioned to regard China as an unscrupulous competitor and a growing threat to national security. According to a recent survey from Gallup, US public opinion of China has fallen off a cliff. Here’s an excerpt from the report:

A record-low 15% of Americans view China favorably,…… More than eight in 10 U.S. adults have a negative opinion of China, including 45% who view it very unfavorably and 39% mostly unfavorably….

In addition to holding a largely unfavorable opinion of China, more Americans name China as the United States’ greatest enemy than any other nation by a wide margin. This view is closely linked to two other measures in the poll, which find that Americans broadly believe China’s military and economic powers represent a “critical threat” to the United States’ vital interests in the next decade. “Record-Low 15% of Americans View China Favorably, Gallup

Additionally, the PEW Research Center produced the same grim results:

A stunning 50% of Americans see China as the greatest threat to America. Agree or disagree, like it or not, support it or hate it, this is our reality. Businesses, Investors, regulators, elected officials, everyone needs to understand and discuss this. https://t.co/iZtHYul7sw

— Isaac Stone Fish (@isaacstonefish) July 28, 2023

Naturally, a great deal of the animus towards China is the result of the media’s relentless propaganda which is aimed at demonizing America’s most formidable economic rival. Consider, for example, how the American people were whipped into a frenzy over a Chinese balloon that drifted off-course and traversed parts of the US posing no threat to anyone. The media transformed this inconsequential incident into a lurid tale of international espionage as the errant civilian airship was dubbed the “Chinese spy balloon” whose nefarious purpose was to “gather intelligence from several sensitive American military sites”. Now we can see how trivial incidents like this are being used to smear Washington’s enemies and prepare the people for war.

Is War with China Inevitable?

Foreign policy mandarins on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly pushed for America’s deeper involvement in Central Asia. Grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski first made the case in his classic The Grand Chessboard where he said:

“..how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard,Wikiquote

His views have been universally supported among the Washington pundit class and their chief proponents like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said:

“It is becoming increasingly clear that, in the 21st century, the world’s strategic and economic center of gravity will be the Asia-Pacific, from the Indian subcontinent to western shores of the Americas.”…

“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests…. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.” “America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine

And here’s one more from former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s speech at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University:

(The) ” Asia-Pacific…is the defining region for our nation’s future”… “Half of humanity will live there by 2050″ and that “more than half of the global middle class and its accompanying consumption will come from that region.”….”There are already more than 525 million middle class consumers in Asia, and we expect there to be 3.2 billion in the region by 2030…President Obama and I want to ensure that… businesses can successfully compete for all these potential customers. ….Over the next century, no region will matter more… for American prosperity.” Former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Department of Defense

The above quotes help to underscore the importance the US places on it’s strategy for the region. China is not only the gateway to Central Asia, it is also the main obstacle to the US plans to establish itself as the regional hegemon. That is why there must be a strategy for dealing with China, a strategy that isolates, sanctions, contains and eventually subjugates America’s biggest rival. Not surprisingly, Biden’s 2022 National Security Strategy articulates that plan in clear, unambiguous terms that leaves no doubt that the country is headed for war. Here are a few excerpts from the 48-page document:

The post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next… We will build the strongest and broadest possible coalition of nations that seek to cooperate with each other, while competing with those powers that offer a darker vision and thwarting their efforts to threaten our interests… We will…modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers,..

The Indo-Pacific fuels much of the world’s economic growth and will be the epicenter of 21st century geopolitics. ………..No region will be of more significance to the world and to everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific… We reaffirm our iron-clad commitments to our Indo-Pacific treaty allies… America will not hesitate to use force when necessary to defend our national interests… The military will act urgently to sustain and strengthen deterrence, with the PRC as its pacing challenge….

The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it…. The American military is the strongest fighting force the world has ever known……America will not hesitate to use force when necessary to defend our national interests….

Around the world, the need for American leadership is as great as it has ever been. … …. We will partner with any nation that shares our basic belief that the rules-based order must remain the foundation for global peace and prosperity.. There is nothing beyond our capacity. We can do this—for our future and for the world. National Security Strategy, White House

Let’s summarize:

1. The Indo-Pacific is now America’s top foreign policy priority because that is the area that will experience the most growth
2. The US will lead with its military and with the allies who share US interests
3. “We will…modernize and strengthen our military” to prevail in our “strategic competition with major powers.”
4. America’s Number 1 enemy is China; “the PRC presents America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge ….The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it…”
5. “The post-Cold War era is over” but the United States is prepared to preserve the “rules-based order” whatever the cost in blood and treasure.

This is America’s foreign policy in a nutshell. US leaders and their globalist allies are fully committed to prevailing in today’s great power struggle with Russia and China. They have a clear grasp of the objectives they want to achieve and they are prepared to risk anything, including nuclear war, to achieve them. Any developments in Taiwan must be seen through the lens of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions which are clearly driving events.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

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

Featured image is from TUR

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.

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

***

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.

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

***

There seems to be no limit to the crimes and anti-humanitarian practices committed by the Kiev regime. In addition to torture, extrajudicial execution and human rights violations, Ukraine is also being denounced by insiders for involvement in an international child trafficking scheme. Several criminal networks are operating in Ukrainian territory, profiting from the conflict by exporting children on the black market. 

There are several cases of crimes against children in Ukraine being talked about in social media recently. In one of them, a scheme for the sale of babies was revealed. Criminal activities were taking place in private clinics in Kiev and Kharkov regions. Ukrainian women were hired to work as surrogate mothers for a reward of 12,000 thousand euros. After birth, the children were sold to foreigners for amounts between 50 and 70 thousand euros. It is known that at least nine babies were sold by criminals.

In the same sense, there are data pointing to the existence of a secret organization in Ukraine, which works within state institutions at various levels of infiltration. The practice of this group consists of looking for some children, selecting those who fit certain characteristics required by international trafficking networks and preparing travel documents to legalize their trip to European countries – from which they never return.

As we can see, these schemes involve Ukrainian state officials themselves. Some investigative journalists accuse an SBU officer named “Sergey Borisov” of being the head behind the criminal network on Ukrainian soil. He is said to be acting in collaboration with other SBU agents, in addition to the British intelligence agency M16 – which indicates co-participation in crimes by Western officials, making the situation even more serious.

The most shocking point of all this is that many insiders familiar with the topic believe that these children are being handed over to international pedophilia and child sexual exploitation networks. For example, political scientist Dmitry Kulikov says it is possible to “assume with high responsibility that many of them are either in sexual slavery or are preparing for this”.

Also, another insider, Vasily Prozorov, a former employee of the Security Service of Ukraine, recently commented at a conference on how Ukrainian and British pedophile networks are working together. According to him, the crimes involve high-ranking Ukrainian and British officials. In the UK, children are being “adopted” by pedophiles who are “high representatives” of the government.

“There is a criminal group operating in Ukraine that is involved in the export of children and their transfer to the UK, where they fall into the hands of pedophiles – [who are also] high-ranking representatives of the British establishment”, he said. It must be noted that, in addition to being a former Kiev intelligence agent, Prozorov is currently involved in an investigative project called “Ukrleaks”, focused on exposing the regime’s anti-humanitarian practices. So, he is a reliable source who knows the Ukrainian situation from inside.

However, as shocking as these cases are, they are not really new. It is known that since 2014 Ukraine has become a real haven for pedophiles and all sorts of sexual predators. The high levels of institutional chaos and corruption favor the penetration of criminal networks, which operate with impunity. Usually, criminals look for children from low-income families, in situations of social vulnerability. Children are forcibly removed from their families and sent abroad with fake documents, making it virtually impossible for their relatives to get them back.

This information should also be read in light of recent report by investigative journalists Eva Bartlett and Christelle Néant about human rights violations committed by Ukrainians in Artyomovk/Bakhmut region. Among the crimes, the Ukrainian action of kidnapping ethnic Russian children in the city through agents called “white angels” was described. With the excuse of “saving” children from the conflict, Ukrainians forcibly removed them from their parents and never returned them. Considering the recent news, it is possible that these captured children were handed over to British pedophiles.

Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the protection of children was never a priority for the neo-Nazi regime. In addition to kidnapping local children and selling them to international sexual exploitation networks, the Ukrainian government is also known for its open persecution of children considered “enemies” – those of Russian ethnicity and residents of Donbass. As previously reported, hundreds of Russian children are included in the Ukrainian kill list “Myrotvorets“, which is enough to show how the regime treats minors.

Moscow is doing its best to protect children in the midst of this conflict scenario. In addition to militarily confronting the neo-Nazi forces that abuse minors, Russia is involved in several attempts to seek a diplomatic and legal solution to this situation. For example, the Russian NGO “Foundation to Battle Injustice” has acted intensively in denouncing these crimes. At a recent conference, the NGO and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs jointly denounced the existence of “barbaric criminal schemes in Ukraine related to the transportation and sale of children to other countries, as well as their inclusion in the lists of the Ukrainian nationalist website ‘Myrotvorets’”.

Unfortunately, international organizations seem unwilling to listen to Russian reports. Since the start of the special military operation, Kiev appears to have been given “carte blanche” by the West and international institutions to commit all sorts of crimes, including barbaric acts against children. 

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

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

***

As outlined by Patrick Bet-David in this incisive interview:

“The largest shareholder of 88% of the companies on S&P 500 is either State Street, Vanguard or BlackRock. 

And you can see their influence in defense contracts.“

Three Portfolio Financial Giants are in a position to take control of the real economy of entire countries. 

Watch Patrick Bet-David in conversation with Joe Rogan in the video below.

This world economic tyranny is:

“led by a group of super-wealthy oligarch, multi-billionaires … These oligarchs are accompanied by some super-giant financial institutions, like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity and more which control an estimated 25 trillion dollars-equivalent in assets, giving them a leverage power of well-over a 100 trillion dollars, as compared to the world’s GDP of some 90 trillion dollars. In other words, they can manipulate, control and pressure every government on Mother Earth to do their bidding. (Peter Koenig)

“BlackRock, headed by Larry Fink, has thousands of companies from all sectors in its portfolio. The capital it manages has grown in the last ten years from 3,500 to 9,500 billion dollars (more than 5 times the GDP of Italy) and is increasing further.

In this way, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have a decision-making voice in the boards of directors of the major multinationals and banks, including central banks. 

The  “Big Three” also control Standard & Poor Global, the rating agency that monitors the world’s economies, failing or promoting them” (Manlio Dinucci)

The Privatization of Ukraine by BlackRock

“In recent developments. BlackRock together with JPMorgan “have  come to the rescue of Ukraine”. Their objective is to “buy out” an entire country.

The stated objective is “to attract billions of dollars in private investment to assist rebuilding projects in a war-torn country”. (FT, June 19, 2023)

The Kiev Neo-Nazi regime is a partner in this endeavour. War is Good for Business. The greater the destruction, the greater the stranglehold of Ukraine by “private investors”:

The Privatization of Ukraine was launched in November 2022 in liaison  with BlackRock’s  consulting company  McKinsey, a public relations firm which has largely been responsible for co-opting corrupt politicians and officials Worldwide not to mention scientists and intellectuals on behalf of powerful financial interests. 

BlackRock and Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy signed a Memorandum of Understanding in November 2023.

In late December 2022, president Zelensky and BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink agreed on a so-called “investment strategy”. (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 a screenshot from the video

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.

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

***

The psychology of forgetting and why memory fails is a tantalising topic in the life of individuals or nations. Cognitive psychology spawned many theories about it. The main theory, the motivated forgetting theory, is the most charming as it is easy to relate to it: people forget things in the pitiless flow of life because they either do not want to remember, and painful and disturbing memories are, thus, made unconscious and very difficult to retrieve, albeit they still remain in storage in the attic of the mind. 

The United States and the Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953) is a case in point. Succinctly put, the war ended at a juncture when a “stalemate” prevailed, which in reality meant that defeat was staring at the face of so-called “UN forces” — as happened in Afghanistan. In the chronicle of America’s wars, the Korean War, therefore, became the “forgotten war,” subject to forgetfulness and put away in the attic of collective consciousness.

However, torchlights are being held at the attic, as the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement stealthily approached last Thursday. One principal reason for the curiosity must be the contemporary relevance of the Korean War, which was also a proxy war for the Cold War, like the US’ ongoing war in Ukraine against Russia, which is also in a stalemate insofar as  NATO failed to win the war,  and another humiliating defeat, but much worse than in Afghanistan, is probably in store.

It is China which has the greatest stakes in resurrecting the true lessons of the Korean War. What perturbs Beijing is not only that the Washington elite have not only drawn some wrong lessons, but they are also “all targeted at China, specifically referring to the Taiwan question.”

The most notable revisionist theory has been advanced by none other than Mike Gallagher, the 40-year old former US Marine Intelligence Officer who is currently the Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and is a trenchant critic of China’s policies on the Hill, and also an ambitious politician who is already a leading voice of the Republican right across the board — who once sought legislation to ban federal agencies, such as the departments of the Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defence from purchasing drugs manufactured in China; and, currently advocates for President Biden to give F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. 

Hard Truth About Nuclear Wars

What surprised China, perhaps, was that on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice, Foreign Affairs magazine featured an article by Gallagher, which postulated three “lessons” that the Korean War taught the US —

first, “Washington must not neglect deterrence and readiness,” and should always be prepared to fight and enhance military capabilities;

second, “politics and combat are deeply intertwined”; and,

third, once fighting breaks out anywhere with US involvement, “excessive self-restraint can invite further aggression.”

No doubt, these “lessons” drawn in the Beltway are manifestly targeted at China, and the timing of Gallagher’s essay in a leading public diplomacy organ of the US foreign policy establishment is not coincidental. 

Indeed, China is today far more capable of inflicting pain and damage to adversaries trampling upon its security interests and national sovereignty. The fact of the matter is that the US paid a heavy price by its intervention in a proxy war in the Korean Peninsula, predicated on flawed premises — to begin with, misperceiving the conflict as the first step in a Soviet plan under Stalin to use military means to achieve global dominance. (Around 36000 US military personnel were killed in Korea, out of a total of around 40,000 deaths for the UN forces combined.) 

Equally, the US made the catastrophic overreach to ignore Peking’s warnings as bluffing and blithely estimated that China wouldn’t intervene if the US forces crossed the 38th parallel. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US commander, assured President Harry Truman that China would not enter the war. (But Mao already had decided to intervene after concluding that Beijing could not tolerate US challenges to its regional credibility!)

Similarly, invading North Korea was an incredible blunder that transformed a three-month war into one lasting three years. 

However, a historically contentious detail still remains without definitive conclusion — that the US had toyed with the idea of using atomic weapons against North Korea (and possibly China as well) with a view to shift the overall military balance in its favour and force them to the negotiating table. Indeed, both President Truman and his successor Dwight Eisenhower continued to posit that such an option was on the table, as it emerged by the end of the summer of 1950 already that the good guys would lose the war. 

Of course, in the event, an atomic attack by the US never materialised despite the fact that the Soviet atomic capabilities were still extremely limited compared to American ones, Washington’s nuclear monopoly was largely intact, and the US remained the only nation capable of delivering an atomic bomb to a distant target.

Looking back at the end of the day, although steps were taken to ensure that an atomic option was available — through a series of threats, feints, and even practice runs — it remains debatable how serious the American leadership was.

The bottom line is that in the Korean War, the US confronted the hard truth that threatening a nuclear attack would not be enough to win the war. And the nuclear Korean War simply petered out. That is a historical truth that is unlikely to be forgotten today as a “lesson” when the US faces not one but three nuclear powers in Northeast Asia and all three with deterrent capability.

That is why the visit by a US nuclear ballistic missile submarine to Busan, South Korea, on July 22, the first visit by a US submarine since 1981, which some US congressmen interpret as not only a warning to North Korea but also a deterrent against China, can only be seen as empty bravado. 

Against such a historical complex backdrop, a Global Times editorial hit out on Wednesday:

“China decided to resist the US aggression and aid North Korea during the Korean War, it had repeatedly sent stern warnings that if US forces crossed the 38th parallel China would not sit idle. However, the US did not take it seriously, thinking that China was only making empty threats and would not take action. As a result, they were caught off guard when they encountered the Chinese People’s Volunteers Army on the battlefield. Today, a similar major misjudgment toward China is occurring in Washington.

The biggest difference between now and the Korean War era is that China’s strength has greatly increased. The consequences of infringing upon China’s security interests and national sovereignty will undoubtedly be much more severe… However, it must be clear that if there is another strategic misjudgment this time, the price it will pay will surely be much higher than 70 years ago.” 

The aphorism frequently attributed to Mark Twain comes to mind — ‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.’ Certainly, the history of the Korean War rhymes with the war in Ukraine. While the details, circumstances or settings may have changed, similar events have essentially recycled. 

Ukraine Rhymes with Korean War 

The fundamental difference is that while not even the worst detractors of the US would allege that Washington precipitated the Korean war, when it comes to Ukraine, even the best apologists of the western narrative draw a vicarious pleasure that the US set up a bear trap by its obduracy not to negotiate Russia’s legitimate security concerns and brilliantly turned Ukraine into an anti-Russian state. In effect, the US created the setting for a proxy war — unlike in Korea where its direct intervention in the inter-Korean conflict and MacArthur’s belligerent escalation transformed it as a protracted war that lasted for 3 years.

The big question is whether it was the US’ nuclear blackmail that spurred peace talks brought about the armistice in July 1953. Let facts speak for themselves. During the spring of 1953, Eisenhower developed plans for nuclear attacks on China and conveyed them to the Communists to intimidate them into accepting favourable terms for an armistice. Did Mao feel intimidated?

Wouldn’t China (and Russia) have known that the frightened US allies in Western Europe had registered strong opposition to using nuclear weapons in Korea — and, furthermore, that worries about allies withdrawing from the Korean theatre and leaving the Americans in a limbo would have made it difficult to nuke China and North Korea? The salience is that in any future war, a nuclear power would be more likely to use atomic bomb than one wanting to maintain the support of allies. Wouldn’t the Russians know it in Ukraine? (See Nuclear Blackmail and the End of the Korean War by Edward Friedman, Modern China, Jan 1975)

Anyway, there has been a paradigm shift today. Russia today has nuclear superiority over the US and its allies. Unlike during the Korean War, North Korea and China now possess nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. But a cardinal difference in this paradigm shift is also that neither Pyongyang nor Beijing developed nuclear weapons capabilities as part of plans to initiate a war but, instead, to deter a US attempt to destroy them. The same holds good for Russia in Ukraine.

*

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: The Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Springfield in Busan for a port visit, South Korea, July 22, 2023

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.

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

***

While the wholesale theft of Syria’s natural resources continues under the watch of illegal US troops, the Russian project of resurrecting ISIS-destroyed Palmyra stands as a stark reminder that ruins can rise again – if Syria’s friends help pave the way.

The war on Syria has vanished from the collective West ethos. Yet it’s far from finished. Multitudes across the Global Majority may feel the deepest empathy towards Syrians while acknowledging not much can be done while the Western Minority refuses to leave the stage.

In parallel, there are slim chances the New Development Bank (NDB) – the BRICS bank – will start showering Damascus with loans for Syria’s reconstruction. At least not yet, despite all the pledges by the Russians and Chinese to help.   

Under the lame excuse of “degrading the position for ISIS,” the US State Department de facto admits that the Empire’s illegal occupation of a third of Syria – the part rich in oil and minerals currently being stolen/smuggled – will persist, indefinitely.

Cue to virtually non-stop oil looting in northeastern Hasakah province, as in processions of dozens of oil tankers crossing to northern Iraq via the al-Waleed or al-Mahmoudiya border crossing, usually escorted by US-backed Kurdish separatist militias. 

