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.\

Important article by

Jacques R. Pauwels,  author of

The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015),

Big Business and Hitler (2017),

Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events (2022).

Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

 

Introduction

Nazi Germany was a military colossus and defeating the beast was a herculean task that could never have been accomplished singlehandedly by any one of its enemies. The job was done, but only after many years of struggle, and it required superhuman efforts from all the countries that were involved in the titanic conflict against Hitler, his Nazism, that is, the German variety of fascism, and other fascist dictatorships that had lined up with Germany, such as that of Mussolini.

The group of countries that fought and ultimately defeated Nazi Germany was called the “Grand Alliance” by Churchill, but the Soviets used a more prosaic term, the “Anti-Hitler Alliance”.

This partnership, which emerged only after the Soviet Union and the US became involved in the war in 1941, featured two wings, first, the “Western Allies”, and second, the Soviet Union. The latter battled the German forces in a titanic struggle along the so-called Eastern Front, starting in the summer of 1941. The former, meaning the Americans as well as the British, fought the Nazis in Europe starting in the summer of 1943, when they landed troops in Italy.

However, their paramount contribution came on the Western Front, that is, a “theatre of war” not in Southern but in Western Europe, and the action there started with the famous landings in Normandy of of June 6, 1944, whose code-name was Operation Overlord.

The 80th Anniversary of D-DAY

June 6, will mark the 80^th anniversary of “D-Day”, the planners and participants of the landings in Normandy will be honoured in the presence of the French President and many other dignitaries.

Rightly so, because Operation Overlord epitomized the contribution of the Western Allies to the defeat of Nazi Germany.  However, about the Normandy Landings, a few important aspects should be kept in mind, aspects that will almost certainly remain unmentioned during the commemorations.

First, while the “Battle of Normandy” that started on June 6, 1944, was undeniably a major clash, it was not the biggest battle of World War II, as the statistics reveal.

In terms of length, it started on June 6, 1944, and ended at the end of August of that year, so it lasted almost three months.

The Battle of Stalingrad, on the other hand, dragged on twice as long, it lasted for more than half a year, from mid-July 1942 to early February, 1943.

The Siege of Leningrad also deserves to be mentioned here, even though it was admittedly not a conventional battle: it began on September 8, 1941, and did not come to an end until January 27, 1944, so its exact duration was 2 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and 5 days.

Second, the casualties – killed, wounded, missing in action, and/or taken prisoner — suffered by the belligerents in Normandy were high, but not as high as the opening scenes from movies like Saving Private Ryan would have us believe.

Those scenes conjured up the fighting on Omaha Beach, one of the five sectors of the landing beaches where American soldiers landed, had to attack strongly fortified German positions, and suffered heavy losses, namely, 2,500 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.

But in the other sectors the Germans were less numerous and far less strongly entrenched, and their resistance was far less ferocious, so the Allied troops coming ashore took considerably fewer casualties.

• On Utah Beach, for example, the Americans encountered very light resistance and suffered merely 200 casualties.
• On Sword Beach, the British likewise met limited opposition.
• And on Juno Beach, the 14,000 Canadians who came ashore suffered 1,096 casualties, including “only” 381 killed.

The total number of Allied casualties on D-Day reached approximately 10,000, a figure that included 4,414 men killed, the latter still a high number, of course, but not nearly as high as most people imagine.

The number of casualties represented just over 6 percent of the total of 160,000 troops who came ashore, the number of killed, 2.7 percent.

The relatively low number of losses was due to the fact the Germans had only limited forces available to defend against an Allied “invasion”.

According to British military historian Richard Overy,

“in the east, Germany and her allies had some two hundred and twenty-eight divisions, compared with fifty-eight divisions in the west, only fifteen of which were in the area of the Normandy battle in its initial stages” — consisting mostly of troops of inferior quality, though supported by some elite SS units –, because the bulk of the Wehrmacht was fighting for dear life on the Eastern Front. In another one of his books, Overy writes that in, Normandy, the Germans had one division for every 217 miles of coastline, divisions consisting mostly of less than the usual minimum of 12,000 men and “largely made up of older soldiers, …wounded from the eastern front and men of poorer physical condition, [with] low combat effectiveness. 

The Germans defenders were thus stretched very thinly along the French coast.

Significant numbers of them, entrenched in and around bunkers and pillboxes of the “Atlantic Wall”, were separated from each other by sometimes long expanses of lightly defended coastline. The Americans learned the difference at Omaha and Utah. In any event, the notion that thousands of German soldiers were waiting in the dunes, shoulder to shoulder, as Allied soldiers alighted from their landing craft, is a fiction concocted by Hollywood in movies such as The Longest Day.  

In the entire Battle of Normandy, the Americans, British, and Canadians suffered a total of about 220,000 casualties, while Germany accounted for 300,000, for a grand total of just over 550,000; the number of men killed was 30,000 for the US, 11,000 for the UK, 5,000 for Canada, and 30,000 for Germany, totalling 76,000. Mindboggling as these figures may be, they are dwarfed by the numbers killed, injured, missing in action and/or taken prisoner during the 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad.

According to the same source, the Encyclopedia Britannica, that battle resulted in approximately 800,000 casualties on the side of Germany and allied powers, and 1,100,000 on the Soviet side, for a total of 1.9 million. And that appears to be a rather conservative estimate, as Wikipedia cites higher figures, namely, a total number of over one million killed; and the Modern War Institute, a “national resource at the United States Military Academy at West Point”, puts the Stalingrad death toll at approximately 1.2 million. In any event, the Battle of Normandy may be said to have been only half as deadly as the Battle of Stalingrad.

Let us return to D-Day.

On that June 6, the plans called for Allied troops to overcome the German coastal defenses without too much trouble and to push deep inland, in the case of the Canadians from Juno Beach to the outskirts of the city of Caen, a distance of nearly 20 kilometers.

(Bicycles were brought along to facilitate that trip, so no major German resistance was obviously expected.)

However, it would take weeks before the “Canucks” were to enter Caen.

The other Allies did not do better; by the end of the first day, none of them had secured their first-day objectives.

The reason was that the Germans responded to the Allied landings by sending in elite troops that had been held in the rear, including SS units, to be sent to the front whenever and wherever the need would arise. These troops were unable to throw the Allies back into the sea, but they did manage to prevent them to penetrate deep inland, as the planners had expected. 

The result was a long stalemate.

It helped the Allied cause that the Germans were prevented from transferring manpower from the Eastern Front to Normandy by actions of the Red Army, culminating on June 22 — anniversary of Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 — in the kickoff of a major offensive on the Eastern Front, code-named Operation Bagration.

The Wehrmacht was mauled badly by the Red Army, which was to achieve an advance of more than 600 kilometres, all the way from deep in Russia to the suburbs of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which was reached in early August.

Bagration thus enabled the Western Allies to finally break out of their Normandy bridgehead, and General Eisenhower himself later acknowledged that Bagration had been a necessary precondition for the belatedly successful outcome of Operation Overlord.

(Incidentally, the Soviets would render a similar — and equally rarely acknowledged — service  to the Western Allies in early 1945 when they responded to an urgent American request by unleashing a major offensive in Poland on January 12, 1945, one week earlier than originally planned; that move forced the Germans to abandon a surprise attack in the Belgian Ardennes that had caused the Americans great difficulties in the so-called Battle of the Bulge.) 

Summarizing the above, it is clear that the Western Allies won the Battle of Normandy, admittedly not easily, but without major losses, because the huge sacrifices required to defeat the Nazi Moloch had been suffered for three years, and continued to be suffered, by the Soviets on the Eastern Front.

It is fair to say that Nazi Germany was defeated by the efforts and sacrifices not only of the Red Army but of Soviet women and men in general, including partisans, factory workers, farmers, and so forth, whose total losses by the end of the war would approach a mindboggling thirty million.

In fact, the string of Nazi victories that had started in 1939 came to an end — and the tide of World War II turned, to put it that way — not with the landings in Normandy in June 1944, as is claimed or implied in many history books and of course in Hollywood productions such as The Longest Day. The tide of the war turned on the Eastern Front, and it did so well before D-Day, namely, in 1941, in the vast expanses of Russia to the west of Moscow. 

When Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22, 1941, Hitler and his generals were convinced that the Wehrmacht was going to crush the Red Army within 6 to 8 weeks.

They also badly needed a quick victory, because only quick triumph could solve a major problem. In the thirties, while preparing for war, the Hitler regime had built up huge stockpiles of imported strategic raw materials that Germany lacked, above all rubber and petroleum, the latter mostly supplied by the US. During the coming war, the Reich would likely be prevented from importing sufficient quantities of these products, without which the mighty panzers and planes would be useless,  by a British naval blockade, which is what had happened in World War I.

However, in 1939-1940, the stockpiles of crucially important petroleum had been severely depleted as Nazi Germany inflicted “lightning warfare” on countries as far apart as Poland, France, and Greece; and neither continuing imports from Romania and – via neutral Spain – the US, nor increased production of synthetic fuel and rubber could make up the shortfall. And so, when Operation Barbarossa started, and three million German soldiers crossed into the Soviet Union with no less than 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, and more than 2,700 planes, Nazi Germany only had sufficient fuel (and rubber tires) left to wage war for little more than two months. But this was deemed sufficient because the Soviet Union was expected to be knocked out soon enough, and then its unlimited raw materials, including Caucasian petroleum, would be available to the Reich. 

However, it became clear all too soon that despite impressive initial victories, Barbarossa was not going to be a cakewalk after all.

By the end of August, the German spearheads were still nowhere near the Caucasus, the Eldorado of Soviet petroleum.

Hitler’s “Third Reich” now faced the prospect of catastrophic fuel shortages in addition to almost equally problematic scarcity of labor needed in its armament and other industries, as millions of men could not return home and go back to work in the factories.  The conclusion drawn by many cognoscenti, such as high-ranking Wehrmacht officers, Nazi bigwigs, the Swiss secret service, and the Vatican, as early as the summer of 1941 and increasingly in the fall of that year, was that Germany could no longer hope to slay the Soviet bear and was doomed to lose the war. 

Oceanic tides turn inexorably but slowly, yet not imperceptibly.

The tide of World War started to turn similarly slowly within weeks after the start of Barbarossa, but the phenomenon was already perceived by a small though increasing number of observers and could be certified on December 5 of 1941, when the Red Army successfully launched a major counter-offensive that threw back the Germans and certified the fiasco of Barbarossa. On that same day, Hitler was informed by his generals that he could no longer hope to win the war. It is therefore legitimate to define December 5, 1941, as the “turning point” [Zäsur, literally “caesura”] of the entire world war,” as Gerd R. Ueberschär, a German expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has put it. On the other hand, it is true that those in the know were rare and that, for whatever reasons, most of them chose to remain discreet; consequently, it was only after the spectacular German defeat at Stalingrad, in early 1943, that the entire world was to realize that Nazi Germany was doomed to lose the war.

When, more than one year later, the Western Allies landed in Normandy, they were lucky to face a (part of a) German army that was severely handicapped by a paucity of petroleum.

The Nazis had hoped that victory against the Soviet Union would provide them with plenty of Caucasian fuel for their panzers and planes.

That did not happen and, to the contrary, the fighting in the vast expanses of the Soviet Union further depleted Germany’s stocks of fuel. By the summer of 1944, the Nazi war machine was not only figuratively but even literally “out of gas”, and this is why the Luftwaffe, for example, which disposed of excellent airplanes, was virtually absent from the skies over Normandy, to the great relief of the Allies on the ground, on the sea, and of course in the air. 

It should be mentioned that the US was not yet a belligerent when the turning of the war’s tide was confirmed by the Soviet counter-attack in front of Moscow on December 5, 1941.

Washington was admittedly on extremely unfriendly terms  with Berlin because of American deliveries of all sorts of weapons and other equipment to Britain, but had no intention, and therefore no plans at all, to go to war against Hitler, even though there were plenty of compelling humanitarian reasons for crusading against his truly evil regime.

America’s major US corporations were also doing wonderful business with Nazi Germany itself, for example producing trucks, planes, tanks, and other strategic equipment in their branch plants in Germany and by supplying the petroleum so badly needed by the Panzers and Stukas.

America’s political and social- economic elite was also staunchly anti-communist and did not want to undertake anything that might jeopardize the Nazi dictator’s prospects for success in his crusade against the Soviet Union. Conversely, Hitler, in dire straits in the Soviet Union, was not keen at all to take on a new enemy of the calibre of the US. 

However, Washington wanted war, not against Germany but against Japan, and did so mainly in order to prevent its much-despised rival in the Far East from pocketing Vietnam and Indonesia, resource-rich colonies of countries occupied by Germany, France and the Netherlands.

Tokyo was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which triggered an American declaration of war on Japan but not on Germany, which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and whose alliance with Japan did not require Berlin to become involved in a war started by Tokyo.

However, to Washington’s great surprise, Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor.

He almost certainly speculated that this entirely gratuitous gesture of solidarity would induce his Far Eastern ally to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the enemy of Germany, the Soviet Union, thus forcing the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war. But Tokyo, expecting to have its hands full with the US as enemy, did not take the bait.

In Washington the German declaration of war arrived as a most unpleasant surprise, since a war against Germany was unwanted and no plans had been made for it. The American historian Stephen E. Ambrose has rightly emphasized that the US did not “enter” the war but was “pulled in[to]” it. 

He was right in the sense that Uncle Sam was indeed “pulled into” the war against Germany against his will – and by none other than Hitler himself!

In view of this, it is worth asking whether the Americans would ever have declared war on Nazi Germany, and landed in Normandy, if Hitler had not declared war on them. And one should ask if Hitler would ever have made the desperate, even suicidal, decision to declare war on the US if he had not found himself in a hopeless situation in the Soviet Union. The entry of the US into the war against Germany, then, which for many reasons was not in the cards before December 1941, and for which Washington had not made any preparations, was not a cause, but merely a consequence, of a turn of the tide of World War II that happened in the Soviet Union in the second half of 1941.

In any event, when the Americans and other Western Allies did come ashore in Normandy in June 1944, there was less than one year left in a war whose outcome had already been decided three years earlier on the opposite side of Europe. In some way, Operation Overlord confirmed that Nazi Germany’s sun had reached its zenith in 1941 and was setting rapidly. And the troops were not sent to the Normandy beaches to liberate France en route to Berlin, but to prevent the Soviets from defeating Germany, take Berlin, and thus liberate all of Europe on their own. 

When Nazi Germany unexpectedly became an enemy of the US, the US automatically became an ally of Germany’s enemies, including Britain and the Soviet Union. Uncle Sam’s alliance with Moscow was to involve supplying the Soviets with weapons and other equipment, but those supplies, while certainly important, would never represent more than a fraction of what the Red Army needed and would become quantitatively and qualitatively meaningful only in 1943, that is, well after the decisive battles in front of Moscow and in Battle of Stalingrad. The notion that the Soviets survived Operation Barbarossa thanks to American aid is nothing more than a myth.  

With its British ally, on the other hand, Washington worked very closely together and coordinated strategy, and it was agreed that they would give priority to the fight against Germany, rather than the other common enemy, Japan.

This would logically involve sending troops into occupied Europe to confront the Nazi beast, thus opening a “Second Front”.

A Second Front would have provided much relief for the Red Army, which in 1942 faced an admittedly desperate German attempt to reach the Caucasian oilfields, an attempt that led to a titanic battle fought in and around Stalingrad from which the Soviets did not emerge victoriously until early 1943.

However, Roosevelt and Churchill preferred not to open a Second Front. The leaders of the US and Britain were happy to see their useful but unloved Soviet ally and Nazi Germany administer a major bloodletting to each other in what appeared throughout 1942 to be a stalemated conflict on the Eastern Front.

They realized that defeating Germany would require huge sacrifices, and landing troops in occupied Europe would unquestionably be a very costly affair. Was it not far wiser to stay safely on the sidelines, at least for the time being, and let the Soviets slug it out against the Nazis? With the Red Army providing the cannon fodder needed to vanquish Germany, the Americans and their British allies would be able to minimize their losses. Better still, they would be able to build up their strength in order to intervene decisively at the right moment, when the Nazi enemy and the Soviet ally would both be exhausted. With Great Britain at its side, the US would then in all likelihood be able to play the leading role in the camp of the victors and act as supreme arbiter in the sharing of the spoils of the supposedly common victory. In the spring and summer of 1942, with the Nazis and Soviets locked into a titanic battle, watched from a safe distance by the Anglo-Saxon tertius gaudens, it did indeed look as if such a scenario might come to pass.

The reason given to Stalin for not opening a second front was that the combined American and British forces were not yet strong enough for a major operation on the continent.

Presumably, the naval war against the German U-boats first had to be won in order to safeguard the required transatlantic troop transports. However, troops were successfully being ferried from North America to Great Britain, and in the fall of 1942 the Americans and British proved able to land a sizable force in North Africa. These landings, known as Operation Torch, involved the occupation of the French colonies of Morocco and Algeria, and in the summer of 1943 the “Yanks” and “Tommies”, now accompanied by “Canucks”, to use the nicknames of the Western Allied soldiers, were to cross into Sicily, followed by the Italian mainland, and knock Italy out of the war. 

Not only Stalin demanded the opening of a Second Front, so did a large segment of the British public, mostly ordinary working-class folks who, in contrast to their “betters”, sympathized with the Soviets. To silence this annoying constituency, Churchill arranged for a contingent of troops, not coincidentally consisting mostly not of Americans or British but of Canadians, to be dispatched on a raid to the French seaport of Dieppe, an operation code-named Jubilee. As expected, these men were slaughtered there, which was then conveniently cited as irrefutable proof that the Western Allies were not yet able to launch a major cross-Channel operation. The stratagem achieved its purpose, but the public was horrified by the slaughter. However, after the 1944 landings in Normandy, it became possible to concoct an ostensibly convincing rationale. Jubilee was triumphantly revealed to have been a “general rehearsal” for the successful Normandy landings, as valuable lessons had allegedly been learned during a raid that served to test the German defences. This was a laughable proposition, since any lessons about German defenses, learned in August 1941, could not have been relevant almost two years later: indeed, in the aftermath of Jubilee, in 1943, the Germans constructed new defenses, collectively known as the “Atlantic Wall”. In any event, thus was born a myth: the tragedy of Jubilee as the sine qua non for the triumph of Overlord.

After the Battle of Stalingrad, it was obvious that Nazi Germany was doomed to lose the war and opening a Second Front suddenly loomed urgent to Roosevelt and Churchill. The Soviets were now likely to start heading for Berlin, and via the Italian boot, where, after the fall of Mussolini the Germans had moved in and put up a tough resistance, the Allies could never beat them in what becoming an unspoken inter-allied race to Berlin. Preparations were now made for a landing on the French Atlantic coast, code-named Operation Overlord. The urgency of this task increased rapidly as in 1943 the Red Army advanced systematically along the entire length of the Eastern Front. But it was too late to carry out such a logistically complex operation in that year, especially since the necessary landing equipment needed to be transferred back from North Africa and Italy. Roosevelt and Churchill were far from delighted that the Red Army was grinding its way, slowly but surely, towards Berlin and possibly places farther west. And so, from the perspective of Anglo-American strategy, “it became imperative to land troops in France and drive into Germany to keep most of that country out of [Soviet] hands,” as two American historians, Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble, have written. 

The American and British political and military leaders, representatives of their countries’ establishment, that is, upper classes, had always been intrinsically anti-communist and anti-Soviet. Conversely, they had not been against any form of fascism, including its German variant, Nazism. They were “philofascists”, that is, benevolent towards fascism and supporters of fascists, because fascism was the paramount enemy of communism and simultaneously “good for business” and therefore for capitalism, of which fascism is arguably a manifestation; it should not be forgotten that Hitler’s Germany, like Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain, were capitalist countries. It is an irony of history that the US stumbled into a war against fascism, personified by Hitler (as well as Mussolini) and thus found themselves to be allies of the Soviet Union. But that alliance was an unnatural one, destined to last only until the defeat of the common enemy. As some American generals put it on one occasion, they were fighting a war “with the wrong ally against the wrong enemy.”  

The landings in Normandy, then, were organized for the purpose of preventing a scenario that haunted the gentlemen who happened to be the leaders of the US and Britain, a scenario in which the Soviets would singlehandedly defeat Germany and liberate not only Eastern but also Western Europe, including France. If that would happen, the “Russkis” were expected to follow the precedent set by the Americans and British in 1943 when they liberated Italy except the northern part, which remained behind German lines. They had done exactly as they pleased, nota bene without permitting any input from their Soviet ally, input that had been foreseen in previous agreements. To prevent any radical social-economic changes, they had neutralized the leftist partisans who had plans for an entirely new Italy; and installed an ex-fascist and known war criminal, Marshal Badoglio, in power. In fact, the Western Allies left much of Italy’s fascist system in place, thus ingratiating the industrialists, bankers, large landowners, the monarch, Vatican, and other pillars of the nation’s establishment who had in fact enabled, and benefited from, the Mussolini regime, but angering workers and “ordinary” Italians, who castigated the new system as “fascism without Mussolini”.

If the Soviets were to act similarly in the countries they liberated, the result could be expected to be the opposite, namely, a joint effort of the liberators and the leftist resistance fighters to eradicate, at the expense of the upper class, not only of fascism but also of the capitalist system of which fascism may be said to have been the exoskeleton. From the perspective of the Americans, who were determined to maintain and revitalize capitalism wherever possible, this would have been nothing less than a catastrophe.

The far from uplifting tale of the “liberation” of Italy demonstrates clearly that the Americans and their British partners had nothing against fascism and fascist dictatorships and preferred to maintain fascism in one way or another, rather than allow a liberated people itself to determine the political and social-economic configuration of their country.

We will soon see that the landings in Normandy did not purport to liberate France in the sense of leaving the French themselves free to democratically make decisions about the postwar makeup of their country, and that the liberators actually preferred to maintain the fascist system of Vichy France, with some cosmetic changes, naturellement, rather than run the risk that the French might experiment with forms of socialism, as they had done, to the displeasure of the ruling elites in Britain and in the US, in the 1930s under the auspices of a leftist government known as the “Popular Front”. 

At that time, in 1936, the gentlemen in power in Washington and London, in contrast to most “ordinary” American and British people, sympathized with Franco, and proceeded to support him covertly if not overtly, when he waged war against a democratically elected republican government with plans for social and economic reforms. If the landings in Normandy purported to bring freedom to France, as we hear again and again, and defeat fascism in Germany and everywhere in Europe, why did the Americans and the British not follow up their triumph in the spring of 1945 by removing Franco from power in Madrid, as they could have done with the wave of a hand? 

The landings in Normandy, then, were not about freedom for France and crusading against fascist dictatorship.

Their real objective was to allow the Western Allies to compete with the Soviets in an undeclared race to Berlin, a race that, in the summer of 1944, was still very much winnable. And winning that contest would give the Americans and their British partner control over much if not all of Germany and the attendant possibility of doing in there what they had already done in Italy, namely preserving the social-economic status quo even if it meant sheltering fascists – in the case of Germany: Nazis — and philofascists. This was all the more important since US corporations and banks held huge investments in Germany, certain to be lost in case the tandem of Soviets and German antifascists took control. The tale of what happened to Germany cannot be told here, but we all know the result: the Americans got their way in the western reaches of the country, and the Soviets, in the eastern part.

As soon as the Battle of Normandy was concluded victoriously, German resistance melted away in most if not all of the rest of France.

This made it possible to undertake the primordial push into Germany, but also required dealing with the thorny issue of the situation in France. The Americans would have preferred to keep the Vichy-based collaborator government of Marshal Pétain in power, but minus the discredited Pétain, and with a more respectable personality, a French Badoglio, so to speak, at the helm; after all, the Vichy-regime had been good for business, including the business of French subsidiaries of US banks and corporations such as Ford France, which had made lots of money thanks to eager collaboration with the Germans.

Washington had maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy until the landings in North Africa, and had flirted afterwards with Pétainist politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, and generals who, after Stalingrad, sensing where the wind was coming from, had opportunistically switched to the Allied side. Washington’s preference for Pétainists was determined by two related factors. First, the desire to find French partners who, once hoisted into the saddle of power, could be relied upon to maintain the capitalist status quo in a post-liberation France. Second, their fear that the withdrawal of the Germans and the concomitant collapse of the Vichy regime might cause the Resistance to come to power, a resistance that was mostly working class – just as collaboration had been mostly bourgeois – and very leftist, with the communists as the leading element, and introduce the kind of radical reforms that were very popular in France but abominated as a “red revolution” by American leaders, including president Roosevelt, who were determined to save capitalism in France regardless of the wishes of the French.

 As for General Charles de Gaulle, leader of the so-called Free French based in Britain and acknowledged by many inside and outside of France as one of the leaders of the Resistance, he was not a leftist but a conservative personality; but Roosevelt and most other American decision-makers despised him as an obnoxious megalomaniac and shared Vichy’s view that he was a mere front for the communist real leaders of the Resistance. Washington thus refused to recognize de Gaulle and the French provisional government he headed, even though it had become clear to them that their favourite option, putting an ex-Pétainist in power, was inacceptable to the French people.

And so the Americans planned to rule “liberated” France (and other European countries) themselves, at least for the time being, via a military government they controlled but euphemistically called Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories (AMGOT). In Italy, this arrangement had overseen the previously mentioned transition from fascism with to fascism without Mussolini, and the idea was clearly to achieve a similar result in France, Vichyism sans Vichy. However, with respect to France the idea of turning the country a de facto American protectorate, was not yet implemented at the time of the landings. 

In the meantime, de Gaulle was slowly becoming acceptable to Washington on account of three factors. First, the Americans finally realized that the French people would not tolerate that the Vichy system would be maintained in any way, shape, or form. Conversely, they had come to understand that de Gaulle was popular, enjoyed the support of a considerable segment of the Resistance, and had the potential to eclipse the communists as its leader. Second, de Gaulle appeased FDR by committing himself to pursue a political course that would in no way threaten the economic status quo. To guarantee his commitment, countless former Vichyites who enjoyed the favours of the Americans were integrated into his Free French movement and even given leading positions. Gaullism thus became respectable and de Gaulle himself morphed into “a right-wing leader,” acceptable to French upper class, which dreaded a takeover by the “red” Resistance, and to the Americans, poised to succeed the Germans as partners and protectors of that elite.

By the end of August 1944, when the Battle of Normandy was won, an uprising of the predominantly communist Parisian Resistance clearly purported not to prevent the Germans from burning down the city, as would be suggested in a 1966 Hollywood production, Is Paris Burning?, but to establish a French government that was to be independent of the country’s “Anglo-Saxon” liberators and likely to pursue policies not to their liking.

That forced the Americans to abandon the AMGOT scheme and quickly reach for the card they had hitherto been reluctant to play: de Gaulle.

The general was rushed to the capital, to be presented to the Parisians as the saviour for whom patriotic France had been waiting for four long years. It was arranged for him to strut triumphantly down the Champs Elysees, while the local Resistance leaders were coerced to follow him at a respectful distance, looking like unimportant extras. A little later, on October 23. 1944, Washington certified its admittedly uneasy partnership with de Gaulle by recognizing him as head of the provisional government of the French Republic.

After the Battle of Normandy, then, it was thanks to the Americans that in France de Gaulle, and not the men of the Resistance, could come to power. In contrast to the latter, de Gaulle was a conservative personality, and he collaborated eagerly with Washington to prevent the radical reforms which the Resistance had planned and many if not most Frenchmen, and certainly the working class, had expected and would have welcomed. The country’s capitalist social-economic system was preserved, though its political superstructure was updated: on the ruins of the fascist Vichy regime, a new, comparatively much more democratic system, was erected, to become officially known in 1946 as the “Fourth Republic”. This arrangement provided immense relief to France’s upper class but also served the purposes of the Americans, who were determined to make liberated Europe safe for capitalism, preferably an unfettered, American-style capitalism, with “open doors” for US products and capital – and Uncle Sam very much in control.

De Gaulle did not remain in power long enough – he resigned in January 1946 — to prevent France from being integrated into a US-dominated Western Europe and becoming a vassal of Uncle Sam, exemplified by membership in NATO – a development that was accompanied by the Americanization or “Cocacolonization” of the country.  But  in 1958 de Gaulle made a comeback and obtained wide powers as he arranged for the Fourth Republic to give way to to a more authoritarian, ironically enough an American-style, presidential system, to be baptized “Fifth Republic”. He subsequently proved to be a thorn in the side of Uncle Sam, for example by banning American army bases (and NATO headquarters) from France and, more in general, failing to be a pliant vassal like Konrad Adenauer in West Germany. (It is for that reason that the CIA very likely orchestrated some of the coups and assassination attempts directed against the regime and/or person of the recalcitrant French president.) 

De Gaulle also never forgave the Americans (and the British) for treating France like a “doormat” (paillasson), as he once put, at the time of the landings in Normandy. In 1964, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Overlord, he described the operation as “the prelude to a second occupation of the country”, and he never attended its annual commemoration. Also absent from the annual commemorations, at least during the last decade have been the Russian heirs to the Soviets, whose efforts and sacrifices had made possible not only the landings, but even the final victory against Nazi Germany.

This year, the official reason for Russian representatives being non grata is their country’s “war of aggression” against Ukraine, a kind of excuse that was never invoked to disqualify an American president for similar (and even worse) wars, for example, George W. Bush, who made an appearance in 2014. And what to think of the invitation extended to Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenski?

His government teems with admirers of Stepan Bandera and other Ukrainians who collaborated eagerly with the Nazis, and with neo-Nazis, and Zelenski himself happily and proudly participated when, in September, 2023, the members of Canada’s House of Commons unanimously honoured a former Ukrainian SS-man, Yaroslav Hunka, with a standing ovation in Canada’s Parliament.

 

The parliamentarians later sheepishly claimed ignorance, but Zelenski certainly knew very well who that man was, and what he stood for, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, should have known or at least have been informed. It is indeed no secret that, at the Nuremberg Trials, the SS in its entirety was declared to have been a criminal organization.

And it also known, especially in Canada, that a SS unit similar to the one of which Hunka was a member, fought against Allied troops in Normandy and committed war crimes there, including the massacre of dozens of Canadian prisoners of war in Ardenne Abbey near Caen.

Justin Trudeau presumably knows Canadian history and is aware of what happened at Ardenne Abbey; he should go there and lay a wreath – and invite Zelensky to come along.

 

 

SOURCES:

“Abbaye d’Ardenne”, Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada, https://www.veterans.gc.ca/en/remembrance/memorials/abbaye-ardenne.

Adams, Sharon, “Quick and quiet, this folding bike played a key Canadian role in Normandy”, Legion: Canada’s Military History Magazine, June 6, 2022, https://legionmagazine.com/d-day-bicycle.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Americans at War, New York, 1998

“Battle of Stalingrad”, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad.

Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II, second edition, Monroe, Maine, 2012. 

Carroll, Peter N., and David W. Noble. The Free and the Unfree: A New History of the United States, second edition, New York, 1988.

“Estimated Battle Casualties During the Normandy Invasion on June 6, 1944”, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/story/estimated-battle-casualties-during-the-normandy-invasion-on-june-6-1944.

Foot, Richard. “D-Day and the Battle of Normandy”, The Canadian Encyclopedia, February 7, 2006, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/normandy-invasion#:~:text=Total%20Allied%20casualties%20on%20D,Over%205%2C000%20Canadian%20soldiers%20died.

Gatzke, Hans. Germany and the United States: A “Special Relationship”? Cambridge, MA and London, 1980.

Jersak, Tobias. “Öl für den Führer,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, February 11, 1999.