As if any reminding was needed, the Global Majority is fully aware ISIS is essentially an American black op, a spin-off of al-Qaeda in Iraq, born in camps at the Iraq-Kuwaiti border. The Syrian “Democratic” Forces (SDF) is hardly a democratic US proxy, predictably assembled as a “coalition” of ethnic militias, mostly run by Kurds but also incorporating a few Arab tribesmen, Turkmen, and Salafi-jihadi Chechens. 

As if the non-stop looting of oil was not enough, the Pentagon keeps dispatching truckloads of ammo and logistical equipment to Hasakah. 

Convoys run back and forth to illegal US military bases in the Hasakah countryside, with particular relevance to a base at the al-Jibsah oilfields near the town of al-Shaddadi. 

Recently, 39 US military tankers crossed the – illegal – al-Mahmoudiya border towards Iraqi Kurdistan loaded with stolen Syrian oil.  

Despite these crude facts, Russia remains excessively diplomatic on the issue. Mikhail Bogdanov, Putin’s special representative for the Middle East and Africa, recently told al-Arabiya, “Washington uses the pretext of combating terrorism to be present east of the Euphrates in economically important areas, where crude oil and strategic natural reserves are abundant.” 

He highlighted US troops deployed at al-Tanf in southern Syria and American “support” for the SDF in northern Syria. Yet that’s not exactly a ground-breaking reveal that would light a fire under the Americans. 

We Steal Your Oil Because We Can 

According to Damascus, Syria’s energy sector as a whole was robbed by an astonishing $107 billion between 2011 and 2022 by a toxic mix of US occupation, “coalition” bombing, and theft or looting by terrorist and separatist gangs. 

There are no less than a dozen US military bases in Syria – some bigger than the proverbial lily pads (less than 10 acres, valued at less than $10 million), all of them de facto illegal and certainly not recognized by Damascus. The fact that 90 percent of Syria’s oil and gas is concentrated east of the Euphrates in areas controlled by the US and its Kurdish proxies makes Empire’s job much easier. 

The de facto occupation hits not only energy-rich areas but also some of Syria’s most fertile agricultural lands. The net result has been to turn Syria into a net importer of energy and food. Iranian tankers routinely face Israeli sabotage as they ship much-needed oil to Syria’s eastern Mediterranean coast. 

Complaining does not register a whit with the Hegemon. Earlier this year, the Chinese foreign ministry urged the Empire of Plunder to give Syrians and the “international community” a full account of the oil theft. 

This was in connection to a convoy of 53 tankers transporting stolen Syrian oil to US military bases in Iraqi Kurdistan in early 2023.  

At the time, Damascus had already revealed that more than 80 percent of Syria’s daily oil production was stolen and smuggled by the Americans and its proxy “democratic” forces – only in the first half of 2022. 

Syria’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Bassam Sabbagh, has repeatedly denounced how the Empire of Plunder’s “theft of resources, oil, gas, and wheat” has plunged millions of Syrians into a state of insecurity, reducing a large part of its population to the status of displaced persons, refugees and victims of food insecurity.

The prospects for Syrian reconstruction are slim without expelling the western marauders. That will have to happen via detailed, concerted cooperation between Russian forces, the Syrian Arab Army, and the IRGC’s Quds Force units. 

By itself, Damascus can’t pull it off. The Iranians constantly attack the Americans, via their militias, but results are marginal. To force the Empire out, there’s no other way apart from making the human cost of stealing Syrian oil unbearable. That’s the only message the US understands. 

Then there’s the Sultan in Ankara. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is going all out to imprint the notion that relations with Moscow are always developing, and that he hopes to have his counterpart Vladimir Putin visit Turkiye in August. That’s not likely. 

When it comes to Syria, Erdogan is mum. The Russian Air Force, meanwhile, keeps up the pressure on Ankara, bombing its proxy Salafi-jihadist terror gangs in Idlib, but not as heavily as it did between 2015 and 2020.      

Palmyra Reborn 

Countering so much doom and gloom, something nearly magical happened on July 23. Six years after the liberation of Palmyra – the legendary Silk Road oasis – and overcoming all sorts of bureaucratic hassles, the restoration of this pearl in the desert has finally started. 

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova found a way to celebrate the moment in a fitting comparison with Ukraine:   

“To fight with monuments and fallen Soviet fighters, the Ukrofascists are the best. It is useless to appeal to the conscience or historical memory of the current Kiev regime – there are none. After the goals of the special military operation are achieved, all destroyed monuments in Ukraine will be restored. In Russia, there are specialists in post-war restoration. An example of their selfless work and professionalism is the restoration of Palmyra in Syria.”

Russian specialists unearthed and reset the ancient source of Efka, which used to irrigate the gardens of Palmyra since the Bronze Age. 

They also managed to find the Roman aqueduct that once fed Palmyra with potable water, 12 km away from the city. The Romans had dug a tunnel of nearly human size, then covered it in stone, and the ensemble was buried. It was found nearly intact. 

In the 20th century, when the French built the Meridien Hotel in Palmyra, they blocked the aqueduct, so there was no water flowing by. Russian archeologists quickly set to work, and the aqueduct was cleaned. The problem is the French ruined this source of potable water: The aqueduct is totally dried up.  

Plans for Palmyra include the restoration of the legendary theater before the end of 2023. The restoration of the arch, blown up with dynamite by ISIS, will take two years. The 1st century AD temple of Bel and other historical infrastructure will be restored. Archeologists are already looking for financial sources.

Somebody should place a call to the NDB in Shanghai. 

Of course, the restoration of Syria as a whole is an enormous challenge. It could start by making it easy for Syrian companies and abolishing domestic taxes. 

Russia and China can help by setting up a structure to buy Syrian products, with uniform quality control, and sell them in their markets, alleviating the bureaucratic burden on the shoulders of the average Syrian worker and trader. Russians could also exchange Syrian products for wheat and agricultural machinery. 

Solutions are possible. Restoration is at hand. Global Majority solidarity, in Syria, should be able to soundly defeat the Empire of Chaos, Plunder and Lies. 

*

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.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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.

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

***

July 21, 2023 – Spearville, KS – Destiny Barnett, a 4th grade teacher, was diagnosed with Stage 3 Hodgkin Lymphoma 3 months after giving birth to Swayde.

July 18, 2023 – Fishkill, NY – Erika Thomaselli gave birth to a new baby girl recently. A few days after giving birth, she was diagnosed with Stage 4 Neuroendocrine Carcinoma.

July 11, 2023 – Traverse City, MI – 32 year old Nina Carder was diagnosed with the “most serious and aggressive form” of breast cancer. She has a 10 month old baby.

July 5, 2023 – Linthorpe, UK – 30 year old Fi Leyshon was diagnosed with aggressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma 11 weeks after giving birth. (click here)

May 17, 2023 – Rutledge, GA – Karen Vincent had a C-section at 26 weeks and was diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer that had spread to her bones, liver and brain.

May 2, 2023 – Minooka, IL – Christine Yenser is a mom of 5 and had her 5th baby in Sep. 2022. Just 6 months later she was diagnosed with a Stage 4b Mediastinal B-Cell Lymphoma.

Jan. 2023 – 32 year old oncology nurse April Addison was diagnosed with breast cancer the day after she delivered her son by C-section. She has no family history (click here).

Dec. 2022 – Vancouver, BC – 37 year old Aimee Cox was diagnosed with Stage 4 Colon cancer 11 months after giving birth to her daughter. It is so aggressive it has already metastasized to the liver (click here).

Sep. 2022 – Sam Lynch had twin girls in Sep. 2022 and less than a week later she was diagnosed with Stage 4 bowel cancer. She is a fully COVID-19 vaccinated nurse.

April 2022 – Lancaster, PA – 16 year old Kiera Adkin had chest pain nursing her newborn son. It was a 5×8 inch Stage 3 aggressive T-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma.

March 2022 – Melbourne, Australia – 32 year old Darlene Lynch had a baby in Dec.2021 and 2.5 months later she was diagnosed with an extremely rare aggressive choriocarcinoma that had spread to her lungs (click here).

Sep. 2021 – Singapore – 25 year old Kwa Lay Teng was nursing her four day old baby girl when she received a call with breast cancer diagnosis. (click here)

May. 2021 – Alberta – Carolina Diaz had a growing lump in her breast while 8 months pregnant. She was diagnosed with breast cancer right after delivery. (click here)

Feb. 2021 – Glastonbury, CT – 30 year old nurse Elizabeth Emory took two Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnancy (Jan. 7, 2021 and Feb. 4, 2021). On Feb.6, 2021, at 25 weeks pregnant, she was diagnosed with Starge 4 Burkitt’s Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

My Take… 

These are absolutely horrifying cancer subtypes or late stage presentations.

A brilliant Twitter user who discovered some of these cases, Janiesaysyay, asks:

“I am seeing a lot of charity posts for vaxxed new moms with aggressive cancers. Does the vaxx and the pregnancy/lactation hormones drive the cancer?”

It’s a fascinating question that needs to be explored.

*

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

***

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) condemns in the strongest possible terms Kenya’s proposal to lead what amounts to a foreign armed intervention in Haiti. 

Kenya has offered to deploy a contingent of 1,000 police officers to help train and assist Haitian police, ostensibly to “restore order” in the Caribbean republic. Yet, their proposal is nothing more than military occupation by another name; an occupation of Haiti by an African country is not Pan-Africanism, but Western imperialism in Black face. By agreeing to send troops into Haiti, the Kenyan government is assisting in undermining the sovereignty and self-determination of Haitian people, while serving the neocolonial interests of the United States, the Core Group, and the United Nations.

There is an urgent need for clarity on the issue of occupation in Haiti. As described in a recent statement on Haiti and Colonialism, Haiti is under ongoing occupation. No call for foreign intervention into Haiti from the administration of appointed Prime Minister Ariel Henry can be considered legitimate, because the Henry administration itself is illegitimate. BAP has repeatedly pointed out that Haiti’s crisis is a crisis of imperialism. Haiti’s current unpopular and unelected government is propped up only by Haiti’s de facto imperial rulers: the unseemly confederacy of the Core Group countries and organizations, as well as BINUH (the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti), and a loose alliance of foreign corporations and local elites. 

Henry and the UN have made a mockery of sovereignty by mouthing the slogan “Haitian solutions to Haitian problems,” yet finding the only solution in violence through foreign military intervention. After repeated failed attempts to organize an occupying force to protect their interests and impose their will on the Haitian people (including appeals to the multinational organization, the Caribbean Community [CARICOM] for troops), they have now found a willing accomplice in Kenya, an east African country with its own set of internal problems. 

As Austin Cole, co-coordinator of the BAP Haiti/Americas Team, argues: “At best, Kenya is allowing itself to be used in a violent line of neocolonial puppetry that will inevitably result in more death and imperial plunder for the masses of Haitians. At worst, Kenya sees this as an easy opportunity to serve the colonial ‘masters’ and win favor for political and financial needs.” 

Indeed, what’s in it for Kenya? An opportunity to both train and enhance the salaries of local police forces and garner a patina of prestige, or at least bootlicking approval, from the West. And for Haiti? White blows from a Black hand and a further erosion of their sovereignty.

BAP demands that Kenya rescind their proposal to send 1,000 police to Haiti, while calling on the Kenyan people to join the Haitian masses and radical voices worldwide in condemning the continued occupation and governance of Haiti by the Core Group and the UN. 

No to occupation. No to foreign intervention. No to Black face imperialism. Yes to sovereignty. Yes to a true Pan-African alliance between the people of Haiti and Kenya.

*

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 BAP

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.

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

***

“We have this ability in Lake Wobegon to look reality right in the eye and deny it.” — Garrison Keillor

Keen observers of history realize that the US and the West have entered a new Dark Age.

The light of reason and the capacities for critical thought are rapidly being snuffed out by widespread emotional immaturity. The erosion of American culture has largely been the result of a decades’ long merger of adolescent attitudes and the corporate commodification of human life and values.

Mass culture, Hannah Arendt observed, was not culture but personal entertainment, or better stated self-aggrandizement. Our civilizational collapse into intellectual darkness and the catastrophic failure in democracy were presciently predicted by many of our wisest cultural critics such as Lewis Lapham, Morris Berman, and Robert Kaplan two decades ago.

Likewise, earlier works of science fiction such as Fahrenheit 451, The Perfect Day and The Canticle for Leibowitz describe not only the dystopian triumph of a puerile citizenry blindly subservient to the tricks and treats disbursed by an elite corporate and political class, but also the consequences of the intentional disorientation of a distracted human mind.

Aldous Huxley perfectly predicted our times in Brave New World. Hungarian-born journalist and author Arthur Koestler (d. 1983) envisioned a future America being populated with human automatons in a replay of the fall of the Roman Empire; at such time the US will have turned into a “soulless, politically corrupt, everybody-for-himself civilization.”

Although these modern critics and fiction authors may not have foreseen the exact structures and popular social values society has now transitioned into, such as the worst expressions of critical race theory’s inverted racism, institutionalized woke culture, endemic mental disorders, and growing gender dysphoria, they nevertheless accurately observed the trends that have led America to this impasse of moral anarchy.

Critical race theory and the woke movement will never democratize society; rather it will further erode universal ethical norms to a cacophony of subjective emotions and aberrant personal beliefs felt at any given moment. These mythologies about race and gender, which are mistaken for hard truths, now permeate our elementary schools and universities, which are being fashioned into what Morris Berman calls “a gigantic dolt-manufacturing machine.” And the global elite, political legislators and pseudo-intellectuals dominating our educational institutions, willingly or not, declare this feat of social deterioration as a political victory.

At the core of our society’s collective daze in the marketplace of frivolous pursuits resides a deep existential emptiness. In particular this vacuity of a life enriched by meaning and purpose is being acted out by the younger generations.

In 2022, the national suicide rate again rose to 14.3 suicides per 100,000; two years earlier 5.2 million either planned or attempted to take their lives.

The prevalence of gender dysphoria continues to rise significantly and starts at younger ages. Although the percentage of people either professionally or self diagnosed, with gender dysphoria remains very small, it has nevertheless been raised to a level of national priority at the expense of other mentally and physically handicapped persons that make up 27 percent of the population.

This brief reference above noting the consequences of the dark abyss at the center of American culture only highlights a small sliver of the consequences of the intellectual ignorance underlying critical race theory and woke culture.

During the past five years, there has been an aggressive encroachment of woke and postmodern race ideologies into every aspect of society: local school boards, college campuses, corporations’ human resources, and the halls of federal and state legislative bodies.

The leaders of this trend are by no means our culture’s best and brightest; rather those are the first to find themselves cancelled or handed their termination papers. Rather it is the activists who shout the loudest who manage to be heard. Those of us who critically recognize social dynamics observe this hysterical phenomenon with credulous amusement.

When Tucker Carlson reports about a woman who wouldn’t change a baby’s diaper unless she receive the infant’s permission, the sane among us step back and wonder what the hell is going on. Self-righteous university students demand professors abide by their demands and teach only what they want. Those teachers who stand up for educational integrity and the teaching profession’s tradition, are ostracized. Students petition college administrators to have dissenting un-woke professors fired.

What is especially notable is how rapidly this raging woke and inverse racist movement has become incorporated into our public and private institutions.  This includes the adolescent tantrums by political parties to censor their opponents, pass laws banning certain kinds of free speech and the gradual erasure of social norms of binding relationships that fueled the founding of the nation. None of this could have happened if the majority of Americans were not asleep. In the twenty-first century we can agree that equality is crucial for harmonizing the historical aberrations such as slavery and the denigration of women and gays that have haunted us through the generations. Everyone should be able to have the opportunity to succeed in reaching their goals. However, despite the new woke and critical race movements’ condemnation of meritocracy, its followers demand the same out come.

Of course, once Rome passed a certain threshold after several centuries of decline, its final collapse accelerated quickly.  This is the nature of entropy. Aside from the enormous disparity in wealth between Rome’s social classes, a perpetual war economy, widespread political corruption and the decline in literacy, Roman society was also plagued by a mental virus of magical thinking and superstition. In our own time, the level of American illiteracy is astounding. The average American likewise lives in a garbage heap of superstitious hopes for a utopian carnival where a superficial free thought reigns; however, at the same time a future utopia requires a new vocabulary and the banning of words the new woke order finds personally offensive.

Following the warnings of social psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s, the American populace is being “deindividuated.” Deindividuation is a state whereby individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and their realistic and healthy personal identity in order to become part of a crowd that opposes other crowds. Normal moral restraints are cast aside and replaced by impulsive and deviant behavior.

The entire woke narrative now giving way to antisocial behavior is a notable consequence of the deindividuation being approved by government and private industry.

Deindividuation reinforces illiteracy and blatant stupidity. For example, when Democrats brought Aimee Arrambide, an executive for an abortion rights organization, before the House Judiciary Committee to give testimony, she claimed men could get pregnant and have abortions. Again we are reminded of Jefferson’s words “Illiteracy is the enemy of progress and the ally of tyranny.”

Dr. Henry Nasrallah, editor in chief of the journal Current Psychiatry, remarks that we are in a historical moment when “the passage of time ruthlessly increases the entropy of everything in life.”

We not only witness entropy in civilizations and societies, but also in our possessions, dwellings, businesses, and our physical body and mental faculties.

Therefore, new energy must be invested in order to slow or reverse entropic processes. Yet without the restraints of a new constructive and restorative vision, entropy runs amok.

During the dramatic public shock triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, lockdowns, social distancing, business and school closures, and financial loss, there was a parade of incessant media porn reminded us repeatedly that death could knock on our door at any moment.

The federal government’s and medical establishment’s gross negligence on multiple fronts during the pandemic gave rise to a rapid degeneration of America’s social order.

Distress from the loss of normalcy accelerated the nation’s collective psychological entropy; this in turn contributed to resurrected racial tensions, hateful biases, toxic relationships, drug addiction and suicide, permissible crime, homelessness, rampant disinformation across mainstream media, the implosion of social norms, a psychological disoriented citizenry and a ruthless cancel culture that is utterly intolerant of others’ beliefs.

Remarkably, the mobs in the street are little more than bland reflections, a Jungian shadow, of the instability and disorder created by the agents of chaos and entropy who sit in the seats of power. “Just as the individual has a shadow,” wrote Jung, “so does society at large. And just as the individual must come to terms with his shadow so too must society if it is to be healthy and whole.” The rising psychological deindividuation and existential angst infecting our youth over their self-identity, gender, moral alienation and a lack of existential purpose in our technological driven materialistic society has reduced our youth to sentient robots screaming for self-expression.  This is a cause for today’s woke groupthink contributing to social and political unrest with its destructive outcomes. Or as Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell warned, the “collective passions” have a penchant to inflame “hatred and rivalry directed towards other groups.”

Despite the original values of American liberalism and non-dogmatic healthy skeptical inquiry, today’s Left has perverted its own legacy.  

The woke have become every bit as intolerant and wrong-headed as the most zealous fundamentalist on the Right.

This “exclusivist humanism,” as the prominent cultural philosopher Charles Taylor has termed it, is giving rise to a faux universalism.

The new woke order’s myopic obeisance increasingly relies on the secular power structure of the ruling elite that in turn legislates on its behalf to marginalize and imprison alternative belief systems that do not embrace a secular universalism.

Hence the new radical Left no longer tolerates the diversity of traditional beliefs and worldviews. The entropic descent into irrational hostility, collective emotional hysteria, and what the Russian-American sociologist Pritrim Sorokin called  “cultural schizophrenia,” clings desperately to a grossly materialistic society and a fragile false sense of individuality, an empty void, which is completely divorced from any deeper purpose in life.

America is a “society in chains,” an expression stated by Nelson Mandela to describe a citizenry psychologically crippled for making informed decisions and incapable of participating thoughtfully in a democratic process. Consequently, a democratic renaissance, a new energy to reverse entropy, can only proceed following a revitalization of moral and spiritual values that have universal appeal, which respects pluralist ideals both within and beyond national borders. To be worthy of participating in any viable possibility for a democracy in the 21st century, it is necessary to return to becoming John Adams’ “moral people.”

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

List of 30 ‘Elites’ That Support and Promote Worldwide Depopulation

Michael Snyder, July 28, 2023

Video: Victoria Nuland Inciting WWIII with Russia

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 16, 2023

“Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”: Secret Gathering Sponsored by Bill Gates, 2009 Meeting of “The Good Club”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 30, 2023

There Was No Pandemic. Dr. Denis Rancourt

Prof Denis Rancourt, July 26, 2023

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

Ethan Huff, July 22, 2023

September 11, 2001: Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers

Prof. Graeme MacQueen, July 29, 2023

Video: Dr. Naomi Wolf Uncovers Pfizer’s Depopulation Agenda, as Evidenced by Its Own Documents

The Vigilant Fox, July 22, 2023

Trinity’s Shadow: First Atomic Bomb Named Trinity. Terrifying Predicament that Many Wish to Ignore

Edward Curtin, August 3, 2023

UK NHS Director of “End-of-Life Care” Confirms Doctors Lied About COVID Being Cause of Death to Create Illusion of a Pandemic

The Expose, July 8, 2023

Ophthalmologists Now Ethically Obligated to Denounce COVID-19 Vaccines, as 20,000 New Eye Disorders Are Reported

Lance Johnson, May 29, 2023

Dr. Denis Rancourt: COVID Injections Have Killed 13 Million People Worldwide

Rhoda Wilson, July 6, 2023

Comprehensive Study: There Are Zero Amish Kids Suffering From Cancer, Diabetes or Autism – Why Is That?

S.D. Wells, July 11, 2023

Heart Disease Risk Skyrockets 13,200% Following COVID Injections, CDC Admits

Ethan Huff, July 11, 2023

Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun

F. William Engdahl, July 22, 2023

Cardiac Arrests: Young Women Are Dropping Dead Everywhere. COVID-19 Vaccine Myocarditis in Women Is Up to 1 in 30 Per Jab

Dr. William Makis, July 23, 2023

The Great Chessboard: China’s Economic Rise and the Collapse of America. Mike Whitney

Mike Whitney, July 14, 2023

Lancet Study on COVID Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study Is Removed Within 24 Hours

Will Jones, July 9, 2023

Cognitive Impairment in Adults – What Role Did COVID Vaccines Play?

Igor Chudov, July 19, 2023

Bombshell: US House Bill to Cut Funding for WHO Entirely, Terminate Involvement in WEF, Considers Exiting WHO. Threatens Implementation of WHO “Pandemic Treaty”?

Peter Koenig, July 3, 2023

World War III Has Already Begun, but the Truth Is Being Withheld from the Public Until the Very Last Moment

Mike Adams, July 22, 2023

Turbo Cancer in Doctors: Top Breast Cancer Surgeon and Top 20 Oncologist Influencers

By Dr. William Makis, August 03, 2023

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause turbo cancers, as well as cancer recurrences in those who were in remission. (click here). There is no indication that even as a “top breast cancer surgeon” and “top 20 Oncology influencer”, she has any idea that mRNA vaccines are causing cancer.

“The Choice of Resistance”

By Dr. Dina Y. Sulaeman, August 03, 2023

In May 2023, I was invited to attend the 11th “The Global Gathering in Support of the Choice of Resistance” conference. This conference was attended by delegates from 70 countries, including Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. This conference’s title contains a distinctive phrase: “The Choice of Resistance.” Why should resistance be considered an option?

False Perceptions of BRICS? An Alliance of “Sovereign Countries” Committed to “Dedollarization”

By Andrew Korybko, August 03, 2023

It was always unrealistic to imagine that BRICS is an alliance of completely sovereign countries that have united due to their shared hatred of the West and are thus plotting to topple the dollar’s dominance in the near future.

Trinity’s Shadow: First Atomic Bomb Named Trinity. Terrifying Predicament that Many Wish to Ignore

By Edward Curtin, August 03, 2023

Joseph Biden, the second Roman Catholic president, while mocking the essence of Jesus’s message, pushes the world toward a nuclear holocaust, unlike JFK, the first Catholic president, who was assassinated by the CIA for pushing for the elimination of nuclear weapons and the end of the Cold War.

Three African Military Governments Say They Will Resist Any Western-backed Intervention in Niger

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 03, 2023

General Abdourahamane Tchiane, the chairman of the ruling military administration in the West African state of Niger, has rejected the call by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to relinquish power to the former President Mohamed Bazoum.

American Public’s Confidence in U.S. Armed Forces Has Plummeted. Gallup Poll

By Ahmed Adel, August 03, 2023

The confidence of the American public in its Armed Forces has plummeted to levels not seen in more than 20 years, according to a new survey published by Gallup on July 31. However, what the poll omits from its research is the role that the inclusion of transgenders in the US military has played in lowering American trust in this institution.

Kiev’s Secret Plan Regarding Zelensky’s Replacement. Western Media Report

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, August 03, 2023

In an article recently published by Politico, it was said that Kiev already has a secret plan in case the Ukrainian president is assassinated. Although it is normal for countries at war to think about the possibility of their leaders dying, the way that media is reporting the case suggests a kind of attempt to prepare public opinion for Zelensky’s replacement.

Attacks on RFK Jr. as a “Conspiracy Theorist” Show All the Hallmarks of CIA Disinformation

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, August 03, 2023

Although the specific term “conspiracy theorist” pre-dates the JFK assassination, it was enthusiastically embraced and deployed by the CIA as one of its most powerful psychological weapons, to be wielded against anyone who suspects the government of secret wrongdoing. It is an effective way to silence dissenting voices by marginalizing them and leaving them open to ridicule.

Transition to a New Global Order

By Jacob Nordangard, August 03, 2023

July 2023, the United Nations published a Policy Brief  entitled “A New Agenda for Peace”. It is the ninth out of the eleven Briefs that has been released to support the UN’s “Our Common Agenda.

The Jeffrey Epstein Files: Trove of Never-before-seen Emails and Calendars Gives Unprecedented Insight Into Late Pedophile’s Network of Power and Influence that Includes Chris Rock, Peter Thiel, and Richard Branson

By Daniel Bates, August 03, 2023

A vast trove of Jeffrey Epstein‘s private calendars and emails are being revealed today by DailyMail.com. The hundreds of pages in the files give an unprecedented insight into the late pedophile’s extraordinary network of power and influence.

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.

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

***

In May 2023, I was invited to attend the 11th “The Global Gathering in Support of the Choice of Resistance” conference. This conference was attended by delegates from 70 countries, including Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. This conference’s title contains a distinctive phrase: “The Choice of Resistance.” Why should resistance be considered an option?

I discussed this with Dr. Tim Anderson, an Australian scholar who was one of the movement’s founders and a steadfast advocate of intellectual resistance against modern Western colonialism.

He pointed out that the term “choice” or “the right to vote” is commonly used by Western liberal thinkers and politicians. However, when it comes to the Palestinian issue, many liberal thinkers or activists deny this right. Some express their support for Palestine while saying “Don’t use violence” or “Let’s only negotiate peace.” When some factions in Palestine chose to carry out an armed struggle against Israeli colonialism, they (along with Israel) immediately labeled this struggle an act of “terrorism.”

The West, including Western Europe and the United States, often claims to uphold liberal values. They even spread these values to various nations around the world. In the paradigm of liberalism, individuals are capable of organizing themselves toward virtue. The 19th-century French liberal politician and philosopher, Alexis Tocqueville, argued that individuals were the best judges of their own interests and should therefore be allowed to have a say in matters concerning their personal future (Ossewaarde, 2004).

However, the West undermines liberalism’s core principles when it comes to oppressed nations. They ignore the people’s right to vote and continue their modern colonialism without considering the human rights of the subjugated countries.

For example, in 2021, the European Union stopped funding two Palestinian NGOs, Al-Haq and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Isn’t “human rights” one of the core values of liberalism? However, for Europe, Palestinian human rights are insignificant when it comes to Israeli interests. Israeli authorities have alleged that the Palestinian NGO channeled funds from the European Union to the “Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine” (FPLP), which Israel has labeled as a “terrorist organization.”

Israel, the US, and Western European countries declared the Palestinian resistance movement an act of terrorism. Consider this situation in one of the West Bank incidents. Israel conducted two days of raids on the Jenin Palestinian refugee camp in early July 2023. A total of 2,000 soldiers, F-35 fighter jets, and drones blasted the camp. Bulldozers demolished numerous infrastructures and attacked the 0.42 sq km camp that was home to 24,000 people.

“Is it any wonder paramilitaries have risen up to defend neighborhoods and families against those bloodsoaked incursions?” asked an Irish politician and Member of the European Parliament, Mike Wallace, after describing how Israel destroyed everything, including roads, water pipes, power plants, power grids, sewers, schools, and hospitals.

Israel has committed similar brutalities since the regime’s inception in 1948 (and in the years preceding that, in preparation for the establishment of the “state” of Israel). What resistance must be made to confront this ruthless regime? Shouldn’t there be the option to fight with weapons? Why is the word “peace” thrown onto the shoulders of the Palestinian nation, which has much less military equipment and funding? The lack of international support for Palestinian cause made Dr. Yahya Ghaddar, the General Secretary of the Global Gathering stated that all parties have an obligation to stand with Palestine.

The EU-Israel Cooperation agreement, which was ratified by the Israeli and European Parliaments and came into effect in 2000, states that “human rights and democracy” serve as the basis for the accord. However, the document does not accommodate the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their independence. In fact, Israel’s existence in Palestine has been recognized as an occupying power or a party that enforces settler colonial rule on Palestinian land (Sen, 2022).

The United States, which always claims to be the promoter of democracy and funder of wars in various countries to topple governments it deems to be anti-democratic, consistently offers financial and military help as well as unlimited political support to Israel. The US has stood beside Israel by exercising its veto “right” up to 40 times. In fact, the UN resolution did nothing further than condemn, but Israel is nevertheless safeguarded.

However, as discussed during the “The Global Gathering in Support of the Choice of Resistance” conference, the Western capitalist power or “the Empire” is now having a difficult time. For hundreds of years, they colonized various parts of the world, then in the modern days, they invaded independent countries whose leaders refused to comply, killed people with the latest advanced weapons, robbed their natural resources, and caused poverty and painful suffering for billions of people on earth. The victims of the Empire spread across continents, from the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa.

Despite this, the oppressed nations from various continents, ethnic groups, and religions, have never stopped fighting. Sometimes they won, the other times they were silenced, but the persistence of this opposition weakens the influence of global capitalism. In a world that is moving toward multipolarity, the continuance of the axis of resistance in the Middle East has weakened the Empire and paved the way for Russia and China to rise as new great power. Since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, the global resistance movement has entered a new phase and led to a very significant geopolitical shift.

We have observed how China has risen to become the main mediator in the Middle East, succeeding in bringing together the two big powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Empire divided the Muslim nations in Middle East by putting their armies against one another since conflict and division was very beneficial for their capitalist projects. They provide finances and logistics wherever there is conflict in order to make enormous profits. But now, we are seeing the power is shifting. The Arab countries are returning to make peace with Syria. For 10 years, they have shunned their Syrian allies in support of the Empire’s agenda to overthrow the regime.

In Africa, we are witnessing the rise of African leaders who have the courage to speak out against the West’s prolonged colonialism, which continued to plunder Africa even after it had attained de jure independence. We recently heard a statement made at the Russia-Africa Summit in reference to Ibrahim Traore, the young president of Burkina Faso:

“Why does resource-rich Africa remain the poorest region of the world? We ask these questions and get no answers… However, a slave who does not fight [for his freedom] is not worthy of any indulgence. The heads of African states should not behave like puppets in the hands of the imperialists. We must ensure that our countries are self-sufficient, including as regards food supplies, and can meet all of the needs of our peoples.”

Representatives from Africa also attended the 11th “Global Gathering in Support of the Choice of Resistance” conference in Beirut. One of them is Mpho Masomola from South Africa, who vocally defended Palestine in his speech. South Africa has a deep connection to the Palestinian struggle because it was once a victim of the apartheid government system.

The Latin American countries, some of whose representatives were also present at this conference, also undergo a long history of resistance to the Empire. Venezuela successfully resisted a US-planned political coup. The country is allied with the anti-Empire force from the Middle East, Iran, which bravely set off its oil ships to Venezuela despite a unilateral US embargo. Cuba also continues to stand firm, despite decades of economic sanctions and US-led destabilization attempts.

In general, it is argued that the enemy of humanity is the Empire which exploits and manipulates the nations of the world in order to harvest enormous profits. However, because the Empire dominance model differs in each country, the resistance tactics will vary depending on each situation. There are people who engage in political resistance to hold out against natural resources robbery by transnational companies, hence exposing them to the possibility of a coup d’état of the government. Others fight tirelessly to achieve independence or economic sovereignty, at the risk of being targeted by the WTO and IMF. Indonesia, for example, has prohibited the export of unprocessed mineral ores (nickel, tin, and copper) and instead promoted the domestic processing of valuable metals.

Should the Middle East, particularly states that must deal directly with Israel or Western-backed terrorist organizations, be compelled to choose mere political resistance? Is there no right to engage in violent resistance when your land and house are seized and your children are murdered, as happened in Palestine? Why did the US label the volunteer militias that defeated ISIS as terrorists after ISIS broke down village and city governments in Iraq and Syria and then committed atrocious massacres?

All forms of resistance are human rights. If Western liberal thinkers and politicians are committed to liberalism’s core value, “freedom,” they should support nations’ decisions on how to exercise their right to freedom. As stated by Dr. Anderson’s in his speech during this conference, “When humans are considered to have certain rights, it means that they also have the right to defend and fight for those rights.”

According to the UN Charter, “the purposes of the United Nations are…to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples.” Thus, the United Nations recognizes a nation’s right to self-determination. A colonized country such as Palestine, or any other countries which have been subjected to economic, political, and physical oppression, have the right to determine their own fate. It is well acknowledged that the fate every nation wishes for is independence. Hence, the fundamental rights of every nation include the ability to exercise resistance and the freedom to choose the method by which resistance is pursued. 

*

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.

Dr. Dina Yulianti Sulaeman is an Assistant professor at International Relations Department, Universitas Padjadjaran; Director of Indonesia Center for Middle East Studies.

Featured image: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

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.

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

***

The plandemic was “fueled by an elaborate psychological operation designed to create a constant state of panic among the world’s population.”

“This agenda has been long planned, it’s ultimately unsuccessful, precursor was the swine flu some 12 years ago, and is cooked up by a group of super-rich psychopathic and sociopathic people who hate and fear people at the same time, have no empathy, and are driven by the desire to gain full control over all of us, the people of the world.”

Watch the video below for the full statement. 

*

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 OffGuardian

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. 

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.

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

***

This was originally published in May 2023.

Matt Damon is questioning Cillian Murphy‘s priorities in Oppenheimer.

In the newest trailer for Christopher Nolan‘s upcoming star-studded biographical drama, Damon, 52, plays Leslie Groves, a real-life Army engineer officer who is shown advising J. Robert Oppenheimer (Murphy, 46) to think about the potential trade-off of his effort to successfully test-detonate an atomic bomb he creates during World War II.

“Are you saying there’s a chance that when we push that button, we destroy the world?” Groves asks Oppenheimer at one point.

“Chances are near zero,” the latter says, which leads Groves to respond, “Near zero?”

“What do you want from theory alone?” the theoretical physicist asks.

“Zero would be nice,” Groves says.

But Oppenheimer seems to believe a small risk is worth it.

“We’re in a race against the Nazis … and I know what it means if the Nazis have a bomb,” he says at the beginning of the trailer.

[No evidence that The Third Reich had plans to develop the atomic bomb, Hitler was firmly opposed to the bomb]

The rest of the three-minute preview gives viewers a peek at several other cast members starring alongside Murphy and Damon, including Florence Pugh, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr., Kenneth Branagh, David Krumholtz and Josh Peck.

Oppenheimer, which will premiere on July 21, is based on the Pulitzer Prize–winning biography titled

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer famously led the Manhattan Project, the effort to create an atomic bomb during World War II.

Damon gave an interview to Variety in March on the red carpet for his recent Nike drama Air, in which he revealed that Oppenheimer has a nearly three-hour runtime.

He also rained praise upon costar Murphy — who had smaller roles in Nolan’s Batman films, plus Inception and Dunkirk, and has expressed interest in playing a lead for the acclaimed director, 52.

“Cillian is everything you would want him to be. He is phenomenal. He’s phenomenal,” Damon raved. 

And despite the movie’s longer runtime, the Oscar winner added, “It goes so fast, it’s great.”

Oppenheimer is in theaters July 21.

Trailer below:

*

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: Cillian Murphy and Matt Damon in Oppenheimer (2023).

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.

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

First published on July 20, 2023

***

I sit here in the silence of the awakening dawn’s stillness stunned by the realization that I exist. I wonder why. It is my birthday. The first rays of the rising sun bleed crimson over the eastern hills as I imagine my birth. The house and my family sleep.

Someday I will die and I wonder why. This is the mystery I have been contemplating since I was young.  That and the fact that I was born in a time of war and that when my parents and sisters were celebrating my first birthday, my country’s esteemed civilian and military leaders celebrated another birth: the detonation of the first atomic bomb code-named Trinity.

Trinity has shadowed my life, while the other Trinity has enkindled my days.

Sick minds play sick word games as they inflict pain and death. They nicknamed this death bomb “the Gadget,” as if it were an innocent little toy. They took and blasphemed the Christian mystery of the Trinity as if they were mocking God, which they were.  They thought they were gods.

Now they are all dead gods, their fates sealed in their tombs.

Where are they now?

Where are all their victims, the innocent dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Where are the just and the unjust?

Where are the living now, asleep or awake as Trinity’s progenitors in Washington, D.C. and the Pentagon prepare their doomsday machines for a rerun, the final first-strike run, the last lap in their race to annihilate all the living? Will they sing as they launch the missiles – “So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night?”

Joseph Biden, the second Roman Catholic president, while mocking the essence of Jesus’s message, pushes the world toward a nuclear holocaust, unlike JFK, the first Catholic president, who was assassinated by the CIA for pushing for the elimination of nuclear weapons and the end of the Cold War.

The wheel turns. We count the years. We wonder why.

Years ago I started my academic life by writing a thesis entitled “Dealing With Death or Death Dealing.” It was a study of the transformation of cultural symbol systems, death, and nuclear weapons. The last hundred years and more have brought a transformation and disintegration of the traditional religious symbol system – the sacred canopy – that once gave people comfort, meaning, and hope. Science, technology, and nuclear weapons have changed all that. Death has been socially relocated and we live under the nuclear umbrella, a sinister “safeguard” that is cold comfort. The ultimate power of death over all life has been transferred from God to men, those controlling the nuclear weapons. This subject has never left me. I suppose it has haunted me. It is not a jolly subject, but I think it has chosen me.

Was I born in a normal time? Is war time our normal time? It is. I was.