Jones, Dustin. “80 years ago, the Soviets began defending Stalingrad against Germany”, NPR, August 23, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/23/1119139781/stalingrad-germans-soviets-hitler-stalin-wwii-world-war-ii#:~:text=The%20battle%20came%20to%20an%20end%20on%20Feb.,at%20approximately%201.2%20million%20people.

Kimball, Warren F. “FDR and Allied Grand Strategy, 1944-1945: The Juggler’s Last Act,” in Charles F. Brower (ed.), World War II in Europe: The Final Year, New York, 1998, pp. 15-38.

Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Les élites françaises entre 1940 et 1944. De la collaboration avec l’Allemagne à l’alliance américaine, Paris, 2016

Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Les origines du plan Marshall: Le mythe de “l’aide” américaine, Armand Colin, Malakoff, 2023. 

Loubet, Manon, “La question pas si bête: mais que faisait Charles de Gaulle le 6 juin 19440”, 14actu, June 2, 2019, https://actu.fr/normandie/bayeux_14047/la-question-pas-bete-mais-faisait-charles-gaulle-6-juin-1944_24378078.html.

Overy, Richard. Why the Allies Won, London, 1995.  

Overy, Richard. Russia’s War, London, 1997

Pauwels, Jacques R. “The Allies’ Second Front in World War II: Why Were Canadian Troops Sacrificed at Dieppe?”, Global Research, June 03, 2014, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-allies-second-front-in-world-war-ii-why-were-canadian-troops-sacrificed-at-dieppe/32403.

Pauwels, Jacques R. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, second edition, Toronto, 2015.

Pauwels, Jacques R. Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events, Toronto, 2022.

Pauwels, Jacques R. “Americanizing France”, CounterPunch, March 4, 2024, 

“Remembering D-Day: Key facts and figures about epochal World War II invasion”, AP, https://apnews.com/article/d-day-invasion-normandy-france-nazis-07094640dd7bb938a23e144cc23f348c#:~:text=A%20total%20of%204%2C414%20Allied,killed%20around%2020%2C000%20French%20civilians.

Rudmin, Floyd. “Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism,” Counterpunch, February 17–19, 2006, https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/17/secret-war-plans-and-the-malady-of-american-militarism. 

Stoler, Mark A. Allies in War: Britain and America against the Axis Powers 1940-1945, London, 2005.

“The D-Day Landings Northern France 6 June 1944, Second World War Sixtieth Anniversary, p. 11, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78d775ed915d07d35b2d91/ww2_dday.pdf..

Ueberschär, Gerd R. “Das Scheitern des ‘Unternehmens Barbarossa’”, in: Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette (eds.), Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion. “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 1941, Frankfurt, 2011, pp.85-122.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on October 31, 2022

Earth Day, April 22, 2024

***

Important to understand is that there is not one single new or original idea in Klaus Schwab’s so-called Great Reset agenda for the world. Nor is his Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda his or his claim to having invented the notion of Stakeholder Capitalism a product of Schwab.

Klaus Schwab is little more than a slick PR agent for a global technocratic agenda, a corporatist unity of corporate power with government, including the UN, an agenda whose origins go back to the beginning of the 1970s, and even earlier.  The Davos Great reset is merely an updated blueprint for a global dystopian dictatorship under UN control that has been decades in development. The key actors were David Rockefeller and his protégé, Maurice Strong.

In the beginning of the 1970s, there was arguably no one person more influential in world politics than the late David Rockefeller, then largely known as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.

Creating the new paradigm

At the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the international circles directly tied to David Rockefeller launched a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks. These included

The Club of Rome;

the 1001: A Nature Trust, tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF);

the Stockholm United Nations Earth Day conference;

the MIT-authored study, Limits to Growth;

and David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Club of Rome

In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO.  ^[i] That was the beginning of what would become the neo-Malthusian “people pollute” movement.

In 1971 the Club of Rome published a deeply-flawed report, Limits to Growth, which predicted an end to civilization as we knew it because of rapid population growth, combined with fixed resources such as oil. The report concluded that without substantial changes in resource consumption, “the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

It was based on bogus computer simulations by a group of MIT computer scientists. It stated the bold prediction, “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.” That was 1971. In 1973 Klaus Schwab in his third annual Davos business leader meeting invited Peccei to Davos to present Limits to Growth to assembled corporate CEOs. [ii]

In 1974, the Club of Rome declared boldly, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Then: “the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over-population, food shortages, non-renewable resource [oil-w.e.] depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance.” ^[iii] They argued that,

‘horizontal’ restructuring of the world system is needed…drastic changes in the norm stratum – that is, in the value system and the goals of man – are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place. ^[iv]

In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome further argued:

Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. ^[v]

That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda2030 and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.

David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong

By far the most influential organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a billionaire oilman named Maurice Strong.

Canadian Maurice Strong was one of the key early propagators of the scientifically flawed theory that man-made CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens “the planet”, so-called Global Warming.

As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.”

Strong stated his radical ecologist agenda:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [vi]

This is what is now taking place under cover of a hyped global pandemic.

Strong was a curious choice to head a major UN initiative to mobilize action on the environment, as his career and his considerable fortune had been built on exploitation of oil, like an unusual number of the new advocates of ‘ecological purity,’ such as David Rockefeller or Robert O. Anderson of Aspen Institute or Shell’s John Loudon.

Strong had met David Rockefeller in 1947 as a young Canadian  eighteen and from that point, his career became tied to the network of the Rockefeller family.[vii]  Through his new friendship with David Rockefeller, Strong, at age 18, was given a key UN position under UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. The UN’s funds were conveniently enough handled by Rockefeller’s Chase Bank. This was typical of the model of “public-private partnership” to be deployed by Strong—private gain from public government. [viii]

In the 1960s Strong had become president of the huge Montreal energy conglomerate and oil company known as Power Corporation, then owned by the influential Paul Desmarais. Power Corporation was reportedly also used as a political slush fund to finance campaigns of select Canadian politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, father of Davos protégé Justin Trudeau, according to Canadian investigative researcher, Elaine Dewar. [ix]

Earth Summit I and Rio Earth Summit

By 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations in New York and Secretary General of the upcoming Earth Day conference, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Earth Summit I) in Stockholm, Sweden.  He was also named that year as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation – which financed his launch of the Stockholm Earth Day project.[x] In Stockholm the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created with Strong as its head.

By 1989 Strong was named by the UN Secretary General to head the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development or UNCED (“Rio Earth Summit II”). He oversaw the drafting of the UN “Sustainable Environment” goals there, the Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development  that forms the basis of Klaus Schwab’s  Great Reset, as well as creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN. Strong, who was also a board member of Davos WEF, had arranged for Schwab to serve as a key adviser to the Rio Earth Summit.

As Secretary General of the UN Rio Conference, Strong also commissioned a report from  the Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King which admitted that the CO2 global warming claim was merely an invented ruse to force change:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [xi]

President Clinton’s delegate to Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted the same, stating,

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” [xii]

At Rio Strong first introduced the manipulative idea of “sustainable society” defined in relation this arbitrary goal of eliminating CO2 and other so-called Greenhouse Gases. Agenda 21 became Agenda 2030 in Sept 2015 in Rome, with the Pope’s blessing, with 17 “sustainable” goals. It declared among other items,

“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…Social justice, urban renewal, and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only ‘be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

In short private land ownership must become socialized for “society as a whole,” an idea well-known in Soviet Union days, and a key part of the Davos Great Reset.

At Rio in 1992 where he was chairman and General Secretary, Strong declared:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.”  [xiii] (emphasis added)

By that time Strong was at the very center of the transformation of the UN into the vehicle for imposing a new global technocratic “paradigm” by stealth, using dire warnings of planet extinction and global warming, merging government agencies with corporate power in an unelected control of pretty much everything, under the cover of “sustainability.” In 1997 Strong oversaw  creation of the action plan following the Earth Summit,  The Global Diversity Assessment, a blueprint for the roll out of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, an inventory of every resource on the planet, how it would be controlled , and how this revolution would be achieved.[xiv]

At this time Strong was co-chairman of Klaus Schwab’s Davos World Economic Forum. In 2015 on Strong’s death, Davos founder Klaus Schwab wrote,

“He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board.” [xv]

Before he left the UN over an Iraq Food-for-Oil corruption scandal, Strong was member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Rothschild Foundation.  Strong was also a director of the Temple of Understanding of the Lucifer Trust (aka Lucis Trust) housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City,

“where pagan rituals include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for blessing. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a sermon, as worshippers marched to the altar with bowls of compost and worms…” [xvi]

This is the dark origin of Schwab’s Great Reset agenda where we should eat worms and have no private property in order to “save the planet.” The agenda is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate  billions of us “ordinary humans.”

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

[i] Biographies of 1001 Nature Trust members, Gianni Agnelli, accessed in http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm

[ii] Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum: A Partner in Shaping History–The First 40 Years: 1971 – 2010, 2009, World Economic Forum, p. 15, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_First40Years_Book_2010.pdf

[iii] Quoted from Club of Rome Report, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, cited in http://www.greenagenda.com/turningpoint.html

[iv] Ibid.

[v] The Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, quoted in Brent Jessop,  Mankind at the Turning Point – Part 2 – Creating A One World Consciousness, accessed in http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=154

[vi] Maurice Strong, Opening Speech to UN Rio Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, 1992, accessed in http://www.infowars.com/maurice-strong-in-1972-isnt-it-our-responsibility-to-collapse-industrial-societies/

[vii] Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green: The Links between key environmental groups, government and big business, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1995, pp. 259-265.

[viii] Brian Akira, LUCIFER’S UNITED NATIONS, http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/religion_cults/news.php?q=1249755048

[ix] Elaine Dewar, op cit. p. 269-271.

[x] Ibid., p. 277.

[xi] What is Agenda 21/2030 Who’s behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/

[xii] Larry Bell, Agenda 21: The U.N.’s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The Clouds, Forbes, June 14, 2011, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/14/the-u-n-s-earth-summit-has-its-head-in-the-clouds/?sh=5af856a687ca

[xiii] John Izzard, Maurice Strong , Climate Crook, 2 December, 2015, https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

[xiv] What is Agenda 21/2030 Who’s behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/

[xv] Maurice Strong An Appreciation by Klaus Schwab, 2015, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/maurice-strong-an-appreciation

[xvi] Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The UN, Maurice Strong, Crestone/Baca, CO, and the “New World Religion”, September 2017, https://naturalclimatechange.org/new-world-religion/part-i/

Featured image is from The Unz Review

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Click here to order.

Il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Biden ha presentato un piano per “un cessate il fuoco duraturo” a Gaza. Esso prevede “il rilascio di tutti gli ostaggi” da parte di Hamas e allo stesso tempo “il ritiro delle forze israeliane da tutte le aree popolate di Gaza”. A questo punto “i civili palestinesi tornerebbero nelle loro case e nei loro quartieri in tutte le aree di Gaza”, ricevendo e “una accresciuta assistenza umanitaria da parte della comunità internazionale.” Inizierebbe quindi “la ricostruzione di Gaza da parte della comunità internazionale”.

In tal modo – sottolinea Biden – “Israele potrebbe integrarsi più profondamente nella regione, compreso un potenziale accordo storico di normalizzazione con l‘Arabia Saudita, entrando a far parte di una rete di sicurezza regionale per contrastare la minaccia rappresentata dall’Iran.” Chiaro scopo del piano è quello di colpire i BRICS di cui fanno parte Russia e Cina, nei quali l’Arabia Saudita è entrata insieme all’Iran, che USA e Israele considerano il loro più pericoloso nemico nella regione. Resta comunque il fatto – conclude Biden – che “Israele avrà sempre il diritto di difendersi dalle minacce alla sua sicurezza” e che “gli Stati Uniti faranno sempre in modo che Israele abbia ciò di cui ha bisogno per difendersi”.

Il piano di Biden è perfettamente funzionale alla strategia di guerra che gli Stati Uniti attuano in Medio Oriente. Esso mantiene l’asse strategico con Israele continuando a fornirgli i più avanzati sistemi d’arma e massicce quantità di munizioni, comprese quelle con cui Israele sta radendo al suolo Gaza. Allo stesso tempo prospetta una ricostruzione di Gaza – affidata alla “comunità internazionale”, ossia principalmente a Stati Uniti, Israele, Unione Europea e G7 – che, come specifica il piano presentato da Netanyahu, consisterebbe nel “ricostruire Gaza dal nulla” trasformandola in una “massiccia zona di libero scambio” con lussuosi grattacieli, impianti ecologici a energia solare e stabilimenti per la produzione di auto elettriche.

I palestinesi sopravvissuti, ritornati nelle loro case e nei loro quartieri, vi troverebbero solo macerie e non avrebbero più alcun reale diritto di proprietà. Ne seguirebbe un inevitabile esodo di massa, mentre quelli rimasti diverrebbero semplici dipendenti delle attività impiantate a Gaza dalla “comunità internazionale”. Verrebbe così cancellato il Territorio Palestinese di Gaza, insieme a quello della Cisgiordania, cancellando la Palestina come Stato.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

 

https://www.byoblu.com/2024/06/07/piano-biden-ricostruire-gaza-per-cancellare-la-palestina-grandangolo-pangea/

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The following is part of a transcript of an interview recorded this week. Find it here.

Mojmir Babacek is from Prague in the Czech Republic. He graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978, he signed “Chapter 77,” a document aiming to defend human rights in communist Czechoslovakia.

Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.  

Global Research interviewed him on June 6 to expand on his research in the area, and on what he has been trying to do to alert the public as to how the very mind itself may be controlled and manipulated by pulsed microwaves and low frequency electromagnetic radiation used without the knowledge or consent of the targeted individual.

Global Research: Okay, so first of all, could you give us a basic understanding of what exactly is happening physiologically to cause these neural weapons to affect the brain and nervous system?

Mojmir Babacek: Every action of neurons in the brain has chemical and electrical part. The actions differ by the number of firings of neurons and their frequencies. In this way, the brain is comparable to the computer because it works digitally.

Inside of the neuronal fibers is liquid, which is full of ions. Those are electrically charged particles, just the same like electrons in the conductive metals. The most important part in the activity of the human nervous system represents electrical currents, which are occurring as flows of those charged ions in the nerve fibers.

In 2014, Chinese scientists published the results of an experiment in which they searched for microwave conductivity of electrolyte solutions. In the introduction, they stressed that their experiment plays an important role in investigating the interaction between electromagnetic waves and biological tissues that have high water content and a significant concentration of ions. The experiment proved that this electrolyte is conductive for microwaves up to 20 GHz frequency.

If the microwaves are passed in the frequencies of the brain activity, which is from 1 to 100 Hz, they will trigger the spreading of the nervous signal in the nervous system. Now, if a human being is supposed to feel something or do something or think about something, it is necessary that the large quantities of neurons start firing in the same frequency. So, if the electrolytes in the nerve fibers are reached by microwaves, which are passed in the nervous activity frequencies, they will produce in the human being perceptions, emotions, thoughts or any kind of the activity of the human body, like salivation.

In this way, the electrolytes in the nervous tissue will function the same way as antennas in the radios and the human nervous system will be subjected to those passed microwaves targeting the human body. The MCS America organization, which fights against pollution, confirms this conclusion in its study on electromagnetic field sensitivity. The study states, the body can collect the signal and turn it into electric currents just like the antenna of a radio set or a cell phone.

The veracity of those explanations is confirmed by the experiment where 20 volunteers were exposed to the pulses of 217 Hz used in cell phone telephony. In the recordings of the electroencephalograms appeared electrical currents in the frequency of 217 Hz. It means that microwaves pulsed in 217 frequency produced the same frequency in the nervous systems of the volunteers.

In another experiment, cell phone microwaves pulsed in 11 to 15 Hz produced changes in the electroencephalogram during the sleep in 30 volunteers. Australian scientists in the other experiment presented a conclusion that not only could cell phone signals alter a person’s behavior during the call, the effects of the disrupted brainwave patterns continued long after the phone was switched off. The difference between pulsed microwaves and extra-long electromagnetic waves in frequencies from 1 to 100 Hz is that pulsed microwaves can be targeted on one person or the whole nation if the cell phone signals are pulsed in brain frequencies, while extra-long electromagnetic waves transmitted in brain frequencies with a length of up to 300,000 km will reach brains in large areas of the planet.

This is what American antenna system HAR, Prussian antenna system SURA and newly built Chinese system in Hainan province can do.

GR: Information beams can affect people’s thoughts by bypassing the conscious minds. Give me examples of the kinds of thoughts entering into people’s minds and the possible dangers to human rights that that encompasses.

MB: Robert Becker, who was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize for the work in this field of science, presents in his book Cross-Currents the report coming from the microwave research department at Walter Reed Army Institute where J.C. Sharp carried out an experiment with the transmission of words into the brain by radio-frequency radiation. The report presented this conclusion. Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation.

There were reports in the 70s that some woo-wear stores experimented with using subliminal messaging including ultrasonic messages embedded in the music played in their stores. These messages were intended to influence customer behavior such as reducing theft and encouraging purchases. That this method of subconscious programming can be produced by pulsed microwaves as well was described in the experiment by J.F. Shapitz.

This experiment, again, was published by the book Body Electric by Robert Becker, the scientist. The experiment was released voluntarily on basis of Freedom of Information Act, J.F. Shapitz stated. In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of hypnotist may be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into the subconscious parts of the human brain without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously.

In one of the four experiments subjects should have been given a test of 100 questions ranging from easy to technical ones. Later, not knowing that they were being irradiated they would be subjected to information beams suggesting the answers to the questions they had left blank amnesia for some of their correct answers and memory falsification of their correct answers. After two weeks they had to pass the test again.

The results of those experiments were never published for obvious reasons. People would be alarmed by such disclosure. When encoding human speech into pulse microwaves it is possible to transmit either audible or inaudible ultrasound messages into the human brain.

A human being cannot hear ultrasound messages but its brain perceives them and a person may consider those words to be his own thoughts and his or her behavior can be controlled and manipulated in this way.

GR: Could you comment on whether the secrecy behind this neuro-weapons technology might have been influenced by the collapse of another secret CIA program called MK-ULTRA?

MB: Yes, the report on the CIA MK-ULTRA subproject 94 issued in October 1996, you can read there. The feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated.

The project MK-ULTRA was cancelled due to the lawsuit of former patients of the Canadian mental hospital Alain Memorial Institute. There the CIA was experimenting with effects of chemicals and electricity on patients. When the former patients filed a lawsuit against CIA the CIA deleted their records on this program to hide the evidence against them.

The trouble was that they forgot to delete the financial records which were published later on. The research of electromagnetic manipulation of the activity of the human nervous system was apparently classified soon after the publication of Alain Frey’s experiment with transmission of sounds into human brains by pulsed microwaves.

GR: Where have you gotten indications of just how far the research has gotten if there is no official funding for open microwave bio-research?

MB: Several experiments with pulsed microwave effects on the human brain activity were published before the research was classified just like Alain Frey’s experiment.

Later on American newspapers and books have every now and then published some information on the classified research. In 2007 the Washington Post wrote about the Air Force experiment where barely intelligible sentences were transmitted into human brains by Air Force. In the 90s of the past century there was a long string of publications on mind control research in Russia due to the fact that Russian scientist Viktor Sedlecky published an article where he wrote that the psychotronic generators as he called it were used during the push against Gorbachev to manipulate the unit that should attack incumbent President Yeltsin’s residence.

GR: You also see artificial intelligence playing a role and you wrote a petition banning the use of artificial intelligence to control the human nervous system. What is it about AI that concerns you with regard to Euroweapons?

MB: Evidently the human brain is compatible with computers and in this way the computers can be used to manipulate the brain’s activity. So this is an evident connection of artificial intelligence to manipulation of human brains.

In the project of the American Army from 1994 this project comes with producing a computer simulation of personality for people who would oppose the United States.

GR: What can ordinary people do right now to halt this research and expose the studies that have been taking place?

MB: Information on this kind of weapons is suppressed in mass media most of the times and even in most of the alternative media in the world. So for that matter there are no masses of people who would know about them and for that same matter there is no massive opposition against their development and use.

For sure it is a vast effort to disseminate information about their existence and threat they pose to the humanity. With a massive knowledge about this danger those weapons could be declassified. It’s really a vast effort.

Otherwise it seems there is no way to stop this effort to control even the world population by those technologies. As well people can sign the petition on Change.org entitled BAN REMOTE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN NERVOUS SYSTEM. The link to the petition can be found at the end of my recent articles on Global Research.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Napoleon campaigned in Russia and was crushed.

The Western powers heavily intervened in Russia against the Bolsheviks (1918-21), only to face humiliation and see their own troops revolt.

US Troops in Vladivostovk, 1918

Hitler’s Germany attacked Russia and was destroyed.

Their glory is apparently envied now by Biden, Scholz, Macron, Stoltenberg, von der Leyen etc., perhaps the most decadent coterie of “leaders” of the West in its whole history.

Of very low intellectual quality, those persons probably they have just a very vague idea, if they have, of European history, which makes easier for them to repeat it.

The only problem is that we now possess nuclear weapons and a whole host of other technological means that did not exist before 1945.

This is why the new campaign risks becoming not just the Waterloo of the West, but the Waterloo of humanity, unless humanity is mobilized in a massive and dynamic way to prevent its destruction.

We explained in a previous article why the latest decisions of the United States and NATO dramatically increase the possibility of a global nuclear war since, as we explained, they overturn the most basic principles of “nuclear stability” established in the past by the US and the USSR. Even if we don’t go immediately to global nuclear war Russia and the NATO are two technologically very advanced countries. They can transform into hell the planet even before they go nuclear.

This is more than just a personal viewpoint. The President of the United States himself, Joe Biden, said repeatedly the same.

From the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, he has refused to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory, arguing that we want to help Ukraine, but not to provoke ‘World War III’.

The argument that we should not provoke World War III was ever-present in White House deliberations on Ukraine policy (see this) until the President surrendered to the “War Party” within the collective West and the US government. So either Biden doesn’t know what he says and what he does, which is very dangerous when the decisions concern the very survival of humanity, or he knows what he says and, for reasons he himself knows, he chooses to take the risk of World War III, that is, the destruction of humanity.

I understand that my writing may be hard for the reader to take at face value. Having followed somewhat systematically for many years the issues of nuclear arms control and East-West relations, I have highlighted in my articles the path that has gradually led us to where we are, and warned about the risks of establishing new US bases in my own country, where even the explosion of a ‘small’ tactical nuclear device can lead to a radiation disaster. One of the main US bases is in Alexandroupolis, in Northeastern Greece, and most of the time in Greece the winds are Northeastern. Thus, the radiation from Alexandroupolis can fast go to the Attica agglomeration, where half of the Greek population are living. No one responded to me with arguments, but I was met with a great deal of skepticism and criticism, for my supposed doomsday mentality. Confirmation does not bring me any joy and I am still praying that I won’t be confirmed any more.

The thing seems completely logical and completely absurd at the same time. The biggest barrier to understanding reality is the constraints of our imagination, as the great French geneticist Albert Jacquard once wrote. Most people have a mechanism for denying reality if we feel it exceeds us, the same as ostriches have. Unable to bear the stress of danger, or not knowing how to deal with it, we prefer not to see it. But the nightmare is here, it is in the external reality. And the only way to avoid it is to mobilise states and societies.

Rapid Escalation

In the three days since I wrote my previous article on the risk of nuclear war, a series of news reports have confirmed our conclusion that we are heading towards the most serious nuclear crisis in our history.

After Biden’s decision to allow the use of US weapons against targets on Russian territory, within three days, the French are preparing to send troops to Ukraine, the Germans are discussing the possibility of recruiting 900,000 reservists, the Dutch and the Danes say they have no problem if the F16s they give to Ukraine strike inside Russia. But these aircraft can carry nuclear weapons. In other words, the Russians will be under constant threat and uncertainty that they could be subject to a nuclear attack.

Increasing uncertainty can cause nuclear war by mistake, while facilitating a provocation. The existence of such weapons in Ukraine, where Zelensky now seems to be fully controlled not only by the West in general, but by the extremist “Party of War” within it, makes any provocation much easier, i.e. destabilizes the most crucial factor of nuclear stability.

It’s like a poker game where the opponents are constantly moving up in stakes. US weapons have already carried out deadly attacks in Belgorod, Russia. Russia, as Putin himself said, responded by carrying out an attack in the direction of Kharkiv.

So what do they think in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin? That they will keep escalating the intervention in Ukraine and Moscow will not respond? Or do they want it to respond, they want escalation, taking things to a nuclear conflict without taking themselves the responsibility of it?

The Russians, for their part, released a map of the bases where the United States has stored nuclear weapons in Europe and Putin made a special reference to small European states whose leaders do not understand what they are getting themselves into. Most European media did not even report this news.

What do you think? Where exactly is this whole thing going?

European States: Fatal and Spineless Puppets

The vast majority of European political personnel, directly dependent on NATO and the US services, as it seems, and of a low moral and intellectual level, are powerless to challenge decisions and plans that threaten to lead Europe and humanity to their end.

An honourable exception is the Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán (see this), whom many may not like for other issues, but who had the courage to clearly oppose the war plans and is now threatened from Brussels, the seat of a supposedly democratic and increasingly totalitarian, European Union, with the exclusion of Hungarians from all posts in the EU. There is also, of course, the left-wing Slovak Prime Minister Fico, even more radical in his criticism of NATO policy, but someone made sure he was sent to hospital.

Orban said that he has never witnessed such irresponsibility in his life as he has seen in Europe’s involvement in Ukraine, without even an assessment of the costs and means needed to achieve its objective goals. NATO is becoming a directly involved party in Ukraine and the chances of avoiding this are limited. He said that he is not prepared, however, to allow Brussels and Berlin to decide that they should send Hungarian soldiers to Ukraine and lead his country back into war against Russia, as Hitler did.

Another European statesman, the President of Bulgaria has warned that NATO’s policy is bringing us to Nuclear Armageddon.

The “European Army”

Last month, the leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), Weber said that he wants the introduction of compulsory service and the creation of a European Army, which would not be subject to the constraints of control by national governments. In other words, Brussels will directly send European soldiers to Ukraine without asking anyone.

At the same time, the idea of a “military Schengen” is being discussed, i.e. NATO troops being able to move into EU territory without consulting governments.

European leaders do not understand that what they are doing is probably a prelude to the third world war and they think of nuclear bombs as a “tactical deterrent tool”, not as something that will actually be used, but what may not seem likely at the start of a war could occur by its conclusion, as the Hungarian Prime Minister pointed out.

The Central Question

The Americans may hope that, even if a nuclear conflict occurs, it will be under control and confined to European territory. But such calculations are utterly foolish. If humanity crosses the threshold of using nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, it will be extremely difficult to control and contain, even to keep it on European soil. Most likely, once mankind crosses the nuclear threshold, it will be the end of mankind.

Ultimately, the question that political forces and societies in the West have to answer is this: Do we want to risk the very existence of humanity, clearly not for the sake of Ukraine or democracy, but to uphold the dominance of an ultra tiny minority over the planet and our own nations?

Is it not time to start thinking again like Roosevelt, the two Kennedys, De Gaulle, Willy Brandt, Olaf Palme, Aldo Moro, Andreas Papandreou? Where they all working for Moscow as agents? Is it not time for the people to mobilise?

Because, as Nikita Khrushchev and John Kennedy said, those who survive a nuclear war, the living, will envy those who have died.

*

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.

O regime de Kiev parece cada vez mais imerso na sua própria paranóia anti-russa, acusando os países soberanos de serem meros instrumentos do Kremlin. Num discurso recente, o presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky, afirmou que a China é uma ferramenta russa usada para impedir que outros países participem nas “negociações de paz” lideradas pelo Ocidente – embora não haja provas de que Pequim esteja a pressionar outros estados a recusarem participar nas “conversações suíças”.

A “cimeira de paz” organizada pelo regime neonazista e pelos seus parceiros na Suíça está a causar grandes atritos diplomáticos. Os países que se recusam a participar na conferência são criticados por Kiev como “fantoches russos”. Recentemente, num discurso numa conferência de segurança em Singapura, Zelensky acusou a China de ser uma “ferramenta” russa para alegadamente mobilizar países para ignorarem a cimeira suíça.

Além disso, Zelensky também acusou a China de fornecer “apoio de defesa” à Rússia, o que implica que Moscou receba armas chinesas na operação militar especial. Como esperado, Zelensky não forneceu nenhuma evidência para apoiar as suas afirmações.

“A Rússia, usando a influência chinesa na região, usando também diplomatas chineses, faz tudo para perturbar a cimeira de paz (…) É lamentável que um país tão grande, independente e poderoso como a China seja um instrumento nas mãos dos [russos] Presidente Vladimir] Putin (…) Não esperamos apoio militar da China. Nunca lhes pedimos (…) Mas não esperamos que a China forneça apoio militar à Rússia”, disse Zelensky.

Como é sabido, a Rússia e a China mantêm uma política de cooperação mútua ilimitada. Ambos os países estão integrados em todas as esferas, especialmente na econômica. A amizade bilateral entre a Rússia e a China é uma garantia da soberania de ambos os países face às constantes agressões, provocações e sanções ocidentais. Quanto mais a OTAN tenta isolar a Rússia e a China, mais ambos os países cooperam.

Esta amizade inclui também laços militares, tendo ambas as nações alguns acordos de cooperação em defesa. Ambos os países mantêm políticas como acordos militares-comerciais e treinamento conjunto. No entanto, dada a sua política soberana de neutralidade no conflito ucraniano, a China nunca demonstrou qualquer interesse em fazer avançar estes laços ao nível do fornecimento de armas para ações militares russas.

A falta de interesse da China está em linha com a falta de necessidade da Rússia. Tendo uma produção de armas extremamente eficiente e moderna, com o seu complexo industrial de defesa desenvolvendo-se cada vez mais, a Rússia não necessita de qualquer assistência internacional para conduzir a operação militar especial ou outras ações militares. Moscou tem armas suficientes para servir os seus interesses militares, razão pela qual não pede ajuda à China na sua operação na Ucrânia. As acusações de Zelensky são, portanto, mentiras irresponsáveis ​​e devem ser repudiadas.

Além disso, as acusações de que a China está a pressionar outros países a agirem contra a cimeira de “paz” também são infundadas. Pequim não fez qualquer declaração encorajando os seus parceiros a rejeitar a cimeira. A decisão de não participar na iniciativa faz parte da política externa soberana da China. A diplomacia de Pequim centra-se principalmente no comércio e nas boas relações com outros países, e não tem interesse em envolver-se em assuntos militares. Participar numa conferência de paz só é do interesse da China se o evento for reconhecido por ambos os lados – caso contrário, o país estaria aderindo aos interesses de um dos lados, rompendo com a sua neutralidade.

A conferência suíça é um fórum de discussão totalmente unilateral. A Rússia não foi convidada a participar, razão pela qual nenhuma resolução eficaz será alcançada na cimeira. Numa situação de conflito, as negociações de paz só são possíveis se tiverem em conta os interesses de ambos os lados – especialmente do lado vencedor, que é a Rússia. Se não houver discussões bilaterais, não há verdadeira diplomacia nem possibilidade de paz. Neste sentido, muitos países, como a China, consideraram as conversações na Suíça uma perda de tempo. Este entendimento não provém da amizade da China com a Rússia, mas da própria política externa soberana de Pequim, que se centra no comércio e não no militarismo.

Não é apenas a China que tem sido considerada uma “ferramenta” russa pelo regime de Kiev. Recentemente, um proeminente político ucraniano acusou os próprios EUA de serem um Estado fantoche russo porque Washington não tem interesse em participar nas conversações. Para a Ucrânia, qualquer país que demonstre uma posição soberana é uma “ferramenta” russa. Isto mostra os níveis avançados de intolerância e a verdadeira paranóia russofóbica entre os tomadores de decisões de Kiev.