But to be born at a time and place when your country’s leaders were denouncing their German and Japanese enemies as savage war criminals while execrably emulating them and then outdoing them is something else again. With Operation Paperclip following World War II, the United States government secretly brought 1,600 or more Nazi war criminals into the U.S. to run our government’s military, intelligence, space, chemical, and biological warfare programs. We became Nazis. Lewis Mumford put it this way in The Pentagon of Power:

By the curious dialectic of history, Hitler’s enlargement and the refurbishment of the Nazi megamachine gave rise to the conditions for creating those counter-instruments that would conquer it and temporarily wreck it. In short, in the very act of dying the Nazis transmitted their disease to their American opponents; not only the methods of compulsive organization or physical destruction, but the moral corruption that made it feasible to employ those methods without stirring opposition.

There are always excuses for such moral corruption. When during WW II the U.S. firebombed almost all Japanese cities, Dresden and Cologne in Germany, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in gratuitously savage attacks, these were justified and even celebrated as necessary to defeat evil enemies. 

Just as Nazi war criminals were welcomed into the U.S. government under the aegis of Allen Dulles who became the longest running CIA director and the key to JFK’s assassination and coverup, the diabolic war crimes of the U.S. were swept away as acts of a moral nation fighting a good war. What has followed are decades of U.S. war crimes from Korea through Vietnam and Iraq, etc. A very long list.

The English dramatist Harold Pinter, in his Nobel Address, put it bluntly:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America.

It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

Nothing could be truer. When in 2014 the U.S. engineered the coup in Ukraine (coups being an American specialty), it allied itself with neo-Nazi forces to oppose Russia.

This alliance should have shocked no one; it is the American way. Back in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting death squads in Central America, Ronald Reagan told the world that

“The Contras are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.”

Now the Ukrainian president Zelensky is feted as a great hero, Biden telling him in an Oval Office visit that “it’s an honor to be by your side.”

Such alliances are not anomalies but the crude reality of U. S. history.

But let me return to “Trinity,” the ultimate weapon of mass destruction since I was reading a recent article about it.

Kai Bird, the coauthor of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the book that inspired the new film Oppenheimer about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist credited as “the father of the atomic bomb” and the man who named the first atomic bomb Trinity, has written an Op Ed piece in The New York Times titled, “The Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

True in certain respects, this article is an example of how history can be slyly used to distort the present for political purposes. In typical NY Times fashion, Bird tells certain truths while concealing, distorting, and falsifying others.

I do not consider Oppenheimer a tragic figure, as does Bird. Complicated, yes; but he was essentially a hubristic scientist who lent his services to a demonic project, and afterwards, having let the cat out of the bag by creating the Bomb, guiltily urged the government that used it in massive war crimes to restrain itself in the future. Asking for such self-regulation is as absurd as asking the pharmaceutical or big tech industries to regulate themselves.

Bird rightly says that Oppenheimer did not regret his work inventing the atomic bomb, and he correctly points out the injustice of his being maligned and stripped of his security clearance in 1954 in a secret hearing by a vote of 2 to 1 of a security panel of The Atomic Energy Commission for having communist associations. “Celebrated in 1945 as the ‘father of the atomic bomb,’” Bird writes, “nine years later he would become the chief celebrity victim of the McCarthyite maelstrom.” A “victim,” I should add, who named names to save his own reputation.

But tucked within his article, Bird tells us:

“Just look at what happened to our public health civil servants during the recent pandemic.”

By which he means these officials like Anthony Fauci were maligned when they gave the public correct scientific information. This is absurd. Fauci – “attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science” – and other government “civil servants” misinformed the public and lied over and over again, but Bird implies they too were tragic figures like Oppenheimer.

He writes:

We stand on the cusp of another technological revolution in which artificial intelligence will transform how we live and work, and yet we are not yet having the kind of informed civil discourse with its innovators that could help us to make wise policy decisions on its regulation. Our politicians need to listen more to technology innovators like Sam Altman and quantum physicists like Kip Thorne and Michio Kaku.

Here too he urges “us” to listen to the very people responsible for Artificial Intelligence, just as “we” should have listened to Oppenheimer after he brought us the atomic bomb:

“Below is the Transcript of an August 6, 1945 telephone conversation, declassified (Between Lieutenant General. Leslie Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer) hours after the Hiroshima bombing:

Gen. G. I am very proud of you and your people [nuclear scientists]

Dr. O. It went alright?

Gen. G. Apparently it went with a tremendous bang.

screenshot below, click link to access complete transcript )

“Barely six weeks after the Hiroshima-Nagsaki bombings, the US War Department [Pentagon] issued  a blueprint  (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe  the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)

Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department.

The 66 cities. Click here to enlarge 

See Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War. “90 Seconds to Midnight”: The Pentagon’s 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” 

Back to Kai Bird

Implicit here is the belief that science just marches progressively on and there’s no stopping it, and when dangerous technologies emerge from scientists’ work, we should trust them to control them.  Nowhere does Bird suggest that scientists have a moral obligation before the fact to not pursue a certain line of research because of its grave possible consequences. Maybe he has never read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, only written over two hundred years ago.

Finally, and most importantly, Bird begins his concluding paragraph with these words:

Today, Vladimir Putin’s not-so-veiled threats to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine are a stark reminder that we can never be complacent about living with nuclear weapons.

This is simply U.S. propaganda. The U.S. has provoked and fueled the war in Ukraine, broken all nuclear weapon treaties, surrounded Russia with military bases, stationed nuclear weapons in Europe, engaged in nuclear blackmail with its first strike policy and threats, etc.  Putin has said in response that if – and only if – the very existence of the Russian state and land is threatened with extinction would the use of nuclear weapons be considered.

So Bird, in writing a piece about Oppenheimer’s “tragedy” and defending science, has also subtly defended a trinity of other matters: the government “science” on Covid, the transformative power coming from AI, and the U.S. propaganda about Russia and nuclear weapons. There is no mention of JFK’s call to abolish nuclear weapons. This is how the “paper of record” does its job.

I sit here now at the end of the day. Shadows are falling and I contemplate such trinities. I am stunned by the fact that we exist, but under a terrifying Shadow that many wish to ignore. Jung saw this shadow side as not just personal but social, and when it is ignored, the collective evils of modern societies can autonomously erupt.

Bird argues that nuclear weapons are the result of a scientific quest that is unstoppable. He writes that Oppenheimer

“understood that you cannot stop curious human beings from discovering the physical world around them [and then making nuclear bombs or designer babies].”

This is the ideology of progress that brooks no opposition since it is declared inevitable.

It is a philosophy that believes there should be no limits to human knowledge, which would include the knowledge of good and evil, but which can then be ignored since it and all thought and beliefs are considered a priori to be relative. The modern premise that everything is relative is of course a contradiction since it is an absolute statement. Many share this philosophy of despair disguised as progress as it has crept into everything today. It is tragic, for if people accept it, we are doomed to follow a Faustian pact with the devil and all hell will follow.

I think of Bob Dylan singing:

I just don’t see why I should even care
It’s not dark yet, but it’s gettin’ there

But I do care, and I wonder why. As night comes on, I sit here and wonder.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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: Photos from the first second of the Trinity test shot, the first nuclear explosion on Earth. (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

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.

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

***

It was always unrealistic to imagine that BRICS is an alliance of completely sovereign countries that have united due to their shared hatred of the West and are thus plotting to topple the dollar’s dominance in the near future.

Many in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) have been misled by some top influencers into imagining that BRICS is something that it’s not. In particular, they think that it’s an alliance of completely sovereign countries that have united, allegedly plotting to deal a deathblow to the dollar in the very near future. Those who share “politically inconvenient” observations such as the ones contained in the analyses below usually come under attack by the AMC:

• “Popular Expectations About BRICS’ New Currency Project Should Be Tempered”
• “South Africa Showed That BRICS Isn’t What Many Of Its Supporters Assumed”
• “Alt-Media Is In Shock After The BRICS Bank Confirmed That It Complies With Western Sanctions”
• “Explaining China’s & India’s Reported Differences Over Expanding BRICS”

Russia is finally correcting false perceptions of BRICS ahead of this month’s summit, however, which discredits the narrative pushed by the AMC’s top influencers.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently confirmed that differences exist among its members over their group’s formal expansion, Russia is reluctant to publicly share its official stance towards this sensitive subject, and there’s no chance of BRICS unveiling a new currency anytime soon. Here are TASS’ corresponding reports about each point:

• “‘Nuances exist’ among BRICS members regarding group’s potential expansion — Kremlin”
• “Russia won’t rush ahead to announce position on BRICS expansion — Kremlin”
• “Common currency in BRICS hardly feasible in the near time — Kremlin”

Extrapolating on them in the order that they were shared:

• BRICS is indeed divided between those who want to seize the historical moment in expanding the bloc as much as possible right away and those who believe that a slower pace is more aligned with their shared interests;
• Russia seems to be more sympathetic towards the second approach otherwise it wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to score political points vis-a-vis the West by hyping up BRICS’ expansion to prepare the global public for a supposedly imminent new era of geo-economic affairs;
• and the bloc’s natural differences among its diverse members make it extremely unlikely that they’ll all soon agree to ceding some of their economic sovereignty by actively promoting a new currency at the expense of their respective national ones.

None of this is surprising nor the result of Western influence, but was entirely predictable due to BRICS’ intra-group dynamics and its members’ relations with the West, which objective observers keenly understand. There have always been legitimate arguments for and against rapidly expanding this bloc as well as the pace at which it accelerates financial multipolarity processes.

For instance, moving too swiftly risks weakening BRICS since it’ll become more difficult to achieve consensus, but not taking advantage of other countries’ interest in participating in its activities to some extent risks wasting this historical moment, ergo the need for a compromise like BRICS+. The same can be said about the pace at which BRICS accelerates financial multipolarity processes since all its members apart from Russia are in relationships of complex economic-financial interdependence with the West.

Building upon the aforesaid observation, while all BRICS members have a shared interest in diversifying away from the dollar as well as their disproportionate dependence on Western trade and investment, they envisage going about this differently.

Dealing a deathblow to the dollar and ruining the Western economy would harm their own interests, and while some might think that this would still serve Russia’s, they’re wrong since China’s and India’s resultant economic-financial destabilization isn’t in its favor.

Accordingly, it was always unrealistic to imagine that BRICS is an alliance of completely sovereign countries “plotting to topple the dollar’s dominance” in the near future. 

The only reason why this false perception went viral is because the targeted audience didn’t know any better since those who they trusted twisted and sometimes omitted related facts about this to push their agenda.

Left unchallenged, the unrealistically high hopes that many across the world were misled into having about BRICS will inevitably lead to them becoming deeply disappointed after the group’s summit this month fails to meet their expectations, thus making them susceptible to hostile suggestions. A critical mass of multipolarity supporters might then “defect” from “5D chess master plan” conspiracy theories about BRICS to embracing “doom & gloom” (D&G) ones pushed by the West to demoralize them.

In hindsight, Russia should have proactively managed perceptions about BRICS so as to avert this scenario far in advance, but it was prioritizing efforts to protect its integrity in the face of the West’s unprecedented propaganda onslaught and didn’t have enough extra experts available to do this. Additionally, it also didn’t realize how inaccurate many multipolarity supporters’ views of this group were until recently, once again for the same reason that it has limited experts and can’t cover everything.

This insight explains Russia’s belated attempts to correct these false perceptions just three weeks before the next summit. It might be too little too late to prevent some multipolarity supporters’ “defections” from the “5D chess” conspiracy camp into the “D&G” one, the same as can be said for Russia’s arrest last month of infamous “D&G” conspiracy theorist Igor Girkin, but it’s better than nothing and shows that the Kremlin is now aware of the threat posed to its soft power interests by certain conspiracy theories.

Girkin’s ones about the special operation were “unfriendly” while the AMC’s conspiracy theories about BRICS are “friendly”, but both manipulate the perceptions of Russia’s supporters on sensitive issues, thus leading to them becoming ever more divorced from reality as time goes on. It took a while, but Russia is finally correcting these false perceptions and countering associated conspiracy theories, and hopefully it’ll build upon this momentum to soon do the same regarding other sensitive issues too.

Respectfully expressed disagreements and well-intended constructive critiques should always be encouraged, but twisting and sometimes omitting facts in order to artificially manufacture a false perception that advances an agenda is unacceptable and should always be opposed.

*

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.

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

***

With the sudden announcement that the 18-year marriage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has ended and the couple is separating immediately, it remains to be seen what impact the split will have on Mr. Trudeau’s image as a political leader.

Mr. Trudeau has carefully cultivated an image of a family man, with photos of the couple on holidays, trick-or-treating on Halloween, taking horseback rides with their children, and decorating the tree at Christmas.

He told The Canadian Press on Dec. 18, 2015, that his image was an integral part of his governing the country. Mr. Trudeau said he would continue to be public because he “need[ed] people to stay involved and stay engaged and stay positive about what we’re doing.”

“The more I can stay attentive to people and close to them, the better I will be at serving them,” he said, adding that the danger of his job would be “disconnecting, getting stuck behind walls and motorcades and in the bubble.”

Public Perception

Unlike in the United States, Canadians generally do not see marriage-related news about their politicians making headlines. Canada also does not have a First Lady, and the spouse of a prime minister has no official role.

Divorces while in public office are exceedingly rare, especially in Canada. Mr. Trudeau, with the news of the split with his wife on Aug. 2, has now become only the second Canadian prime minister in history to break up while holding office, following in the footsteps of his father, the late former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Ms. Grégoire Trudeau, as a former television host who quietly devoted time to pet causes, attracted attention in her own right, and it has been generally favourable. Similar to Mila Mulroney, wife of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who was often photographed dressed stylishly, Ms. Grégoire Trudeau was also praised for her fashion sense.

It’s not clear how Mr. Trudeau’s image will be affected by the separation. The Liberals were lagging the Conservatives by 10 points in the latest Abacus poll.

Marco Navarro-Génie, president of the Haultain Research Institute, says there’s been a lot of speculation about the prime minister’s marriage and people will be forming their own opinion. But, absent any further details about the separation, while for some the latest development may lead to a less favourable view of the prime minister, for others it may have the opposite impact, at least in the short term.

“[There may be] a little sympathy bump in the polls,” Mr. Navarro-Génie said in an interview.

Although Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau are the only prime ministers to have separated from their spouses while in office, they’re not the only ones who were single while serving in the highest office.

William Lyon Mackenzie King was an unmarried bachelor who led his party for 29 years and served as prime minister for a total of 21 years, including during World War II. He was reportedly devoted to his mother and created a shrine for her in his library after she died.

Pierre Trudeau

Mr. Trudeau’s father, who served as prime minister from 1968 to 1979, and again from 1980 to 1984, was 51 when he married his much younger wife, Margaret, 22.

As a couple, Justin Trudeau’s parents drew intense media attention. Pierre Trudeau’s marriage and relationship with Margaret Trudeau was widely publicized. The two separated in 1977.

Pierre Trudeau became the first prime minister who both married and publicly separated while holding office. He was also accused by his wife of giving her a black eye, after she spent time with the guitarist of the Rolling Stones band.

A statement issued at the time of their split said: “Pierre and Margaret Trudeau announce that because of Margaret’s wishes they shall begin living separate and apart. Margaret relinquishes all privileges as the wife of the Prime Minister and wishes to leave the marriage and pursue an independent career. Pierre will have custody of their three sons giving Margaret generous access to them. Pierre accepts Margaret’s decision with regret and both pray that their separation will lead to a better relationship between themselves.”

The marriage lasted only six years, in contrast to the younger Trudeau’s 18-year marriage to Ms. Grégoire Trudeau.

The two filed for divorce in 1983 and were officially divorced in April 1984. Just a few weeks later, the newly separated Ms. Trudeau made the news with her marriage to Ottawa businessman Fried Kemper. She later wrote an autobiography stating she’d had wild affairs with movie stars, including Jack Nicholson.

Pierre Trudeau never remarried, but documents released years later show the advice he was given behind the scenes about the political implications of the change in his personal life.

A memo written to Pierre Trudeau by Jim Coutts, an adviser to the prime minister at the time, which was posted on social media on Aug. 2, the same day the younger Trudeau’s separation was announced, discussed the political implications of the breakdown of the high-profile marriage of a public figure.

“This is not advice on your domestic life. However you should know what is believed and how you are perceived,” the memo said.

“Ironically the events have almost wiped out the feelings that you are uncaring about ordinary people and arrogant—people believe you are going through what they go through in life but handling it better than they could.”

It warned of the “danger that lies ahead” with the opposition and “unfriendly people in the media” trying to goad Pierre Trudeau into an “ugly exchange.” The memo said that would “do much harm and remove the good will that exists.”

It also said the marriage breakup would be “the topic at every dinner table in the country and will be for a while.” The senior Mr. Trudeau was warned to take “extreme care” to “keep the stance you have already adopted.”

Separation

Justin Trudeau and his wife posted identical statements on social media on Aug. 2, stating they would be separating “after many meaningful and difficult conversations.” The couple asked for privacy for the “well-being” of their three children, who are between 9 and 15.

The Prime Minister’s Office indicated the Trudeaus “signed a legal separation agreement,” and it was reported that Ms. Grégoire Trudeau is moving to a new home in Ottawa while the prime minister will stay at Rideau Cottage, where the children are expected to remain to minimize upheaval in their lives.

The couple is said to be sharing joint custody of the children, and it was announced they would take a family vacation together later this month.

*

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.

Marnie Cathcart is a reporter based in Edmonton.

Featured image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie Gregoire wait for the arrival of Governor General Julie Payette before the Throne Speech at the Senate in Ottawa on Dec. 5, 2019. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

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.

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

***

July 13, 2023 – As A Top Breast Cancer Surgeon, I Thought I Understood The Disease – But Then I Got It (click here). 

“In 2015, aged just forty, I was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer and suddenly it was my turn to have a mastectomy and implant reconstruction.”

“I’m scared of having an operation. Quite a lot of people are. But it’s a hard thing to say admit when you’re a breast surgeon like me – operating is my life.”

This article was recently written by a UK breast cancer surgeon, Dr. Liz O’Riordan. 

Here is her Twitter account (click here).

Here is her website (click here):

She has recently been named a Top 20 Oncology Influencer on Twitter (4th to be exact):

As a top Oncologist, Dr. O’Riordan must be on the cutting edge of Turbo Cancer research – surely she is sounding the alarm about COVID-19 mRNA vaccine induced cancers?

Her Breast cancer just came back:

My Take…

She is a top breast cancer surgeon and top 20 Oncology influencer on Twitter.

By my count she has taken at least 4 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and 2 flu shots in the past two years.

Her breast cancer returned last week. Prognosis is poor.

She was recently promoting a new mRNA vaccine for breast cancer (click here).

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause turbo cancers, as well as cancer recurrences in those who were in remission. (click here)

There is no indication that even as a “top breast cancer surgeon” and “top 20 Oncology influencer”, she has any idea that mRNA vaccines are causing cancer.

Since she has no job or medical license to lose, it appears she is a true big pharma believer.

She is dying, very likely from the very experimental mRNA technology she took four times and continues to promote. 

And she is none the wiser. 

These are our top medical experts.

*

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.

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 from COVID Intel

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. 

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.

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

***

General Abdourahamane Tchiane, the chairman of the ruling military administration in the West African state of Niger, has rejected the call by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to relinquish power to the former President Mohamed Bazoum.

The Council for the Safeguarding of the Homeland (CNSP) staged a coup against the Bazoum government on July 26.

Tchiane is the commander of the presidential guard which led the putsch. The following day on July 27, the leadership of the conventional armed forces in Niger announced their support for the coup.

On July 31, a joint statement was issued by the military governments in Burkina Faso and Mali expressing their solidarity with the CNSP in Niger. The declaration went further to send a message to the ECOWAS Chair, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, that any intervention aimed at removing the current regime in Niger would be viewed as an attack on their countries as well.