No final, a decisão de não participar parece ser a mais razoável para todos os Estados soberanos. Depois de tantos fracassos diplomáticos, parece agora claro que a paz não será alcançada através de fóruns unilaterais, mas apenas através de uma vitória militar por parte da Rússia.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

 

Artigo em inglês :Kiev regime slams China due to its pro-peace stance, InfoBrics, 3 de Junho de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“Well I’m heavenly blessed and worldly wise

I’m a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes

Things are going great, and they’re only getting better

I’m doing alright, getting good grades

The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades”

– Timbuk 3, The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Mayworks Festival is a series of events throughout the month of May, exploring and celebrating workers lives, struggles and future aspirations. Included in the lineup is International Workers Day, or May Day, in which multiple locations around the planet proudly celebrate labour and the working class in parades and song. [2]

However, in 2024, with all the troops in the office, in the factory, in the field, in the streets taking their stands in the ultimate class war, one new figure has emerged and is poised to set the battle back in favour of the bosses. This stranger is new in town, but is easily identified by two letters: AI.

Artificial Intelligence, at least in its current form already threatens to take our jobs away from us. During the Viva Technology Conference in Paris a couple of weeks ago, billionaire Elon Musk asserted his conviction that Artificial Intelligence will ultimately eliminate the need for people to work.

“The question will really be one of meaning, of how — if a computer can do, and the robots can do everything better than you … does your life have meaning?…That really will be the question in that benign scenario, and in the negative scenario, all bets are off where we’re in deep trouble.” [3]

But these sorts of scenarios dreamed up by hype-ists don’t account for other far more sinister properties of AI. As it stands right now, this technology needs to be fed. And the basic components come from mining minerals, like cobalt and coltan. We have seen how the need to mine these components was linked to wide-spread genocides of millions of people in Congo. But a necessary price to pay for intelligent machines improving our lives? [4]

Worse, these devices are not just tools of “the bosses,” their first test drives at their origin were in the military. In particular, in Vietnam dedicated to the surveillance, planning, target acquisition, and destruction of Viet-cong infrastructure. The program was called Phoenix Program, referred to by a CIA officer after the war as “computerized mass murder.” [5]

Variations of this program were used decades later by the Israeli Defense Forces against occupied Palestine. Or in counter-insurgency operations in Latin America. Mechanized murder, courtesy of your “friendly neighbourhood AI.” [6]

The glow of this technological marvel is on the horizon, so bright we have to wear shades. And will soon have measurable impacts changing our lives forever. What should we do? How can we prepare for increased power and yet more limited alternatives? These are the themes we are exploring in the latest chapter of the Global Research News Hour.

In our first half hour, we speak to writer and teacher Dr. T. P. Wilkinson, author of the article Returning to the 11th Century: Before You Leave, Turn Out the Lights. He will share insights into artificial intelligence spawning from an early encounter with professor of computer science and early pioneer of AI Joseph Weizenbaum. He will chat about AI not escaping the design of its predecessors or of the mission ultimately as eliminating skilled labour.

In our second half hour, we are joined by science fiction author, blogger and activist Cory Doctorow who shares his view that the threat is imposed, ultimately not from AI itself, but from the system in which it is ensconced, and how we can still work collectively to repels its influence.

Finally, we share time with Mojmir Babacek, who has been active for decades trying to stop covert use of pulsed microwave radiation from affecting and actually controlling the minds of people without their consent! He speaks on this subject and the thought of AI manipulating this process.

Dr. T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Cory Doctorow is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently THE BEZZLE (a followup to RED TEAM BLUES) and THE LOST CAUSE, a solarpunk science fiction novel of hope amidst the climate emergency. His most recent nonfiction book is THE INTERNET CON: HOW TO SEIZE THE MEANS OF COMPUTATION, a Big Tech disassembly manual. In 2020, he was inducted into the Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame.

Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in  communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.  

(Global Research News Hour Episode 435)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Osteoarthritis (OA) is often described as a “wear and tear” disease because it typically involves the breakdown of joint cartilage due to repetitive use and load over time

However, the understanding of osteoarthritis has evolved, and it is now recognized as a more complex condition influenced by a combination of factors beyond just mechanical wear and tear

Growing recognition among medical professionals suggests osteoarthritis should be considered a systemic disease, not just a localized joint condition

Maintaining a healthy weight is a key part of osteoarthritis prevention; avoiding linoleic acid in seed oils can help you avoid obesity

Homemade bone broth is rich in collagen, making it a natural food to support joint health; collagen is a major component of cartilage, the tissue that’s degraded in OA

*

Osteoarthritis (OA), the most common form of arthritis, is a degenerative joint disease that affects 32.5 million U.S. adults.¹

Worldwide, about 595 million people are living with the condition, a 132% increase since 1990.²

Osteoarthritis occurs when the protective cartilage that cushions the ends of your bones wears down over time.

Although osteoarthritis can damage any joint, the knee joint is most frequently affected, followed by the hip and hand.³

While there’s no known cure for osteoarthritis, it typically progresses slowly.

This means you can take steps to reduce further damage from the disease, like avoiding obesity and making collagen-rich bone broth. Scientists are also working on methods for early detection, which would allow treatment to begin before joint damage occurs.

Osteoarthritis Is Often Diagnosed After the Damage Is Done

Osteoarthritis is typically diagnosed based on a combination of clinical symptoms, physical examinations and diagnostic tests, including X-rays. Key symptoms of osteoarthritis include:

• Joint pain and tenderness — Affected joints may hurt during or after movement.
• Stiffness — Joint stiffness may be most noticeable upon waking up in the morning or after a period of inactivity.
• Loss of flexibility — There may be a loss of flexibility in the affected joint.
• Grating sensation — You might feel a grating sensation or hear a popping or crackling sound, when you use the joint.
• Bone spurs — These extra bits of bone, which feel like hard lumps, can form around the affected joint.

Your doctor will ask about any such symptoms and how long you’ve had them, as well as whether you’ve had past injuries or engage in activities that could contribute to joint damage. For instance, according to the Osteoarthritis Action Alliance (OAAA):⁴

“Certain occupations (e.g., construction, healthcare, farming, law enforcement, first responders, military) involving prolonged standing, squatting, lifting, kneeling, and repetitive motion with resultant excessive mechanical stress on a joint, raises the risk of OA and can worsen symptoms.

Osteoarthritis and back pain are the most common diagnoses related to disability-caused separation from the military, both during periods of peacetime and war.

High impact professional sports (e.g., hockey, soccer, and football), where there is not only repetitive loading with excessive force, but also increased joint trauma puts players at risk of OA. In addition to elite-level athletes (soccer, long-distance running, weightlifting and wrestling), non-elite soccer athletes are also at risk of developing OA.”

X-rays are commonly used to diagnose osteoarthritis, as they can reveal changes in joint structure. The problem is that by the time osteoarthritis is visible on an X-ray, the joint is already damaged. Research suggests, however, that earlier diagnosis may be possible.

Blood Biomarkers May Reveal Osteoarthritis Eight Years Before X-Rays Can

Researchers from Duke University conducted a study to find blood markers that could predict the development of knee osteoarthritis in women before any joint damage is visible on X-rays.⁵ In a group of 200 women, they found that just six specific blood proteins were able to indicate a 77% chance of developing OA, up to eight years before it could be seen on X-rays.

Predicting OA based on these blood markers was more accurate than using age, body mass index (BMI) or reports of knee pain, all of which showed much lower accuracy (51% for age and BMI, 57% for knee pain). The findings suggest that the joint tissue may already be undergoing changes long before OA is visible on an X-ray, hinting at an ongoing inflammatory process or “OA continuum.”

Moreover, the majority of the blood proteins that indicated the potential onset of OA also suggested the possibility of OA getting worse. So, the early changes leading to OA and the worsening of OA once it’s begun may share similar underlying processes.

“This tells us that there is an osteoarthritis continuum,” lead study author Dr. Virginia Byers Kraus told The New York Times. “You’re already on an escalator that’s leading you up the path to symptoms and X-ray changes way before we thought.”⁶ One day, a blood test may be used to diagnose osteoarthritis in its early stages, when treatment may be able to stop joint damage from occurring.

Osteoarthritis Is Caused by More Than Wear and Tear

Osteoarthritis is often described as a “wear and tear” disease because it typically involves the breakdown of joint cartilage due to repetitive use and load over time. However, the understanding of osteoarthritis has evolved, and it is now recognized as a more complex condition influenced by a combination of factors beyond just mechanical wear and tear.

While excessive or abnormal forces on your joints can accelerate the breakdown of cartilage, biomechanical imbalances that place uneven stresses on your joints can also contribute. Further, although osteoarthritis is not a traditional inflammatory arthritis like rheumatoid arthritis, inflammation does play a role. Chemicals in the joint can cause inflammation and damage to the cartilage and surrounding structures. According to OAAA:⁷

“Osteoarthritis is not simply caused by ‘wear and tear’ of the joint but is rather a complex disorder characterized by molecular, anatomic and physiologic changes. As such a complex disease, there are a variety of risk factors — both modifiable and non-modifiable — that contribute to its onset and progression, some of which can be mediated with appropriate management strategies.”

There is growing evidence, for instance, linking metabolic syndrome — a cluster of conditions including high blood pressure, high blood sugar excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels — to an increased risk of osteoarthritis.⁸

Extra body weight also increases the stress on weight-bearing joints like the knees and hips, increasing osteoarthritis risk, but adipose (fat) tissue also produces inflammatory substances that may contribute to joint deterioration. In fact, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) defines osteoarthritis as:⁹

“A disorder involving movable joints characterized by cell stress and extracellular matrix degradation initiated by micro- and macro-injury that activates maladaptive repair responses including pro-inflammatory pathways of innate immunity.

The disease manifests first as a molecular derangement (abnormal joint tissue metabolism) followed by anatomic, and/or physiologic derangements (characterized by cartilage degradation, bone remodeling, osteophyte formation, joint inflammation and loss of normal joint function), that can culminate in illness.”

Age is also a primary risk factor, as the cumulative effects of use on your joints are often compounded by an age-related decrease in the body’s ability to heal and maintain tissue. Hormonal changes, particularly during menopause, also play a significant role in the development of osteoarthritis in women. Genetics may also predispose individuals to osteoarthritis, influencing the durability of cartilage and the body’s repair mechanisms.

Is Osteoarthritis a Systemic Disease?

Growing recognition among medical professionals suggests osteoarthritis should be considered a systemic disease, not just a localized joint condition. Writing in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, one team of scientists proposed renaming the disease “systemic OA” to move away from the perception that it’s focused solely on joints. They explained:¹⁰

“Its pathogenic mechanisms involve a variety of systemic conditions that contribute to joint damage. These include metabolic dysfunction, chronic low-grade inflammation, neuroplastic pain, and the influence of the central nervous system in the development of neuropathic pain.

Besides, OA can negatively affect other aspects of health, such as quality of life, reduced physical activity, social isolation, depression, and anxiety. OA can be considered a complex system in which pathological interactions involve not only obesity and metabolic dysfunction, but also fragility syndrome, sarcopenia, neurological complications, and systemic energy redistribution.”

This has implications for the way osteoarthritis is treated as well, since conventional treatment typically relies on support care, such as medications, physical therapy and heating pads.¹¹ Instead, the researchers noted that medical care for OA should be “more holistic and personalized.”¹²

In addition to considering individual factors like genetics, lifestyle must be addressed, and resolving obesity should be a primary treatment, along with maintaining muscle health to support the joints.

Tips for Osteoarthritis Prevention

Maintaining a healthy weight is a key part of osteoarthritis prevention. Reducing body weight if you’re overweight can decrease the stress on weight-bearing joints like hips and knees and lower inflammation levels associated with obesity. Obesity is also a leading cause of knee replacements. One Australian study of 56,217 patients showed that, of the patients who received a knee replacement due to osteoarthritis, 31.9% were overweight and 57.7% were obese.¹³

Consuming too much linoleic acid (LA) in seed oils is a primary factor driving the overweight and obesity epidemics. At a molecular level, excess LA consumption also damages your metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria.

Examples of seed oils high in LA include soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower. To limit LA in your diet, you’ll need to avoid most processed foods.

Injury prevention is also important, as it’s estimated that up to 12% of OA cases result from injuries caused by automobile or military accidents, falls or sports.¹⁴ “Proper precautions such as stretching and strengthening exercises, appropriate footwear and other devices, along with supportive workplace or athletic team policies, can help reduce onset and progression of OA in occupational and sports settings,” OAAA notes.

Consuming specific anti-inflammatory and healing foods is another strategy to support overall health and osteoarthritis prevention. Cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower and cabbage, for instance, contain a compound called sulforaphane, which also helps reduce the risk of osteoarthritis,¹⁵ in part by blocking enzymes that are linked to joint destruction.

A team of researchers from the University of East Anglia published a study in the journal Arthritis and Rheumatism that showed substances in cruciferous vegetables could slow the progression of osteoarthritis, or possibly prevent it.¹⁶

Sulforaphane did this by inhibiting metalloproteinases that have been implicated in the development and progression of osteoarthritis. The researchers found it also blocked inflammation to protect against cartilage destruction both in the lab and animal models.

Other natural compounds, like turmeric, are useful for relieving osteoarthritis pain. A 2021 randomized trial compared turmeric against paracetamol, a painkiller also known as acetaminophen.

Bioavailable turmeric extract was as effective as paracetamol against osteoarthritis pain and symptoms in the knee and was safe and more effective in reducing tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha) and C-reactive protein (CRP).¹⁷ Acupuncture is another natural strategy that’s useful for pain relief and improving function in osteoarthritis.¹⁸

Bone Broth for Joint Health

Considering the underlying pathological processes leading to osteoarthritis start long before its symptoms, taking steps to support your joint health early on makes sense. One way to do this is by making homemade bone broth. Bone broth is made by simmering animal bones and connective tissue, which releases collagen and other nutrients into the broth.

Collagen is a major component of cartilage, the tissue that’s degraded in OA. While there are plenty of collagen supplements on the market, bone broth is by far the least expensive option. Collagen accounts for about 30% of the total protein in your body.

One of its primary functions is to provide structural support and strength to your tissues, such as skin, bones, tendons, ligaments and cartilage,^19,20,21 allowing them to stretch while still maintaining tissue integrity. As such, collagen is crucial for repairing soft tissue, muscle and connective tissue, all of which tend to get weaker and less elastic with age.

Further, bone broth may help reduce joint pain and stiffness,²² including osteoarthritis pain.²³ It helps reduce joint pain and inflammation, in part, courtesy of chondroitin sulfates, glucosamine and other compounds extracted from the boiled down cartilage.

To make homemade bone broth, simply place bones in an Instant Pot, fill the pot with pure, filtered water — just enough to cover the bones — add salt and other spices to taste, then set it to cook on high for two hours if the bones are from a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) or four hours if organic and grass fed.

Using bones from CAFO beef can be problematic due to potential heavy metal contamination. So, when cooking these bones in the Instant Pot, it’s best to limit the time to two hours to avoid introducing heavy metals into your broth.

If you’re using beef bones from grass fed organic sources, you can safely cook them for four hours. Using bones from an organic source is even more important if you’re using chicken, as CAFO chickens tend to produce stock that doesn’t gel,²⁴ which raises questions about the quality of the collagen you’re getting.

You can further customize your bone broth to align with specific health goals and nutritional needs. For instance, if you’re looking to support joint health, consider adding other ingredients that are rich in collagen such as chicken feet to maximize the health benefits.

*

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 Osteoarthritis Action Alliance, OA Prevalence and Burden

² The Lancet Rheumatology September 2023

³ WHO, Osteoarthritis July 14, 2023

^4, 7, 9 Osteoarthritis Action Alliance, OA Pathogenesis and Risk Factors

⁵ Science Advances April 26, 2024, Volume 10, Issue 17

^6, 11 The New York Times May 2, 2024 (Archived)

⁸ J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024 Mar 14:dgae169. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae169. Online ahead of print

^10, 12 Aging Clin Exp Res. 2024; 36(1): 45

¹³ ANZ Journal of Surgery, 2022;92(7-8)

¹⁴ Osteoarthritis Action Alliance, OA Prevention

¹⁵ CNN Health August 29, 2013

¹⁶ Arthritis & Rheumatism 2013;65(12)

¹⁷ Trials, 2021;22(105)

¹⁸ Annals of Internal Medicine 2004 Dec 21;141(12):901-10

¹⁹ Bone 2010 Mar;46(3):827-3

²⁰ PLoS One 2014 Jun 13;9(6):e99920

²¹ J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Jan 27;58(2):835-41

²² Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 May;24(5):1485-96

²³ Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 November; 22(11):2221-32

²⁴ Weston A. Price January 1, 2000

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

With the COVID-19 crisis many of us where caught by surprise and before we knew it we were masked, businesses were closed, government checks were printed, and mass vaccination centers were flooded with well-intended citizens. We learned that the intentional amplification of fear, suppression of early treatment, and vaccine-only message from the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex was a strategy to herd the world into global mass indiscriminate genetic vaccination.

Next came monkeypox. Another global, US, and public health emergency. This time we were out in the media well ahead of the complex describing how the zoonotic illness had adopted a gay/bisexual human-to-human spread pattern. We also had wonderful success with the IV and oral drug, tecovirimat. This took all the wind out of the sails of a public monkeypox mass vaccination campaign.

With the prior two outbreaks still present but grip of fear lost, now comes bird flu or highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza. Listen to how this long-format interview develops with red-beard David Gornoski on A Neighbor’s Choice. He shows independent media readily understands what is going on and is not fooled for a minute. When I was on with him, I could not help but think about Oliver Anthony and his hit song Rich Men from Richmond.

The question on the table is: will independent media be sufficiently penetrant to deflate this bird flu false narrative and like monkeypox, allow this one to be a glancing blow and not a full frontal public health assault?

*

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

I know we don’t expect good faith commitments from Israel, but believe it or not, we have other options. The Biden administration charged CIA Director Bill Burns with negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

Wonder of wonders, he succeeded. In cooperation with the Qatari and Egyptian mediation teams, and in communication with the Israeli and Hamas negotiating teams he finally concluded a detailed settlement that was submitted to both sides.

Now before I go any further, do you think that Director Burns, representing Israel’s staunchest ally, would create a ceasefire agreement that is unacceptable to the Israeli negotiating team? But it was Hamas that responded first, with complete approval. Take a look at what Burns and the other teams – including the Israeli team – created, and which Hamas approved. Does it look unreasonable to you?

Biden’s proposal – to date not supported by the white supremacist regime headed by war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – would be carried out in three phases: The first phase would be a six-week ceasefire and the return of women, children and other Israelis held in Gaza; the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel; withdrawal of Israeli troops from populated areas of Gaza; and for Israel to release 600 trucks of humanitarian aid to be carried into Gaza daily. 

The second phase would be a permanent ceasefire leading to a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, along with the release of all remaining Israelis held in Gaza. The third phase would be a 3-5 year period of internationally funded reconstruction of Gaza and the establishment of a non-Hamas Palestinian government.  

Response from Hamas

The effort exerted by our brother mediators in Egypt and Qatar aimed to achieve a ceasefire, end the “israeli” aggression on Gaza, and withdraw the forces. We had a clear position and responded positively to these efforts and mediation. We accepted the final proposal presented by the mediators, which had U.S. approval. The U.S. side failed to oblige the “israeli” side and convince them to agree to the [early May] paper, leading to the collapse of all these efforts that were built. 

Today, Biden announced ideas that we viewed positively. We said these ideas are not enough; we need a complete agreement because the details from the “israeli” side have always been a source of constant crisis, whether in the ceasefire and the “israeli” desire for it not to be permanent, or in the withdrawal and the “israeli” attempt to remain in specific locations in Gaza, or even in the [prisoner] exchange process. 

The statement and the call from the U.S. president to reach an agreement is positive, but agreements cannot be achieved through mere hopes. We need clear texts that achieve what we want and what we have said, and that the “israelis” accept openly and explicitly, not in an evasive manner, or in a way that allows them to evade any commitment. 

Principles alone are not enough to reach an agreement. They are a roadmap, but not the picture we can agree upon. We want a complete ceasefire; this was proposed by President Biden, but how? What is the timing and mechanism? We want a complete withdrawal from Gaza. This must be specified within clearly defined steps. We also want comprehensive shelter and relief for Gaza, reconstruction, and an end to the siege. We want a fair exchange deal. All these details must be agreed upon. 

I expected President Biden to adopt the paper that was presented to Hamas at the beginning of last May as a paper from the mediators, which was approved by his mediator in the negotiation, CIA Director William Burns. The statement reflects a serious attempt by the mediators to reach an agreement. We need to see precisely what is being proposed and what the “israeli” position truly is.

‘There is no initiative’

We have not received anything specific yet, and we are not about to return to square one for negotiations. There is a proposal presented to the mediators. 

I believe the statement can be a prelude to re-presenting the same proposal to the “israeli” side, and that the “israelis” will accept it. There is no initiative; President Biden spoke about ideas. General ideas do not mean reaching an understanding. It is a general framework, and many details have been discussed over the past four months. The talk about the mediators’ desire to reach an agreement is good and acceptable. 

Hamas did not hesitate and made the decision when it agreed to the paper presented by the mediators. The role now is for the mediators to pressure the “israeli” side to accept the same proposal, which I believe achieved what President Biden proposed in principle. Hamas announced its acceptance of what the mediators presented, and ““israel” did not agree. They announced their rejection. 

The side that has been intransigent over the past months is the “israeli” side, which met Hamas’s acceptance and the mediators’ efforts with an invasion of Rafah and the occupation of the Philadelphia Route and Rafah Crossing. 

The “israeli” side needs to explicitly and clearly announce its commitment to reaching an agreement that achieves a comprehensive ceasefire, a complete withdrawal from Gaza, unrestricted entry of relief for sheltering and aiding the displaced, reconstruction of Gaza, lifting the siege, and achieving a fair prisoner exchange deal. 

What Netanyahu wrote on X confirms that the intransigence is “israeli,” and that the efforts of the intermediaries were always thwarted by the “israeli” side. We are not insisting on conditions but on a proposal presented by the mediators, and we accepted it. 

I believe the pressure should be directed towards the “israeli” side, which has thwarted all efforts so far. President Biden’s statements have so far been met with “israeli” rejection. The Palestinian resistance remains committed to its stance. It made the decision, while Netanyahu continues to obstruct all efforts, refuses to accept the ceasefire, and disrupts them.

—Taken from Workers World, 4 June 2024

And what was Israel’s response? It invaded Rafah within hours of the Hamas acceptance, seized and closed the only remaining crossing for humanitarian relief supplies, and rejected the agreement that had been negotiated on their behalf. What is the definition of perfidy?

Israel has made its choice. No ceasefire. Level Gaza to the ground. Slaughter the civilian population and deny them food, water, medical care and everything needed to sustain life until they are gone, one way or another.

Image: The Givati Brigade in Eastern Rafah (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

That’s Israel’s criminal choice, as ruled by the International Court of Justice, with whose injunction to cease and desist Israel has not made the slightest attempt to comply. As long as Israel has the US on its side, enabling, aiding and abetting its genocide with massive arms and economic aid as well as direct participation through military and intelligence advice and expertise, Israel feels no need to comply. It’s a choice that the post-WWII Nuremberg trials were supposed to prevent and deter forever.

But what about the US choice? If we want a ceasefire, do we not have the power to make it happen?  Why can’t we just shove it down Israel’s throats by cutting off every penny of every type of aid that we are giving them? It worked for Eisenhower in 1956. 

You know as well as I do why not. It’s because Eisenhower was a strong, widely respected leader who made decisions that could be enforced. Biden is a ridiculous figure that is at best a thug, relying on other other thugs like the Israel Lobby, the military-industrial complex (about which Eisenhower warned) and the oil industry to prop him up. These thugs have our politicians (not to say our entire country) by the bowls. They rule for their own pleasure. Biden and the Democrats can’t budge without their permission, and neither can Trump and the Republicans. 

Absolute monarch Louis XIV of France is reported to have said, “l’état, c’est moi” (the state, that’s me”). Apparently, today, the state is the Israel Lobby. No one dares to defy it. Ask those who lost their political careers trying to do so. Ask Cynthia McKinney. Ask Earl Hilliard. Ask Paul Findley. Ask Dennis Kucinich. 

Is that our destiny? To be under the thumb of fanatics willing to commit genocide against millions of people who have only been trying to have their own sovereign country on their own land for the last hundred years? Are we destined to be governed by a foreign power rather than our own will? If so, perhaps it’s time for the American people to pick up their torches and pitchforks and head for their own Bastille (which may be in Tel Aviv), and get themselves free.

*

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 author’s Substack, Paul’s Substack.

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. 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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The October 1962 Missile Crisis that kept humanity in suspense ended with the signing by Kennedy and Khrushchev of the Nuclear Test Suspension Agreement (1962), which included the withdrawal of Russian missiles into Cuban territory in exchange for the withdrawal of US missiles stationed in Turkey, appearing in its small print the sine qua non condition of “no US invasion of the island”.

This agreement has protected Cuba for 60 years from a US invasion, establishing as a counterpart the figure of the “blockade” that has remained in force to date. In addition, the automatic renewal by the United States for another year of the trade embargo on the island would threaten the current international financial and political system and could mean losses for Cuba estimated at about $7 billion.

The utopia would be the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States, the final destination of a journey marked by the necessary (termination of the energy blockade) and the possible (suspension of the anachronistic blockade) to what seemed impossible (normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States).

Joe Biden and the Failed Color Revolution

Joe Biden in an interview with CBS said that “in the event of winning the elections would resume the policy carried out by Barack Obama towards Cuba”, which could translate in the medium future into a sensitive change in Cuban relations -and in this context, the request of the think tank Cuba Study Group (CSG) to the Biden Administration for “a renewed diplomatic commitment to Cuba” would be framed. This analysis group chaired by businessman Carlos Saliigas would represent the moderate trend of the Cuban-American community and would be composed of prominent businessmen and political activist who actively participated in improving relations with Cuba during the Obama presidency.

The road ahead was marked by the challenges of ending the energy blockade of the island, Cuba’s withdrawal from the list of “States Sponsoring Terrorism”, the repeal of the Hemls-Burton Act and finally, the suspension of the anachronistic blockade in force since 1962. that would give way to the exchange of ambassadors and the desired normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States.

Despite Joe Biden’s hopeful statements about his intention to redirect relations with Cuba, in an interview with CNN, Joe Biden’s adviser for Latin America, the Colombian Juan González, ruled out a new thaw with Cuba and assured that “Joe Biden is not Barack Obama in the policy towards the Island” while adding that “the political moment has changed significantly.” These statements would have been corroborated by Biden’s express support for the recent riots that would be the tip of the iceberg of the new Color Revolution promoted by the CIA by declaring that “we join the Cuban people and their resounding call for freedom,” riots that ended up dissolving into nothing.

New Crisis of the Missiles?

Several NATO countries have advocated the need to allow Ukraine to use weapons supplied by the West so that it can attack military targets on Russian territory from where that country is conducting its offensive against the border city of Kharkiv and Russia, for its part, has warned against this and denounced “that it will involve an “unpredictable escalation of the conflict”.  

In this new context, the geopolitical myopia of the Biden Administration to continue with the endemism of the blockade and impose new sanctions on prominent Cuban leaders could generate a vacuum of unpredictable results in the midst of Cold War 2.0 between the US and Russia that could end up drawing a new geopolitical cartography in the Caribbean. Thus, Russia would be negotiating to install its military bases with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Seychelles and Singapore with the unequivocal objective of expanding the Russian military radio.

Thus, as reported to the Russian news agency Sputnik by the Head of the Defense Committee of the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, Victor Borndarev, “the establishment of a Russian military base in Cuba in a context of increasing US aggression, would respond to National Security interests”, and the Kennedy-Khrushchev Missile Crisis could be revived (October, 1962) and the subsequent signature with Khrushchev of the Nuclear Test Suspension Agreement (1962).

*

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.

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

Featured image: Jupiter on its launch pad (From the Public Domain)

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Moshe Yatom, a prominent Israeli psychiatrist who successfully cured the most extreme forms of mental illness throughout a distinguished career, was found dead at his home in Tel Aviv yesterday from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. A suicide note at his side explained that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been his patient for the last nine years, had “sucked the life right out of me.”

“I can’t take it anymore,” wrote Yatom.

“Robbery is redemption, apartheid is freedom, peace activists are terrorists, murder is self-defense, piracy is legality, Palestinians are Jordanians, annexation is liberation, there’s no end to his contradictions. Freud promised rationality would reign in the instinctual passions, but he never met Bibi Netanyahu. This guy would say Gandhi invented brass knuckles.”

Psychiatrists are familiar with the human tendency to massage the truth to avoid confronting emotionally troubling material, but Yatom was apparently stunned at what he called the “waterfall of lies” gushing from his most illustrious patient. His personal diary details the steady disintegration of his once invincible personality under the barrage of self-serving rationalizations put forth by Netanyahu.

“I’m completely shocked,” said neighbor Yossi Bechor, whose family regularly vacationed with Yatom’s family. “Moshe was the epitome of the fully-integrated personality and had cured dozens of schizophrenics before beginning work on Bibi. There was no outward indication that his case was any different from the others.”

But it was. Yatom grew increasingly depressed at his complete lack of progress in getting the Prime Minister to acknowledge reality, and he eventually suffered a series of strokes when attempting to grasp Netanyahu’s thinking, which he characterized in one diary entry as “a black hole of self-contradiction.”

The first of Yatom’s strokes occurred when Netanyahu offered his opinion that the 911 attacks on Washington and New York “were good.” The second followed a session in which Netanyahu insisted that Iran and Nazi Germany were identical. And the third occurred after the Prime Minister declared Iran’s nuclear energy program was a “flying gas chamber,” and that all Jews everywhere “lived permanently in Auschwitz.” Yatom’s efforts to calm Netanyahu’s hysteria were extremely taxing emotionally and routinely ended in failure.

“The alibi is always the same with him,” complained another diary entry. “The Jews are on the verge of annihilation at the hands of the racist goyim and the only way to save the day is to carry out one final massacre.”

Yatom was apparently working on converting his diary into a book about the Netanyahu case. Several chapters of an unfinished manuscript, entitled “Psychotic On Steroids,” were found in his study. The excerpt below offers a rare glimpse at the inner workings of a Prime Minister’s mind, at the same time as it reveals the daunting challenge Yatom faced in seeking to guide it to rationality:

Monday, March 8

“Bibi came by at three for his afternoon session. At four he refused to leave and claimed my house was actually his. Then he locked me in the basement overnight while he lavishly entertained his friends upstairs. When I tried to escape, he called me a terrorist and put me in shackles. I begged for mercy, but he said he could hardly grant it to someone who didn’t even exist.”

*

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.

Michael K. Smith is the author of “Portraits of Empire” and “The Madness of King George,” from Common Courage Press. He can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image source

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Dr. Scott Morrison died May 22, 2024 at age 56 

Dr. Robin Harwood died May 9, 2023 at age 55

Dr. Scott Wilson died March 28, 2023 at age 56

All three worked at the same Sault Area Hospital in Ontario, Canada. 

NEWS: Hospital community mourning death of ‘fantastic’ anesthetist 

‘We all feel like we’ve lost a friend’: Dr. Scott Morrison died suddenly last week at the age of 56, the third Sault Area Hospital anesthetist to pass away in the last 13 months

Darren Taylor, May 27, 2024 9:10 PM

Sault Area Hospital staff are mourning the death of Dr. Scott Morrison.

The anesthesiologist died suddenly last Wednesday at the age of 56.  

Morrison’s death comes as a shock.

“He was certainly active. He swam regularly, he did paddle board sports. It was just out of the blue,” said Dr. Phil Dopp, SAH chief of anesthesia, in a phone interview with SooToday.

Morrison had practiced as a full-time anesthetist at SAH since 2014.

“Everybody was shocked. He was 56 and he was well. People had seen him the day before and were talking to him. It’s just shocking. It’s unbelievable,” Dopp said.

Morrison was popular with SAH staff.

“He was a lot of fun. He got along well with everybody. He was friendly. I got a call from one of his students that we had 10 years ago saying: ‘Oh my gosh, I just heard. Dr. Morrison kept in touch with me.’ He certainly made lots of connections with the people he worked with and maintained those relationships,” Dopp said.

Morrison’s expertise was appreciated by both surgeons and patients.

“He provided excellent anesthesia care. The patients liked him. His knowledge was fantastic. The surgeons routinely said: ‘Scott gave such a great anesthetic.’ He was professional with his patients. People were always very happy when they had him. He had a very good demeanour. Obviously the time right before surgery is a stressful period of time for patients and he was able to put people at ease. We have two minutes to gain their trust (before going into the operating room), to put them at ease, and he did a great job at that,” Dopp said.

Morrison is the third SAH anesthetist to die in the past 13 months.

Dr. Robin Harwood died of cancer May 9, 2023 at the age of 55.

Dr. Scott Wilson’s death at ARCH was announced in April 2023.

“That’s three people in their 50s in the last 13 months. To lose three in just over a year is statistically abnormal,” Dopp said.

“To think that another anesthetist in Sault Ste. Marie passed away at a young age — without being sick — everybody was shocked and saddened. We’re a close knit group in the operating room. We all feel like we’ve lost a friend.”

Morrison’s death reduces the number of anesthetists at SAH down to six, five of them full time.

“Ideally we’d have eight or nine people,” Dopp said.

Dopp said SAH continues to do its best to keep up with the surgical workload with the help of locums.

“It’s a challenge. You need an anesthetist for every OR, so if you don’t have them you just can’t run an OR. Given that we were short for the last two years because my two other colleagues had cancer and they were off for about a year before they passed away, we developed a great locum pool in the last couple of years. We’ve probably had about 15 locums, with eight to 10 coming fairly regularly. We’ve had to cancel very few ORs. We plan to run four operating rooms per day and we’ve had to cancel very few operating rooms.”

SAH has moved quickly to adapt following Morrison’s death.

“After Dr. Morrison I was able to get somebody to cover these next two weeks and throughout the summer it looks like we’re going to be able to cover most of his weeks. Right now it doesn’t look like we’re going to impact in a negative way but it’s always up in the air because you’re hoping you find a locum for this week or that week,” Dopp said.

SAH continues its recruitment efforts in the search for more anesthetists. 

“We’ve been recruiting for the last two years. There is someone starting at the end of June. We were getting very close to being full complement but now we’re going to be short again. There are some people interested but haven’t committed to moving to the Sault yet. Certainly we’re going to continue working with the Recruitment and Retention Committee to see what they can do to help us,” Dopp said.

“We’re very sad about the untimely passing of Dr. Scott Morrison. Physicians and staff sorely miss him. We’re all grieving the loss,” said Dr. John Heintzman, SAH chief of staff at Monday’s SAH board meeting.

Morrison’s obituary was published by SooToday May 24 and can be seen here.

My Take…

The Canadian Medical Association has been covering up the sudden deaths of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Canadian doctors since my first letter to them on Sep. 3, 2022.

After my October 15, 2022 letter, the CMA proceeded to delete all Canadian doctor deaths from 2021 and prior, from their “In Memoriam” website (I believe this was done so Canadians could not compare 2022 deaths to prior years).

At the start of 2023 they deleted all their 2022 entries as well.

They would end up deleting over 1190 Canadian Doctor death entries from their website (we downloaded them all). I documented this in a 3 hour testimony to the National Citizen’s Inquiry.

In 2021 Canadian doctors had excess mortality of +33%, and by 2022 it rose to +53%. 

Other Statistical Anomalies for Canadian Docs:

2022 – McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada – three medical residents died in the summer of 2022.

To my knowledge, I am not aware of any other Medical School losing three residents to sudden death in such a short period of time.

 

 

2022 – Trillium Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario – four doctors from the same Hospital died of Cancer within a span of 3 weeks.

 

 

These types of statistical anomalies should not be mathematically possible.

To me, this hints at the possibility that the deaths are going to get much worse.

*

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.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

“We designed mRNA to kill” – CIA Whistleblower?

Peter Koenig, June 5, 2024

To Avoid Nuclear War, Putin Needs to be a Little Crazier

Mike Whitney, June 3, 2024

Could US Have Used a “Kill Switch” to Assassinate President Raisi?

Drago Bosnic, June 3, 2024

“We have to Deal with the Anti-Vaxxers” says Keir Starmer. Next UK PM? With the Endorsement of the WEF

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 2, 2024

After 3 Years of Censorship; Mainstream Media Now Confirms that COVID Jabs “May be to Blame for Increase in Excess Deaths”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 5, 2024

Watching Washington Foment Nuclear War

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 3, 2024

Cognitive Warfare, Mental Manipulation and the Tyranny of Digital Transformation

Jesse Smith, June 1, 2024

Unbecoming American: Tucker Carlson with Jeffrey Sachs

Dr. T. P. Wilkinson, June 3, 2024

Were “High State Operatives” Complicit in the Attack on Robert Fico and the Death of Ebrahim Raisi?

Michael Welch, May 31, 2024

Russia’s Victory Over Ukraine Is Drawing Near. Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter, June 5, 2024

British Media Report Confirms Skyrocketing Excess Deaths in All Highly COVID-19 Vaccinated Countries

Dr. William Makis, June 5, 2024

Persecution Against Scott Ritter Shows US Not Democracy Anymore

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, June 5, 2024

Wikipedia: The Failed Experiment to Democratize Knowledge. “Character Assassinations,” Censorship, an Instrument of Global Corporatism

Richard Gale, June 5, 2024

The Free Masons “Knights” of the American Revolution. The Rothschilds’ Federal Reserve

Dean Henderson, June 5, 2024

“The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”.

Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 4, 2024

Died Suddenly: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Mandates Continue to Kill First Responders

Dr. William Makis, May 31, 2024

Germany Strikes Back Against the U.S. Attempt to Hide the Existence of Mind Control Technologies

Mojmir Babacek, June 2, 2024

100 Cases of Sudden and Unexpected Deaths While Sleeping

Dr. William Makis, June 4, 2024

Video: Archbishop Carlo Vigano. A False Pandemic and The Imposition of A False Vaccine. A Criminal Plan of World Depopulation

His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, June 2, 2024

This incisive article on the repeal of civil liberties and freedom of speech in America was first published by Global Research in August 2006,  almost 18 years ago. 

It brings to forefront of debate the ongoing road map towards “Police State America”.

Civil liberties are being arbitrarily repealed. There is a crackdown on freedom of information.

The Lie has become the Truth.

A fear campaign is accompanied by media propaganda.

Under the Biden administration, there is a process of social submission to higher authority.

The derogation of fundamental rights is being carried out Worldwide.

Those who question the legitimacy of government policies including the lockdown, the vaccine and the engineered disruption of economic activity are branded as “conspiracy theorists”. 

Is Martial Law Contemplated? 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 16, 2023, June 7, 2024

 

***

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.  

The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently  reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

” These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.

“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe”

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops  in a national emergency.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal ” one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.”

The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of  ” a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe” in the United States.

Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the people demanding the truth.

REX 84 AND FEMA

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

MINDFULLY, 2004 – There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners.

They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. . . The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.

FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners.

Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold thousands of  people.

The 80th Anniversary of the D-Day Landing. It Was the Red Army Which Liberated Auschwitz. “Operation Bagration” (Summer 1944)

By Dr. Leon Tressell, June 06, 2024

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine there has been an increased tempo of attempts to rewrite the history of World War Two by Western media and politicians. At an event to commemorate the 80^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this year, the President of the EU Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, never even mentioned that it was the Red Army which liberated the death camp.

Iraqi Mediation Efforts Between Turkey and Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, June 07, 2024

Turkey had been backing armed groups that were fighting in the failed US-NATO war in Syria for regime change which began in 2011 by President Obama. Erdogan publicly announced in 2022 that ousting Assad was no longer his government’s goal in Syria.

NYT Admits US Long-range Weapons Already Attacking Russia, Putin Vows Response

By Drago Bosnic, June 07, 2024

According to the New York Times, the Kiev regime is already using US-sourced long-range missiles for this very purpose. NYT’s June 4 report admits this comes “just days after the Biden administration granted permission for Ukraine to fire American weapons into Russia”.

Religious Diversity of the Middle East

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, June 07, 2024

The Middle East is commonplace from which three global religions originated: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three confessions recognize the Prophet, Abraham.  

Land of the Free? Better Watch What You Say and To Whom. The Confiscation of Scott Ritter’s Passport

By Philip Giraldi, June 07, 2024

Many individuals who actually care about the United States Constitution and its guarantee of basic liberties for the American people have been seriously concerned over how recent Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have taken steps to control and limit the rights of citizens to exercise free speech as well as freedom to travel and associate freely.

Video: Russia Aims to Cripple Ukraine’s Military as Putin Launches Major Offensive. Jacques Baud

By Jacques Baud and Nima R. Alkhorshid, June 06, 2024

On 17 February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass had increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show.

The WHA Adopted Amendments to the IHR. What Now? “The WHA Got What They Wanted”. James Roguski

By James Roguski and Dr. Mark Trozzi, June 06, 2024

For many months we have been actively working to stop the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments from passing at the 77^th World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting in Geneva last week. That meeting has now come and gone.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said on May 31, his government was working on reconciliation between Ankara and Damascus.

“God willing, we will see some steps in this regard soon,” Sudani told a Turkish broadcast media, adding that he was in contact with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in regards to reconciliation efforts.

Turkey had been backing armed groups that were fighting in the failed US-NATO war in Syria for regime change which began in 2011 by President Obama. Erdogan publicly announced in 2022 that ousting Assad was no longer his government’s goal in Syria. The first high-level direct talks between the two countries, brokered by Russia the same year, were not successful because Damascus demanded an end to the Turkish military occupation of Syria as a prerequisite to restoring diplomatic ties.

Sudani visited Damascus last July, and Erdogan visited Baghdad last month, while also last month the Iraqi premier held security talks with Syria’s interior minister, Muhammad al-Rahmoun, in Baghdad.

Sudani said the security of both Iraq and Syria are threatened by areas in Syria “that are not controlled by the Syrian government.” The province of Idlib is controlled by HTS, formerly the Al Qaeda branch in Syria, Turkey occupies areas of the border north of Aleppo, and the US occupies areas in the northeast and the border with Iraq. Sudani is identifying HTS, Turkey, and the US as threats to national security of both countries.

In April, Iraq recognized the PKK as a banned international terrorist group. The north of Iraq is “Iraqi Kurdistan”, and it has major energy resources. While it is supposed to pledge nominal allegiance to Baghdad, the PKK are headquartered there.

The US partnered with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria. Turkey views the SDF as an extension of the PKK in Syria, and this has been the reason given for the Turkish military invasion in sensitive areas along the northern Syrian border.

The PKK has been waging an armed campaign against the Turkish state for Kurdish self-rule inside Turkey since 1984 and is considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

The PKK have killed over 30,000 people over three decades of terrorist activity, and crushing US-allied SDF remains one of the top security concerns for Turkey, as Ankara equates it with the PKK.

The main goal of the unfruitful direct talks between high-level Turkish, Syrian and Russian officials in 2022 was largely aimed at eradicating the Kurdish-led autonomous administration in northern Syria.

The Turkish armed forces launched five ground incursions into Syria from 2016 to 2020 — four against the SDF and one against ISIS — and it regularly conducts airstrikes in SDF-controlled regions.

Erdoğan declared on May 29, that Turkey will not allow Kurdish-led groups in Syria to establish a semi-autonomous state along its borders following the announcement of upcoming municipal elections by the SDF, who plan to hold elections on June 11 in the northern and eastern provinces of Syria, including Hassakeh, Raqqa, Deir el-Zour and parts of Aleppo.

“Turkey will never allow the separatist organization to establish a terror state just beyond its southern borders in the north of Syria and Iraq,” Erdogan said during the Efes-2024 Joint Military Exercise.

On May 28, Erdogan emphasized Turkey’s commitment to combating terrorism and maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq. Turkey plans to address the Kurdish issue at the upcoming NATO Summit in July.

The Kurdish-led autonomous administration in Syria, which is organizing the elections, sees them as a step towards greater self-governance, which is a red-line for Turkey.

Erdogan’s strong stance also sends a message to the US. America is governed on an interests-only set of values, and is a transactional partner. The Oval Office is capable of stabbing a loyal ally in the back when it serves the US interests.

On May 30, US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, addressed the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria. She remarked that at the recent Brussels Conference, the US had pledged $593 million dollars for humanitarian aid to Syria.

However, that aid goes to a very small percentage of the Syrian people, exclusively to Syrians in refugee camps outside of Syria, and the terrorist controlled province of Idlib, and the Kurdish northeast which houses the illegal US military base. The vast majority of Syrians, who live in Syrian government controlled areas, which is over 70% of the country, get nothing from the US, even though the UN envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen says they are facing food insecurity.

“And we will continue to push for sustainable humanitarian aid, and a sustainable political resolution to this conflict, to give the Syrian people a taste of democracy, stability, and the freedom they deserve,” said Thomas-Greenfield.

When President Obama designed the US-NATO war on Syria for regime change, he was not aiming for democracy, stability or freedom for the Syrian people. What he delivered while using international terrorists trucked in from Turkey and Jordan, was the exact opposite of democracy, stability and freedom. He delivered chaos, destruction, the deaths of at least 300,00 people, and caused the largest human migration in decades. Did the Syrian people deserve that?

Thomas-Greenfield hinted at the lifting of sanctions if the Syrian government will comply with UN resolution 2254.

Following her speech, Russia, the US and Syria traded accusations during a heated exchange at the UN Security Council, when Russia’s Ambassador Dmitry Chumakov criticized the US’ military presence in Syria ‘under the pretext of allegedly fighting terrorism,” as “having a destabilizing effect. Washington’s double standards are clearly manifested here.”

Syrian Ambassador Qusay al-Dahhak took the floor and criticized the US-led coalition to fight ISIS, and questioned the US, UK and French envoys about not commenting on the “damage caused by the illegal coalition” in the so-called fight against the ISIS terror group.

He accused the US of imposing sanctions that have killed civilians, prevented refugees and internally displaced peoples from peace and denied hope for Syrians.

US deputy envoy Robert Wood responded critically to the Syrian envoy for claims that Washington is “looting Syrian property and oil resources.”

“This is out of the Syrian playbook. It’s absolute nonsense. The US is not looting Syrian property, or taking seizing its oil resources,” Wood said.

However, Wood is wrong. Either he is ignorant of the facts in Syria, or he is lying. The largest oil wells in Syria are under the control of the illegal US military forces. That oil used to power the electricity generators and provide electricity to the national grid. Now, Syrians get 1 hour of electricity in 3 intervals in 24 hours. In fact, Trump stated in 2019 that the US would stay in Syria to steal the oil. Actually, the US military gives the stolen oil to the SDF who take it to Iraqi Kurdistan and it is sold for their benefit.

*

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

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

WHO Slips Totalitarian Climate Change™, Disinformation Amendments Into Updated 2005 ‘Agreement’

What many might not be aware of is that the United States, and multiple other countries in the neoliberal fold, have functionally been under a pandemic treaty for nearly twenty years, under the guise of 2005 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) so-called agreement — an “agreement” signed onto by the United States government with no meaningful debate, knowledge, or obviously consent on the part of the vast majority of the American citizenry made subject to it.

Passed in the last minutes of the last day of the recent WHO World Health Assembly were even more illegitimate powers passed to the unaccountable international governing body.

Via Robert Malone (emphasis added):

“In parallel to the treaty, the World Health Assembly (in close cooperation with the US HHS/Biden administration) has been working on ‘updating’ the existing (2005) International Health Regulations (IHR) agreement, which historically functioned as a voluntary accord establishing international norms for reporting, managing, and cooperating in matters relating to infectious diseases and infectious disease outbreaks (including ‘pandemics’)…

The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to ‘develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to . . . surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.’…

Meanwhile, Article 4: Pandemic Prevention and Public Health Surveillance, states:

The Parties recognize that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic [climate change caused by people], and economic factors increase the risk of pandemics and endeavor to identify these factors and take them into consideration in the development and implementation of relevant policies . . .””

Here we have the convergence of all the governing authorities’ favorite things: censorship, economic sabotage/deindustrialization for Climate Change™, and biomedical technocracy all rolled into one totalitarian offshore globalist package, to be enforced with no regard whatsoever for theoretically supreme national law — like, in the U.S. context, the Constitution.

What does Climate Change™ have to do with managing the next alleged pandemic the authorities promise is on the way? About as much as the proposed pandemic treaty has to do with public health, which is none at all.

Fauci’s Puppy Abuse Scandal Has New Legs? 

It does if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has anything to say about it.

As illustrated by the recent melodrama involving South Dakota governor Kristi Noem and the inexplicably puppy-shooting tale she regaled the American public with in her own book, many among us might not care what humans to do other humans, but abusing man’s best friend is a bridge too far.

This is not a defense of Noem — whom I regard as a run-of-the-mill,  but what she did arguably had some degree of justification, as Cricket had reportedly killed chickens and otherwise been a nuisance.

She probably shouldn’t have summarily executed Cricket with a shotgun in a gravel pit and then bragged about it in her own book to try to appeal to hard-nosed conservatives (who would be impressed by that story anyway?), but whatever. The point is there is some modicum of logic to the story that is at least understandable if not exculpatory.

What Fauci did to cuddly little beagles was far, far more sadistic.

Via White Coat Waste Project (emphasis added):

“In 2021, WCW broke BeagleGate, which uncovered how Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) wasted millions funding cruel and outdated experiments on beagle dogs and puppies in laboratories around the world, including his own labs in Washington, DC.

We exposed how Fauci funded a lab in Tunisia that drugged beagles and locked their heads in mesh cages full of biting flies so they could eat them alive.  The heartbreaking photo of the abused dogs spread like wildfire and sparked widespread condemnation of Fauci.”

Imagine being so warped that you are willing to fasten beagles’ heads into mesh cages to keep them in place while you sic flesh-eating flies onto them — for The Science™. Not only that, Fauci and Co. reportedly ripped beagles’ vocals cords out so they wouldn’t annoy the researchers with their whimpers as they went to work on them.

Via FactCheck.org (emphasis added)::

“The NIAID acknowledged that the beagles used in the study underwent a procedure, known as a cordectomy, to prevent them from barking.

‘Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,” the statement said. “This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.’”

As the old adage goes, what people do to dogs they ultimately do to humans. Ted Bundy, infamous serial killer, loved to torture animals as a child.

What Fauci did to these animals might not be prosecutable, but it is a window into his twisted little soul that could sway public opinion — particularly among PETA-minded liberal types — against him, so in my view we ought to remind people at every opportunity the hell he wrought on these innocent beagles.

*

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 author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The intentional ambiguity (to use a euphemism) of statements given by top-ranking officials of Western countries concerning their proxy war against Russia is making most people confused as to what exactly their leaders think about this issue. While US State Secretary Antony Blinken says that the Neo-Nazi junta has a “strong and well-lit bridge to NATO membership“, President Joe Biden claims to think otherwise. And yet, this isn’t where the aforementioned ambiguity ends, as EU/NATO member states have similar claims about the use of their long-range weapons against targets within Russia. While one official would say they support it, another one would say that’s not the case, further contributing to the general confusion and uncertainty.

However, in reality, such attacks are already happening and even the flagships of the mainstream propaganda machine are no longer bothering to hide this. Namely, according to the New York Times, the Kiev regime is already using US-sourced long-range missiles for this very purpose. NYT’s June 4 report admits this comes “just days after the Biden administration granted permission for Ukraine to fire American weapons into Russia”. The authors quote a member of Rada (Parliament) Yehor Chernev, Deputy Chairman of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence, who said that the Neo-Nazi junta forces supposedly “destroyed Russian missile launchers with a strike in the Belgorod oblast [region], about 20 miles into Russia”.

Source

Expectedly, Chernev claims that the attack was conducted by the extremely overhyped American HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) MLRS. Although certainly not impossible, there’s a persistent trend to attribute all strikes on Russian positions to NATO-sourced weapons, particularly when the Kiev regime forces want to hide their massive battlefield losses. Various sources claim that Russian missile launchers allegedly destroyed in this attack are the S-300 or even S-400, both SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. Unverified footage posted on several social media platforms shows what appears to be a destroyed 5P85T2 TEL (transporter, erector, launcher) of either the S-300PMU2 or perhaps the S-400 long-range air defense systems.

The Neo-Nazi junta’s Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk also claimed that HIMARS was used in the strike, posting photos of what she said was “a Russian S-300, burning well” and bragging about the results of “the first days after permission to use Western weapons on the enemy’s territory”. Interestingly, she deleted her post soon after. This suggests that she either realized the footage was fake or perhaps was told to remove it because the Kiev regime’s puppet masters in the political West don’t want Moscow to have more evidence that they support attacks on Russia. Either way, it’s important to note that, even if the claims are true, the destruction of TELs or other components of a SAM battery doesn’t equate to the destruction of the entire system.

Namely, a battalion (or divizion in Russian military nomenclature) consists of much more than just launch vehicles. In fact, it can be argued that radars and command posts are far more important, as they provide targeting data and coordinate all other elements of the system. And while losing TEL vehicles is certainly a setback, it’s not exactly the end of the world for the Russian military which has drastically expanded acquisitions of advanced SAM systems. In addition, the Kremlin is acquiring more S-300V4 units that can be deployed virtually anywhere in the field and provide protection for frontline troops. However, growing evidence of NATO-sourced long-range weapons striking targets within Russia is certainly an extremely concerning development.

Late last week, war correspondent Evgeny Poddubny shared footage of fragments of American precision-guided munitions (PGMs) found in Russia’s undisputed territory. As I’ve argued many times before, Moscow can only conclude that Washington DC and Brussels are providing targeting data and guidance to the Neo-Nazi junta’s units firing these long-range weapons. Worse yet, even top-ranking NATO military officials are bragging about planning and executing operations against the Russian military, particularly its naval forces. The dangerous prospect of uncontrollable escalation due to such actions cannot be overstated, which is what President Vladimir Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials are also regularly warning about.

“I would like to caution American officials against miscalculations which may have fatal consequences. For some unknown reason, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned recently.

Putin reiterated this at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) and stated that Russia is considering the option of supplying its own long-range weapons to numerous countries around the world that are faced with US/NATO aggression. In addition, the Russian president also said this “marks direct [Western] involvement in the war against the Russian Federation and we reserve the right to act the same way”, suggesting that this continued enmity may meet a direct response. Putin also stressed that using NATO-sourced long-range weapons involves military personnel of the belligerent alliance’s member states controlling the missiles and selecting targets, which may prompt Russia to take “asymmetrical steps elsewhere in the world”.

“If they consider it possible to deliver such weapons to the combat zone to launch strikes on our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same type to some regions of the world where they can be used to launch strikes on sensitive facilities of the countries that do it to Russia?” Putin said, adding: “We will think about it.”

Russia’s president is extremely careful with his words, meaning that such announcements should be taken very seriously. And yet, this also shows Putin’s willingness to still not escalate the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict into a direct confrontation with the political West. In addition, supplying long-range weapons, particularly Moscow’s world-class anti-ship missiles, to countries targeted by US/NATO could have disastrous consequences for their power projection. Namely, even older Soviet-era missiles such as the massive P-700 “Granit” could effectively nullify Western naval dominance in any region of the world. Its high explosive warhead, weighing 750 kg, could easily destroy virtually any capital ship, including aircraft carriers.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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

Featured image: A Ukrainian HIMARS in the Zaporizhya region, June 2022. (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The Middle East is commonplace from which three global religions originated: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three confessions recognize the Prophet, Abraham.  

Judaism

Judaism is a monotheistic religion of the Jewish people, i.e. with a belief in one God and foundations in Mosaic and rabbinical teachings. The Jewish people have been asked to accept the worshiping of one God instead of many (polytheism). The will of this one God, the Creator, is expressed in the Torah – the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) which contains the Ten Commandments. Such Jewish monotheism was later inherited and adopted by both Christianity and Islam. The essence of Judaism is that the Jews believe that as a result of the agreement between God and Abraham, they as the Chosen People have a unique relationship with God. Besides, they believe that the Messiah is going to be sent by God with a mission to collect all peoples of Israel in the promised land and bring everlasting peace to Earth. The Christians, but not the Jews, believe that Jesus Christ was such a Messiah.

There are three forms of Judaism: Orthodox Judaism, Liberal Judaism, and Reform Judaism.

Image: Judaica – candlesticks, etrog box, shofar, Torah pointer, Tanach, natla (נַטְלָה aka keli) (Photo by Gila Brand/Licensed under CC BY 2.5) 

Orthodox Judaism teaches that the Torah or the five books of Moses has all the divine revelation that Jews require. In Orthodox Judaism, religious practice is strictly observed. However, when certain interpretations of the Torah are necessary then the reference is sought in the Talmud. Orthodox Jews practice the separation of sexes in synagogues during worship. Many Orthodox Jews support the Zionist movement and political designs but they deplore the secular origins of it and support the fact that Israel after 1948 is not a fully religious state. The Orthodox Jew recognizes a person as Jewish only if he/she has a Jewish mother or undergoes an arduous process of conversion. Nonetheless, the Israeli Law of Return, which deals with emigration to Israel, accepts all those with a Jewish grandmother as potential citizens of Israel. 

The spread of Liberal Judaism started around 1780 in Germany as a response to the need to redefine the meaning and practical performance of the Torah in the changing social atmosphere of the time of the West European Enlightenment. Therefore, Liberal Jews see the revelations of the five books of Moses as progressive rather than static as expressing God’s teaching rather than God’s law. As a direct practical consequence of such an attitude, it allowed for a significant evolution in religious law and practice. Besides, it resulted in important changes in both food and custom. In Europe, Liberal Judaism is also known as Progressive Judaism which is roughly equivalent to Reform Judaism in the USA.

Reform Judaism has also been founded in Germany by Zachariah Frankel (1801−1875) as a reaction to the perceived carelessness of Liberal Judaism. Frankel himself questioned all divine inspiration of the Torah but retained observance of some Jewish laws and traditions. In the USA, Reform Judaism is understood as the whole of the Liberal tradition that was brought to the USA by immigrants from Germany in the 19^th century.

Christianity 

Image: Crucifixion, representing the death of Jesus on the Cross, painting by Diego Velázquez, c. 1632 (From the Public Domain)

Christianity is the last great global religion that emerged before Islam and after Judaism. It is dogmatically based on Judaism, originating in Palestine. Differently, compared with the case of Muhammad, it is little known and scientifically proven of the Christian founder, Jesus of Nazareth, before he started to preach, according to the Bible, about the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, that was a message for which the majority of Palestine Jews have been waiting for centuries. As the Jewish country was occupied by the Romans in A.D. 6 the Jews have been waiting for the long-promised Messiah or the Saviour who had the focal aim to liberate them and their land. The Jews at first followed Jesus thinking he was the Messiah whom they waiting for. However, the Jewish authorities were suspicious about his role and his popular support soon decreased. After three years of teaching and preaching Jesus Christ was arrested as a fake Messiah, handed over to the Roman procurator, and finally crucified (as a revolutionary).

The new Christian faith proved to be inflexible, despite the fact of his founder’s early death. Whether Jesus Christ himself believed that God (Jehova/Jahve) had sent him to convert the gentiles (not Jews) is still not clear according to the sources. Nevertheless, it was left to Paul, a Jewish convert from Tarsus, to show the power and extent of Christianity’s appeal as he preached in the Aegean islands, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and maybe as far as the Iberian Peninsula where within all these lands there were Jewish communities. Starting with the journeys of St. Paul, Christian churches sprang up throughout the Roman Empire. By the time of Diocletian’s persecutions (A.D. 304), they had been thickly clustered around the Mediterranean and scattered as far as Britain and the Nile River.  

In essence, Christianity is a religion whose believers follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Originally, it was only a Jewish sect in Palestine that believed that Jesus Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) was the Messiah (Christ – a person with the divine message). Very much due to the former Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus who later became St. Paul, Christianity soon became an independent organization. Christian believers experienced persecution by the state, although it was not at the beginning clear legal foundations for it until A.D. 250. Nevertheless, by the 3^rd century A.D., Christians could be found throughout the Roman Empire. The Emperor Constantine the Great ended persecutions in 313 and 380 the other Emperor, Theodosius, recognized Christianity as a state religion. 

Islam

The birth, rise, and expansion of Islam are some of the most significant and far-reaching historical events and its impact is very important in our times too. 

Islam as both religion and life philosophy started later, in A.D. 570, with the birth of Muhammad the Prophet in Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula. The founder of Islam as a personality was a combination of a social reformer, military General, statesman, empire builder, and visionary. Islam originated in his teaching which he framed in the Qur’an or Koran which is the holy book of Muslims like the Bible to the Christians, or the Torah to the Jews. Islam means the act of giving one’s self to God (Allah), and a person who behaves and follows the teachings of Islam is called a Muslim. All non-Arabs, like, for instance, the Iranians or the Turks, are linked to their Muslim brothers and sisters around the world by their common religion of Islam. More than half of the world’s 1,6 billion Muslims are today not Arab according to their origin.

Muhammad spread God’s message to mankind as the last Prophet of God. Muslims believe that God spoke through the mouth of Muhammad and that the Qur’an (recitation) is the Word of God. A historical figure of Muhammad, according to Muslim belief, is the Seal of the Prophets, and no other Prophets will come after him. Nevertheless, he is not divine as divinity belongs only to God alone. His message to the people of West Arabia was that they should stop worshiping idols, and submit instead to the will of Allah.  

This religion soon after the death of the Prophet spread out firstly across the Middle East and later further beyond its boundaries. At its peak, the empire of Islamic believers has been larger compared to the Roman Empire at its zenith. Formally, the Qur’an has the discourses that God revealed to his Prophet from Mecca. However, as a religion, Islam is diverse as it has different interpretations of its teachings like Sunni Muslims in North Africa and Saudi Arabia on one hand and Shia Muslims in Iran or Iraq where most believers are Shia. It is clear to an expert in the studies of the Middle East that Islam possesses an extreme power over the life and culture of the local people since the 7^th century, Islam has become the focal binder among the peoples of the Middle East – it is a way of life for them but not only a religion.  