This statement begins by acknowledging that Burkina Faso and Mali:

“Express their fraternal solidarity and that of the peoples of Burkina Faso and Mali with the brotherly people of NIGER who have decided in full responsibility to take their destiny into their own hands and to assume before history the fullness of their sovereignty; denounce the persistence of these regional organizations in imposing sanctions aggravating the suffering of the populations and jeopardizing the spirit of Pan-Africanism; refuse to apply these illegal, illegitimate and inhuman sanctions against the people and authorities of Niger; warn that any military intervention against Niger would amount to a declaration of war against Burkina Faso and Mali; warn that any military intervention against Niger would result in the withdrawal of Burkina Faso and Mali from ECOWAS, as well as the adoption of self-defense measures in support of the armed forces and the people of Niger.” 

Such a political position portends much for the future stability of the entire West Africa region as the rhetoric of ECOWAS Chair Tinubu of Nigeria indicates a determination to attempt the reinstallation of Bazoum by military means. Undoubtedly, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the French Armed Forces would play a critical role if such an intervention was authorized.

AFRICOM and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are in charge of two drone stations in Niger which ostensibly are there to assist in the battle against Islamic rebel groupings which have grown since the Pentagon-NATO war of regime change against Libya in 2011. Niger is the site of large deposits of uranium which is mined and exported by a French multinational corporation (Orano). See this.

The same above-quoted statement from Burkina Faso and Mali goes on to:

“Warn against the disastrous consequences of a military intervention in Niger which could destabilize the entire region as was the unilateral NATO intervention in Libya which was at the origin of the expansion of terrorism in the Sahel and West AFRICA. The Transitional Governments of Burkina Faso and Mali are deeply indignant and surprised by the imbalance observed between, on the one hand, the celerity and the adventurous attitude of certain political leaders in West Africa wishing to use armed forces to restore constitutional order in a sovereign country, and on the other hand, the inaction, indifference and passive complicity of these organizations and political leaders in helping States and peoples who have been victims of terrorism for a decade and left to their fate.”

France has already begun the evacuation of its nationals wishing to leave. Other people from the European Union (EU) and the U.S. have been transported out of the country by the French Armed Forces.

The State Department says that it will evacuate what it describes as “non-essential staff” at the U.S. embassy in Niamey. As of early August, the White House has not announced any intentions to close the embassy in Niger.

Sanctions Are Acts of War

ECOWAS, the 15-member West African regional organization, has already imposed sanctions against the CNSP in Niger. This follows a similar pattern of what has already occurred with respect to Mali, Guinea-Conakry and Burkina Faso over the recent period of 2020-2023, in the aftermath of the seizure of power by military regimes.

However, the degree of economic sanctions and threats to remove the CNSP by force reveals that there is much more at stake for the imperialist states and their allies in Niger. The fact that Niger is a formidable base for purported “counterterrorism” activities by Washington and Paris means that there is a concern over the exposure of AFRICOM forces, intelligence personnel and military hardware if the Russian Federation was invited to come to the aid of the military administration in Niamey.

On August 2, it was announced that neighboring Nigeria had cut power supplies to Niger by 90%. Niger, a country of 25 million people, is listed by the United Nations as one of the poorest countries in the world.

Sanctions which deprive the people of power sources can only worsen the already existing humanitarian crisis inside the country.

ECOWAS defense ministers began a two-day conference on August 2 in the Nigerian capital of Abuja to map out its strategy for Niger. Former Nigerian military leader General Abdulsalami Abubakar is leading an ECOWAS delegation to Niamey for further talks with the CNSP.

Ousted President Mahamed Bazoum has not been harmed by the military government since he was taken down from office on July 26. Photographs of Bazoum with the Chadian transitional President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno were released over numerous international news agencies on July 31.

Meanwhile, the government of Burkina Faso received a delegation from Niger to the capital of Ouagadougou where the transitional head-of-state Captain Ibrahim Traore pledged the government’s backing of the CNSP in Niamey. A communique from the Burkina Faso government said of the talks:

“A CNSP delegation was received by the Head of State (Ouagadougou, August 2, 2023). The President of the Transition, Head of State, Captain Ibrahim TRAORE received this Wednesday (Aug. 2) at the end of the afternoon, a delegation from the National Council for the Safeguarding of the Fatherland (CNSP) of Niger headed by General of army corps, Salifou MODY.

Discussions with the President of the Transition focused on the situation in Niger, which is calm and under control according to the head of delegation. We also talked about support. It must be said, we received very strong support from Burkina Faso.”

Burkina Faso and Niger military leaders hold meeting in Ouagadougou, Aug. 2, 2023 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Intervention Could Further Destabilize Entire West Africa Region

France has already been forced to depart Mali after the transitional administration leader Colonel Assimi Goita suggested the presence of foreign forces were related to the escalation in rebel violence against civilians and the state. In addition, Burkina Faso has been the scene of anti-French demonstrations which enjoy widespread grassroots support.

The anti-French organization known as the M62 Movement has been operating in Niger. They have been credited with the mobilization of youth and workers against the continued military presence of France in Niger. (See this)

In demonstrations since the early days of the CNSP coup, people have been burning French flags, attacking symbols of colonial and neo-colonial rule while many carried both the Nigerien and Russian flags. Although there is no indication that the Russian Federation or the Wagner Group had a hand in the ascendancy of the CNSP to power, President Vladimir Putin recently announced his opposition to a western-backed military intervention in Niger. Putin urged the resolution of the conflict in Niger through dialogue and negotiations.

Overall, throughout the Sahel and other areas within the West Africa region, the economic situation is worsening. In Nigeria, which is the most populous state in Africa and designated as the continent’s largest economy, a food emergency was declared by President Tinubu.

The specter of sharply rising prices and food shortages prompted the two largest worker organizations, the Nigerian Labor Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC), to stage a national day of protest across the oil-rich state on August 2. President Tinubu met with the leadership of the union federations and agreed to grant some of their demands. Reports in the Nigerian press suggest that the mass actions by the unions will not continue as previously threatened by the NLC and TUC.

Therefore, the newly inaugurated administration of President Tinubu in Nigeria could very well be aggravating the social situation inside the country by threatening to deploy troops to Niger. Even the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, whose country has troops along with Germany, France and the U.S. in Niger, proclaimed that a military intervention by the West to bring down the CNSP would result in charges of re-colonization.

Anti-imperialist and antiwar forces in the western industrialized states must oppose the military interventions by France, the U.S. and other NATO countries in Niger. Another disastrous invasion and occupation by the Pentagon and NATO will only create more displacement, underdevelopment and political divisions.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

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.

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

***

Between 1991 and 2016, the population of Delhi and its suburbs increased from 9.4 million to 25 million. In 2023, the World Population Review website estimates Delhi’s population to be 32.9 million.  

In the December 2016 paper Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands, it was projected that by 2030, globally, urban areas will have tripled in size, expanding into cropland and undermining the productivity of agricultural systems.  

Around 60% of the world’s cropland lies on the outskirts of cities. The paper states that this land is, on average, twice as productive as land elsewhere on the globe.  

Africa and Asia will together bear 80% of the projected cropland loss due to rising urbanisation. The disappearance of this productive land will impact staple crops such as maize, rice, soya beans and wheat, which are cornerstones of global food security.   

In South Asia, farmland can’t simply spread elsewhere because fertile land is already running out.  

One of the paper’s authors, Felix Creutzig (currently, Professor of Sustainability Economics at the Technical University of Berlin), said at the time that, as cities expand, millions of small-scale farmers will be displaced. These farmers produce the majority of food in developing countries and are key to global food security.  

However, what Creutzig says is not inevitable. Far from it. Urbanisation is being encouraged and facilitated by design.  

According to the World Bank’s lending report, based on data compiled up to 2015, India was easily the largest recipient of its loans in the history of the institution. On the back of India’s foreign exchange crisis in the early 1990s, the IMF and World Bank wanted India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture: India was to embark on a massive rural depopulation/urbanisation project.  

In addition, in return for up to more than $120 billion (accounting for inflation, this would be $269 billion in 2023) in loans, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions, facilitate the entry of global players and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.  

The details of this plan appear in a January 2021 article by the Mumbai-based Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE). In effect, it constitutes a massive urbanisation project and the opening of India’s agriculture sector to foreign agribusiness corporations.  

Unsurprisingly, therefore, Felix Creutzig predicted the following:  

“As peri-urban land is converted, smallholders will lose their land. The emerging mega-cities will rely increasingly on industrial-scale agricultural and supermarket chains, crowding out local food chains.”  

The RUPE says that the opening of India’s agriculture and food economy to foreign investors and global agribusinesses has been a longstanding project of the imperialist countries.  

Industrial-scale agriculture is key to the plan. And integral to this model of farming is genetically engineered food crops – whether first generation genetically modified (GM) crops based on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or newer techniques involving the likes of gene editing.   

Glyphosate/GM crop approval  

According to a recent report in the Chennai-based New Indian Express (NIE), the Indian government is likely to allow the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant (HT) GM crops. These crops have not been legalised but have been growing in India for some years.  

The government is creating a pool of more than 4,000 ‘progressive farmers’ and ‘rural educated youths’ who can help farmers spray glyphosate on GM crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. These pest control officers are to spray glyphosate on behalf of farmers.  

Glyphosate is carcinogenic and, in India, its use is officially restricted to tea crops and non-cropping areas like barren land and roadsides. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015.    

The NIE quotes a source who implies that the drive to spray glyphosate on agricultural land seems like a precursor of legalising HT GM cotton (I would add – and HT GM food crops eventually).  

At this time, only one GM crop – Bt (insecticidal) cotton – is legalised in India.  

The legalisation of HT GM cotton would be a key step towards opening a multi-billion-dollar market for global agritech-agrochemicals firms which have a range of HT GM food crops waiting in the pipeline.    

Much has been written on the devastating effects that glyphosate has on health and the environment. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH)s formulas affect the gut microbiome and are associated with a global metabolic health crisis. They also cause epigenetic changes in humans and animals – diseases skip a generation then appear.  

These toxic chemicals have entered the food chain and human bodies at harmful levels and are even in a range of popular children’s cereals.  

An April 2023 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute measured glyphosate levels in the urine of farmers and other study participants and determined that high levels of the pesticide were associated with signs of a reaction in the body called oxidative stress, a condition that causes damage to DNA and a cancer biomarker.  

The study findings appeared after the US Centers for Disease Control reported in 2022 that more than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults contained glyphosate. Similar figures are found in the EU. GBHs are the world’s most widely used agricultural weedkiller.  

There are dozens of academic studies that indicate the deleterious and disturbing effects of GBHs on human health. Rather than presenting them here, for the sake of brevity, many are listed in the online article Bathed In Pesticides: The Narrative Of Deception (2022).  

Attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr and current presidential candidate has been involved with some of the ongoing court cases in the US that have been brought against Bayer regarding the human health damage of Monsanto’s Roundup GBH (Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018).  

Kennedy concludes that there is cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney and inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.  

He adds that strong science suggests glyphosate is the culprit in the exploding epidemics of celiac disease, colitis, gluten sensitivities, diabetes and non-alcoholic liver cancer which, for the first time, is attacking children as young as 10.  

Researchers peg glyphosate as a potent endocrine disruptor, which interferes with sexual development in children. It is also a chelator that removes important minerals from the body and disrupts the microbiome, destroying beneficial bacteria in the human gut and triggering brain inflammation and other ill effects.  

So, why do GBHs remain on the market? It’s because of the power of the agritech/agrochemical sector and the don’t look, don’t see approach of compromised regulatory bodies: see Glyphosate: EU assessment report excludes most of the scientific literature from its analysis (2021) by GMWatch and Glyphosate in the EU: product promoters masquerading as regulators in a ‘cesspool of corruption’? (2016) in The Ecologist.  

Consider what veteran journalist Carey Gillam says:  

“US Roundup litigation began in 2015 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Internal Monsanto documents dating back decades show that the company was aware of scientific research linking its weed killer to cancer but instead of warning consumers, the company worked to suppress the information and manipulate scientific literature.”  

Over the years, Monsanto mounted a deceitful defence of its health- and environment-damaging Roundup and its GM crops and orchestrated toxic smear campaigns against anyone – scientist or campaigner – who threatened its interests.  

In 2016, campaigner Rosemary Mason wrote an open letter to European Chemicals Agency Executive Director Geert Dancet. It can be accessed on the academia.edu site.  

In it, she sets out how current EU legislation was originally set up to protect the pesticides industry and how Monsanto and other agrochemical corporations helped the EU design the regulatory systems for their own products.  

There is much at stake for the industry. According to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.  

GBHs are a multi-billion-dollar money-spinning venture for the manufacturers. But this latest development in India is as much about the legalisation of a wide range of proprietary HT GM seeds and crops as it is about glyphosate because both are joined at the hip.  

Regulatory Delinquency  

In India, five high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops: the Jairam Ramesh Report (2010); the Sopory Committee Report (2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2012); the Technical Expert Committee Final Report (2013); and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests (2017).  

Given the health and environmental issues surrounding GM crops, as well as the now well-documented failure of Bt cotton in the country, it comes as little surprise that these reports advise against their adoption.  

This high-level advice also derives, in part, from GM ‘regulation’ in India being dogged by blatant violations of biosafety norms, hasty approvals, a lack of monitoring abilities, general apathy towards the hazards of contamination and a lack of institutional oversight.  

The ‘Technical Expert Committee Final Report’ was scathing about India’s prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. As we have seen with the push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems described by the TEC persist.  

The drive to get GM crops commercialised has been relentless, not least GM mustard. The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the country’s apex regulatory body for GMOs, has pushed ahead by giving this crop the nod. However, the case of GM mustard remains stuck in the Supreme Court due to a public interest litigation lodged by environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues.  

Rodrigues argues that GM mustard is being undemocratically forced through with flawed tests (or no testing) and a lack of public scrutiny: in other words, unremitting scientific fraud and outright regulatory delinquency.  

This crop is also HT, which is wholly inappropriate for a country like India with its small biodiverse farms that could be affected by its application on nearby fields.  

However, despite the ban on GM crops, in 2005, biologist Pushpa Bhargava noted that unapproved varieties of several GM crops were being sold to farmers. In 2008, Arun Shrivasatava wrote that illegal GM okra had been planted in India and poor farmers had been offered lucrative deals to plant “special seed” of all sorts of vegetables.  

In 2013, a group of scientists and NGOs protested in India against the introduction of transgenic brinjal in Bangladesh – a centre for origin and diversity of the vegetable – as it would give rise to contamination of the crop in India. In 2014, the West Bengal government said it had received information regarding “infiltration” of commercial seeds of GM Bt brinjal from Bangladesh.  

In 2017, the illegal cultivation of an HT GM soybean was reported in Gujarat. Bhartiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), a national farmers organisation, claimed that Gujarat farmers had been cultivating the HT crop.  

As mentioned above, HT cotton is illegally growing in India.   

In the 2017 paper – The ox fall down: path-breaking and technology treadmills in Indian cotton agriculture – Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs  note the tactic of encouraging farmers to abandon traditional on-farm practices, which coincides with the appearance of an increasing supply of HT GM cotton seeds.  

This is a cynical attempt to place farmers on corporate seed and chemical (glyphosate) treadmills.  

The authors write:  

“Although India’s cotton sector has been penetrated by various input- and capital-intensive methods, penetration by herbicide has been largely stymied. In Telangana State, the main obstacle has been the practice of ‘double-lining’, in which cotton plants are spaced widely to allow weeding by ox-plow… double-lining is an example of an advantageous path for cash-poor farmers. However, it is being actively undermined by parties intent on expanding herbicide markets and opening a niche for next-generation genetically modified cotton.”   

Stone and Flachs note the potential market for herbicide growth alone in India is huge. Writing in 2017, the authors note that sales could soon reach USD 800 million with scope for even greater expansion. Indeed, enormous expansion if HT GM crops become legal.  

Friends in High Places  

Global agritech firms are salivating at the prospect of India being prised open for the introduction of GM crops. The industry has always had high-level supporters in India and abroad. And this leads back to what was stated earlier in the article – the plan to industrialise Indian agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and foreign agribusiness and the manoeuvring into position of compliant officials.  

PM Modi proclaimed in 2014 that GM represents a good business-investment opportunity. Renowned environmentalist Vandana Shiva has highlighted the arm twisting that has gone on in an attempt to force through GMOs into India, with various politicians having been pushed aside until the dotted line for GMO open field-testing approval was signed on.   

Back in late 2015, I co-authored a piece with then editor of The Ecologist Oliver Tickell – Rice, wheat, mustard… India drives forward first GMO crops under veil of secrecy.  

Seventeen or more secret applications had been made to India’s GMO regulators for trials and release of GM crops, including rice, wheat, chickpeas, brinjal and mustard. In a violation of the law, regulators had released no information about the applications, raising fears that India’s first GMOs will be released with no health, safety or environmental testing.  

It is not surprising then that calls have been made for probes into the workings of the GEAC and other official bodies, who seem to have been asleep at the wheel or deliberately looking the other way as illegal GM crop cultivation has taken place.  

India’s first GM crop cultivation – Bt cotton – was discovered in 2001 growing on thousands of hectares in Gujarat, spread surreptitiously and illegally. Campaigner Kavitha Kuruganti said the GEAC was caught off-guard when news about large-scale illegal cultivation of Bt cotton emerged, even as field trials that were to decide whether India would opt for this GM crop were still underway.  

In March 2002, the GEAC ended up approving Bt cotton for commercial cultivation in India. To this day, no liability has been fixed for the illegal spread. We could well be witnessing a rerun of this scenario for HT cotton and HT food crops.  

The tactic of contaminate first then legalise has benefited industry players before. Aside from Bt cotton in India, in 2016, the US Department of Agriculture granted marketing approval of GM Liberty Link 601 (Bayer CropScience) rice variety following its illegal contamination of the food supply and rice exports. The USDA effectively sanctioned an ‘approval-by-contamination’ policy.  

The writing could be on the wall for India.  

Does India Need GM?  

A common claim is that GMOs are essential to agriculture if we are to feed an ever-growing global population. Supporters of GM crops argue that by increasing productivity and yields, this technology will also help boost farmers’ incomes and lift many out of poverty.  

In a 2018 paper in the journal Current Science, eminent scientists P C Kesavan and M S Swaminathan (regarded as the ‘father of the Green Revolution’ in India) questioned the efficacy of and the need for GMOs in agriculture.

Screenshot from currentscience.ac.in

The performance of GM crops has been a hotly contested issue and, as highlighted in Kesavan and Swaminathan’s piece and by many others, there is sufficient evidence to question their efficacy, especially that of HT crops and their shocking, devastating impact in places like Argentina.  

Kesavan and Swaminathan argue that GM is supplementary and must be need based. In more than 99% of cases, they say that time-honoured conventional breeding is sufficient. Too often, however, conventional options and innovations that outperform GM are sidelined in a rush by powerful interests to facilitate the introduction of GM crops.  

Although India fares poorly in world hunger assessments, the country has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables and fruit.  

People are not hungry in India because its farmers do not produce enough food. Hunger and malnutrition result from various factors, including inadequate food distribution, (gender) inequality and poverty; in fact, the country continues to export food while millions remain hungry. It’s a case of ‘scarcity’ amid abundance.  

Where farmers’ livelihoods are concerned, the pro-GMO lobby says that GM will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income. Again, this is misleading: it ignores crucial political and economic contexts. Even with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress.  

India’s farmers are not experiencing financial hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies, years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace most of them at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations.  

But pro-GMO supporters, both outside of India and within, along with the neoliberal think tanks many of them are associated with, have wasted no time in wrenching the issues of hunger and poverty from their political contexts to use notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of their promotional strategy.  