Image: Muslim men reading the Quran (Licensed under CC0)

There are five pillars of Islamic belief accepted and respected by all Muslims (visually, these five principles compose the coat of arms of the Islamic Republic of Iran):

1. The profession of Faith or Shahadah. This is an open proclamation of submission that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God”. At Muslim shrines – mosques – this sentence is chanted five times per day.
2. Prayer or Salah. At prescribed hours, worship or ritual prayer has to be prayed five times per day, individually if not preferably in groups. The bowing or kneeling is toward Mecca (for Christians the praying is toward Jerusalem). The Muslim prayer must be pure, hence newly washed and not dirty. For the Muslims, Friday is traditionally a day reserved for rest, when the congregational prayers of men at midday should be ordinarily performed in the mosque.
3. Giving charities or Zakah. The teaching of Islam is that all believers must give to charities. In practice today, it ranges from 2 to 10% of one’s annual income. 
4. Fasting or Sawm. Any Muslim must abstain from food and drink during the 30-day lunar month of Ramadan, while practicing continence in other respects, from dawn to sunset. There are some Muslim states, like, for instance, Saudi Arabia, in which this obligation is legally protected. 
5. Pilgrimage or Haj. It is an obligation for all Muslims at least once if one is financially and physically able, to perform this act of piety by going to Mecca as a pilgrim during the month of Haj. Especially are respected those Muslim pilgrims who could stay in Meca between 8 and 13 days and perform the rites and ceremonies.

It has to be noticed that for some Muslims exists and the sixth pillar of Islam – Holy War or Al-Jihad –allegedly offers the reward of salvation. However, this effort to promote Islamic values and doctrine is not necessary to be done through the actual war as it was traditionally wrongly understood. Initially, Islam did not particularly encourage conversion. The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to respect the “people of the book” – members of the other monotheistic religions with written scriptures. Muslims are expected to show hospitality toward strangers, even if those strangers are not Muslims, and to enhance family relationships. In fact, the Islamic Holy War that is practiced today by some military and fundamentalist organizations like ISIS or al-Qaeda is a result of globalization, which transcends conventional politics and represents a radical departure from traditional Islam and Islamic values.

Islam is regarded by its followers as the last of the revealed religions after Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad of Mecca is understood as the last of the Prophets after Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. There are three basic and interrelated significations of Islam:

1. The personal/individual submission to God (Allah).
2. The Islamic world is a historical reality that includes a variety of communities sharing not only a common fund of cultural legacies.
3. The concept of an ideal Muslim community is fixed in the Qur’an and some of its supporting sources.

There are two crucial types of Islam: the Sunni Muslims and the Shia Muslims. 

Sunni Islam (in Arabic, sunna means tradition) is the belief and practice as opposed to Shia Islam. Sunni Muslims constitute today over 80% of all Muslims in the world and they follow the sunna – a code of practice based on the hadith collected in the Sihah Satta – six authentic Books of Tradition about the Prophet Muhammad. The term sunna can mean custom, code, or usage. In essence, it means whatever Prophet Muhammad demonstrated as the ideal behavior for a Muslim to follow. Consequently, it complements the Qur’an as a source of legal and ethical guidelines. The Sunni Muslims recognize the order of succession of the first four caliphs and they follow one of four schools of law. In the Middle East (and Pakistan) the Hanafi school prevailed. 

The Shia Muslims or the Shiites (from Arabic – sectarians) are the minority division within Islam (between 15% and 20%). They are in the majority in Iran (where Shia Islam is the official state religion), South Iraq, Azerbaijan, parts of Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, East Africa, North India, and Pakistan. They originated as the Shiat Ali (the “party of Ali”) who was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad. The essence is that the Shia Muslims regard Ali and his descendants as the only right heirs to Mohammad as the leader of the Muslims. The Shia Muslims differ from the Sunni primarily concerning the importance they attach to the continuing authority of the imams – authentic interpreters of the sunna or customs, the code of conduct based on the Qur’an followed by hadith or sayings and deeds of Muhammad. They also believe in an inner hidden meaning of the Qur’an.   

Sufism is the mystical aspect of the Islamic religion. It emerged as a reaction to strict Islamic orthodoxy. The Sufis seek personal union with God and there are many Sufi poets and scholars followed by Sufi organized orders or brotherhoods.     

In the world, there are 42 Muslim-majority nations of whom Iran, Sudan, and Mauritania are officially Islamic states by Islamic law. Religious diversity is quite visible in all Middle Eastern nations for the reason of different religious minorities like Judaism, or/and Christianity and their branches (sects). Most Muslims are distributed in a broad belt from Morocco to Indonesia and from Central Asia to Tanzania. Nevertheless, the historical and cultural center of Islam is the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula. 

The spread of Islamic religion outside of the Arabian Peninsula started immediately after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. By 711, Arab armies had been attacking Sind in North-East India and preparing for the crossing to the Iberian Peninsula. In practice, the Arab-Islamic conquests in the East exceeded those in the West in both size and importance. In 750, when the dynasty of Abbasids replaced the dynasty of Umayyad, the Islamic Empire ruled by them was the biggest civilization westward of China. After the subjection of Maghreb, Arab forces crossed the Straits of Gibraltar in 711 and occupied the Iberian Peninsula. There were further advances into South France, but the Arab army was defeated at Poitiers in 732, and in 759 they withdrew south of the Pyrenees.

*

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.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Is a “Three-Theater” war scenario both feasible and desirable for the US? Some think so. American analysts within the Establishment are in fact calling for war “in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.” This is what Thomas G. Mahnken (both a Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor and the CEO of  the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) is urging Washington to do, in his most recent piece.

For Mahnken, Washington is “currently involved in two wars—Ukraine’s in Europe and Israel’s in the Middle East”, while also “facing the prospect of a third over Taiwan or South Korea in East Asia.” Moreover, “all three theaters are vital to US interests, and they are all intertwined.” Deprioritizing Europe and disengaging from the Middle East can only weaken American security, he argues: “The U.S. military drawdown in the Middle East, for instance, has created a vacuum that Tehran has filled eagerly.” Of course, such reasoning can only make sense if American “security” is equated with Washington’s unipolarity.

Source

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, during his recent speech at Shangri-la Dialogue (in Singapore), made it a point to stress that “despite historic clashes in Europe and the Middle East… the Indo-Pacific has remained our priority theater of operations.” According to Austin, the US is a Pacific nation (with a capital P, and with no pun intended, presumably), and added that “the US can be secure only if Asia is secure. That’s why… [we have] long maintained our presence in this region. And that’s why we continue to make the investments necessary to meet our commitments to our allies and partners.” As for the relationship with China, the Secretary was more ambiguous, claiming that “a fight with China is neither imminent nor unavoidable.”

While Lloyd Austin seems to differ from Mahnken (on emphasis), there is not necessarily a dilemma there. I’ve often described Washington’s ambitions as being all about having the cake and eating it too. Jerry Hendrix (retired Navy captain, formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials, and currently a senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute) has written that, in Mackinder terms (classic Geopolitics), the US has embarked on a quest for the “Heartland”, and this contradicts its true “sea power” nature. This is so because Washington, in recent times, has been “burdened” by mostly “land-based actions in Iraq and Afghanistan fought primarily by a large standing army operating far from home”.

Rather than doing that, Hendrix urges the Atlantic superpower to, once again, “think and act like a seapower state”, that is, with a focus on deriving its might from “seaborne trade”, employing “instruments of sea power” to advance its interests. The expert describes the post-World War II period as an exceptional “free sea” period, marked by a “secure environment” which has supposedly allowed free trade to flourish in a globalized planet – this being the rather gleeful manner in which he describes the US-led world order, in spite of the fact that Washington has always weaponized protectionism.

In any case, as Hendrix notes, the American superpower acts both as a “continental power” and as a “sea power”. I’ve described its foreign policy as resembling  the swing of a pendulum. Give or take, all Great Powers engage to some extent in proxy conflicts amid their geoeconomic and geopolitical disputes with other powers. In terms of regional disputes, whether one likes or not Moscow’s foreign policy today, one can at least concede that historically Russia and neighboring Ukraine have an intertwined and complicated shared history, and the same applies to China-Taiwan relations. But America is something quite different. To keep things in perspective, one should keep in mind, for example, that, amazingly, the only place in the entire world China has an overseas military base is Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa. In contrast, depending on how one counts it, Washington, in 2015, had about 800 military bases in over 70 countries.

Moreover, the US has in fact invaded 84 out of the 194 nation-states recognized by the United Nations, and has been militarily involved with no less than 191 of those, according to  Christopher Kelly and Stuart Laycock, the authors of “America Invades: How We’ve Invaded or been Militarily Involved with almost Every Country on Earth”. The hard truth is that the United States of America is the only nation today (and arguably ever) to potentially engage in warfare across three continents – a scenario, keep in mind, that is cheered by prominent mainstream American commentators and scholars.

Other analysts, such as Andrea Rizzi, writing for El Pais, have described the possibility of war fronts in the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific becoming connected as a “nightmare” scenario – although not so convincingly, in Rizzi’s case, who seems to believe the political West has necessarily something to do with “democracy”, a historically controversial premise to say the least. Rizzi, however, makes the very valid point that “in geopolitics — and in life — high-stress situations lead to a greater margin for unforeseen events, errors in calculation and communication, uncontrolled actions by minority factions and escalations that are unintended, at least by the key players.” Even the main actors have an interest in keeping stability, at some point someone (or one’s proxies) may indeed make “a daring movie”, in Rizzi’s words, and thus bring about an escalation and unpredictable outcomes.

A series of Ukrainian and Western actions arguably represented precisely such a red-line crossing, in Moscow’s perspective. While some worry about the same thing happening in the Pacific, thus inadvertently igniting yet another war, others call for and crave for precisely such a war – not just in the Indo-Pacific region, but also in Europe and the Middle East, simultaneously. It is hard to describe such a call in any way other than as a will to set the world on fire – after all, one cannot literally desire war between Great Powers in three continents and not expect everything else that often comes with it (call it apocalypse in disguise, if you will).

Unbelievably, such bellicose calls, rather than being confined to the hate speech of extreme and fringe individuals and organizations, pass as reasonable and mainstream discourse, produced as it is, by respectable experts with impeccable credentials. And, mind you, Foreign Affairs will even publish it. It is no wonder: Washington foreign policy itself is, after all, largely built on the premise of American unipolarity and global war if need be.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Many individuals who actually care about the United States Constitution and its guarantee of basic liberties for the American people have been seriously concerned over how recent Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have taken steps to control and limit the rights of citizens to exercise free speech as well as freedom to travel and associate freely. This abuse of power, for that is what it is, has unfortunately escalated sharply due to the uncompromising commitment of the Joe Biden White House to both Israel and Ukraine. It manifests itself in many ways, but most often includes steps to make it difficult for concerned Americans to learn for themselves the truth about what is taking place in the various international hot spots that the US State Department appears to be cultivating in such a fashion as to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Those truth-tellers who persist in exposing the criminality in high places have been targeted and labeled in some government circles as “info-terrorists” and there has been what appears to be a sustained effort underway to undermine the credibility of journalists who are daring to report favorably on either Russia or the Palestinians. Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians have established the gold standard in identifying dissident journalists through their Department of Disinformation called “Myrotvorets.” It includes a list of names of those individuals who might be assassinated to silence them. The US has, not surprisingly, been seeking to establish a similar government agency, though hopefully without the kill list.

In the latest manifestation of denial of fundamental rights in an attempt to shut down a critic, on June 3^rd the State Department forced former Marine intelligence officer, Chief UN weapons inspector, journalist and author Scott Ritter off a plane headed to Russia by way of Istanbul and confiscated his passport. According to Scott

“As I was boarding my flight out of New York I was pulled aside by three armed Customs and Border Patrol officers, who seized my passport. When asked why, they said orders of the State Department. No further information was provided. My bags were removed from the flight, and I was escorted out of the airport.”

Ritter, who has been a persistent critic of both the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, was traveling to participate in the highly respected annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum as a guest speaker. The seizure of the passport to block his travel is a violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

In an interview later that day with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ritter admitted that he had been taken aback by what had happened to him and should have been more aggressive in defense of his rights. He did not, for example, demand to see a warrant or be given a receipt for the passport and did not get the names of the three officers who had taken it away and escorted him out. He also should have demanded the name of the State Department Official who had signed the order to accost him in the most embarrassing fashion possible as he was boarding the plane and take his document.

Interestingly, Scott Ritter’s name appeared prominently on the Ukrainian “Disinformation” hit list. And not terribly surprisingly, the mainstream media, which is in sync with the government on the wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, did not give the Ritter story much coverage. The silence is particularly remarkable as the press, which has been protecting President Joe Biden and his Homeland Security lackeys as they watched millions of people illegally cross the Mexican border into the US failed to exercise any vigilance when a single American citizen was unsuccessful in trying to go the other way completely legally.

Ritter, to be sure, has been a powerful voice critiquing the Iraq War, where his inspections turned up no WMD and he declared, in August 2002, that a case had not been made for attacking Saddam Hussein. If George W. Bush and his gang of neocons plus Congress had only paid attention to Scott Ritter, the US would have been spared the loss of thousands of soldiers and the utter waste of trillions of tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of the US attack on their country.

Since that time, Ritter has been an activist who calls for dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy to avoid wars, particularly in the current context where the United States is supplying tens of billions of dollars in arms to expand the war with Russia, sustain the attacks on Gazans and establish a pretext for a war with China over Taiwan. Ritter has traveled to Russia and Iran, as well as to other hot spots, without regard for his personal safety, driven by the desire to tell the truth about what is being propagandized in hopes that he will make politicians think twice about what they are doing. Scott has reported what he sees and describes the conversations he has had with local people without fear or favor, always with the objective of avoiding war and death. For his pains, he inevitably is accused of being a source of Russian and anti-Israeli disinformation and even acting as “Putin’s poodle,” but his information has proven to be overwhelmingly reliable.

Interestingly, this week’s incident was not the first time when Ritter was targeted by the US government for truth-telling. In the wake of the passport seizure, he recounted on X how

“The similarities between what happened to me on June 3, and what transpired some 21 1/2 years ago, are disconcerting. Then, the FBI carried out a concerted effort to prevent me from making a documentary movie, ‘Shifting Sands,’ about the flawed case for war being promulgated by the US government. They threatened me with arrest, they engaged in acts of physical intimidation, and—when this didn’t work—they played a role in manufacturing a case designed to destroy my personal character in the eyes of the general public. The 2001 incidents were a warning shot across the bow for me to begin toeing the line. When I refused to do so, releasing my documentary film and actively speaking out against the US case for war with Iraq, the FBI then arranged to have the information about the 2001 incidents leaked to the press in an effort to destroy my credibility on the eve of a February 2003 trip I was planning to take to Iraq, together with a high-profile international delegation, that was designed to prevent a war between the US and the government of Saddam Hussein.”

Scott is not alone in being a target for government attempts to discredit him. Almost anyone who has good access to media and audiences and crosses the established line will be confronted to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes the confrontation does real damage as in the recent cases of employees of universities and government who have lost their jobs for speaking out in defense of the Palestinians. Has anyone in America lost a job for promoting an ongoing and highly visible genocide, i.e. Israel’s apparent inherent right to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians? No, that is considered acceptable speech by those who govern us and make up the rules.

Those of us who are under attack regularly for going against government writ sometimes exchange jokes about how defying the administration or Congress means going it largely alone in a fight against thousands of government lawyers who will be able to write or interpret the “rules” to crucify you staged in a selected court house before a co-opted judge where you will be certainly convicted. The threat is real, think of what Julian Assange is going through driven by a vengeful US government aided and abetted by those of a like mind in Britain, the home of the Official Secrets Act. The government nearly always wins when it comes to ruining one’s life on spurious or transmutable charges like the Espionage Act of 1918. Scott will have to get a lawyer and sue the government in an attempt to get his passport back and along the way a faceless bureaucrat will no doubt accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors.

This latest outrage reminds me of something that I and others went through a few years ago relating to Iran, another preferred target of Israeli/US government rage. In May 2018 I and others from many nations, including Israelis and even an American rabbi, attended what was a public media annual conference in Masshad, Iran hosted by the Iranian NGO New Horizon foundation to discuss “Jerusalem/al-Quds the Eternal Capital of Palestine.” The discussions were wide ranging and include some sharp criticisms of Iranian policy. At the time, the Trump Administration was preparing to withdraw from the JCPOA agreement which monitored the Iranian nuclear program and was also ready to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, an illegal move. Trump’s Treasury Department was pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and groups like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League were calling the conference an “anti-Semitic gathering” that “included US and international anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and anti-war activists.” The conference nevertheless proceeded peacefully, culminating in a press conference in Tehran that I and others spoke at which was open to the international media.

Image: Sigal Mandelker (From the Public Domain)

Unfortunately, someone in Washington did not like the idea of a conference that brought together people from many nations and beliefs to discuss a contentious international problem. In February 2019, Sigal Pearl Mandelker, then Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and an Israeli citizen, ordered the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to sanction the American-educated founder of New Horizon Nader Talebzadeh Ordoubadi as well as his Lebanese wife, Zeina Mehanna, his organization The New Horizon Conference (NHC), and some of its staff for holding the conference. Ostensibly and perhaps inevitably the reason was “anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, and allowing Iranian intelligence to recruit attendees.” Mandelker, by the way, was suspected of having links to Israeli intelligence, Mossad. She was inter alia reportedly involved in brokering the infamous Florida deal that allowed the wealthy child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and probable Israeli spy to avoid federal charges.

I may have inadvertently been the source of the claim about Iranian intelligence operating at the conference in Masshad. Shortly after I returned from Iran to the US, I was visited by two FBI officers who wanted to talk about the gathering. They were polite enough, and when they asked if I thought that Iranian intelligence officers were “working” the conference I replied that they most definitely were but while New Horizon certainly knew about it I strongly believe that they had no choice and were not actually complicit in what was going on. In fact, I was personally “pitched” three times – once by an officer posing as a journalist; once by an officer posing as a foreign ministry official; and once by two intelligence officers using alias names who, I later learned, were the head and deputy head of the Ministry of Intelligence. I was not threatened in any way during the pitches, but I was, of course, in their country and completely under their control.

In order to place in context what took place, I would point out that any international conference almost anywhere in the world like the one we attended in Mashhad would be covered by the local intelligence service in an attempt to make recruitments and obtain information. The CIA has an entire division called National Collection which spends much of its time going to conferences in the US where foreign targets will be present. In like fashion operate the British, French, Mossad, Russian and Chinese services. In my opinion, targeting New Horizon for sanctions because an event hosted by it was exploited by its country’s intelligence service is wrong because NH clearly had no choice in the matter. And it is what the United States and other countries do regularly.

The sanctioning of New Horizon became relevant when NH sought to host another conference in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2019. Roughly the same group of Americans, myself included, was invited to speak or otherwise participate. Several of the Americans were approached in advance by FBI agents, evidently acting under orders from Sigal Mandelker. The Agents warned that any participants in the conference might be subject to criminal indictment upon return to the US because New Horizon was under sanctions. One of those who was approached by the Bureau elaborated how “They’re interpreting the regulations to say that even if you only associate with someone who has been sanctioned, you are subject to fines and imprisonment…” The Bureau went on to explain how Iranian sanctions are somewhat unique. That’s because Iran is a “comprehensively sanctioned” country, meaning that anything having to do with “supporting it” is sanctionable, including tourist visits that aid its economy. We were informed confidentially that if we attended the conference we would be arrested upon our return and would face criminal prosecution as well as possible fines up to $300,000. We all decided not to go and the conference gathering proceeded peacefully without any US input.

The point I am trying to make is that this has been going on for quite some time and rather aggressively by the US government, yet even a well-informed American is probably completely unaware of how he or she can be stripped of fundamental constitutional rights without any ability to push back against the system. And it comes from both Democratic and Republican administrations as well as from government agencies that have been corrupted to the point where they exist to serve their political masters rather than the American people. Hopefully, Scott Ritter will get his passport back and be free both to travel again and speak his mind. We need him and also millions more voices challenging the horrors that have been coming out of Washington.

*

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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Estão os grandes meios de comunicação e o público tornando-se mais abertos a notícias e perspectivas que contradizem a narrativa do establishment sobre a COVID-19, as vacinas e as políticas de saúde pública prevalecentes nos últimos quatro anos?

Em caso afirmativo, poderá essa mudança incremental levar eventualmente a uma transformação nas atitudes públicas?

Pelo menos um especialista médico pensa assim. Escrevendo no Substack, Dr. Pierre Kory, presidente e diretor médico da Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, citou a publicação de 25 de abril de um artigo de opinião da RealClear Health que ele co-escreveu com a jornalista Mary Beth Pfeiffer como um exemplo de como a narrativa pública pode estar mudando.

O artigo analisou evidências de que as vacinas de mRNA são a causa de um aumento significativo no câncer entre os jovens.

Kory escreveu que este é o quinto artigo de opinião que ele e Pfeiffer publicam em meios de comunicação convencionais e amplamente lidos desde agosto de 2023 sobre tópicos relacionados.

“Parece que o apetite do público por análises objetivas e independentes dos danos das vacinas está aumentando”, escreveu Kory no Substack.

Ampliando a ‘janela Overton’

Kory sugeriu que a disposição de meios de comunicação como a RealClear Health de publicar artigos críticos às políticas e vacinas COVID-19 sugere uma ampliação da “Janela Overton”, um conceito que “refere-se especificamente ao tipo de políticas que os políticos podem ‘legitimamente’ apoiar ao longo do tempo sem arriscar o apoio eleitoral.”

Escrevendo para o Brownstone Institute em 17 de abril, Jeffrey Tucker disse que o conceito da Janela Overton – nomeado em homenagem ao pesquisador Joseph Overton, que trabalhou no Mackinac Center for Public Policy – ​​“nasce da cultura dos think tanks, que valoriza a eficácia e as métricas como um meio de financiamento institucional.”

De acordo com Tucker, Overton “descobriu que era inútil em seu trabalho defender posições que ele não poderia recrutar políticos para dizer no plenário legislativo ou na campanha”. Em vez disso, Overton obteve maior sucesso ao “elaborar ideias políticas que se enquadrassem nos meios de comunicação social e na cultura política prevalecentes”.

Outros estudiosos desenvolveram posteriormente o conceito de Overton. Hoje, a Janela Overton inclui cinco fases pelas quais as ideias passam antes de se tornarem políticas, passando de “impensável” para “radical”, para “aceitável”, para “sensato” e para “popular”.

De acordo com o Centro Mackinac, escreveu Kory, a gama de ideias aceitáveis ​​dentro da Janela Overton pode mudar ao longo do tempo, uma vez que “pode mudar e expandir, aumentando ou diminuindo o número de ideias que os políticos podem apoiar sem arriscar indevidamente o seu apoio eleitoral. ”

Falando ao The Defender, Kory aplicou o conceito às narrativas do COVID-19. “Estamos vendo uma aceitação em levantar questões e discutir o aumento incomum nas taxas de mortalidade e incapacidade entre populações que incluem algumas das pessoas mais saudáveis ​​e produtivas”, disse Kory, citando o artigo de opinião de agosto de 2023 que ele co-escreveu para o USA Today.

Kory disse que o artigo de opinião do USA Today, que apresentou dados de companhias de seguros mostrando um aumento dramático no excesso de mortes no outono de 2021 – mortes que não podem ser totalmente atribuídas a infecções por COVID-19 – representou “a primeira vez [que] alguém de nossa ‘lado’ passou para a grande mídia para levantar esse tipo de questão.”

“A aceitação de ter uma conversa como esta no USA Today teria parecido impossível em 2022”, disse Kory. A publicação subsequente do seu último artigo de opinião, na RealClear Health, “mostra até onde chegámos”, disse ele.

“Se você ficar de olho na Janela… poderá conseguir expandi-la um pouco aqui e ali e, assim, eventualmente atingir seus objetivos”, escreveu Tucker.

Mas ele acrescentou:

“Vivemos numa época em que muito do que pensávamos saber sobre as estratégias de mudança social e política foi destruído. … Tudo está quebrado, incluindo quaisquer imaginações que tivemos sobre a existência desta janela Overton.”

No seu artigo para o Instituto Brownstone, Tucker disse que embora “a teoria da janela de Overton presuma uma ligação suave entre a opinião pública e os resultados políticos”, esta suposição está hoje “gravemente em questão”.

“Os políticos fazem coisas diariamente e de hora a hora às quais os seus constituintes se opõem – financiam a ajuda externa e as guerras, por exemplo – mas fazem-no mesmo assim devido a grupos de pressão bem-organizados que operam fora da consciência pública”, escreveu Tucker.

Em vez disso, Tucker pediu uma revelação da verdade mais ousada. “Muitas pessoas sabiam a verdade – que todos pegariam esse vírus, a maioria se livraria dele sem problemas e então ele se tornaria endêmico – mas simplesmente tinham medo de dizê-lo. Cite a janela de Overton o quanto quiser, mas o que realmente está em questão é a disposição de exercer coragem moral.

Tucker não descartou totalmente a existência da janela Overton. “Acho que a Janela Overton existe, mas é em grande parte construída. Quebrar as construções é nossa tarefa, seja de forma incremental ou de uma só vez”, disse ele ao The Defender.

Kory disse que “dizer a verdade” está acontecendo – e está se tornando mais difícil de ser ignorada pela grande mídia.

Ele disse:

“As evidências sobre o excesso de mortes, lesões causadas por vacinas e a realidade do COVIDlongo estão se tornando inegáveis ​​para a maioria, independentemente de sua posição sobre essas questões há alguns meses.

“Curiosamente, e infelizmente, há um número crescente de pessoas de todos os lados destas questões que conhecem alguém próximo que foi diagnosticado com uma doença crônica da qual não têm histórico familiar ou que geralmente está associado a alguém muitos anos mais velho.

“À medida que isto infelizmente continua, mais pessoas parecem estar abrindo-se para, pelo menos, levantar questões e explorar o que antes era considerado ‘evidência contrária’ para encontrar respostas.”

Ampliação incremental das narrativas da COVID aceitas pela grande mídia

O artigo de opinião da RealClear Health, “As Cancers in the Young Rise, the Pandemic Response Must Be Probed”, questionou abertamente as recentes afirmações do governo dos EUA de que o risco de convulsões e embolias pulmonares causadas pelas vacinas COVID-19 valia o benefício para as crianças e adultos:

“Nós questionamos isso, com  mais de um milhão de relatos de potenciais lesões causadas por vacinas e 18.000 mortes no próprio  sistema de alerta precoce do governo, há muito tempo confiável e provavelmente subestimado. Estes, o governo se esforça para descartá-los.

“À medida que  as evidências aumentam e o  movimento de pessoas feridas cresce, a administração Biden deve reconhecer este crescente problema de saúde pública. Deve deixar de  sufocar o debate que  limitou o que os jornais imprimem e o que o público sabe sobre as consequências das vacinas.”

Mais tarde no artigo, Kory revisou dados dos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças (CDC), que ele disse serem “a ponta de um iceberg emergente” de “câncer estimulado por vacinas”.

Kory observou que as principais fontes estão agora reconhecendo um aumento incomum nos casos de “câncer turbo” – “um fenômeno que os ‘ verificadores de fatos ‘ da vacina rejeitaram”.

“Até a Sociedade do Câncer disse publicamente que, além de muitos deles, esses tipos de câncer são diferentes. Os tumores colorretais são maiores,  mais agressivos e mais difíceis de tratar”, escreveu Kory.

Ele referiu-se a estudos que mostram que vacinações repetidas podem “minar os mecanismos de imunidade – incapacitando os anticorpos que combatem o câncer e até mesmo  a COVID – e talvez  facilitar  o crescimento do câncer ”.

Kory também se referiu às descobertas recentes de que as vacinas mRNA COVID-19 da Pfizer e Moderna contêm fragmentos de DNA estranhos. “As consequências das vacinas contra a COVID devem ser examinadas”, incluindo “mortes notificadas, miocardite subdiagnosticada em homens jovens e muitos relatos de casos e estudos publicados”.

‘É hora da verdade’

Observando que as reações aos seus cinco artigos de opinião “foram em sua maioria positivas”, Kory disse que eles “nos permitiram expor milhões de pessoas, principalmente fora do nosso movimento, à ideia de que ainda existem muitas perguntas sem resposta sobre a segurança de a vacina e as causas potenciais do aumento acentuado de doenças crônicas e mortes.”

Ele adicionou:

“A narrativa do establishment é a mais alta e ouvida com mais frequência. É por isso que devemos tentar passar, tanto quanto possível, para o mainstream, de uma forma que convide aqueles que seguem o establishment sem questionar a começar a fazer perguntas.”

Kory também observou a importância de evitar hipérboles. “Se abordarmos as nossas conversas com aqueles que podem não concordar com uma série de razões pelas quais estão errados, não iremos longe”, disse ele. “Jeffrey Tucker está correto quando diz que devemos nos comunicar de forma verdadeira e honesta, sem malícia ou intenção de manipular o outro lado.”

Ainda assim, a gama cada vez maior de narrativas aceitáveis ​​pode “fazer algo para limitar a capacidade dos nossos líderes de lançar uma experiência de saúde global perigosa e, em última análise, destrutiva na próxima vez que houver uma ’emergência de saúde pública’”, escreveu Kory no Substack.

“Há muitos desafios pela frente. Ainda estamos lutando contra os ventos contrários das agências federais capturadas que protegem os interesses das empresas farmacêuticas em detrimento da saúde pública. Não veremos mudanças reais até que isso aconteça”, disse Kory ao The Defender.

Tucker sugeriu que “esquecêssemos” o modelo da janela Overton. Em vez disso, ele escreveu “É um momento para a verdade, que ganha confiança. Só que isso irá explodir a janela e finalmente demoli-la para sempre.”

“Não estou descartando a velha virtude da prudência e do discernimento”, disse Tucker ao The Defender. “Devemos ser sábios e não estúpidos. Há muito que podemos fazer sendo ousados.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

We post this 2023 virtual seminar as a tribute to Kari Polanyi Levitt, who is celebrating her 101st birthday on June 14.

*

The Institute of International Relations shares with you a virtual seminar,

“Kari Polanyi Levitt: Celebrating a True Caribbean Woman,” conducted last June 12, 2023.

The seminar focused on celebrate Kari Polanyi Levitt’s 100 years old and her outstanding contribution to the Caribbean political economy, activism in the New World Group, and her work at The UWI.

This is an opportunity for colleagues and friends to celebrate and reflect on Karis’ intellectual work and life.

The seminar was organized in partnership with the Centro de Estudios del Caribe at Casa de las Américas in Havana, Cuba.

*

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

 

 

 

 

It’s an understatement to say that we are living in an age of upheaval.

The forces of hatred and destruction have captured center stage in what seems like an endless barrage against the human spirit.

At the same time, a significant proportion of beleagured humanity are trying desperately to discover a path toward sanity and compassion that can lead us out of the madness.

As an American, I find it extremely unfortunate that the decades-long assault by my country against the rest of the world has caused us to fail to appreciate the fact that the dearth of real spirituality here in the U.S. has blinded my compatriots to the notion that we might be looking elsewhere in the world for guidance.

Granted, many have been looking toward Eastern spirituality for answers, some toward Islam, and many toward our own Christian traditions, but there may be yet more to discover.

In particular, I believe we should look to the Germans. Prior to World War I, Germany was the most advanced nation in the Western world in its culture, technology, and spirituality.

This was the main impetus for the genocidal assault on Germany led by what has become today’s Anglo-American-Zionist Empire.

The story of this assault is told by Guido Giacomo Preparata in his seminal book,

“Conjuring Hitler: How Great Britain and America Created the Third Reich and Destroyed Europe.”

See here. The story is also told in my new book, “Our Country, Then and Now.” See here.

Yet the wisdom coming out of Germany is nevertheless available through the teachings of a German-born master whose spiritual name was Bô Yin Râ. His books have become available in English translation from Kober Press in Berkeley, CA. See here.

I would refer the reader particularly to “The Book on the Living God,” the primary volume explaining his teachings. A free download of this book in English is available here. Please take a look and decide for yourself whether there is anything otherwise available that provides such insight. Following is a review of this book on Amazon.com that touches on the importance of Bô Yin Râ and his writings for the spiritual seeker today.

*

“High Spiritual Teachings”

Review by Carl Ehrlich, reviewed in the United States on October 12, 2017

Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943) was a spiritual master from Germany who produced a 32-volume collection of masterpieces called Hortus Conclusus (The Gated Garden) that together define the inner spiritual path for the modern age. Unfortunately, these books have been almost unknown to English-speaking readers.

Now, however, after almost a century, when the books have been available only in German or in selective translations, Kober Press of Berkeley, CA, has published a number of new translations with more on the way. These products excel in every way—the language is clear, cadenced, precise, and non-literary, with a sense of rhythm that enhances understanding.

The Book on the Living God, published in a second edition by Kober in 2014, comprises Volume 2 of the collection. It is also the first of a three-volume trilogy within Hortus Conclusus that also includes The Book on Life Beyond and The Book on Human Nature.

The writings of Bô Yin Râ are not just more tomes of supposedly esoteric lore that may take years to study but in the end leave the individual no better off or, worse, disgusted at hopes dashed and time wasted. Authentic spiritual teaching—that is, teaching that takes us to actual experience of higher consciousness and our own immortal spirit—is not easy to find, if we are lucky enough to find it at all.

This is where Bô Yin Râ is different—so different, in fact, that you may simply dismiss him as just another compiler of the same material you are already used to. But you don’t just read books by Bô Yin Râ. These books contain a depth of indefinable spiritual energy that you can begin to access only through a gradual process of reading, study, meditation, and implementation through some very specific practices.

The Book on the Living God starts by describing the hierarchy of human beings, including those who never have had to suffer material incarnation on planet earth, who guide all spiritual development. He acknowledges that this hierarchy has a physical location in the heart of Asia from which they oversee the work of Luminaries—humans in physical bodies who work in the world as teachers for the benefit of humankind. Bô Yin Râ was such a Luminary. Another was Jesus, though while Bô Yin Râ writes a lot about Jesus, he does not tout the Christian religion over any other. In fact he says in The Book on the Living God that all genuine religions contain the same message.

In The Book on the Living God, Bô Yin Râ describes the crucial distinction between realization of one’s eternal self and the stage where one’s Living God is born within. In my own opinion, almost all teachings of Western spirituality, including a number of well-known movements, stop at some semblance of the first stage and know very little, if anything, about the second.

Bô Yin Râ does not present any dogmas that you have to believe. He advises against anyone trying to form “congregations” to enforce a particular line of doctrine. But you have to study his books yourself to get a sense of what he is talking about.

A serious and sincere study of The Book on the Living God can help make a start. It’s a huge book in the number and scope of topics, the depth of treatment of each, and the variety by which the core truths are approached. Among the topics is an explanation in the chapter on “Karma” on where, cosmically, human beings come from, what is our ultimate destiny, and the inner meaning of myths and legends about the “fall” of man. Also covered, as indicated above, is the class of human beings who never have had to experience incarnation but who reside on the spiritual plane as “Fathers” of the Luminaries who come to earth to provide spiritual guidance. The descriptions of these higher beings in The Book on the Living God gives credence to the awareness on the part of all cultures of angels and supernatural guides capable of offering help to mortals who seek it.

Over the past two centuries, ever since the Western word began to study spiritual teachings from Oriental religions and translate them into European languages, the idea of a “perennial philosophy” at the heart of all true spirituality has been around.

An example has been the “hero’s journey” described by Joseph Campbell and others.

Perhaps because no one in the highly ethno-centric English-speaking world ever gave much notice to German sources, the teachings of Bô Yin Râ have flown under the radar. But I am convinced that Bô Yin Râ’s writings take us into the heart of the “perennial philosophy,” define what it is and where it came from, and at long last give effective tools to practice it, here and now, in our daily lives.

The Book on the Living God is an invaluable resource in identifying and using these tools with some surprising disclosures as well. Simply put, I am not aware of any other spiritual writing at its level.

*

Richard C. Cook is a co-founder and lead investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute.  Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle, documenting his story in his book “Challenger Revealed.” After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. See his new book, Our Country, Then and Now, Clarity Press, 2023.

“Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), Translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014. Also see the Kober Press edition of The Book on the Living God here.

Featured image is from Amazon

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

“This is a money deal. The lesson that the WHO and Big Pharma learned is that they could suck a lot of money out of a lot of countries and trick a lot of people, but they missed a whole bunch of black and brown people in poor countries, and so they needed an agreement to redirect wealth from unsuspecting governments in wealthy nations (or maybe suspecting I don’t know) and other organizations, to build out their infrastructure in poor nations, so they can go after them (too).” —James Roguski

For many months we have been actively working to stop the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments from passing at the 77^th World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting in Geneva last week. That meeting has now come and gone.

What has happened? Did the WHA pass IHR amendments? Did they advance the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty? What is our current position? What are our next steps to stop medical tyranny and the abuse of men, women and children everywhere?

To answer these questions, I reached out to one of the world’s foremost experts on the WHO: James Roguski. James has kept an endless vigil over the WHO for the past four years. In this conversation James gets straight to the bottom of what has happened with the IHR amendments, what it reveals about the plans of the WHO and their accomplices, and what we should do next.

While many are celebrating things that the WHA did not accomplish last week, we must remain sober and look at what they did accomplish, and what that revealed.

“The WHO got what they wanted. We lost this round. The silver lining is that their cards are on the table, and now we can analyse their plans clearly.” —James Roguski

Click here to watch the interview

 

Here is the International Health Regulations as amended and adopted on 2024-06-01 by the World Health Aseembly. James recommends we pay particular attention to Articles 1, 4, 12, 13, 24, 27, 31, 35, 44, 44bis, 54bis, and Annexes 1, 4, and 6. Original source.

Here is the Resolution. Original source.

*

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

After 3 Years of Censorship, Mainstream Media Now Confirms that COVID Jabs “May be to Blame for Increase in Excess Deaths”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Sarah Knapton, June 05, 2024

If this report by The Telegraph had been published in early 2021, several million lives would have been saved. But in 2021, censorship was imposed. Honest journalism was silenced. The media was supportive of the fear campaign.

The 80th Anniversary of the D-Day Landing. It Was the Red Army Which Liberated Auschwitz. “Operation Bagration” (Summer 1944)

By Dr. Leon Tressell, June 06, 2024

By June 1944 the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) during 1943. At Stalingrad it had lost the Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 500,000 men.

Parallel Fascism and Western-Supported Zionist Genocide of Palestine and Palestinians

By Mark Taliano, June 06, 2024

Gaza is a classic case of genocide in the sense that Western-supported Zionists are intentionally, methodically, using every strategy to destroy and extinguish the native Palestinian population, not only their present, but also their past.

Biden Makes It Clear Ukraine Will Not be a NATO Member

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, June 06, 2024

Since 2022, there has been a major discussion among officials and experts about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. In response to Russia’s special military operation, some NATO countries promised Kiev membership in the alliance. However, it has become increasingly clear that the bloc is not interested in accepting Ukraine as a member.

Free Palestine! Hands Off Our Students!

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 06, 2024

Metropolitan Detroit embodies the largest population of people of Arab and Middle Eastern descent in the United States. Consequently, many people within this community have direct familial and linguistic ties to the people most impacted by the settler-colonial regime occupying Palestine.

Netherlands Supports Use of Its Nuclear-capable F-16s for Strikes in Russia

By Drago Bosnic, June 05, 2024

Netherlands is part of the infamous NATO nuclear sharing agreement with the United States and its KLu previously operated American-made F-16 fighter jets for nuclear strikes as part of Squadrons No. 311 and 312.

What’s Next for Battlefield America? Israel’s High-Tech Military Tactics Point the Way

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, June 05, 2024

If you want a glimpse of the next stage of America’s transformation into a police state, look no further than how Israel—a long-time recipient of hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid from the U.S.—uses its high-tech military tactics, surveillance and weaponry to advance its authoritarian agenda.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The Washington Post’s unbelievably sleazy smear piece against independent media outlet The Grayzone can be summed up with its line “The First Amendment guarantees free speech rights even for Americans believed to be spreading foreign propaganda. But…” 

The whole thing is designed to manufacture support for criminally prosecuting dissident American journalists on the grounds that they violated US sanctions by working for Iranian media years ago, and to give the reader the false impression that The Grayzone is funded by foreign states without actually advancing the claim and eating a libel suit.

And the hit piece is having its intended effect; you see professional empire apologists all over Twitter today promoting the false claim that The Grayzone is funded by Iran and Russia. The empire’s information warriors now have one more weapon they can use to weaken public trust in dissident journalism whenever it presents an inconvenient narrative.

All because some Grayzone staff were involved with foreign media outlets in the past, which only happened because there are no major western media outlets which platform dissident voices like theirs who criticize the western empire and its actions. These people are being persecuted for disagreeing with their government. It really is that simple.

The Washington Post is one of the worst propaganda rags ever to exist in any country. If I’d published such an article for such a depraved empire propaganda outlet, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.

*

“Antisemitism” should never even enter the conversation when it comes to Palestinians themselves. Projecting an old European bigotry onto an Arab population who would hate their oppressors regardless of whether they were Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Taoist is ridiculous bullshit.

*

Biden: I have here an Israel-approved peace deal, so now all we need is for Hamas to approve it and we can have peace in Gaza.

[Netanyahu walks onstage, takes a shit, grabs the peace deal Biden was holding, wipes his ass with it, hands it back to Biden, walks offstage]

Biden: So yeah, like I was saying, the only obstacle to peace is the refusal of Hamas to accept this peace deal…

*

NATO is both (A) preparing for hot war with Russia and (B) rapidly taking numerous steps to provoke such a war. They’re currently developing “land corridors” for a direct ground war with Russia while simultaneously moving to allow Ukraine to strike deeper and deeper into mainland Russia with NATO-supplied weapons. These escalations would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but nuclear brinkmanship has become so normalized for us in 2024 that it now barely makes a blip in the discourse.

*

Trump said in a recent interview that he believes Israel should be destroying Gaza much more rapidly and that he would not have withdrawn from Afghanistan if he were president. I can’t believe how open this prick is being about wanting to start wars and advance longstanding agendas of the neocons and the CIA in every way, and how despite all this I’m still getting Trump supporters telling me he’s been ending the wars and fighting the deep state.

Click here to watch the video on X

*

Democrats are seriously asking people to believe that Trump’s second term would be much much worse than his first term, but that Biden’s second term would not.

*

Things get a lot clearer when you understand that the US empire is not a national government which happens to run a bunch of worldwide military operations, it’s a worldwide military operation which happens to run a national government.

*

One way of looking at it is that everything you were taught in school about your nation, your government, your society and your world is true, and that your news media would never lie to you. That the world is a mess only because people keep voting for the wrong political leaders and making poor personal choices. This is the mainstream consensus worldview.

Another way of looking at it is that the world is a mess because we are ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and secretive government agencies who use governments as tools to advance their global power agendas, hiding their rulership behind propaganda and the illusion of democracy. That we are marched into endless war, exploitation, ecocide and nuclear brinkmanship because a bunch of sociopaths believe their wealth and power are more important than human life, a healthy society, and a healthy planet.

Another way of looking at it is that actually no one is in charge — that the separate self is a hallucination caused by a glitch in human cognition, that the human organism is a whirlpool of conditioning patterns that is inseparably interwoven with the material world, that free will is a fairy tale we have told ourselves, and that the oligarchs and empire managers are just the tip of an icicle falling to the earth, acting in accordance with their own unconscious conditioning with no real agency or control of their own just like everybody else. That the world is a mess because of an unfolding of conditioning patterns whose origins stretch back to the dawn of life on this planet.

Another way of looking at it is that the world is a mess because humans are just in an awkward evolutionary transition phase where these newly evolved brains of ours haven’t yet come into a mature relationship with their capacity for abstract thought. That we look awkward and silly right now in the same way birds probably looked awkward and silly at some point before that class of animal life got the hang of flight. That the only reason we’re able to be whipped about by propaganda and convinced to consent to competition-based systems that are causing wars and destroying our biosphere is because our immature relationship with thought causes us to latch onto mental narratives out of fear and desire for security. And that one day we will adapt beyond the dysfunctional way we create psychological egos and ego agendas and become a fully conscious species, at which point we will become impossible to propagandize and will begin to move in harmony with terrestrial life instead of in competition with it.

Another way of looking at it is that the universe is just trying to behold itself. That the dawn of life on this planet allowed the universe to experience itself with sense organs, that the arrival of humanity allowed it to think thoughts and learn about itself, that the arrival of human science has allowed it to peer deeper and deeper into itself with greater and greater detail, that the arrival of inner disciplines has allowed it to bring consciousness to the previously unseen workings of human psychology, and that the arrival of journalism and the internet has allowed it to see aspects of societal dynamics and power structures that used to have very little light on them. That the world is a mess only because there is still much that remains unseen — in terms of technological insight, in terms of socio-political insight, and in terms of collective psychological insight.

The further down the rabbit hole you go, the less room you can find for blame and hatred, and the more innocent everything ultimately looks. This doesn’t contradict the obvious fact that there are people in this world whose behavior is very destructive and who must be immobilized for the safety of everyone else, it just means there’s an innate innocence underlying it all. An innocence that will be there even if we wipe ourselves out and take all terrestrial life with us.

Humans are a deeply beautiful animal, regardless of how this adventure unfolds, or how much time it has left before it’s over.

*

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine there has been an increased tempo of attempts to rewrite the history of World War Two by Western media and politicians.

At an event to commemorate the 80^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this year, the President of the EU Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, never even mentioned that it was the Red Army which liberated the death camp.

Meanwhile, President Biden during a recent speech at Arlington Military Cemetery said that the US Army had “liberated the continent’’ from fascism and did not mention the role of the Red Army in the victory over Nazi Germany.

Competing Narratives Regarding the Importance of D-Day

The UK government is holding a series of events to celebrate the 80^th anniversary of the D-Day landings. On its site the UK proudly declares that the landings were, “A turning point in the Second World War’’ for:

“D-Day altered the course of history, signalling the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.. … The establishment of a secure front in Normandy was crucial for allied forces to launch further offensives, leading to the liberation of Paris, the push towards Germany, and, ultimately, to victory.’’

This narrative is further exemplified in the article by Ian Carter from the Imperial War Museum in London, Why D-Day Was So Important To Allied Victory. Carter makes the grandiose and historically inaccurate claim that the Allied invasion of Normandy played a more important role in the defeat of Nazi Germany than the defeats it suffered on the Eastern Front:

“The German Army suffered a catastrophe greater than that of Stalingrad, the defeat in North Africa or even the massive Soviet summer offensive of 1944.”

American historian Peter Kuznick, professor of history at American University and co-author, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History Of The United States, has commented on the narrative that it was the D-Day landings that broke the back of German fascism. In an interview with The Real News Network on 9  June 2019:

“For the Americans, the war begins at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. And then there’s some battling in North Africa and the underbelly, and Italy. But the real war for the Americans begins June 6, 1944, with the invasion of Normandy with D-Day. Then the Americans single-handedly defeat the Germans and marched straight into Berlin. And the Americans win the war in Europe. That’s a very, very unfortunate and dangerous myth that has been perpetrated. … That’s not the reality. The reality was the success at Normandy is largely due to the fact that the Germans were already weakened badly by that point, because they had been taking a pummelling, and they were in retreat across Europe ahead of the Russian Army, ahead of the vast Red Army, which was then liberating the concentration camps.”

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company A, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division when landing. During the initial landing two-thirds of Company E became casualties. (From the Public Domain)

In complete contrast to this pro-American narrative Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, made the following statement on the 75 anniversary of the D-Day landings:

“As historians note, the Normandy landing did not have a decisive impact on the outcome of World War IIand the Great Patriotic War. It had already been pre-determined as a result of the Red Army’s victories, mainly at Stalingrad (in late 1942) and Kursk (in mid-1943),”

Before I proceed here’s my disclaimer. My grandfather fought in North Africa with the British 8^th Army so this article is not knocking the contribution of allied soldiers but merely seeks to give historical balance to the highly politicized narrative over who dealt the decisive blow to Nazi Germany during 1944.

Importance of German Defeats During 1943

The United States entered World War Two on 7 December 1941 following the Japanese attack upon the American naval base at Pearl Harbour. As early as June 1942 the Soviet Union had urged its American and British allies to open a second front in Western Europe. It would take the US and UK another two years to finally launch the invasion of France. Meanwhile, the Red Army took the brunt of German military might and millions died in the genocidal race war waged by the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

USS Arizona burned for two days after being hit by a Japanese bomb in the attack on Pearl Harbor. (From the Public Domain)

By June 1944 the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) during 1943. At Stalingrad it had lost the Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 500,000 men. Meanwhile, at Kursk it had lost 30 divisions (over 500,000 men) including 7 Panzer divisions equipped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks, 1,500 tanks, 3,000 guns and 3,500 warplanes.

Both German and Soviet generals writing after the war agree upon the catastrophic consequences of the Wehrmacht’s defeats during 1943. Colonel General Heinz Guderian, who became Chief of the General Staff in 1944, admitted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht, “had suffered a decisive defeat. … From now on the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.”

Field Marshall Manstein echoed Guderian’s assessment of the catastrophic consequences of German defeats during 1943. In his memoirs he noted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht:

” …found itself waging a defensive struggle which could not be anything more than a system of improvisations and stopgaps….To maintain ourselves in the field, and in doing so wear down the enemy’s offensive capabilities to the utmost, became the whole essence of the struggle.”

Marshal Zhukov, deputy commander of the Red Army later observed the decisive nature of the defeats inflicted upon the German Wehrmacht during 1943:

“Not only were the picked and most powerful groupings of the Germans destroyed here, but the faith of the German Army and the German people in the Nazi leadership and Germany’s ability to withstand the growing might of the Soviet Union was irrevocably shattered.”

Soviet soldiers in Polotsk, 4 July 1944 (From the Public Domain)

The American historians David Glantz and Jonathan House, in their account of the Eastern Front When Titans Clashed How The Red Army Stopped Hitler, declare that 1943 was a ruinous and fatally destructive period for the German army:

“Organizationally, the Wehrmacht was clearly in decline by late 1943. In addition to the death of Sixth Army and several allied armies, the German Panzer force and air transport force had been shattered repeatedly. Hundreds of ordinary infantry divisions were reduced to two thirds of their strength, with declining mobility and inadequate anti-tank defences.”

“Indeed, after Kursk a vicious cycle set in. Each new setback forced the Germans to commit their newly recruited replacement troops and their refurbished panzer units to battle more rapidly and with less training. Poorly trained troops suffered abnormally high casualties before they learned the harsh realities of combat. These casualties in turn, meant that commanders had to call on the next wave of replacments at an even earlier stage in their training.”

By the summer of 1944 the German Wehrmacht was incapable of conducting a general offensive on a wide front. It was reeling from the massive losses inflicted by the Red Army’s winter campaign of 1943-44 that had led to the destruction of large portions of First Panzer, Sixth, Eighth and Seventeenth Armies. 16 German divisions comprising over 50,000 men had been completely destroyed while 60 other divisions had been reduced to fragments of their former strength.

Objectives for the Soviet Summer Offensives of 1944

Wider geo-political considerations entered the deliberations of the Red Army command when working out the objectives for its summer campaign of 1944. The long delayed second front invasion of France was a factor in Stalin’ s thinking. He was aware that the American led force landing in Normandy would be in a race with the Red Army to get to Berlin first. In 1943 Stalin met with Churchill and Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference to begin planning the post war future of Europe which envisaged the division of Germany into zones of influence. Stalin was determined that the Red Army would get to Berlin first and so have the initiative when dividing up Germany and ensuring that Eastern Europe would become a satellite buffer zone for the Soviet Union.

In March 1944 the State Defence Committee led by Stalin and the Red Army General Staff began their analysis of their options for the summer offensive. It was eventually resolved that the Red Army would attack and destroy its toughest foe: Army Group Centre which was concentrated in Belorussia. The liberation of Belorussia would place the Red Army in Poland and leave it poised along the most direct route to Berlin and have the added bonus of leaving Army Group North cut off from its supply lines and unable to retreat.

The summer campaign would involved five different offensives running north to south that would be staggered along the 2,000 mile front. Operation Bagration was named after the Russian general who was mortally wounded in 1812 at the battle of Borodino. It was scheduled to start on 22 June nearly a fortnight after the offensive against Finland which was designed to drive this German ally out of the war.

The Red Army pulled off a massive redeployment of troops in strict secrecy that was part of its highly successful deception that led the German High Command to expect the main offensives to be directed against Army Group South and Army Group North.

By mid June the Red Army had pulled off the herculean task of manoeuvring 14 combined-arms armies in to place together with 1 tank army, 118 rifle divisions, 4 air armies and 2 cavalry corps. This huge force comprised 1,254,300 men, 2,715 tanks, 24,363 artillery pieces supported by 2,306 Katyusha rocket launchers and 5,327 combat aircraft supported by 700 bombers of the Long Range Bomber Force.

The logistics involved in preparing the four army fronts involved in Operation Bagration gives an idea of the massive scale of the impending attack. The four army fronts were supported by 70,000 lorries and 90-100 trains a day bringing fuel and ammunition up to the starting lines of the impending offensive.

Summer Offensives Begin

Three days after the D-Day landings on 9 June almost 1,000 combat aircraft opened the offensive that was to knock Finland out of the war. It also had the added benefit of keeping Army Group Centre distracted away from the main Soviet thrust that was carefully forming in front of the German defences.

Operation Bagration 23 June – 19 August 1944

On 19 June Soviet partisans set off over 10,000 demolition charges ripping up German rail track, rolling stock, sidings and junctions on the central front. Over the next 4 nights 40,000 demolitions spread destruction deep into the rear of the German transport network.

Red Army’s Operation Bagration Not D-Day Landings Broke Back Of German Fascism During Summer Of 1944

Source: WWII Database

Finally, on 23 June, on almost the third anniversary of the Wehrmacht’s invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army launched its massive surprise attack against Army Group Centre.

Operation Bagration achieved complete tactical surprise and soon had Army Group Centre reeling. The German High Command seemed completely unaware of the impending catastrophe that was rapidly enveloping their forces. Hitler, refused permission for any kind of flexible defence that involved tactical retreats by German units and was unwilling to sanction any major reinforcements being despatched to Army Group Centre.

As early as 24 June Army Group Centre was facing a very serious threat to its entire position. John Erickson in his magisterial account of the Eastern Front, The Road To Berlin: Stalin’s War With Germany Vol.2, has commented:

“From this point forward, Army Group Centre was caught in an impossible situation and progressively drenched with Russian fire denied any degree of flexibility yet bereft of any effective reinforcement. … The situation of Third Panzer [army] and Fourth Army was serious: for the Ninth Army to the south it rapidly became catastrophic.”

A week after the launch of Operation Bagration the German defensive system had collapsed. The four Red Army fronts had liberated Vitebesk, Orsha, Moghilev and Bobruisk and pressed on towards Minsk. They had killed over 130,000 German soldiers, taken 66,000 prisoner and destroyed 900 German tanks and thousands of vehicles. Red Army casualties were so high that the 2^nd Belorussian Front was forced to withdraw and recoup. Despite its heavy casualties the Red Army showed no signs of slackening the pace of its offensive.

Abandoned vehicles of the German 9th Army at a road near Bobruisk (From the Public Domain)

The three German armies that comprised Army Group Centre were in disarray and in headlong retreat. They were ordered to follow a scorched earth policy that left no resources for the advancing Red Army which came across numerous German war crimes. John Erickson has noted that:

“Minsk, its factories dynamited and its installations wrecked, stood mostly in ruins; throughout most of Belorussia Soviet troops advanced through burned villages and broken towns, the livestock gone and the population fearfully thinned. More than once Red Army units came upon wagons loaded with children consigned to deportation to the Reich.”

Minsk, capital of Belorussia fell on 3 July, and the Red Army moved to encircle and destroy the German Fourth Army whose strength by then had fallen to around 105,000 men.

40,000 German soldiers died trying to break out of the Soviet encirclement. On 11 July the remnants of Fourth Army, out of ammunition and fuel, surrendered.

The Red Army had achieved total tactical and strategic success and torn a 250 mile gap in the German front leaving Army Group Centre with a meagre 8 divisions at its disposal.

Estimates of the staggering German losses suggest that Army Group Centre lost 25-28 divisions, over 450,000 men, while another 100,000 fell on the southern and northern fronts.

Soviet casualties were equally horrendous with the Red Army suffering over 230,000 killed and 800,000 wounded.

During the Red Army’s whirlwind offensives of late June and July 1944 the Western Allies struggled to break out of their Normandy bridgehead. Operation Bagration and the accompanying offensives that took the Red Army to the eastern suburbs of Warsaw, had surpassed their initial objectives and broken the back of Germany’s strongest army group leaving Hitler’s regime staring defeat in the face.

Assessments of Operation Bagration

Assessments of the impact of Operation Bagration all agree that it dealt a devastating and catastrophic blow to the military capabilities of German fascism.

American historians David M. Gantz and Jonathan House have noted the dreadful consequences of Operation Bagration for the German Wehrmacht:

“The destruction of more than 30 divisions and the carnage wrought in a host of surviving divisions, accompanied by a Soviet mechanized advance in excess of 300 kilometres. It had decimated Army Group Centre, the strongest German army group, severely shaken Army Group South Ukraine, and brought the Red Army to the borders of the Reich.”

John Erickson in his evaluation of the historical importance of Operation Bagration has commented:

“When Soviet armies shattered Army Group Centre, they achieved their greatest military success on the Eastern Front. For the German army in the east it was a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions, greater than that of Stalingrad, ….”

This assessment is supported by German and Soviet generals.

According to German military historian, General von Buttlar, Operation Bagration left the German Wehrmacht in disarray and shattered its ability to mount effective resistance to the Red Army. He observed that, ‘the rout of the Centre Group of Armies put an end to the organized resistance of Germans in the East.’

Marshal Zhukov in his memoirs gave a detailed assessment of the military and geo-political ramifications of Operation Bagration:

“In two months, Soviet troops had routed two big strategic German groupings, liberated Belorussia, completed the liberation of the Ukraine, and freed a considerable part of Lithuania and eastern Poland. In these battles, the 1st, 2^nd and 3^rd Belorussian Fronts and the 1^st Baltic Front routed 70 divisions. Thirty divisions were routed by the 1stUkrainian Front in the Lvov-Sandomir regions … the defeat of the Centre and North Ukraine groups, the capture of three major bridgeheads on the Vistula and arrival at Warsaw brought our striking fronts close to Berlin, now only 600 km [370 miles] away … Roumania and Hungary were close to withdrawal from the German alliance.”

During June-July 1944 Operation Bagration broke the back of the strongest military formation in the German Wehrmacht and dealt a mortal blow to German fascism from which it was unable to recover. The British/American narrative that D-Day dealt the mortal blow to German fascism does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The American military historians Glantz and House have observed that, ‘ … despite the Germans’ need to direct new divisions and equipment eastward, throughout June and July the Wehrmacht was still able to contain the Allied bridgehead in Normandy.’

On 17 July 1944 57,000 German prisoners of war, captured during Operation Bagration, were paraded through the streets of Moscow. The motive for this was to scotch all talk that the Red Army had not played the decisive role in destroying the military capabilities of the German Wehrmacht.

Military historian John Erickson has noted how:

“Russians resented suggestions that German troops had been transferred from Belorussia westwards to fight off the invading Allied armies: the parade of the prisoners was in part designed to stifle ‘nonsensical’ talk of this kind. The main battle-front, and here Soviet commentators quoted directly from German cries of anguish, lay in the east where battles of ‘apocalyptic’ dimensions raged.”

It is 80 years since the momentous events on the eastern front during the summer of 1944 that broke the back of German fascism and left it staring defeat in the face. We should celebrate this victory and remember the huge sacrifices made by the Red Army.

That said, we should not be complacent about the defeat of German fascism. The conditions that helped give birth to fascism are beginning to re-emerge and will be given a huge stimulus by the next global economic crisis.

Bertolt Brecht gave a warning about this when writing after World War Two. Brecht warned:

“Don’t rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard. The bitch that bore him is in heat 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.

Dr. Leon Tressell is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Two destroyed Panzer IV tanks belonging to the 20th Panzer Division, June 1944 (From the Public Domain)

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Gaza is a classic case of genocide in the sense that Western-supported Zionists are intentionally, methodically, using every strategy to destroy and extinguish the native Palestinian population, not only their present, but also their past.

It has nothing to do with Hamas.

In the above video, Dr. Mads Gilbert correctly describes the genocide as a colonial project which is eliminating the Palestinian people, their culture, their institutions, their archives, their history.

Hospitals, health care, primary health care, universities, museums are all being destroyed. Poets, academic leaders, universities, museums, and archaeological sites are all being destroyed.

Western-supported Zionists are destroying the history and identity of Palestine and Palestinians.

“This has nothing to do with the Hamas-Israeli war, “ asserts Gilbert, who has served as a medical doctor in Gaza, rather, it is a “cynical, sadistic colonial project.”

On-the-ground reporter Hind Khoudary emphasizes that Palestinians “are not dying only from the shelling and airstrikes, they are dying from the lack of access to medical care, lack of food, hunger and starvation …”

See this and this, and this.

Genocidal strategies of deprivation are less obvious than the shelling, but equally if not more devastating. Ralph Nader estimated earlier that the Washington/Zionist genocide of Palestinians has killed 200,000 people.

The West, with its bombs and billions, its political and economic support of this genocide, is displaying yet again its fascist core. This genocide support is, as described by Prof. Tim Anderson, a “parallel fascism” which is the heart and soul of Western imperialism, as it destroys target countries and target peoples as policy, camouflaged beneath war lies of humanitarianism, democracy and freedom.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from the author

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

 

 

 

She is poised to become Mexico’s first female president, after winning a historic mandate in the country’s June 2 election.

But Claudia Sheinbaum faces a challenge: how to distinguish herself from her political mentor, current President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known as AMLO.

Sheinbaum during her victory speech on June 2, 2024. (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

Representing the left-leaning Morena party, Sheinbaum campaigned in Lopez Obrador’s image, embracing many of his trademark projects and policies.

But experts say her personal history and past governing experience offer valuable clues about how her tenure in office might differ from Lopez Obrador’s.

“Sheinbaum has always been disciplined and strategic,” said Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a Mexican political analyst. “She’s not going to be as radical as AMLO.”

A Mix of Academics and Politics

The former head of Mexico City’s government, Sheinbaum was born into a family of Jewish heritage, and she initially followed her parents into the field of science.

She studied physics and then energy engineering, pursuing research for her doctoral degree at the University of California, Berkeley in the United States.

But early on, Sheinbaum also mirrored her parents’ commitment to political engagement, becoming involved in student activism. On the campaign trail, she often credits her parents’ involvement in the 1968 student protests as an inspiration for her own work.

“I have always said it: I am a daughter of ’68,” she wrote on social media in April.

Her transition to a political career came under Lopez Obrador’s wing. In a campaign video chronicling her life, Sheinbaum explained that she and Lopez Obrador often participated in the same protests and activist work, but it was only in 2000, a week after he was elected mayor of Mexico City, that she was formally introduced to him during a meeting at her house.

Click here to read the full article on Al Jazeera.

*

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 licensed under CC BY 2.0

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Jesse Johnson, a Calgary pizza shop owner who faced charges for serving unvaccinated customers during COVID-19, is now suing the Alberta government after those charges were dropped.

*

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.

Our thanks to Dr. William Makis of COVID Intel for bringing this to our attention.