The knowledge and many of the traditional practices of India’s small farmers are now recognised as sophisticated and appropriate for high-productive, sustainable agriculture. It is no surprise therefore that a 2019 FAO high-level report has called for agroecology and smallholder farmers to be prioritised and invested in to achieve global sustainable food security. It argues that scaling up agroecology offers potential solutions to many of the world’s most pressing problems, whether, for instance, climate resilience, carbon storage, soil degradation, water shortages, unemployment or food security.  

Available evidence suggests that (non-GMO) smallholder farming using low-input methods is more productive in total output than large-scale industrial farms and can be more profitable.  

It is for good reason that the FAO high-level report referred to earlier along with the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Professor Hilal Elver and numerous other papers and reports advocate agroecology call for investment in this type of agriculture. Despite the pressures, including the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds, smallholder agriculture plays a major role in feeding the world.  

In the introduction to a recent article, I wrote that the prevailing globalised agrifood model is responsible for increasing rates of illness, nutrient-deficient diets, a narrowing of the range of food crops, water shortages, chemical runoffs, increasing levels of farmer indebtedness, the undermining and destruction of local communities and the eradication of biodiversity.    

Do Indian citizens want a GM/glyphosate-drenched, industrial food system that brings with it all of the above?   

I also wrote that the model relies on a policy paradigm that privileges urbanisation, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency.    

The solution lies in a paradigm shift that abandons the notion that urbanisation equates with ‘progress’. A shift that prioritises rural communities, small independent retail enterprises (instead of global giants like Walmart-Flipkart and Amazon) and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient-dense diets and food sovereignty.  

A shift that rejects the ecomodernist techno-dystopia of hyper-urbanisation, genetically engineered crops, biosynthetic food and farmerless farms and a ‘food transition’ all under the control of a big data-agritech cartel that wraps all of the above in a veneer of fake green.    

There are alternative visions, potential outcomes and resistance that can challenge the ecomodernist agenda.   

Instead of their eradication, creating land markets to amalgamate their land for industrial-scale mono-cropping or using vital cropland to build on, smallholder farmers and rural communities should be placed at the centre of development policies. Moreover, inspiration can be taken from the worldviews of indigenous peoples and, as anthropology professor Arturo Escobar says, the concept of Buen Viver: promoting ways of living that stress the collective wellbeing of humans and nature and recognising the inseparability and interdependence of both.  

For instance, India’s indigenous peoples’ low-energy, low-consumption tribal cultures are the antithesis of capitalism and industrialisation, and their knowledge and value systems promote genuine sustainability through restraint in what is taken from nature.  

This entails a fundamental transformation in values, priorities and outlooks and a shift away from predation, imperialism, domination, anthropocentrism and plunder.  

That’s what a genuine ‘food transition’ and Buen Viver would really mean.  

Many of the issues mentioned in the article above are discussed in the author’s free-to-read e-book.  

*

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.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

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.

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

***

The confidence of the American public in its Armed Forces has plummeted to levels not seen in more than 20 years, according to a new survey published by Gallup on July 31. However, what the poll omits from its research is the role that the inclusion of transgenders in the US military has played in lowering American trust in this institution.

The poll conducted between June 1 and 22 indicates that 60% of Americans trust the military. This is the lowest trust figure since 1997 when 60% of those surveyed also said they trusted a “great deal” or “quite a lot” in their Army. The last time that percentage was lower than 60% was in 1988. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s—during the Cold War and episodes like the Iran hostage crisis—confidence was between 50% and 58%.

“Confidence generally improved during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. It then surged after the Gulf War victory (to a record-high 85% in 1991) and again after the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” Gallup stated in a note on the poll results.

In fact, American confidence in their military remained above 70% for the next two decades, falling to 69% in 2021 and declining ever since following the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. And it is the withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to Gallup, that was criticised in the US from different sides, especially among the opposition to the Biden Administration.

The Gallup poll found that confidence in the US Army has fallen even among members or sympathisers of the Republican Party, a sector of society that usually focuses more on the military. However, the survey says the trust rate among this group has fallen by more than 20 percentage points in three years, from 91% to 68%.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ confidence index — which had risen after Biden took office — has declined in the past year.

On the other hand, American confidence in institutions remains at low levels. For example, only 8% of those surveyed stated they had confidence in Congress; 17% in the justice system; 18% in the newspapers; 26% in the Presidency, and 27% in the Supreme Court of Justice.

“Now that the U.S. has completely withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most significant military legacies of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., confidence in the military has continued to decline among the public. The declines this year were across all party identification groups, with Republicans remaining the most likely to express confidence and independents becoming the least likely,” the survey concluded.

Gallup does not mention that support in the US military has dropped because Biden has brought the culture wars to the institution. In mid-July, it was reported that an 18-year-old military recruit was forced to shower with biological males as part of the Biden administration’s transgender policies. The recruit complained about being placed in an “extremely uncomfortable position.”

According to Rounds, the military recruit also complained about being forced to sleep between “two individuals who were supposedly changing from male to female” and showering with the individuals.

Biden reversed a ban on transgender people serving in the military imposed when Trump entered the White House. The Biden administration said at the time that the US military “thrives” when there is a diversity of Americans who can “meet the rigorous standards for military service,” adding that “an inclusive military strengthens our national security.”

“President Biden believes that gender identity should not be a bar to military service, and that America’s strength is found in its diversity,” the White House said. “This question of how to enable all qualified Americans to serve in the military is easily answered by recognising our core values.”

According to the US Department of Defense, transgender individuals may be housed in female facilities, even without genital surgery. Such ridiculous policies are not only making the US military an international laughing stock but there are now concerns that the US military will fail to reach its recruitment goals. This year the Army is expected to end up 15,000 recruits short of its 65,000 goal.

The New York Post reported that US military chiefs continue to express concern that if recruiting numbers do not improve, they cannot simultaneously deal with a conflict with Russia and China. Unsurprisingly, the imposition of liberal ideology has weakened confidence and recruitment in the US military. This trend will continue the longer Biden remains in power.

*

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.

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.

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

***

On August 2, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the start of the “Ocean Shield” naval exercises in the Baltic Sea. The drills come at a particularly tense moment, given that NATO countries have recently been provoking Russia in the region through the attempt to expand the alliance with Sweden’s access. However, contrary to the optimism of Western analysts, Russian maneuvers make it clear that Moscow has enough strength to defend its interests in the Baltic Sea.

According to Russian officials, the Ocean Shield-2023 drills are involving 30 warships, 30 combat aircraft and more than 6,000 troops, in addition to a wide arsenal of weapons and equipment of various types. The aim of the tests is to train Russian forces on how to “protect sea lanes, transport troops and military cargo, as well as defend the coastline”. In addition, there is also the objective to assess “the navy’s readiness to protect the national interests of the Russian Federation in an operationally important area.”

More than 200 military exercises are expected to be operated during the program. All of them will be headed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy himself, Admiral Nikolai Yevmenov. An important information is that the training is being worked using real ammunition, which shows the deterring nature of the tests. However, after the completion of the drills, the ships will be taken back to their permanent bases, as well as the aircraft will return to their respective airfields, making it clear that Moscow has no intention of occupying the Baltic Sea militarily.

As expected, Western media are reporting the Russian move as an unnecessary and provocative act. Newspapers claim that, by launching the drills, Russia is “ratcheting up tensions with nearby European nations”. This is part of the unsubstantiated narrative spread by Western outlets that Moscow is responsible for the current security crisis in the Baltic. However, analyzing the case in depth, it is possible to see that the Russians are acting defensively.

In fact, Russian military activities in the Baltic Sea have become constant, but always acting in response to provocations initiated by NATO. For example, in June, there was a joint naval NATO-Swedish exercise in the region, involving more than 7,000 Western troops. In response, the day after the start of the program, Russia also began to carry out maneuvers, mobilizing 40 ships and boats, 25 aircraft and 3,500 soldiers. In the same vein, in late July, the Atlantic alliance began a new training in the Baltic Sea, this time focusing on electronic warfare activities.

The Russian intention with these moves is extremely clear. In addition to testing its capabilities, Moscow wants to show its opponents that it has enough strength to defend its interests in the Baltic region, not being intimidated by the massive presence of NATO. This becomes necessary at the present time as there is a clear desire on the part of the West to fully occupy the Baltic Sea and encircle the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. The problem is that, contrary to what optimistic Western analysts say, it will not be so easy.

Confident about the possibility of Sweden joining NATO in the near future, some experts claimed that the Baltic Sea had already become a de facto “NATO lake“. The calculation of these specialists is simple: Sweden has a large Baltic coast, which would then be completely controlled by NATO. According to them, this scenario would be strategically terrible for Russia, which would be really vulnerable in the region.

However, these expectations seem wrong. Firstly, nothing really changed after Turkey gave the greenlight to Sweden. Sweden is already a country highly integrated with NATO, even participating in joint military exercises. So, Swedish possible entry sounds more like a bureaucratic procedure. In practice, the impact of this for Russia would be minimal. Moscow will continue to face the same challenges in the Baltic Sea, regardless of whether Sweden joins NATO or not.

For Russia, the defense of Kaliningrad and the presence in the Baltic has been a challenge since the late 1990s and early 2000s, when NATO began to expand in the region. However, this problem for the Russians is diminished by the simple fact that Moscow has no territorial interest in Western Europe. The Russian posture is defensive, with no willingness to advance militarily in the area unless provoked by enemy powers. Exactly because of this defensive posture, Moscow makes it clear that after the current drills are finished, it will return its ships and aircraft to their bases.

The Ocean Shield exercises make it clear that, despite the difficulties, the Russian armed forces are absolutely capable of conducting maneuvers in the Baltic region. This is due to a series of factors, the main one being Russian military hegemony in the Arctic, a strategic territory that allows Russian troops access to the Baltic, circumventing the presence of NATO. This Arctic issue, by the way, is already an old American concern, considering that in the 2020 edition of the Ocean Shield US military experts stated:

“Russian military force in the Arctic is not necessarily going to stay in the Arctic (…) This can mean exerting pressure from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as it did by moving warships closer to Ukraine and also showing the flag in the eastern Mediterranean.”

In addition to the possibility of moving from the Arctic, there is the ground-air issue. As stated by the American war veteran and intelligence analyst Scott Ritter, an eventual scenario of conflict in the Baltic Sea will be won “on the ground and in the air“, not just at sea. This is precisely one of the reasons why Russia is deploying so many troops and aircraft in its current exercises.

Apparently, passionate pro-NATO analysts have forgotten the concerns expressed by the Western military themselves. In their eagerness to celebrate a NATO “victory”, they exposed weak and unsubstantiated analyzes that contradict the alliance’s own military thoughts. In the end, the 2023 edition of the Ocean Shield made it clear that there is no “NATO lake”.

*

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.

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.

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

***

In an article recently published by Politico, it was said that Kiev already has a secret plan in case the Ukrainian president is assassinated. Although it is normal for countries at war to think about the possibility of their leaders dying, the way that media is reporting the case suggests a kind of attempt to prepare public opinion for Zelensky’s replacement.

The report was based on interviews with Ukrainian officials and analysts. The sources believe that it will be necessary to circumvent Ukrainian constitutional norms if there is a need to replace Zelensky. The country’s constitution declares that if the president is no longer able to fulfill his duties, the head of parliament must ascend to the office. However, the current parliamentary leader, Ruslan Stefanchuck, is an unpopular public figure, with only 40% approval, which is why it would be inappropriate to appoint him president.

Screenshot from Politico

To handle this situation, Kiev plans to create a team of officials, forming a governing council. The office would consist of people like Andrey Yermak, head of the presidential cabinet, Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov and Ukraine’s military chief Valery Zaluzhny. Stefanchuk would be the formal leader of the group, but decision-making power would be shared with the other officers.

Informants argue that Ukraine achieved high levels of national unity during the conflict. This “unity” supposedly gave stability to the state, guaranteeing an institutional security independent of Zelensky or any individual politician. For this reason, in the current scenario no Ukrainian officer seems “indispensable”.

“(…) I don’t think it [Stefanchuck’s popularity] matters. There’s a strong leadership team and I think we would see collective government (…) The country has reached a point of very substantial solidarity and national unity, so if something terrible happened to Zelensky it would not be as decisive as you might think (…) I don’t want to say that Zelensky is hardly irrelevant to this (…) But I think the country’s unity is the indispensable thing”, Adrian Karatnycky, “a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council,” told Politico’s journalists.

In fact, this report leaves a series of unanswered questions. It does not seem surprising that Kiev actually has such plans, as certainly Ukrainian institutional security is a priority for the regime’s officials, especially in times of war. What seems unlikely is that these plans are easily accessible to journalists and public opinion.

Being a sensitive topic, relevant to national security, it is most appropriate that these discussions be taken in absolute confidentiality, with no possibility of information leaks. Discretion becomes even more necessary when these plans involve maneuvers to circumvent the constitution, violating the laws of the country.

So, it is necessary to think about what would be the interests of the Western media in spreading this type of information. It is possible, for example, that news agencies are trying to “prepare” global public opinion for an eventual replacement of Zelensky. There have been rumors for some time that NATO plans to remove the Ukrainian leader from power, given his discredited and deteriorated image. Zelensky is seen less and less as a “hero”, being classified by many as a “beggar” and a “loser“. Thus, putting a new politician in power could be beneficial to NATO’s plans to prolong the war, as it would generate more popular support in the West for the military assistance policies.

However, what is really curious is the fact that the article mentions the hypothesis of murder. This raises the possibility that Western intelligence is planning not only to replace but also to kill Zelensky. This would certainly be useful for the West to accuse Russia of having committed the crime, creating a false flag situation to move public opinion and justify new military measures in support of Kiev.

In the article, Politico reminds a series of recent requests made by Russian citizens calling for Zelensky’s elimination in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in Moscow and other Russian cities. Despite such requests being real, the Russian government has never shown an interest in doing so. These were just sincere expressions on the part of the Russian people, emotionally affected by the Ukrainian terror. No strategic guidelines to actually kill Zelensky were adopted.

The article, however, seems to want to show that Moscow has such a plan. Thus, western readers are prepared to have a preconceived opinion if future news confirms Zelensky’s death. This is a well-known psychological and informational warfare tactic used frequently by the West.

So far, the only side that has shown interest in replacing Zelensky has been the West itself, which wants to put in his place someone more competent to lead the regime. For Moscow, it is irrelevant who is in power in Kiev, Russian interest being only to force Ukraine to accept its peace terms, regardless of whether it is Zelensky.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

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

***

Below is a carefully documented article published by the Daily Mail on the Epstein Files. 

Our thanks to the Daily Mail for having brought this carefully documented study to our attention. 

Copyright, The Daily Mail, May 30, 2023

***

A vast trove of Jeffrey Epstein‘s private calendars and emails are being revealed today by DailyMail.com.

The hundreds of pages in the files give an unprecedented insight into the late pedophile’s extraordinary network of power and influence. 

Among the revelations is that Epstein appeared to know personal details about the marriage of Bill Gates and his ex-wife Melinda – while magician David Blaine had numerous dinners with the financier.

Presidents, prime ministers, royalty and famous names previously not linked to Epstein are also featured in the hundreds of pages of documents.

They show that Epstein courted the world’s elite even after serving 13 months in jail for having sex with underage girls – and being labeled a registered sex offender.

As he sought to rehabilitate his image, dozens of powerful people were scheduled to meet him including Irina Shayk, Chris Rock, Wendi Murdoch and Richard Branson.

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel, early Facebook investor Sean Parker, artist Jeff Koons, JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon and music industry executive Tommy Mottola, who used to be married to Mariah Carey, are also among those who appear in the documents.

The files were handed over by Epstein’s estate to the government of US Virgin Islands, where he owned two private islands during its investigation into his sex trafficking operation. The pedophile hanged himself in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial.

Just like Epstein’s notorious ‘Black Book’ of contacts, the schedules contain personal numbers and email addresses that allowed him to access his associates whenever he wanted.

Here, DailyMail.com takes you through the records in depth, broken down by each figure involved.

Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson

Prince Andrew has admitted to being friends with Epstein for more than a decade. He flew on his private plane numerous times, stayed at his properties and even visited Epstein’s island in the Caribbean, witnesses have claimed. 

Epstein victim Virginia Roberts claimed she was forced to have sex with the Duke when she was 17, claims he denied. But last year Andrew settled a civil lawsuit brought by Roberts for a reported $12million.

The Epstein files show that the pedophile used Andrew’s name while trying to persuade JP Morgan to let him act as an intermediary for wealthy clients. 

Epstein was trying to persuade the bank to work with Bill Gates on a $100m fund for elite donors and a crunch meeting was taking place on August 31, 2011.

In the email to JP Morgan boss Jes Staley and senior banker Mary Erdoes, Epstein said that investors were wary of the bank because it was a ‘quasi US govt arm’. Epstein wrote: ‘I am also aware JPM has a colorful array of clients so a client relationship is much less problematic than an institutional joint venture’. 

Among the wealthy men Epstein reeled off was Prince Andrew. Epstein said: ‘He is now allowed to make money’.

The timing of the email is revealing and suggests Epstein knew intimate details about Andrew’s finances, which were tied up with those of his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, with whom he stayed close after their 1996 divorce. 

In May 2010 Ferguson was caught in a newspaper sting asking for $550,000 for access to Andrew.

She told an undercover newspaper reporter: ‘That opens up everything you would ever wish for. I can open any door you want, and I will for you.’

Ferguson later said that she ‘deeply regretted’ making the comments and said her ex-husband had no idea about meeting the undercover journalist.

Ferguson had apparently been driven to such measures because of her $5.5million debts but in July 2011 she said that they had been paid off thanks to the intervention of Andrew. 

Under the arrangement, Epstein paid $17,000 to Ferguson’s former PA Johnny O’Sullivan which helped to stabilize her finances.

Epstein’s email to JP Morgan came a month after that announcement, making it clear that Andrew had discussed his and Ferguson’s financial situation in depth.

In a scheduling entry for March 3, 2010, Epstein’s assistant wrote: ‘Still need to try and schedule the Duchess for Tues or Wed (I have emailed her assistant, Amanda, RE a meeting’.

The ‘Amanda’ appears to be Amanda Thirsk, who worked for Andrew for many years. Epstein replied: ‘Duchess anytime.’

Pictures posted on Facebook by married couple Jojo and Lyn Fontanilla, Epstein’s housekeeper and driver, on March 5, 2010 – two days after the emails – showed Andrew visiting Epstein’s New York townhouse. 

Another image shows a smiling Ferguson with JoJo Fontanilla in Manhattan with a shopping bag in her hand, while one from the previous month, posted by Lyn Fontanilla, shows Ferguson at Epstein’s New York mansion.

A lawyer for Andrew did not respond to requests for comment. Fergie’s spokesman had no comment. 

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.

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

***

In January 1967, the CIA sent a memo (marked “SECRET,” “RESTRICTED,” and “DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED”) to its army of media “assets” secretly embedded in virtually every area of U.S. communications.

This army of covert operatives (exposed as “Operation Mockingbird” in a historic 1977 Rolling Stone article by Carl Bernstein) extended all the way up to world famous columnists, bureau chiefs, managing editors, newspaper publishers and CEOs of major radio and television broadcasting networks.

What did the CIA’s secret memo instruct its media assets to do?

Entitled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report,” the memo provided guidance for countering “conspiracy theorists” who challenged the Warren Report’s false conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy.

It recommended the strategy of smearing critics of the Warren Report by describing them as being financially motivated; or having “anti-American, far-left or communist sympathies,” or being hasty, inaccurate or ego-driven in their research.