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

May 31, 2024 (above) – Singer Seini Taumoepeau died very suddenly 

Tongan-Australian presenter and singer Seini Fale’ aka Taumoepeau, who also performed under the name “SistaNative,” was a presenter on ABC Pacific.”

Here are 85 musicians and singers who died suddenly recently:

May 21, 2024 – Award Winning Latin Musician Omar Geles Died after suffering a heart attack while playing tennis at a country club.

May 14, 2024 – Philippines – 43 year old musician Rotsanjani died of a heart attack.

May 7, 2024 – 61 year old musician Steve Albini dead at 61 of heart attack on May 7, 2024.

Sep. 7, 2021: “How about maga chuds eating horse paste in the first place? That’s f’n hilarious and sounds like something you’d make up as a bit, but sure as s*** they’re doing it everywhere instead of getting a f’n vaccine you can get for free.”

“If vaccine doses are expiring, don’t f*** with eligible/ineligible, just stab them into anybody passing by.”

 

 

 

May 2, 2024 – 56 year old musician Matthew Bain Wadlow died suddenly.

 

 

April 30, 2024 – Gospel singer Florence Robert died after a brief illness.

 

 

April 27, 2024 – David Newman died 5 weeks after being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor.

 

 

April 24, 2024 – Eric Hess, harmonica player, died suddenly.

 

 

April 17, 2024 – 32 year old Durham hip hop artist Josh “Rowdy” Rowsey died suddenly.

 

 

April 11, 2024 – 30 year old K-pop star Park Bo-ram died after collapsing at a friend’s house in South Korea and going into cardiac arrest.

 

 

April 8, 2024 – Indonesia Singer 23 year old Melitha Sidabutar died suddenly and unexpectedly.

 

 

April 5, 2024 – Vancouver musician Rocket Norton died after a battle with cancer.

Click here to read the full article on COVID Intel.

*

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 Instagram/@omargeles/Distractify

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Since 2022, there has been a major discussion among officials and experts about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. In response to Russia’s special military operation, some NATO countries promised Kiev membership in the alliance. However, it has become increasingly clear that the bloc is not interested in accepting Ukraine as a member.

In a recent statement, US President Joe Biden said that his “vision of peace” does not necessarily include Ukraine’s entry into NATO. His words were spoken during an interview with the Times on May 28. In the interview, he commented on relevant issues in current US politics, including Ukraine, Israel and the elections. According to him, a proper understanding of “peace” should prioritize ensuring that Russia does not repeat its military actions in Ukraine in the future, with being Kiev’s possible NATO membership unnecessary.

Biden emphasized the “importance” of relations between the US and Ukraine, especially with regard to the supply of weapons in the current conflict. He seems to value the material aspect of relations with Ukraine more than the formal aspect. In this sense, he understands that the US is already fulfilling its role in terms of helping Ukraine, and there is no need to achieve the country’s membership in the military bloc.

Biden also believes that, by supplying weapons to Ukraine, the US is already helping Ukrainians to “defend themselves” in the future. In other words, he has made it clear that Washington is not willing to do anything for Ukraine beyond what it is already doing – and the future of Kiev is the responsibility of the Ukrainians themselves.

“Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO (…) It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future,” he said.

At the same time, Biden repeated the fallacious rhetoric that the conflict in Ukraine is some kind of initial stage of the Russian interests. The American president believes that, if Ukraine loses the war, Poland, the Baltic States and other European countries will soon face wars with Russia as well. He also praised his own work as the leader of a military superpower, recalling Finland’s entry into NATO and the expansion of the military bloc as a victory, despite the conflict situation with Moscow.

In fact, Biden’s position reflects an atypical political realism in his statements. The American president usually uses excessively aggressive and unrealistic rhetoric in his speeches, advocating an openly bellicose policy against Moscow. However, despite these characteristics, Biden does not seem willing to admit Ukraine’s entry into NATO, which is no surprise.

For any serious military analyst, Ukraine’s entry into NATO has always seemed extremely unlikely. Despite maintaining very close relations with the main Western powers, Kiev plays a proxy role in NATO’s war plans. It is not in the alliance’s interest to have a country at war among its members, since this would require the invocation of the collective defense clause, automatically involving all members in a conflict situation. What seems more interesting for the bloc at the moment is to maintain Ukraine as an external ally, capable of being used against a military enemy without provoking any need of mobilization for the member countries.

Biden is obviously being hypocritical when he says that the US is already helping Ukraine enough. The only purpose of US military assistance is to prolong the conflict, as the US weapons are incapable of changing the final outcome of the conflict or ensuring that Kiev “can defend itself in the future.” Biden is simply trying to disguise the fact that his country is using Ukraine to wage war with Russia, without any concern for Kiev’s future.

As Ukraine approaches complete military collapse, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no future for Kiev. The regime will not be granted accession to the Western defense bloc, and it also seems unlikely that NATO will intervene directly against Russia. The situation seems obvious: Ukraine has engaged in a suicidal war to protect the interests of its sponsors and will now have to deal with the consequences of this decision alone.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

On June 4, hundreds of students, faculty, alumni and community members rallied on the campus of Wayne State University located in the Midtown District of Detroit.

The purpose of the gathering was to send a clear message to the recently appointed President Kimberly Andrews Espy who ordered a Palestine solidarity encampment raided and destroyed by campus police on May 30.

Metropolitan Detroit embodies the largest population of people of Arab and Middle Eastern descent in the United States. Consequently, many people within this community have direct familial and linguistic ties to the people most impacted by the settler-colonial regime occupying Palestine.

WSU’s chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has taken a leadership role at the higher educational institution by demanding the full disclosure and divestment of all financial and other ties between the University and the State of Israel. The movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) has spread rapidly across hundreds of colleges and universities in the U.S.

This movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people has been met with repression resulting in the arrest of over 3,000 people. In Detroit at WSU on May 30, 12 people were arrested when the police stormed the encampment at 6:00am.

If the University administration believed that they had finished off the Palestine solidarity movement on campus, they were grossly mistaken. Later that same day on May 30, a press conference was held where the president of the faculty union spoke in support of the right of the students to protest.

Later that evening a tribunal was held near Eastern Market where testimony from the students involved in the BDS movement from the University of Michigan and Wayne State University exposed the links these institutions have with the genocide taking place in Gaza. At WSU, the Palestine solidarity encampment was labelled “Popular University for Gaza.” It was also designated as a “liberated zone.”

Faculty and Staff Members Call for Espy to Resign

Within a matter of a few days after the destruction of the encampment, a petition was circulating among faculty and staff of the University condemning the actions of President Espy and the Board of Governors. Over 180 faculty and staff members had already signed the petition by June 4 when the rally was held.

The rally was entitled “Hands off Our Students” and the gathering featured a number of faculty, staff, students and community members. Faculty members from the School of Medicine and the Departments of Philosophy, Communications, the Provost Office, College of Education, among others spoke out against the rising repressive and racist atmosphere at WSU.

Earlier after the raid on the encampment, the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) issued a statement denouncing Espy and the BOG saying:

“The FSJP stands in solidarity with our students and seeks to protect them from harassment, discrimination, and punishment. We are dedicated to reclaiming and protecting academic freedom and free speech within our university, which have become battlegrounds in the propaganda war against Palestinian freedom advocates. We will work in close collaboration with colleagues in Palestinian universities and other universities around the world, supporting public education about the ongoing Nakba and endorsing the principles of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS).”

After the press conference on June 4, the crowd marched through the center of the WSU campus where the encampment was established beginning on May 23. The crowd chanted “Hand Off Our Students”, “Free, Free Palestine” and “45,000 dead Wayne State Your Hands Are Red.”

At the site of the now-destroyed encampment, facilities had turned on the water sprinkler as people marched around the site. This could only be construed as a hostile action to prevent the establishment of another “Popular University for Gaza.”

WSU Associate Professor of Medicine Morhaf Al-Achkar speaks out against attacks on students and faculty (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Associate Professor Morhaf Al Achkar of the School of Medicine emphasized in his address to the crowd that:

“The university administration thought that by arresting students and harassing them, they will be intimidating them, they will be intimidating us. They didn’t know that behind those brave students, there are many that are here to say, hands off our students.”

Later at the conclusion of the march and rally, Michigan State Representative Abaham Aiyash spoke to the rally participants emphasizing:

“You had students and faculty that wanted to have a conversation about a genocide. But you had folks in leadership that were more outraged about students in a tent than a refugee tent being bombed by the Israelis. Rather than get frustrated that every single university in Gaza has been wiped off this planet, they decided to unleash a police force on students on their own campus.”

Michigan State Representative Abraham Aiyash speaks out against the WSU administration (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

A prepared statement from the WSU faculty union was read to the crowd rallying in defense of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble to protest genocide in Gaza:

“We are deeply troubled by the events that unfolded on May 30, 2024, when WSU police cleared out the encampment and used force to prevent our tuition-paying students from returning to campus. Police tackled demonstrators even as they were complying with police orders, and in at least one instance, forcibly removed a woman’s hijab. This is unacceptable. Twelve activists were arrested during this incident, including six current WSU students, an incoming WSU student, a family member of a student, and at least one legal observer. One student was hospitalized. We condemn these actions in the strongest possible terms. The use of force against students peacefully advocating for their beliefs is unacceptable and contrary to the values of our academic community.”

Espy and the BOG have failed to provide a rational answer to why they ordered the encampment destroyed and students arrested. There was a statement issued last week by the campus administration saying that the student protest created legal and security issues. Yet faculty, student, staff and community observers of the encampment said the demonstration was peaceful and orderly.

The president had already closed the University on May 28 mandating that all students, faculty and staff work remotely. Just two days after locking all campus buildings and deploying large numbers of WSU police and personnel from the City Shield Security Services, a private firm whose clients consist of some of the largest corporations in the Detroit area, the encampment was raided. Faculty and staff members at WSU said on June 4 that they had been asked to resign and threatened with termination for their pro-Palestinian views.

Palestine Solidarity and Presidential Politics

In this election year, the administration of President Joe Biden is attempting to justify why he should be given another term. The administration has initiated and supported two wars.

The Russian Special Military operation in Ukraine has led to the spending of well over $100 billion in taxpayer funds in a war where there is no clear path to victory for Kiev. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed since February 2024 while the U.S. government has prevented any negotiations to end the war.

After the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, the Biden White House has refused to call for a permanent ceasefire and continues to provide warplanes and weapons to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Biden has ignored and ridiculed mass demonstrations and other forms of protests demanding the end of U.S. support for the Zionist state.

Biden even accused the demonstrators of being antisemitic although the war policies against the Palestinians have been categorized as genocidal by billions of people around the world. The president has said repeatedly that U.S. support for the settler-colonial regime is ironclad.

On the Republican side of the political spectrum, former President Donald Trump is also a staunch defender of Zionism and genocide against the Palestinians. Trump relocated the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem which is a violation of international law.

Nonetheless, Biden has not reversed this decision after more than three years in the White House. He has continued the funding and logistical support for the racist apartheid regime in Occupied Palestine.

Therefore, the students, faculty and staff members at universities around the country have no alternative than to continue their protest activity. Whether Biden or Trump is elected in November, the same foreign policy towards Palestine and West Asia will remain unchanged until there is a fundamental shift in the structure and character of the U.S. political system.

*

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 the author

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is a key event in the business life of Russia, at which the future course of the economy is largely determined and the vectors of international cooperation of the largest country in the world are outlined. 

The forum in the former capital of the Russian Empire, St. Petersburg, has been held for more than 20 years and during this time it has become a solid platform, with a well-disciplined approach, for discussing significant issues of structured economic development, attracting substantial investment and expanding multifaceted business contacts. These are necessary factors for creating a unique opportunity for people and businesses.

The wide representation of all countries in the forum program is clear evidence of Russia’s desire to strengthen the multipolarity of world politics and expand economic and trade ties. The current geopolitical situation and evolving trends are increasingly drawing special attention to access broader potential markets of Asia and Africa.

According to the Vice-Rector of the North Eastern Federal University Yakutsk Marksimov Nurgun Romanovich, cooperation between African states and Russia is actively developing in the supply of Russian equipment for metallurgical and mining enterprises, and projects for the development of transport logistics and energy infrastructure.

Amid sanctions and a crisis of globalization, Russia has begun shifting its economic focus to new geographical horizons. Roscongress Foundation has focused on raising the current level of investment and broadening business partnerships, this time, among potential foreign corporate executives and state institutions mainly in the Global South.

Amidst heightened tensions with many European countries, driven by disputes over trade, and concerns about support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the forthcoming 27th edition of the International Economic Forum (SPIEF) scheduled from 5 to 8 June will, most likely, witness a significant number of participants from the Global South.

Long before the launch of a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, American and European businesses were successfully operating in the Russian Federation. Under the tagline ‘The Foundation of New Areas of Growth as the Cornerstone of a Multipolar World’ for the June meeting, President Vladimir Putin noted that the country is open to constructive dialogue and interaction with partners, and is ready to work together to solve today’s economic, social, scientific, and technological problems:

“An ever-growing part of the global community wants to see a fair and democratic system of international relations based on the principles of true equality, the consideration of each other’s legitimate interests, and respect for the cultural and civilizational diversity of states and peoples. These are the principles that underline the activities of BRICS, which Russia is chairing this year. It is symbolic that the history of this dynamically developing association, whose members already account for more than a third of the global economy, can be traced back to the 10th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2006.” 

On 24th April 2024, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a traditional meeting with the leadership of the Association of European Businesses in Russia and multiple European trade and industrial associations. The discussions [re]examine thoroughly the evolving geopolitical situation and economic and business environment.

The participants openly exchanged opinions on several current foreign policy issues, including foreign business operations in Russia. In between the lines, Lavrov explained to the corporate foreign executives that the Russian side has been assessing the current unstoppable geopolitical situation and, under the circumstances, could only emphasise the risks which are linked with the increasingly greater politicization of undertaking trade and economic interaction sphere. 

In the late April briefing by the Foreign Ministry, attended by the heads of more than 50 diplomatic missions, in Russia, Lavrov pointed to the rapid geopolitical changes and firmly underscored the fact that Russia would only deal with ‘friends’ under the circumstances. “A long-standing tradition brought us together once again to talk about Russia’s upcoming economic and international flagship event, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The Forum is one of the most significant economic events of the year, and the Northern Capital will be hosting it for the 27th time. The atmosphere on the banks of the Neva River during the beautiful white nights has always been especially conducive to fruitful discussion,” Director of the Department of Economic Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Birichevsky, said.

In this crucial emerging multipolar world order, Russia is increasingly interested in searching for new economic markets and strengthening its geopolitical influence in Asia and Africa (in the south) and Latin America (in the north). As always, the forum seeks more than anything to serve as a practical tool for businesses to identify and overcome barriers and develop in new ways. SPIEF is, first and foremost, a platform for dialogue, attended by business representatives looking to do business in Russia as well as entrepreneurs from every continent seeking to communicate with each other in Russia. Every year, SPIEF infrastructure experiences improvement thus making it more convenient for negotiations and the conclusion of agreements.

Roscongress Foundation Chairman of the Board and CEO Alexander Stuglev noted in remarks during the programme presentation, that new ideas are born at the SPIEF, and in addition business, economic, political, and environmental strategies are discussed. These help to establish more trust-based and stronger relationships among participants.

Quite naturally in the run-up to June’s SPIEF 2024, the Roscongress Foundation has presented the architecture of the business programme and listed Asian and African countries as one of the key participating guests flexing complex diverse business issues, and heavily-shouldered weight behind the emerging global economic order. The business programme is divided into four thematic blocks dedicated to the global processes taking place in the world and leading to the establishment of a fundamentally new multipolar economic model with opportunities for fair and constructive dialogue between all those striving towards more sustainable development. The four thematic tracks: “The Transition to a Multipolar World Economy”, “Goals and Objectives of Russia’s New Economic Cycle”, “Technologies for Leadership”, and “A Healthy Society, Traditional Values and Social Development: The Priority of the State”.

The programme includes more than 150 thematic sessions, which will be attended by over 1,000 moderators and speakers. The discussions offer insights into an understanding of Russia’s place and role in the emerging multipolar world order, and the necessary conditions for the development of international relations and new points of growth, namely new economic leaders who can offer an alternative to traditional centres of influence.

Thus, the international geographical track includes more than 10 business dialogues, including EAEU–ASEAN, Russia–Africa, Russia – Latin America, Russia–China, Russia – South Africa, and other bilateral meetings. In addition, forming the foundations of a new multipolar system requires strengthening the sovereignty of the state, supporting the technological development of economic sectors and relying on a strong society and youth. In this regard, the SPIEF 2024 business programme provides much significance to topics related to the preservation of the population, improving people’s health and well-being, supporting the family, creating opportunities to realize each person’s potential, developing their talents, and fostering a patriotic and socially responsible personality.

The motto of the International Youth Economic Forum is headed: “Day of the Future” which includes practice-oriented lectures, master classes, and expert sessions on topics relevant to young people. The youth have this platform to closely look at the opportunities for sustainable and dynamic development of the Russian economy, tools and programmes for achieving technological leadership, and discuss the implementation of national projects in the digital transformation of state and municipal government, economy, and social sphere.

Traditionally, business breakfasts are dedicated to technological innovations in the economy and the development of modern society. Forum of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises for participating groups to work on specialized business platforms, including the Business 20, Creative Business and Drug Security Forums.

According to its official website, the organizers also prioritized health issues. Russia’s national development goals for the period until 2036 include protecting the population, strengthening people’s health and improving their well-being, supporting families, and raising patriotic and socially responsible individuals. The success of the strategy to protect the population depends on how united the public is in its patriotic spirit, adherence to traditional values, and reverence for historical and cultural heritage.

“SPIEF is one of the brightest brands in our city, known all over the world. Despite all external constraints, its popularity is only growing every year. 17 thousand people from 130 countries took part in SPIEF 2023. I am convinced that this year’s geography of participants will be equally extensive, and St. Petersburg will demonstrate its traditionally high level of hospitality,” St. Petersburg’s Governor Alexander Beglov stressed.

According to Beglov, the panel discussion entitled ‘Let’s All Go to the Park?! Strategies and Practices for Success in Creative Sustainable Cities’ will be held within the track ‘A Healthy Society, Traditional Values and Social Development: The Priority of the State’. “We will discuss the issues of managing urban spaces, attracting investment, creating conditions for sustainable economic growth and improving life in cities,” he added. 

At the previous SPIEF 2023, St. Petersburg concluded 62 agreements totalling RUB 661 billion. “We are counting on new major contracts this year as well,” the Governor emphasized. Russia’s flagship SPIEF is an annual gathering of influential Russian and foreign politicians, government officials, businessmen and representatives of the academic community. Important to remember that the first forum was held in 1997 in St. Petersburg, the second-largest city in the Russian Federation.

*

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.

Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club. As an academic researcher and economist with a keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particularly in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: [email protected].

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Few have exerted as much influence on the tone, and outcome of elections, as Nigel Farage.  Fewer have done so while failing to win office.  In seven attempts at standing for a seat in the UK House of Commons between 1994 and 2015, the votes to get him across the line have failed to materialise.  Yet it is impossible to imagine the Brexit referendum of 2016, or the victory of the Conservatives under Boris Johnson in 2019, as being possible without his manipulative hand.

Before an audience at the MF Club Health and Wealth Summit at the Tiverton Hotel in March, Farage had words for his country’s voting system, one that notoriously remains stubbornly rooted to the “first past the post” model.  It was a system that had, in his view, eliminated any coherent distinction between the major parties.  They had become “big state, high tax social democrats”.

Farage took the budget as a salient illustration.  The leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, agreed “with virtually everything in the budget.  It would’ve made no difference if Rachel Reeves had delivered that budget instead of Jeremy Hunt.  They are all the same.”

Having been made leader of the populist Reform UK party for the next five years, Farage felt it was time to make another tilt.  On June 3, he announced that he would be standing in the July 4 election in the Essex constituency of Clacton, one that had conclusively voted to leave the European Union in 2016.  It is also the only constituency to have ever elected an MP from UKIP, Reform UK’s previous iteration.  The decision concluded a prolonged phase of indecision.  And it will terrify the Tory strategists.

The speech offered little by way of surprises.  The usual dark clouds were present.  The failure by both Labour and the Conservatives to halt the tide of immigration.  Rates of crushing taxation.  General ignorance of Britain’s finest achievements battling tyranny, including a lack of awareness about such glorious events as D-Day.  The poor state of public services, including the National Health Service.  A state of “moral decline”.  Rampant crime.  In the UK, one could “go shoplifting and nick up to 200 quid’s worth of kit before anyone is even going to prosecute you.”

From the view of the Conservatives, who already risk electoral annihilation at the polls, Reform UK was always going to be dangerous.  Roughly one in four voters who helped inflate Johnson’s numbers in 2019 are considering voting for it.  It explains various efforts by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, including his insensibly cruel Rwanda plan, to court a voting base that he hopes will return to the Tory fold.

Unfortunately for the PM, such efforts will hardly matter now that the real Nigel is running.  “The pint-loving populist offers a splash of colour in an otherwise grey campaign,” suggests Robert Ford in The Spectator.  “The result will be a constant background hum of populist criticism undermining Tory promises and reinforcing voters’ doubts.”

Veteran British commentator Andrew Marr relished the irony: here was the architect of the Brexit victory bringing calamity to the Conservatives.  Farage had effectively raised “the pirate flag of what he calls ‘a political revolt’ against the entire Westminster class; but in particular against the listing, drifting and battered galleon that is the Tory party.”

Leaving aside – and there is much on that score – the issue of Farage’s Little England image, his presence in the Commons would come with various promises that will rock Britain’s political establishment.  There is, for instance, the proposal for electoral reform, one long strangled and smothered in the cot by the main parties.  Finally, he insists, a proportional representation model of voting can be introduced that will make Westminster more representative.

He also proposes ridding Britain of the House of Lords in its current form, replacing it with what would essentially make it an elected chamber accountable to voters.  This “abomination” and “disgrace” of an institution had become the destination for shameless political hacks favoured by Labor and Tory prime ministers.

“It’s now made up of hundreds of mates of Tony Blair and David Cameron; they’re the same blooming people,” he rattled to the entrepreneurs at the Tiverton Hotel.  “They all live within the same three postcodes in West London.  They’re not representative of the country in any way at all.”

There is a case to be made for Farage to stay behind the throne of UK politics, influencing matters as sometimes befuddled kingmaker.  Even if he fails at this eighth attempt – and given current polling, Reform UK is not on course to win a single seat – there is every chance that he will have a direct say in the way the Conservatives approach matters while in opposition.  He might even play the role of a usurping Bolingbroke, taking over the leadership of a party he promises to inflict much harm upon next month.  Short of that, he can have first dibs at the selection of a far more reactionary leader from its thinned ranks. The Farage factor will again become hauntingly critical to the gloomy fate of British politics.

*

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 Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]

A paranóia anti-russa está a atingir níveis cada vez mais elevados. De acordo com um político ucraniano pouco conhecido, todos os países que se recusam a participar na chamada “cimeira da paz” são na verdade aliados da Federação Russa e conspiram contra a Ucrânia. Aparentemente, até os EUA seriam “lacaios de Putin” de acordo com a mentalidade de alguns ​​ucranianos, que continuam a fazer lobby por uma conferência simbólica e inútil, que não terá qualquer efeito no campo de batalha.

Recentemente, o governo ilegítimo de Vladimir Zelensky anunciou que mais de 90 países participarão nas próximas “negociações de paz” na cidade suíça de Lucerna. Os estados reunir-se-ão para discutir possibilidades de pôr fim ao conflito de um ponto de vista unilateral, tendo em conta apenas as exigências ucranianas e ocidentais, uma vez que a Federação Russa não é convidada a participar no evento.

Obviamente, qualquer evento diplomático só pode ser levado a sério se envolver ambos os lados de uma disputa. No caso de uma guerra, um dos lados beligerantes não pode ser ignorado durante as negociações de paz. Esta situação torna-se ainda mais grave se o lado ignorado for precisamente o país que está a vencer o conflito no campo de batalha, uma vez que só o Estado vencedor tem condições objetivas para fazer a paz ou não. Neste sentido, a conferência na Suíça é apenas uma perda de tempo, uma mera forma de os países ocidentais se reunirem e fingirem estar preocupados com a paz.

Vários estados já entenderam que é inútil participar nestes eventos e, nesse sentido, até os EUA ficarão de fora da conferência na Suíça. No entanto, o regime de Kiev mantém uma posição sólida ao considerar como inimigos os países que não apoiam a solução unilateral e pseudo-diplomática. Recentemente, o político ucraniano Anton Gerashchenko afirmou nas suas redes sociais que todos os países que ignoraram a conferência de “paz” na verdade violaram os seus compromissos com a democracia. Mais do que isso, ele usou uma palavra russa que significa “lacaio” para se referir a todos os governos que evitaram participar na conferência, sugerindo que a decisão soberana de um Estado de não participar nas negociações seria na verdade um sinal de que esses governos são “ controlada pela Rússia”.

“Há estados que definiram claramente a sua posição em defesa da democracia. Estes países participam na conferência de Junho na Suíça. E há Estados indecisos que podem ser considerados cúmplices da guerra (…) Embora eu os chamasse a todos [de Putin] de ‘kholui’ (um termo russo para lacaios)”, disse ele.

Pouco depois, Gerashchenko deletou sua postagem. Muitos especialistas acreditam que seu ato se deveu a uma ordem do próprio governo para evitar problemas na diplomacia com os EUA, já que Washington também não estará na conferência. Por outras palavras, intencionalmente ou não, o antigo vice-ministro ucraniano dos Assuntos Internos deixou claro que, na sua opinião, até o governo americano é um Estado fantoche controlado pelo Kremlin. Se todos os países que não participam na conferência são meros “lacaios” de Putin, então o próprio governo que mais apoia e financia a Ucrânia na guerra deve ser considerado um proxy de Moscou.

Esta posição não é isolada. O regime de Kiev mostrou-se diversas vezes repleto de agentes verdadeiramente paranóicos, que interpretam qualquer posição racional no conflito como um gesto “pró-Rússia”. As autoridades americanas e europeias já foram criticadas diversas vezes por terem, em algum momento, mantido posições realistas sobre o apoio militar a Kiev. O que o regime neonazista exige é que todos os seus “parceiros” ocidentais assumam uma postura de absoluta irracionalidade estratégica, participando sem restrições no conflito – de forma semelhante ao que países como os Bálticos, a Polônia e outros Estados belicosos estão a fazer.

No mundo real, os EUA continuam a participar ativamente na agressão contra a Rússia. Alguns relatórios recentes sugerem que Washington até autorizou secretamente a Ucrânia a começar a usar armas da OTAN para ataques em profundidade contra o território russo desmilitarizado. Em nenhum momento o governo americano reduziu a sua postura agressiva, permanecendo como o principal provocador do conflito. Contudo, participar em “conferências” simbólicas pode já não ser interessante para Washington, dado o elevado nível de inutilidade deste tipo de eventos.

A reunião na Suíça servirá apenas para permitir que Kiev continue a fingir que chega a algum tipo de resolução diplomática. Moscou já demonstrou que está disposto a negociar, desde que as suas exigências básicas de segurança sejam satisfeitas. Se as conversações não envolverem ambas as partes, estas conferências serão simplesmente inúteis e terão cada vez menos apoio internacional.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Kiev demands its Western “partners” assume a stance of strategic solidarity against Russia, InfoBrics,  31 de maio de 2024

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Americans are screwed over people and are too insouciant to notice.

And not just on big things, such as being forced to be injected with an untested new kind of “vaccine” with unknown safety and effectiveness.

Millions of Americans were faced with the choice of being injected or losing their job and ability to pay rent or mortgage, car payments, utilities, and buy food.

The “vaccine” has caused many deaths and millions of injuries from new diseases and profusions of what previously were rare diseases among age groups not previously affected.

American babies now die from strokes and heart attacks. And the grieving parents are denied any recourse.

No one is being held responsible. And apparently Americans don’t care. How is this any different from the Zionist story of Jews being herded into gas chambers?

Americans can’t do anything about the hundreds of billions of dollars Washington sends to Ukraine to conduct Washington’s proxy war against Russia, or about the billions sent to Israel for the slaughter of Palestinians and physical destruction of Gaza, or the billions sent to Taiwan for Washington’s proxy war against China. Meanwhile homeless American veterans sleep on the streets while the Biden regime gives immigrant-invaders pre-paid debit cards and houses them in hotels.

A few Americans might wonder if the billions of dollars could be better used getting the homeless out of the public parks and tent encampments off the sidewalks. But if they write to a representative or senator about the misallocation of resources they will get back a letter explaining that “we have to stop them over there before they get over here.”

The message is: “we are here to serve the military/security complex and Israel Lobby, the funders of our election campaigns, and to replace white Americans with the third world in the interest of diversity.

It is not the big things that Americans notice. They are not personally at risk of being sent to war, and there is no specific tax taken from them to finance Israel’s and Ukraine’s wars.

But you would think that Americans living on credit card debt would at least notice that which dramatically affects them.

Do Americans living on credit card debt comprehend that under the guise of interest charged the credit card companies are taxing their balances at rates ranging from 19.49% to 29.99% based on the credit card company’s estimate of the debtor’s credit worthiness.

In addition to the federal and state income taxes on their income and the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax on income, the credit card companies are imposing a 20-30% tax on debt that is paying for housing, transportation, food, and utilities, as incomes alone in the age of jobs offshoring are insufficient to support living standards for about 40% of the population.

I learned about modern day usury in May when my credit card bill did not show up. Perhaps it went into the spam or junk folders or fell victim to a glitch, all possibilities being joys of the digital revolution. Consequently the amount due on May 18 did not get paid until 4 days later on May 22 when an unpaid bill notice appeared in the email.

The notice told me that I am charged a late payment fee of $29 plus an interest charge of $61.54. So a 4 day late payment cost me $90.54.

The late payment notice told me that my interest rate of 19.49% is charged from the “first day of the billing period until we receive your payment in full.” In other words, the interest was not charged for the 4 late days, but for the 4 days plus the month’s billing period.

The notice also told me that if I missed a second payment, even for one day, during a 12 month period, my interest rate on my unpaid balance would jump from 19.49 to 29.99.

There you have it. This is a system for the enserfment of the American consumer.

If you are able to focus your attention, try to imagine the rapid rise of impossible indebtedness of Americans who can only make the minimum payment. The minimum payment is a tiny percentage of the balance due. For example, a balance of $4,173.66 has a minimum payment of $131.37. The minimum payment leaves a balance of $4,042.29 accumulating interest at double-digit rates.

Assuming he does not miss two payments in 12 months, his interest rate based on creditworthiness (he only makes minimal payments) is 27.49%. So, the interest on the unpaid balance adds $1,100 to his debt. And the growth in debt increases with the interest charged on the rising unpaid balance.

I remember when credit card companies made their money by the 2.5% charge to the businesses that accepted payment via credit card. Those days have vanished. Now credit card companies live extravagantly on interest on consumer credit card debt, while businesses accepting credit card payment charge their customers a fee for paying with a credit card.

As an economist I am really amazed that Keynesian economists, whose policy is based on the American consumer’s ability to spend, stood aside while such extraordinary restrictions on aggregate demand were allowed to be put in place. After paying debt service, people have nothing left to spend.

American consumer indebtedness means that consumers have no discretionary income with which to drive the economy.Their pay is below the cost of living. They live on their credit cards, and the interest payments drain their incomes, leaving them without discretionary income to spend.

There is no possible way, except by falsifying statistics, to get economic growth out of such an economy.

*

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.