Sound familiar? Although five decades old, the tactics recommended by the memo seem chillingly current, a virtual operating manual for how the present-day CIA tries to smear and discredit anyone who dares to question official government propaganda.

Although the specific term “conspiracy theorist” pre-dates the JFK assassination, it was enthusiastically embraced and deployed by the CIA as one of its most powerful psychological weapons, to be wielded against anyone who suspects the government of secret wrongdoing. It is an effective way to silence dissenting voices by marginalizing them and leaving them open to ridicule.

Source: reddit.com

Ever since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his candidacy for the Presidency on April 19, mainstream media have attacked him with the very same tactics outlined in the CIA’s secret memo of 1967.

This is not surprising since Kennedy has re-invoked the ghosts of Earl Warren and Lyndon B. Johnson, who set up the Warren Committee, by publicly asserting that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone assassin of his uncle (JFK), and that his father had considered the work of the Warren Commission to be a “shoddy work of craftsmanship.”

LBJ next to Earl Warren and the rest of the Warren Commission, whose work Robert F. Kennedy called “a shoddy work of craftsmanship.” [Source: jfkfacts.org]

According to Kennedy Jr.:

“the evidence that the CIA murdered my uncle is overwhelming, I would say, beyond a reasonable doubt. As an attorney, I would be very comfortable arguing that case to a jury. I think that the evidence that the CIA murdered my father is circumstantial but very, very, very persuasive. Or very compelling. Let me put it that way—very compelling. And of course the CIA participation in the cover-up of both those murders is also beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s very well documented.”

Kennedy has criticized the CIA for other major crimes that it carried out during the Cold War, tweeting out, for example, an article from Truthout about MK-ULTRA (unethical drug testing) and its abuse of black and indigenous children. Kennedy stated in the tweet that: “CIA conspiracy theories are not just ‘right wing’ and they are not just theories.”

This is not what the CIA wants to hear; or has ever heard from a Democratic Party presidential contender in recent decades, and so not surprisingly is out to get Kennedy.

A characteristic hit piece in the June 26 New York Times by columnist Farhad Manjoo was titled “It’s Not Possible to ‘Win’ an Argument With Kennedy.” The subtitle read: “Conspiracy theorists don’t care about facts, just attention.”^[1]

Manjoo started the article by asserting that, in the summer of 2006, he entered a debate with Kennedy about the 2004 election, which Kennedy claimed had been stolen from John Kerry.

Manjoo said that Kennedy’s position was based on reckless claims and did not hold up—though in fact Kennedy was presenting considerable evidence to corroborate his view.

As he outlined at the time, nearly half of the six million American voters living abroad never received their ballots, and a consulting firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.

Additionally in New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots and, in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched George W. Bush’s victory in the Electoral College, local officials purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines, and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency.^[2]

Manjoo says that he was a reporter at Salon during the 2004 election cycle and investigated Kennedy’s theories about the election and concedes that Kennedy was right that the 2004 election was “rife with irregularities,” particularly in Ohio. Nevertheless, he writes that “pretty much every expert that I talked to said it was unlikely that any of the issues were big enough to have undone Bush’s win.”

So Kennedy is thus branded a conspiracy theorist even though Manjoo admits that he was right about the existence of irregularities, but disputes the extent to which those irregularities ultimately impacted the final results based on “experts” he consulted and also the findings of a report issued by the Democratic National Committee.

Source: rollingstone.com

However, another expert, journalist Craig Unger, who wrote a biography of Republican Party kingmaker Karl Rove, suggests that Kennedy may have been correct and that Kerry was cheated out of an election victory when voting data in Ohio was inexplicably switched over to a technology service company, SmarTech, after the news networks had called Florida for George W. Bush.

The shift coincided with serious anomalies that saw an increase in votes favorable to Bush, who decisively won the state.^[3]

With regard to vaccines, Manjoo in his column admits that “some vaccines have serious side effects,” which is Kennedy’s position, but again smears him as a “conspiracy theorist” on this matter without either effectively articulating or challenging his views on the topic.

Manjoo’s column is par for the course these days in the mainstream media.

Every time that Kennedy’s name is mentioned in an article in The New York Times and most other mainstream media, it is with the qualifying statement that defines him as a “conspiracy theorist.”

Kennedy is also routinely disparaged for “cavorting with right-wing figures.”^[4] This inverts the old smear of being a Marxist or of the far-left, primarily because the right wing is now identified with “conspiratorial views” and criticism of the CIA and “deep state,” as Kennedy has pointed out, and is also much stronger than the left.

That Kennedy’s political supporters include libertarians opposed to what they consider coercive medical practices and government surveillance, and that he is branding himself as a candidate capable of bringing together Americans on the right and left, should not generally be considered a bad thing; it makes sense for someone who wants to win people’s votes.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg acknowledged that Kennedy was bringing together a “coalition of the distrustful” cutting across traditional “divisions of right and left” and that this is “giving him surprising strength in many polls.”^[5]

On June 26, The Atlantic ran a characteristic hit piece on Kennedy titled “The First MAGA Democrat: Robert Kennedy Jr. is Feeding America’s Appetite for Conspiracies,” which scoffed at Kennedy’s sensible belief that “Ukraine is engaged in a ‘proxy’ war” and that Russia’s invasion, although “illegal,” would not have taken place if the United States “didn’t want it to.”^[6]

On June 22, Slate ran another typical smear piece right out of the CIA’s playbook by Molly Olmstead entitled “RFK Jr.’s Conspiracy Theories Go Way Beyond Vaccines.”

The subtitle of the article was: “The 2024 candidate sure is a man of, um, ‘ideas.’”

Kennedy is indeed a man of ideas; but not in a negative way. By any objective measure, his book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (New York: Skyhorse, 2021), is an impressive feat of scholarship that sold more than a million copies.

The book provides a deeply researched account of the corruption of Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma along with insightful analysis about the CIA’s involvement in and cover-up of lethal and unethical Gain of Function research and germ warfare practices that date to the era of the Cold War.

In her article, Olmstead suggests that Kennedy’s claim about Gain of Function research is part of his conspiratorial view, when that research is known to have been carried out.^[7]

She also maligns Kennedy for his warning about the growth of the surveillance state and suggesting that “the orchestrated, planned use of pandemics [aimed] to clamp down totalitarian control.”

We know for a fact, however, that the current Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, participated in a simulation on coronavirus and pandemics in New York City in October 2019, known as Event 201, whose primary purpose was to explore how government authorities could exploit the situation to clamp down using censorship, and to force mask wearing, mandatory vaccinations, and lockdowns on the population.

Olmstead repeats in her piece the false claim that Kennedy advances “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories” when Kennedy has never said he was against vaccines, but only against certain vaccines that he believes were unethically manufactured.

When another reporter used the term “anti-vax” to describe Kennedy, former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Kennedy’s campaign manager, responded that the term was a “left-handed smear” and “a clipped assessment that has been used for political purposes by the adherents of the pharmaceutical industry,” when Kennedy stands for vaccine safety.

While people might legitimately contest some of Kennedy’s views about vaccines and COVID-19 or other topics including the Israel Palestine conflict, the trend seen in the mainstream media is to simplify, caricature and/or misrepresent Kennedy’s perspective, while failing to engage with any of the evidence that Kennedy presents to back it up.^[8]

Kennedy is well read in scientific literature and cites many scientific authorities on medical topics though is still mocked. A different standard is applied to most other politicians who are treated not only more respectfully but usually deferentially, particularly centrist Democrats or moderate Republicans in the mainstream liberal outlets that Kennedy is attacked in.

In her Slate piece, Olmstead claims that Kennedy has progressed from being an anti-vaxxer to advancing more conspiracies, such as one that “Wi-Fi radiation from cellphones causes cancer—or, more specifically, ‘Wi-Fi radiation’ from cellphones causes ‘cellphone tumors.”

In fact, there is a growing body of scientific research that verifies these latter concerns, including by highly reputable scientists like Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, who has been on a decades-long quest to prove that radiation from cell phones is unsafe, which he says most people do not want to hear because they are addicted to their smart phones.^[9]

So who is the real conspiracy theorist? Kennedy or Olmstead?

And if conspiracy theorist means a real intellectual who probes beneath the surface to try to expose government corruption and uncover the truth, then I too strive to be a conspiracy theorist—proudly so.

David Talbot, the author of an acclaimed book on former CIA director Allen Dulles (who was involved in the coverup of the JFK assassination as a member of the Warren Commission), The Devil’s Chessboard, said that Kennedy is someone who “who thinks like I do, outside the box, willing to take risks.”

Jan Wenner, founder of Rolling Stone Magazine, which has published some of Kennedy’s writings, characterized him as a “crusader much like his father: pursuing justice and fairness for people….The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.”

Olmstead at the end of her piece has the gall to attack Kennedy for promoting “conspiracy theories about his own family,” including related to the murder of his uncle and father, both of which, he believes, the CIA was behind.

CovertAction Magazine investigations along with a small library of books have found that RFK Jr’s views are well founded.

The refrain about Kennedy and his father and uncle’s assassination was nevertheless echoed in

a) a New York Times article by Rebecca Davis O’Brien on June 29,

b) a New Yorker article by David Remnick entitled “The Alternative Facts of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,”^[10]

c) a New York Magazine profile by Rebecca Traister that calls Kennedy’s ideas on the assassination “unproven to ludicrous to dangerously irresponsible,” and

d) in yet another New York Times piece on July 6 by Anjali Huynh, which invokes the authority of the widely discredited Warren Commission.

Characterized by Richard Nixon in the Watergate tapes as the “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” the Warren Commission advanced the magic bullet theory postulating that a single bullet caused eight wounds in JFK and his car-mate, Texas Governor John Connally, which is impossible by the laws of physics.^[11]

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., leading expert on the medical evidence in the case of JFK, plotted the official trajectory of the bullet that officials claim passed through JFK’s neck and entered Connally’s back and discovered that it is anatomically impossible because cervical vertebra intervene. Former Tulsa police detective Craig Roberts points out that the supposed “magic bullet” would have had to have made “two 90 degree turns, and had to pause 1.8 seconds in flight at the same time.”

Source: eyemagazine.com

Olmstead in her Slate piece acknowledges that the CIA may have indeed had some involvement in JFK and RFK’s deaths, but criticized RFK Jr. for “turn[ing] his belief into a crusade, conducting months of research into the assassination and leading a campaign to have Sirhan [who was fingered as the lone assassin] released from prison,” which others in his family did not support.^[12]

Sirhan Sirhan, on the left, who, Robert Kennedy, Jr., believes based upon photographic evidence of the assassination scene, was falsely framed for his father’s murder in June 1968. [Source: radaronline.com]

These comments actually paint Kennedy in a flattering light as someone who will invest the time to carry out deep research to try to validate his suspicions. They reveal further that he is a compassionate man who is trying to right a wrong by freeing the man he has come to believe was wrongfully convicted of his father’s murder—which others in his family are not willing to do.

Call for Détente Like His Uncle

Kennedy beautifully invoked the legacy of his father and uncle in a foreign policy speech that he delivered at St. Anselm College in June that was ignored in the media. The speech was delivered on the 60^th anniversary of a historic peace speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at American University advocating for détente with the Soviet Union.

JFK giving famous peace speech at American University that some historians believe marked him for death. [Source: wikipedia.org]

See JFK’s speech here; and RFK Jr.’s speech here.

RFK Jr. in his speech discussed how military provocations by the U.S. towards Russia had left the world at a dangerous risk of nuclear war similar to the era of the Cuban missile crisis.

The U.S. betrayed a pledge not to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards Russia’s borders, has pointed missiles stationed in Eastern Europe at Russia, and has openly called for regime change and the dismembering of Russia, while using Ukraine as a pawn in a dangerous and deadly proxy war.

War mongers inside the U.S. administration—who have predominated since his uncle and father’s death—are staging war games and seem to believe that nuclear war is winnable.

Before his assassination, JFK set an excellent model by banning nuclear weapon testing, meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and traveling around the country telling Americans to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians and try and see things from their point of view.

Kennedy said that it is particularly important today to consider the legitimate security needs of the Russians and to change the mindset undergirding a period of endless wars.

The dominant foreign policy discourse constantly warns about foreign enemies and threats and adopts a comic book narrative in which America and allies like Israel are good, and their enemies like Russia and Iran are evil, leaving no room for complexity or compromise.

Peace can only come about when Americans examine their own attitudes and begin to try and better understand and empathize with peoples around the world and abandon the reflex towards violence as a response for any and all crises.

Now is the time to build a new peace movement that will reject the insanity of the present foreign policy course and compel the Biden administration to de escalate the conflict with Russia and China and reverse the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about and his uncle and father were trying to fight before they got killed.

He Has It Worse Than Bernie—Though There Is a Silver Lining

The biased media coverage of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign seems worse than for Bernie Sanders, who was repeatedly attacked during the 2016 and 2020 primaries for supporting supposed socialist dictatorships, like in Nicaragua during the 1980s.

In 2016, the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) found that the Washington Post ran a stunning 16 negative stories on Sanders in just 16 hours.

When Sanders was ahead in the polls in Iowa, The New York Times reported misleadingly that he had been “eclipsed by Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttgieg.” The Onion subsequently wrote a parody entitled: “MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has Plummeted 2 Points Up”—which might as well have been said about any major outlet.

Collage of critical articles of Bernie Sanders that appeared in The Washington Post in a 16-hour period. [Source: fair.org]

Though Sanders was more committed than Kennedy to taxing the wealthy and financial regulation and better on immigration, Kennedy is more radical than Sanders in challenging the military-industrial complex and CIA.^[13] (Sanders has repeatedly advanced CIA disinformation about Russia, and voted for emergency aid measures to Ukraine).^[14]

RFK Jr. has additionally spoken out more forcefully on censorship and challenged the dominant political and media narrative about the COVID-19 pandemic—which Sanders never questioned—while taking on the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex in a way that Bernie has never done.

Kennedy’s vilification in the media, ironically, may be one major source of his popularity across the country in an electorate that no longer has much faith in the mainstream media.

The denunciation of critics of government policy as conspiracy theorists over many years may be beginning to backfire as more and more people understand how the term has been used as a weapon against truth-seekers, of whom Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is surely one.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Farhad Manjoo, “It’s Not Possible to ‘Win’ an Argument With Kennedy,” The New York Times, June 26, 2023, A22. 

2. Kennedy further noted that a heavily Republican precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of 98%, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, recorded an equally impossible turnout of only 7%. In Warren County, GOP election officials invented a non-existent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count. For further evidence of GOP manipulation that corroborates Kennedy’s view, see Craig Unger, Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove’s Secret Kingdom of Power (New York: Scribner, 2014). 
3. Unger told The Daily Banter: “One of the frustrating things of course if you want to make an absolutely conclusive case forensically what you find is that so much of the evidence has disappeared, so I should have that caveat up front. At the same time. the sequence of events was highly highly disturbing.” 
4. See, for example, Reid J. Epstein, “Why Robert Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 Bid Is a Headache for Biden,” The New York Times, June 19, 2023. 
5. Michelle Goldberg, “The Coalition of the DIstrustful,” The New York Times, July 2, 2023, 5. Despite some sober judgments in her piece, Goldberg fits the norm in her demonization of Kennedy, referring to him as a “crank.” 
6. CAM has detailed U.S. provocations in numerous articles. 
7. See Andrew G. Huff, The Truth About Wuhan: How I Uncovered the biggest Lie in History(New York: Skyhorse, 2022). 
8. The left media is often no better than the mainstream. Jeffrey St. Clair at Counterpunchregularly rips and belittles Kennedy, for example. Naomi Klein, author of books critical of corporate power and a left-wing celebrity, characterized Kennedy as a “huckster” and “spreader of all manner of dangerous, unsupported theories,” in her column in The Guardian. The Nation Magazine’s editor Katrina Vanden Heuval called Kennedy an “anti-vaccine crank” in an article entitled “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a Flawed Heretic,” though did acknowledge that Kennedy “offered common sense too rare in our political discourse” on U.S. foreign policy and the war in Ukraine. Rather than pointing to the media bias as it normally does, the media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting(FAIR) published an article by Ari Paul attacking Kennedy for being essentially a “MAGA Democrat.” He suggests that while Kennedy “claims that he is carrying on the liberal torch of his father and uncle …everything he says sounds to the right of Richard Nixon.” Really, however, the only thing RFK Jr. would agree with Nixon on was Nixon’s support for détente with the Soviets, opening to China, and embrace of some Keynesian ideas. Nixon escalated the Vietnam War whereas Kennedy has called for the revitalization of the U.S. peace movement and significant cuts in military spending to fund social programs. Nixon also waged war on drugs and on the political left through the FBI and Huston Plan, when Kennedy is a strong civil libertarian. He is further a staunch environmentalist who wants to block oil drilling on public lands and hazardous mining. Most of Kennedy’s policy positions are generally ones traditionally adopted by liberal democrats, including his support for labor unions, and his outlook is similar to his father and uncle whom he often invokes in speeches. 
9. Many cell phones actually come with warnings in the settings about the risks of cancer from prolonged use. 
10. In an exchange revealing the moral bankruptcy of elite liberal intellectual culture today; what Chris Hedges termed the “Death of the Liberal Class,” Remnick asked Kennedy during an interview with him what news sources he read. When Kennedy responded that he read alternative media, including commentary on Ukraine by Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Remnick responded by quoting favorably from Liz Cheney (R-WY) who said that Macgregor represented “the Putin wing of the GOP.” Joseph McCarthy couldn’t have said it better. 
11. Phil Nelson, LBJ Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (New York: Skyhorse, 2013), 459; JFK: Who, How, and Why: Solving the World’s Greatest Murder Mystery, ed. Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek (Crestview, Florida: Moon Rock Books, 2017); Craig Roberts, A Sniper Looks at Dealy Plaza (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Consolidated Press International, 1997), 61. 
12. Kennedy told podcaster Joe Rogan recently that the military, the intelligence community and his uncle were “at war” with each other during JFK’s presidency and that the two entities were “trying to trick” the late president into deploying troops to various countries, including Cuba and Vietnam. Kennedy added that his uncle was so fed up with the CIA that he wanted to “shatter” the agency and “scatter it to the winds.” Kennedy additionally said he has to “be careful” that the CIA doesn’t take him out, and that if he were elected president, he would be assassinated by the CIA—as he has claimed the agency was involved in the assassination of his uncle. “I gotta be careful,” Kennedy said. “I’m aware of that, you know, I’m aware of that danger. I don’t live in fear of it at all.” 
13. Kennedy’s belief in the “free market” follows in the pattern of his father and uncle, whom Bruce Miroff in Pragmatic Illusions: The Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy (New York: Longman, 1976) defines as an “enlightened conservative” and “corporation liberal” whose economic policies served to hold wages down and underwrite new corporate investment while “stabilizing” and “rationalizing the corporate economy.” Regarding border policy, RFK Jr. said that he would restore an abandoned operation named Streamline under which the U.S. targeted illegal migrants for criminal prosecution and rapid deportation. 

14. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, “Bernie Sanders Claims the Mantle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Has He Earned It?” CovertAction Magazine, April 12, 2022, https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/04/12/bernie-sanders-claims-the-mantle-of-franklin-delano-roosevelt-has-he-earned-it/. 

Featured image is from Bracing Views

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.

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

***

July 2023, the United Nations published a Policy Brief  entitled “A New Agenda for Peace”. It is the ninth out of the eleven Briefs that has been released to support the UN’s “Our Common Agenda.

In the report the UN Secretary-General António Guterres declares:

“We are now at an inflection point. The post-cold war period is over. A transition is under way to a new global order.”

This sets the stage for a multipolar order that will replace the one that has been led by the United States since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, now, with a reformed United Nations at the helm to manage world affairs.

The UN explains that an angrier world is rising from the ashes with the emergence of new “poles of influence”. This has been hastened by “the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the war in Ukraine”.

New priorities are also added to the old threats of war and nuclear havoc.

With a wording that seems inspired by the old geopolitical manipulator Henry Kissinger, the Policy Brief describes a world where nation states are unable to cope with the interconnected global problems on their own.

“Even the most securitized of borders cannot contain the effects posed by the warming of the planet, the activities of criminal groups or terrorists or the spread of deadly viruses. Transnational threats are converging. Their mutually reinforcing effects go well beyond the ability of any single State to manage.”

This also follows the script from the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.

This means that United Nations has to step up and assume the role as the planet’s managing body.

Twelve actions are proposed.

The agenda will, not surprisingly, have a bigger focus on accelerating the implementation of Agenda 2030 and the management of extreme global shocks (that was described in the Policy Brief Emergency Platform).

Click here to read the full article.

*

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 The Pharos Chronicle – Jacob Nordangård, PhD

Annex: A New Agenda for Peace

UN Policy Brief 9, July 2023

The Boom Bust Bailout Process that Places Nations in Debt

By Mark Keenan, August 02, 2023

There are systemic aspects about the banking, monetary, and economic system that are not taught in the schools and universities of the world and are rarely discussed on corporate owned news and media networks.

Blinken Meets ASEAN: Turning Southeast Asia Against China

By Brian Berletic, August 02, 2023

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s meeting with ASEAN in mid-July, focused on convincing the bloc to confront Beijing, follows a long-running US strategy to transform Southeast Asia into a united front against China. By doing so, nations in the region are encouraged or coerced to antagonize China, despite the growing superpower being their largest trade partner, investor, and source of tourism as well as their most important infrastructure and development partner.

Is Nuclear War Comparable to Climate Change?

By Peter Koenig, August 02, 2023

Imagine! – “Nuclear War is no worse than climate change.” This statement was made contextually on Sunday, 25 July, by Washington’s top diplomat, Antony Blinken, on a 60-Minutes Australian TV-Interview. On second thought, safe for the nuclear radiation that may linger on for years – weaponized climate change, as it has been applied for at least the last three years – but long before to a lesser extent, may be equally destructive.

French Invasion of Niger could Turn Into an “All-out Franco-African war”?

By Drago Bosnic, August 02, 2023

Ever since the Nigerien military under the command of General Abdourahamane Tchiani took power on July 26, there has been an exponential increase in tensions between Niamey and its former colonial masters in Paris. This has gone to the point where France is now seriously considering invading the West African country.

“Fighting Child-Sex Trafficking” and the “Elite Pedo Rings”: There Is Something Terribly Wrong with Media’s Reaction to the “Sound of Freedom” Movie

By Vigilant Citizen, August 02, 2023

Sound of Freedom is a movie based on the true story of Tim Ballard, a government agent who quits his job in order to rescue children from sex traffickers in Colombia. Directed by Alejandro Monteverde, Sound of Freedom is not your typical Hollywood movie. It was released by Utah-based Angel Studios, a company specializing in “faith-based” productions.

The Media’s “New Narrative”: Niger Is Now a Global Epicenter of Terrorism

By Andrew Korybko, August 02, 2023

It’s full-blown fake news to claim that Niger is now a global epicenter of terrorism, but the MSM is expected to maximally amplify this false narrative in an attempt to scare the public into supporting the planned NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion of that country.

Collapsed Suddenly: 18-year-old Colombian World Cup Star Linda Caicedo Collapsed at Training

By Dr. William Makis, August 02, 2023

July 27, 2023 – Breakout World Cup star, 18 year old Linda Caicedo collapsed at training in distressing scenes that were caught on video. She was rushed to hospital and was unconscious for at least 90 seconds as medics and terrified team-mates rushed to her aid at the team’s base in Sydney.

Technocensorship: The U.S. Government’s War on So-Called Dangerous Ideas

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, August 02, 2023

The revelations that Facebook worked in concert with the Biden administration to censor content related to COVID-19, including humorous jokes, credible information and so-called disinformation, followed on the heels of a ruling by a federal court in Louisiana that prohibits executive branch officials from communicating with social media companies about controversial content in their online forums.

The Day Australian Sovereignty Died

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 02, 2023

If a date might be found when Australian sovereignty was extinguished by the emissaries of the US imperium, July 29, 2023 will be as good as any. Not that they aren’t other candidates, foremost among them being the announcement of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, UK and the US in September 2021.

Russia-Africa Summit Held Amid Worsening Global Security Situation

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 02, 2023

Media reports in the United States made much of the fact that 17 heads-of-state attended the Russia-Africa Summit compared to 43 at the previous meeting in 2019. However, there were 49 delegations which attended representing a majority of African governments on official ministerial levels as well as regional organizations such as the African Union (AU), Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the New Development Bank (NDB), headed by former Brazil President Dilma Rousseff.

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.

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

***

Ever since the Nigerien military under the command of General Abdourahamane Tchiani took power on July 26, there has been an exponential increase in tensions between Niamey and its former colonial masters in Paris. This has gone to the point where France is now seriously considering invading the West African country. The exploitation of “former” French colonies has continued unabated for over half a century even after they were granted a semblance of independence and Paris has been the main beneficiary of this one-sided relationship. Combined with France’s inability to deal with various terrorist insurgencies in the region, this unadulterated neocolonial theft has been the primary reason behind a series of popular uprisings in the Sahel.

Paris is now faced with a strategic dilemma. If it lets Niger continue its path toward actual independence, France will be unable to continue exploiting the country’s natural resources. Namely, several of its former colonies have served as a source of massive wealth extraction and given the recent troubles Paris is facing, these resources might be more important than ever. On the other hand, recent geopolitical changes in the area have left France largely impuissant. After the defeat of its nearly decade-long intervention in Chad last year, Paris has been left with bases in Ivory Coast, Senegal and Gabon. Neither of these can be used effectively as a staging ground for an invasion due to the limited number of troops stationed there.

However, even if France was to somehow find enough soldiers to launch the invasion, none of the three countries border Niger. Gabon is the least logical option, as Cameroon and Nigeria stand between it and Niger, leaving only bases in Senegal and Ivory Coast as viable possibilities.

And yet, this is where the issues of basic geography for Paris stop and actual geopolitical ones start. Namely, in order to effectively use its forces from both countries to reach Niger, France needs to go through Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which have already stated that any military action against Niamey will be tantamount to aggression against them. In other words, if France wants to attack Niger, it will also need to attack two more African countries.

A possible alternative for Paris could be the use of its neocolonial influence in the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States, also known as CEDEAO in French and Portuguese). However, this leaves its members at risk of more anti-Western uprisings, as the belligerent power pole is deeply unpopular in the area. Some members of the ECOWAS, such as Nigeria, might be the best geographical option, but given the fact that Paris has little to no influence in Abuja, this is extremely unlikely. Not to mention the fact that Nigeria has more than enough problems of its own and the last thing it needs is to serve as the staging ground for a neocolonial invasion. Logically, this leaves Chad as the only option, but this too is a very long shot.

To make matters worse for France, Algeria has joined the chorus of Niger’s allies.

The French archrival that spearheaded the independence of many of its “former” colonies in the 1960s is effectively an African superpower, heavily armed and highly motivated to never allow Paris or any other Western (neo)colonial power to establish a firm foothold in the region.

This still leaves Chad as the only viable option for an invasion, as the country was an instrumental staging ground for virtually all French military operations in the area, including the illegal invasion of Libya. However, reaching Chad at this point is easier said than done and this still leaves most of the geopolitical issues unresolved. Also, all geographical considerations remain.

Namely, the Nigerien capital of Niamey is located in the southwestern corner of the country, close to the border with Burkina Faso. Thus, even in the unlikely case that none of its neighbors intervene, Niger is still left with a comfortable window of opportunity to resist the invasion.

This could end in a disaster for France, as yet another military defeat in the area would inevitably lead to a complete collapse of the neocolonial system it left in place in the 1960s. On the other hand, if Paris doesn’t intervene, this will happen anyway, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Either way, the dilemma inevitably results in a geopolitical catch-22, as leaving things as they are could also encourage others to revolt against Western neocolonialism elsewhere in Africa and possibly beyond.

As for France’s NATO allies, they’ve been largely quiet and non-militant, including the United States (a rather uncommon feature in their usually belligerent foreign policy).

Washington DC has a military base in the central part of the country, the Niger Air Base 201, run by US AFRICOM (African Command), but its operational capabilities are mostly limited to drone strikes, with the troops deployed there largely composed of a skeleton crew that provides basic security.

Coupled with the recent cooling of US-French relations, this makes it highly unlikely that the Pentagon would give the go-ahead for any sort of American involvement in a possible French invasion, even though it’s in Washington DC’s interest to keep Western neocolonialism in Africa alive for as long as possible.

*

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.

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.

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

***

Sound of Freedom is a movie based on the true story of Tim Ballard, a government agent who quits his job in order to rescue children from sex traffickers in Colombia. Directed by Alejandro Monteverde, Sound of Freedom is not your typical Hollywood movie. It was released by Utah-based Angel Studios, a company specializing in “faith-based” productions.

The movie was actually completed over five years ago, in 2018, and was slated to be distributed with 20th Century Fox. However, when the studio was bought by the Walt Disney Company, Sound of Freedom was shelved indefinitely. Apparently, Disney was much more preoccupied with making movies that groomed kids with sexual propaganda rather than releasing a movie exposing pedophile networks.

Luckily for the filmmakers, they were able to buy the distribution rights back from Disney and, through equity funding, they’ve managed to get the film released on July 4th, 2023.

Almost immediately, the movie was met with a bizarre barrage of bad reviews where the buzz words “QAnon conspiracies” appear in nearly every article, as if all of these “journalists” (propagandists) received the same memo.

The movie itself does not mention QAnon or anything even remotely related to it. It merely puts on film the story of Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad, the organization he created to fight child sex trafficking. However, mass media pundits made it a point to associate make this word association. Also, they decided that this movie was “controversial”.

Why is that? Well, for starters, the media really does not like some people associated with the movie, starting with its star, Jim Caviezel.

“Controversial” Endorsements

Jim Caveziel with Mel Gibson during the filming of Passion of Christ (2004).

Prior to Sound of Freedom, Jim Caveziel was mostly known for playing the role of Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ. The least one can say is that this role took a toll on Caveziel. During filming, he was accidentally whipped, got his shoulder dislocated, and suffered pneumonia and hypothermia.

Oh, he was also hit by lightning. Indeed, while filming the Sermon on the Mount scene, Caveziel was struck by lightning which led to two heart surgeries, including open-heart surgery.

In Sound of Freedom, Caveziel’s character also has “Christ-like” qualities, especially when he tearfully looks at the camera and says “God’s children are not for sale”.

While the movie itself stays away from the “conspiracy theories” the elite wants to suppress by any means necessary, Jim Caveziel just goes all in at every chance he gets.

In the following interview, Caveziel directly refers to the satanic elite and the harvesting of adrenochrome.

Whoa pic.twitter.com/kClxAgrpY4

— Karli Bonne’ (@KarliBonnita) July 13, 2023

Another major endorser of Sound of Freedom is Mel Gibson. That is rather appropriate because one of the most memorable lines he ever uttered was:

“They can take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!”

When he screamed those words as Sir William Wallace in the 1995 movie Braveheart, Mel Gibson was one of the biggest movie stars in the world. However, even at the peak of success, Gibson found a way to anger people with massive truth bombs.

In a July 1995 interview with Playboy, Gibson said President Bill Clinton was a “low-level opportunist” and someone was “telling him what to do”. He also stated that Oxford University’s Rhodes Scholarship was established “for young men and women who want to strive for a “new world order” and was a “campaign for Marxism”.

During a 1998 interview, Gibson alluded to the dark, satanic side of Hollywood.

A few years later, after some of his drunken tirades (notably about Jews starting wars) were leaked in the press, Gibson was shunned and blacklisted from Hollywood. While he stayed away from Hollywood productions for years, Gibson resurfaced to openly endorse Sound of Freedom, which is not a Hollywood movie.

So what’s the fuss all about? Here’s a look at the actual movie.

Sound of Freedom

While Sound of Freedom is said to be “faith-based”, there is no religious preaching or political messaging throughout the movie. It simply wants to make one important point: Child sex trafficking is bad. And, somehow, mass media deemed this movie to be “controversial”.

To drive that point across, the movie doesn’t shy away from depicting scenes that are barely watchable. For instance, in one gut-wrenching scene, an old drunken tourist stumbles into a room where a terrified little girl is forced to wait for him. And, no, nobody flies in to save the day. The drunken pedo shuts the blinds as the viewers realize that nothing will stop the unspeakable things will happen in that cursed room.

These scenes shamelessly tug at the heartstrings and are nearly impossible to watch. However, they do happen in real life. Every day. Thousands of times a day. Not only that, child sex trafficking is a booming industry that keeps raking in record amounts of profits. As stated in the movie, drugs can only be sold a single time. However, a child can be sold several times a night.

By forcing the viewers to face these harsh realities, the movie sets itself apart from nearly all Hollywood productions that would never tackle such topics. The main reason: Hollywood is rampant with the worst pedophiles one can imagine.

Some critics complained that the movie was too straightforward. They did not like the fact that there was no surprise twist and that the hero remained an unwavering, incorruptible hero who just wants to see pedos go down. I guess they would have been pleased if the hero revealed himself to be a pedo all along or something like that.

But these professional “critics” should have realized that they were not watching a Marvel movie where random, unpredictable events just happen to fill airtime. Sound of Freedom is about telling a true story and exposing a horrific reality.

For instance, the movie begins with real and chilling footage of children being snatched from the streets and taken away by abductors working for these networks. These children end up in the child sex networks that are depicted in the movie.

They also end up in elite pedo rings that indulge in the most horrific practices known to men. For this reason, corrupt, elite-owned media outlets went on a bizarre propaganda campaign to disparage Sound of Freedom. As you’ll soon see, they were willing to go extremely low.

Media’s Unhinged Response

In Sound of Freedom, a man heroically infiltrates child sex trafficking networks and saves children from being raped by pedophiles. Media’s response: This movie is bad. What in God’s name is happening here?

Here’s the thing: In Sound of Freedom, pedos are the bad guys. They are not misunderstood, oppressed victims who need to be coddled – they are sadistic monsters who prey on the divine nature of innocent children. And they need to be stopped.

This goes against the narrative that has been prevalent in mass media in the past years. The goal: To pave the way to a society where “MAPs” (minor-attracted persons) are treated like other sexual “minorities”.

For this reason, nearly every elite-owned media outlet in the world published insane articles that attacked Sound of Freedom. Here’s a headline from the “reputed” Washington Post.

A Washington Post headline that links Sound of Freedom with the QAnon boogeyman.

The second paragraph of this article says.

“Many critics have linked Sound of Freedom to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy cult. They’ve also been startled by its mainstream success. But the truth is that the conspiratorial right and the Hollywood default aren’t that different — which is why, perhaps, our polity has had such difficulty rejecting QAnon, Trump and fascism.”

As you can see, this article throws every single buzzword at the readers such as “pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy cult”, “conspirational right” and even “fascism”. Yes, he used the word “fascism” to critique a movie about child sex trafficking.

One can wonder: Why does this “reviewer” hate this movie so much? If this movie was about cocaine trafficking in Colombia, would he be that offended?

Well, the answer is completely sickening. The author of this Washington Post article is Noah Berlatsky – a communications director for Prostasia, a “pro-pedophilia” advocacy group.

Noah Berlatsky on the Prostasia website.

According to their website, Prostasia supports the “Minor Attracted Persons” (MAPs) Club, a notorious group that tries to normalize pedophilia.

Earlier this year, Reduxx reported that a general manager of Prostasia – Prescott Bayern – was active on a pedophile messaging board dedicated to homosexual men who dubbed themselves “boy lovers” – pedophile men sexually attracted to underaged boys.

“Despite claiming to be motivated by a desire to eradicate child sexual abuse, the organization’s efforts have dedicated themselves to crusades against child pornography bans, letter-writing campaigns to state representatives demanding child-like sex dolls be kept legal, and funding research into ‘fantasy sexual outlets‘ for pedophiles,”Reduxx founder Anna Slatz explains. “Prostasia has also condemned anti-pedophile sentiment as harmful ‘Nazi-like’ rhetoric and called for its mass censorship across social media.”
– Evie, “Sound Of Freedom” Critic For Bloomberg Is A Pedophile Sympathizer

In short, Berlatsky is a pedo extremist. In case you’re still not convinced, here’s a tweet he posted in 2017.

Berlatsky’s article about Sound of Freedom wasn’t a “movie review”, it was a hit piece coming directly from a pedophile advocacy group. And major outlets such as the Washington Post openly took the side of the child abusers.

Sadly the Washington Post was not the exception. Nearly every single elite-owned media outlet followed suit. The narrative: “Sound of Freedom = QAnon”.

A headline from The Guardian uses the same buzzwords as the Washington Post article which was written by a pedo. They’re all funded by the same system.

Of course, Canada’s government-funded CBC network had to participate in the insanity. After years of celebrating drag queens in schools and all forms of child grooming, the CBC attacked Sound of Freedom using the same buzzwords. In a recent interview on CBC Radio, pop culture “columnist” (propagandist) Radheyan Simonpillai said:

“We can’t say that the movie itself is made by QAnon types. But certainly, their political goals make it something that QAnon conspiracy theorists would rally behind. Just like racists rallied behind Trump without him having to say anything overtly racist.

You would have only heard about this movie if you are a regular among church groups, or you regularly watch Fox News, or if you follow right-wing personalities. Or if you are a QAnon conspiracy theorist or part of the so-called Freedom movements.

But make no mistake. The movie’s success has a lot to do with it being a dog whistle for xenophobic, pro-Trump, pro-Life types.”

Yes, this “columnist” said that this movie about child trafficking in Colombia is a “dog whistle for xenophobic, pro-Trump, pro-Life types”. In other words, this person is paid by Canadian taxpayers to spew pro-pedophile propaganda.

I could post many more examples of such headlines from around the world and they all prove two important points:

1) These outlets take their talking point from the same globalist elite source

2) They’re on a mission to normalize pedophilia and they’re willing to attack anything that goes against their agenda.

In Conclusion

Is Sound of Freedom the best movie I ever watched? Not really. Objectively, it’s a well-made movie that touches on an important topic, and it was quite refreshing to watch. Any reasonable “reviewer” could have said the same and left it at that. But that’s not what happened at all. Instead of objectively reviewing the movie, “reviewers” screeched like demons when faced with a crucifix.

Sound of Freedom clearly touched a nerve and, by doing so, it managed to reveal how far the elite (and its media system) is willing to go to defend pedophilia.

Through unhinged and desperate “reviews” (which are outright attempts at propaganda, complete with scary buzzwords), mass media outlets from around the world attempted to scare people from watching the movie for fear of being called “pro-Trump conspiracy cultists”.

Bloomberg and the Washington Post went as far as hiring a pro-pedo advocate to attack the movie. As a society, we truly need to reflect on the implications of such a move by major media outlets.

As usual, these propagandists used their favorite tactic: the “far-rightization” of the topic to scare people away.

However, this issue is not about Left versus Right. It is about Good versus Evil.

The most important line of the movie is “God’s children are not for sale”. If, somehow, you are offended by that line … then you can go to hell.

Literally.

*

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.

All images in this article are from The Vigilant Citizen