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

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

On June 1, the Royal Dutch Air Force (KLu) fully switched to the atrocious F-35 “Lightning 2” as the carrier of American WMDs stationed in the country. Netherlands is part of the infamous NATO nuclear sharing agreement with the United States and its KLu previously operated American-made F-16 fighter jets for nuclear strikes as part of Squadrons No. 311 and 312. The former has now been replaced by F-35s in the new Squadron No. 313 which is stationed at the Volkel Air Base and is the first non-US NATO unit of stealth fighters capable of launching nuclear attacks. Troubled by delays and cost overruns, the F-35’s disastrous track record made it impossible to use the jet for this mission up until recently. After nearly a decade in service and over three decades since the JSF program was launched, the F-35 acquired this capability only in early March, when it was finally certified to carry B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bombs.

Apart from the Netherlands, several other NATO member states (specifically Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey) have American WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) on their territory, with Belgium also operating US-made F-16s for nuclear strikes. This has been the case for at least 50 years, so it’s not exactly a new concern for Russia. However, as several NATO countries have announced their intention to send the US-made fighter jets to the Neo-Nazi junta, this has become a particularly important issue for the Kremlin, as some of those countries operate nuclear-capable F-16s.

Worse yet, the Dutch government openly supports the usage of these jets for attacks on Moscow’s undisputed territory. Namely, on June 3, Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren confirmed that her country fully supports the Kiev regime’s “right to use F-16s for airstrikes within Russia”, thus joining several others who support such escalation.

“We are applying the same principle that we have applied to every other delivery of capabilities, which is: once we hand it over to Ukraine, it’s theirs to use,” Ollongren said.

The statement follows Denmark’s support for such strikes, as Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen previously confirmed that his country also endorses the usage of its F-16 fighter jets to strike targets within Russia’s undisputed territory. Copenhagen is supplying nearly 50% of all US-made fighter jets promised by NATO (19 of 40). Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen already stated that the first batch of F-16s is expected to be delivered this month. The US-made jet is quite old and the Neo-Nazi junta will get one of the earliest modernizations, specifically the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade), which is essentially a match for the Soviet-era MiG-29s that former Ukraine inherited from the USSR. This is precisely why the Kiev regime has been whining about modernization for well over a year before there were any definite announcements of the delivery of these jets.

However, while the US-made aircraft is old and heavily outclassed by Russia’s top-of-the-line interceptors and air superiority fighter jets, the F-16 is capable of carrying a plethora of munitions. As the older Su-24Ms, Su-27s and MiG-29s were adjusted to carry NATO-sourced weapons, including precision-guided munitions (PGMs) such as bombs and long-range cruise missiles, it can only be expected that this will be far easier to accomplish with F-16s sent by NATO members that already operate such or similar weapons. However, although the US-made jets, as lighter platforms, will not be able to carry more ordnance than the aforementioned Soviet-era aircraft which are much larger, the F-16s coming from nuclear-capable NATO member states are an entirely different story. The potential for escalation of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict into a pan-European or even global war simply cannot be overstated.

According to military sources, a single thermonuclear bomb such as the previously mentioned B61-12 (variable yield weapon that can go up to 50 kt) could kill over 300,000 people if used against densely populated cities. Considering the fact that NATO and the Neo-Nazi junta have demonstrated readiness to engage in a game of “nuclear chicken” with Moscow, as well as commit heinous terrorist acts on Russian soil, brutally killing hundreds of civilians in the process, nothing should be excluded and anything can be expected. Top-ranking officials in the Kremlin, including President Vladimir Putin himself, have been warning about this for years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a number of statements concerning the delivery of nuclear-capable F-16s, with Russia preemptively deploying its own tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in Belarus to deter further crawling NATO aggression.

Unfortunately, the political West keeps escalating and pushing for a tighter siege of Russia, particularly by surrounding the Eurasian giant with its vassals and satellite states, as well as trying to make sure others who seek peaceful coexistence and decent neighborly relations cannot accomplish this. It’s imperative for Washington DC and Brussels to make sure Moscow is faced with enemies from the Arctic to the Caucasus Mountains. NATO believes that this would not only overstretch Russian defenses, but also force it to spend more resources on the military, thus giving the belligerent alliance its raison d’etre.

 The Kremlin will have no choice but to reconstitute a number of its Soviet-era units and even form new ones to match the increasingly aggressive NATO plans in the region. This will surely make Europe and the world a more dangerous place, but when dealing with the heirs of the Third Reich, what else is one to do?

*

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 InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. 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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The persecution of political dissidents in the US is becoming commonplace. People who oppose Washington’s aggressive foreign policy are being seen as enemies and treated as criminals, even when there is no plausible reason to charge them. Recently, military analyst Scott Ritter had his passport confiscated by US authorities without any specific reason, showing the advanced levels of tyranny in the country.

Ritter was on a plane at the New York airport. His plan was to travel to the Russian Federation, as he had a special invitation to participate in the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, which will begin in the next few days. Ritter was already boarding when three policemen suddenly forcibly removed him and seized his documents. When asked about the reason for this action, the policemen said they were following orders from the US State Department and refused to clarify any details about the case.

“I was boarding the flight. Three [police] officers pulled me aside. They took my passport. When asked why, they said ‘orders of the State Department’. They had no further information for me (…) They pulled my bags off the plane, then escorted me out of the airport. They kept my passport,” he told journalists.

Without his passport, Ritter is unable to leave the US territory. In practice, he will begin living under a regime similar to house arrest, not only being monitored by American authorities, but also being prevented from leaving the country. It is curious that this happened precisely during a trip by Ritter to Russia. It seems that Washington is trying to make it clear to all its citizens that there will be no tolerance for citizens who maintain any form of ties with Moscow.

Ritter has long been one of the most vocal critics of military support for Ukraine. In his interviews and articles, he openly advocates for an end to arms supply and for a friendly policy between the US and Russia. Ritter has repeatedly exposed the truth about Ukrainian Nazism and Western collusion with ultranationalism and racism. In addition, his main work as a military analyst consists of providing detailed, technical analyses that show the situation of the sides in the conflict.

While Western media have long claimed that Kiev is “winning the war,” Ritter has emerged as a dissenting voice proving the opposite, saying that military control of the conflict belongs to the Russian Federation. He has refuted fallacious narratives such as the “Ukrainian victory in Kiev” or the “Kherson counteroffensive.” Using impartial and technical military analysis, Ritter has substantiated each of his arguments about Russia winning the war. Today, his work is recognized as one of the best among military experts around the world, with many of his predictions having come true.

This is not the first time that Ritter has suffered persecution in his own country. In the past, he has been criticized, defamed and even detained by American authorities because of his stance against Washington’s war initiatives. Ritter severely criticized the American decision to invade Iraq, stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country. At the time, he was a UN weapons inspector and had privileged information about the real situation in the Middle East.

Currently, in addition to providing military analysis on the war in Ukraine, Ritter has also been strongly critical of Israeli violence in the Gaza Strip, which has certainly generated discontent among radical Zionists in American domestic politics. In addition, he has worked to refute fallacies and stereotypes about Russia and the Russian people, making frequent trips to Russia to show the local reality. Recently, Ritter was in Chechnya, Moscow and St. Petersburg and spoke to the Western media about what real life is like in Russia today, explaining that the country is in a favorable economic situation, without any effect of Western sanctions.

It is already clear that persecution is the fate of any American dissident. When US citizens disagree with their country’s policies, the authorities attack, arrest and defame them. Unfortunately, this is the reality in the country that claims to be the global guardian of democracy. However, this lie is increasingly discredited. Despite all the propaganda efforts, it is already clear to the world that the US is no longer a democracy.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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

Featured image: The author (left) meeting with the Governor of Kherson, Vladimir Saldo (right)

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini criticised French President Emmanuel Macron for pushing the idea of sending European troops to fight in the conflict in Ukraine. Salvini’s comments were made on the same day that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once again warned that French soldiers operating in Ukraine would be legitimate targets.

“Italy is not at war with anyone. Macron, do you want to start a war? Put on a helmet, put on a vest and go to Ukraine, but don’t bother the Italians! Go and fight, but don’t bother us, people who want to live in peace,” Salvini said during a pre-election rally in the southern Italian city of Bari on June 4.

The deputy prime minister stressed that the Italians have a “clear choice” and that “no Italian bomb or bullet will hit Russia.”

Salvini also humorously slammed the French president by publishing a photo montage of him in combat uniform and armed with an assault rifle, accusing him of wanting to plunge Europe into a war with Russia.

“A military escalation and Italian soldiers on the front line under the orders of dangerous ‘bombers’? No thanks,” the nationalist leader, whose party, the LEGA, is part of Italy’s government coalition led by Giorgia Meloni, wrote on his X account.

Next to the photo that shows Macron as a combatant with a helmet, dressed in a uniform with the colours of the European Union and a tactical vest, there is a portrait of Salvini at an election rally, with his arm raised and a rosary in his hand.

Source: Matteo Salvini/X

“Yes to Italy’s commitment to peace, to the Constitution’s repudiation of war, inspired by our collective moral conscience and our Christian tradition,” Salvini added.

Former General Roberto Vannacci, candidate to the European Parliament for the LEGA party, in the same vein as Salvini, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has no sole authority to send weapons to Ukraine and that EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell cannot speak for all European Union members.

“Politically speaking, NATO is not in a state of war. All decisions concerning weapons supply [to Ukraine] have been made by individual countries. The secretary-general has no authority in the matter. He is a bureaucrat, a representative of an organisation that is not directly involved in the conflict. However, it looks like he speaks for all [member states], as he has overcome the sovereignty of every state in the matter of their participation in the Ukrainian conflict,” Vannacci told a briefing in Rome on June 4.

The European parliamentary candidate added that Borrell, like Stoltenberg, expresses a joint position without consulting the authorities of individual European Union countries.

Although Meloni is a staunch supporter of Ukraine and has frequently met with Volodymr Zelensky, it is evident that there is growing backlash in Italy, especially since it was not anticipated when pledges of support were made that Macron would escalate the situation by pushing to send European troops to fight and die in a futile war effort. This is especially alarming for Italians since Moscow has repeatedly warned that foreign troops operating in Ukraine are legitimate targets of the Russian military.

On the same day as Salvini’s statements, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that all French soldiers on Ukrainian territory, both instructors and mercenaries, would be legitimate targets of the Russian Armed Forces.

“As far as the French instructors are concerned, I have reason to believe that they are already working in Ukraine, and there is a lot of proof. Whoever they are, members of the French Armed Forces or simply mercenaries, they are absolutely legitimate targets for our Armed Forces,” he said during a joint press conference with his counterpart from the Republic of Congo, Jean-Claude Gakosso.

At the beginning of May, Macron said in an interview with The Economist that he does not rule out sending troops to Ukraine if he receives a request from Kiev and if Russia breaks the front line. The statements caused controversy, with many major European powers, including Italy, Germany and Spain, disavowing Macron’s idea.

Former United States Defense official Stephen Bryen stated, in an article also published in May, but in Asia Times, that France sent the first group of around 100 Foreign Legion soldiers to Ukraine, out of around 1,500 that were supposed to arrive in Ukraine. According to Bryen, the first contingent, which includes artillery and reconnaissance experts, was deployed to Slaviansk in the Donbass region, in support of the 54th Mechanized Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, against the advances of the Russian military.

Despite being a European pariah, Macron remains undeterred and will host Zelensky in Paris on June 7 to discuss Ukraine’s needs. This was met with criticism, with the leader of the Republicans in parliament, Olivier Marleix, saying it was “inappropriate” to invite Zelensky to speak just days before the upcoming European elections. However, Macron has never cared for appropriateness and is instead obsessed with the idea of projecting France to have greater global influence and input at the expense of Russia, a strategy that has clearly failed and instead shows his weakness and desperation.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Excerpt from The Telegraph report

Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Click here to read the full article on The Telegraph.

*

Let’s look at the latest EXCESS DEATHS DATA:

Australia and New Zealand

 

Canada

 

 

Scandinavian Countries

 

 

Germany

 

 

Japan

 

 

USA

 

 

 

My Take… 

These graphs are made available by Twitter user USMortality.

What I find interesting is that there seems to be a drop in excess mortality in 2023 in this data.

Ethical Skeptic’s data doesn’t show a dip in excess mortality in 2023, especially for young people:

 

 

The Cover-up

We have an additional problem.

Countries are starting to change the way excess deaths are calculated, in an effort to hide excess deaths.

Australian Russell Broadbent MP today (May 14, 2024) questioned the sleight of hand by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in calculating excess deaths.

The model bas been revised twice and now excess deaths are down from 56058 to 24351 for 2020 – 2023. The ABS has not been transparent about this complicated new model which rewrites the history of the Pandemic.

 

Click here to watch the video

 

UK has also changed the way it calculates Excess Deaths:

Russell Brand posted this on Feb. 23, 2024 and it’s hilarious.

 

Click here to watch the video

 

*

 

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 source

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Peter Ford has an extensive career in the UK Diplomatic Service, including serving as UK Ambassador to Bahrain and then Syria. He then served for many years as Special Representative to the Commissioner General of UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. In this interview, he discusses the background, importance, and how Israel wants to “replace”   UNRWA. 

Rick Sterling (RS): How did you come to work for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency?

Peter Ford (PF): Well, ever since I was a young cub Arabist, I have been exposed to the work of UNRWA. My first job was in Lebanon. I saw its work firsthand in the Palestinian camps there. Every exposure I had increased my admiration for the organization. As I approached retirement, I was attracted to the idea of working for UNRWA.

By chance, I read in The Economist magazine that UNRWA was looking to create a new post, a fundraiser in the Arab world. And the requirements were diplomatic experience and knowledge of the Arabic language. Wow, I thought this is tailor-made for me. And so it proved. I think I was chosen from a shortlist of one.

Knowledge of Arabic was a great help. I didn’t benefit from any support from the British government, I have to say. And that is an issue with UNRWA. Many of the top jobs are earmarked for particular countries. So the Commissioner General, by custom is always either a European or American. And the deputy head of UNRWA, Deputy Commissioner General, is also an American or a European.

RS:  What does UNRWA do in Gaza and beyond? How big an organization is it? 

Peter Ford:  UNRWA  began operations in 1950 in the aftermath of the conflict in Palestine that led to the creation of Israel and the expulsion of half of Palestine’s population. And the mandate given by the UN General Assembly to UNRWA was to look after these refugees and very significantly their children.  The status of refugees was defined as people who were being helped by UNRWA and their descendants. And this became very important because most refugees around the world from other countries, the status of refugee is not handed on father to son or daughter. But in the case of Palestine refugees, because of the special circumstances where they lost their country, their homes and their livelihoods, they were accorded permanent refugee status for as long as they were unable to exercise their right of return.

UNRWA building shelled by Israeli army, 15 January 2009 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

As the years passed,  this became very important politically. And as it became more difficult to envisage the right of return, the mere existence of UNRWA and its according refugee status to several million Palestinians perpetuated the right of return. And this became a major problem with Israel. 

From 1950, UNRWA’s mandate has been to look after the relief and welfare of the Palestinian refugees in terms of education, healthcare, social services, the refugee camp infrastructure, houses, the social services for the vulnerable, and some microfinance and job creation in recent years.

The core activities are the schools. There is a huge network of UNRWA schools and medical centers. And these are spread across the Middle East in Palestine itself, in the occupied West Bank, in Gaza, in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Overall, there are almost 6 million Palestinians who qualify for UNRWA support. And of those, about 1.9 million are in Gaza, and about half a million are in Syria, and the rest are shared between Lebanon and Jordan. So it’s serving almost as a micro-state. Six million people is a big responsibility and one that requires a lot of coordination with the host authorities.

Of these, the most problematic by far is Israel as the occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza. Relations with other governments have by and large been cooperative. There is occasional friction, but on the whole there are very good relations. It’s often forgotten that Jordan and Lebanon and Syria give a lot of support in addition to the support that UNRWA gives. And they host these millions of refugees without complaint. 

RS:  Doesn’t UNRWA in some ways relieve Israel of responsibility for the people that it’s got under its control?

Peter Ford: Well, yes, it does. Under international law, the power that has physical control as the occupying power has responsibility to provide the basic services which UNRWA provides: healthcare, education, and housing. So this burden is taken off the shoulders of Israel. If UNRWA didn’t exist, the Israelis would have to carry the burden of looking after all those millions of refugees. But you’d be mistaken if you thought they were grateful at all. 

RS: A few months ago, Israel made accusations and somehow persuaded several countries to stop their donations to UNRWA. What do you make of this?

Peter Ford: Well, this was a fabricated story the Israelis came up with about three months after the alleged events, they came up with a story that staff had been involved in the 7th October breakout and had carried out crimes.  This was announced with great fanfare. Knee-jerk reactions followed on the part of the usual suspects. Americans, Europeans and  Britain suspended their vital payments to UNRWA. 

UNRWA is a beggar. It’s an international beggar. It receives almost nothing from central UN funds. The rest is voluntary, which makes life very difficult for UNRWA. It has to go cap in hand  and cannot afford to upset any of its important donors. And that means the United States, the EU, and Britain.

In fact, my job, the reason I was recruited, was to try to diversify UNRWA’s funding so that it could be a little less dependent on the Western powers. And I had some success in that, garnering about half a billion dollars of contributions from mainly Gulf and North African countries.

But to go back to your question, Israel came up with this story. Just on the basis of the Israelis accusations, the Western powers cut the aid. Unwisely, to my mind, UNRWA immediately suspended the staff who were accused. This only tended to give credence to the Israeli claims. But this shows the weakness, the political weakness of UNRWA . It finds it very difficult to stand up to bullying by these powerful countries, by the United States and Europe.

Eventually, about three weeks ago, an independent investigator, a former French foreign minister, carried out an investigation and concluded that there was no proof.  The Israelis were unable to provide any proof to back up their allegations. And most countries are now going back or have already gone back to lift their suspension.

RS:  I think even the original accusations were that some 12 or 13 individuals from a staff of 13,000 staff had participated in October 7. And now even that’s been discredited, you’re saying?  

Peter Ford:  Yes, that’s exactly what has happened. It would have been surprising, actually, if there hadn’t been some younger employees, but the Israelis couldn’t provide evidence for a single one. 

RS:  Yes. And I understand that UNRWA gives the names of all their employees to Israel every year for them to almost vet the list.

Peter Ford:  That’s right. Israel has an amazing oversight of the activities of UNRWA, at least as far as the occupied territories are concerned.  Over 90% of the employees of UNRWA are Palestinians, the vast majority of Palestinian refugees themselves. But the hierarchy is Western or non-Palestinian. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, the top employees, the director general and immediate close staff are European or American, but over 90% of the staff are Palestinians. And that is something the Israelis don’t like either. The Palestinians have agency in the sense of some measure of control over their lives. 

RS:  I have the impression that UNRWA has done a very good job in the education field. And that, again, is something Israel doesn’t like.

Peter Ford: Yes, Israel doesn’t like the fact that so many Palestinians have received a good education under UNRWA’s supervision.  Many Palestinians have gone on to higher education, to distinguished professorships having emerged from UNRWA  schools in the camps over the years.

It’s a badge of honor for a Palestinian to have passed through an UNRWA school. In Syria, where I was, Syrians wanted to enroll in UNRWA schools. It was one of the bribes that we could use to leverage favors from the Syrian government. So that’s testimony to how good these schools are and their reputation.

A bone of contention with the Israelis concerns what’s taught in the schools. And again, the Israelis make lurid, unsupported claims about the pupils being taught Palestinian propaganda. And this is just fake news. In the UNRWA schools, they follow the curricula of the Arab country or authority where they are.

So UNRWA schools follow the curriculum of the Palestine Authority, which is vetted by Israel, of course. In Jordan, they follow the Jordanian curriculum, etcetera. But the Israelis love to make up any propaganda they can about UNRWA, and they try to limit UNRWA funding. They use any method to try to stymie, block, or make more difficult the operations of UNRWA. They really do want to bring an end to this agency.

In a way, you can understand it because the agency is synonymous with Palestinian rights and in particular with the right of return. This implies the Palestinians have a right to return to those towns and villages from which their forebears were expelled back in 1948.

A view of a United Nations Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school sheltering displaced Palestinians in Khan Yunis, Gaza on October 22, 2023 [Abed Zagout/Anadolu Agency]

So this is why UNRWA is a thorn in the side of Israel and one they would love to destroy completely. Their ambition has no limit. And we’ve seen this during the Gaza crisis. They have used this to try to exclude UNRWA, make propaganda against UNRWA, and create substitutes for UNRWA .Creating a substitute is the latest strategy. The organization that had some of its staff killed by the Israelis is one of these. In fact, that organization was particularly friendly to the Israelis and the Israelis facilitated its entry to Gaza. And it was a tragic irony that the Israelis ended up killing employees of this agency, World Central Kitchen. The Israelis aim to replace UNRWA with organizations they can control like this. That’s part of the plan with the port to be created by the Americans and the British in northern Gaza. It would be serviced by organizations other than UNRWA. 

RS: What’s the status of UNRWA in Gaza now? Is is able to operate as in the past, or are they being restricted? 

Peter Ford:  UNRWA is very much restricted as far as traditional activities are concerned. The healthcare clinics, hospitals and schools have been either destroyed or badly damaged or they don’t have equipment or they don’t have medicines. So there’s no schooling going on except in home environments. But on the other hand, UNRWA is busier than ever on relief services. It’s more like 1950 when UNRWA was providing tents and the most basic water and food supplies.  You’ll recall that UNRWA stands for UN Relief and Works. And by “works” was meant education, healthcare, and housing. Today UNRWA is doing far more relief than  works . 

RS:  We’ve seen pictures of  thousands of tents to temporarily house the hundreds of thousands and even more than a million refugees. Have those been set up by UNRWA? 

Peter Ford: Yes, and temporary housing also happens in the UNRWA schools. These are now are occupied by many thousands of families. The schools are being converted into accommodation. And the healthcare centers, to the extent it’s physically possible. And the hospitals, they’ve also been converted into temporary housing. There are other UN agencies involved. It wouldn’t be fair not to mention the UNICEF, the Children’s Agency,  the food agency, all the international agencies are there.

RS:  What do you think will be UNRWA s role in the future? 

Peter Ford:  In the future? Well, in a single sentence, its role will be to run Gaza alongside Hamas. Now, that’s controversial, obviously. But I think that the day after will look very much like the day before. I don’t think the Israelis will succeed in crushing Hamas. 

Eventually the Israelis will be forced to withdraw as they have been forced to withdraw in the past. There will be vastly more reconstruction to do. But UNRWA has the experience and the workforce in place. Any outside agency would have to bring in thousands of workers.

And after the Israelis leave, of course, the authorities, which are bound to be the people with guns, the resistance, will be more than glad to go back to the old basis of effectively a condominium with the UN agencies. And this is as it should be.

RS: Some people think that October 7 and what’s happened since then has really changed things. Is that your perspective also? 

Peter Ford:  Wishful thinking is not a good basis for policy. And I’m afraid the Israelis,  indulged by their Western backers, go in for a lot for wishful thinking. Though in the last couple of months, one hears less about the day after. It seems the Israelis are focused on just how the hell can they get out, how can they extricate themselves without massive humiliation? There’s very little chatter now about bringing in an Arab defense force to police the Gaza Strip or any nonsense like that. So I believe there will be no alternative. The day after will look like the day before. 

RS: What do you think of the latest (May 31) Biden plan? 

Peter Ford: Better late than never. As much by what it omits as by what it says. The plan recognizes that Israel must withdraw with Hamas undefeated and set to resume control of Gaza. All fantasizing about ‘eliminating’ Hamas, about setting up a quisling regime, about an Arab peacekeeping force, about two states – all dropped. It is an unspeakable, unbearable tragedy that it took this amount of killing, maiming and mindless destruction with American bombs to come to this obvious realization. 

*

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.

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Peter Ford is a former British Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, he also served as a UN expert on refugees.

Featured image: Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) holds press conference in Jerusalem on October 27, 2023 [Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu Agency]

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“I did not know Israel was capturing or recording my face. [But Israel has] been watching us for years from the sky with their drones. They have been watching us gardening and going to schools and kissing our wives. I feel like I have been watched for so long.”—Mosab Abu Toha, Palestinian poet

If you want a glimpse of the next stage of America’s transformation into a police state, look no further than how Israel—a long-time recipient of hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid from the U.S.—uses its high-tech military tactics, surveillance and weaponry to advance its authoritarian agenda.

Military checkpoints. Wall-to-wall mass surveillance. Predictive policing. Aerial surveillance that tracks your movements wherever you go and whatever you do. AI-powered facial recognition and biometric programs carried out with the knowledge or consent of those targeted by it. Cyber-intelligence. Detention centers. Brutal interrogation tactics. Weaponized drones. Combat robots.

We’ve already seen many of these military tactics and technologies deployed on American soil and used against the populace, especially along the border regions, a testament to the heavy influence Israel’s military-industrial complex has had on U.S. policing.

Indeed, Israel has become one of the largest developers and exporters of military weapons and technologies of oppression worldwide.

Journalist Antony Loewenstein has warned that Pegasus, one of Israel’s most invasive pieces of spyware, which allows any government or military intelligence or police department to spy on someone’s phone and get all the information from that phone, has become a favorite tool of oppressive regimes around the world. The FBI and NYPD have also been recipients of the surveillance technology which promises to turn any “target’s smartphone into an intelligence gold mine.”

Yet it’s not just military weapons that Israel is exporting. They’re also helping to transform local police agencies into extensions of the military.

According to The Intercept, thousands of American law enforcement officers frequently travel for training to Israel, “one of the few countries where policing and militarism are even more deeply intertwined than they are here,” as part of an ongoing exchange program that largely flies under the radar of public scrutiny.

A 2018 investigative report concluded that imported military techniques by way of these exchange programs that allow police to study in Israel have changed American policing for the worse. “Upon their return, U.S. law enforcement delegates implement practices learned from Israel’s use of invasive surveillance, blatant racial profiling, and repressive force against dissent,” the report states. “Rather than promoting security for all, these programs facilitate an exchange of methods in state violence and control that endanger us all.”

“At the very least,” notes journalist Matthew Petti, “visits to Israel have helped American police justify more snooping on citizens and stricter secrecy. Critics also assert that Israeli training encourages excessive force.”

Petti documents how the NYPD set up a permanent liaison office in Israel in the wake of 9/11, eventually implementing “one of the first post-9/11 counterterrorism programs that explicitly followed the Israeli model. In 2002, the NYPD tasked a secret ‘Demographics Unit’ with spying on Muslim-American communities. Dedicated ‘mosque crawlers’ infiltrated local Muslim congregations and attempted to bait worshippers with talk of violent revolution.”

That was merely the start of American police forces being trained in martial law by foreign nations under the guise of national security theater. It has all been downhill from there.

As Alex Vitale, a sociology professor who has studied the rise of global policing, explains, “The focus of this training is on riot suppression, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism—all of which are essentially irrelevant or should be irrelevant to the vast majority of police departments. They shouldn’t be suppressing protest, they shouldn’t be engaging in counterinsurgency, and almost none of them face any real threat from terrorism.”

This ongoing transformation of the American homeland into a techno-battlefield tracks unnervingly with the dystopian cinematic visions of Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report and Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium, both of which are set 30 years from now, in the year 2054.

In Minority Report, police agencies harvest intelligence from widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and neighborhood and family snitch programs in order to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

While Blomkamp’s Elysium acts as a vehicle to raise concerns about immigration, access to healthcare, worker’s rights, and socioeconomic stratification, what was most striking was its eerie depiction of how the government will employ technologies such as drones, tasers and biometric scanners to track, target and control the populace, especially dissidents.

With Israel in the driver’s seat and Minority Report and Elysium on the horizon, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine how the American police state will use these emerging technologies to lock down the populace, root out dissidents, and ostensibly establish an “open-air prison” with disconcerting similarities to Israel’s technological occupation of present-day Palestine.

For those who insist that such things are celluloid fantasies with no connection to the present, we offer the following as a warning of the totalitarian future at our doorsteps.

Israeli checkpoint outside the Palestinian city of Ramallah. August 2004 (From the Public Domain)

Facial Recognition

Fiction: One of the most jarring scenes in Elysium occurs towards the beginning of the film, when the protagonist Max Da Costa waits to board a bus on his way to work. While standing in line, Max is approached by two large robotic police officers, who quickly scan Max’s biometrics, cross-check his data against government files, and identify him as a former convict in need of close inspection. They demand to search his bag, a request which Max resists, insisting that there is nothing for them to see. The robotic cops respond by manhandling Max, throwing him to the ground, and breaking his arm with a police baton. After determining that Max poses no threat, they leave him on the ground and continue their patrol. Likewise, in Minority Report, police use holographic data screens, city-wide surveillance cameras, dimensional maps and database feeds to monitor the movements of its citizens and preemptively target suspects for interrogation and containment.

Fact: We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed, corralled and controlled by technologies that answer to government and corporate rulers. This is exactly how Palestinian poet and New Yorker contributor Mosab Abu Toha found himself, within minutes of passing through an Israeli military checkpoint in Gaza with his wife and children in tow, asked to step out line, only to be blindfolded, handcuffed, interrogated, then imprisoned in an Israeli detention center for two days, beaten and further interrogated. Toha was finally released in what Israeli soldiers chalked up to a “mistake,” yet there was no mistaking the AI-powered facial recognition technology that was used to pull him out of line, identify him, and label him (erroneously) as a person of interest.

Drones

Fiction: In another Elysium scene, Max is hunted by four drones while attempting to elude the authorities. The drones, equipped with x-ray cameras, biometric readers, scanners and weapons, are able to scan whole neighborhoods, identify individuals from a distance—even through buildings, report their findings back to police handlers, pursue a suspect, and target them with tasers and an array of lethal weapons.

Fact: Drones, some deceptively small and yet powerful enough to capture the facial expressions of people hundreds of feet below them, have ushered in a new age of surveillance. Not even those indoors, in the privacy of their homes, will be safe from these aerial spies, which can be equipped with technology capable of peering through walls. In addition to their surveillance capabilities, drones can also be equipped with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tear gas, and tasers.

Biometric Scanners and National IDs

Fiction: Throughout Elysium, citizens are identified, sorted and dealt with by way of various scanning devices that read their biometrics—irises, DNA, etc.—as well as their national ID numbers, imprinted by a laser into their skin. In this way, citizens are tracked, counted, and classified. Likewise, in Minority Report, tiny sensory-guided spider robots converge on a suspected would-be criminal, scan his biometric data and feed it into a central government database. The end result is that there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide to escape the government’s all-seeing eyes.

Fact: Given the vast troves of data that various world governments, including Israel and the U.S., is collecting on its citizens and non-citizens alike, we are not far from a future where there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. In fact, between the facial recognition technology being handed out to law enforcement, license plate readers being installed on police cruisers, local police creating DNA databases by extracting DNA from non-criminals, including the victims of crimes, and police collecting more and more biometric data such as iris scans, we are approaching the end of anonymity. It won’t be long before police officers will be able to pull up a full biography on any given person instantaneously, including their family and medical history, bank accounts, and personal peccadilloes. It’s already moving in that direction in more authoritarian regimes.

Predictive Policing

Fiction: In Minority Report, John Anderton, Chief of the Department of Pre-Crime, finds himself identified as the next would-be criminal and targeted for preemptive measures by the very technology that he relies on for his predictive policing. Consequently, Anderton finds himself not only attempting to prove his innocence but forced to take drastic measures in order to avoid capture in a surveillance state that uses biometric data and sophisticated computer networks to track its citizens.

Fact: Precrime, which aims to prevent crimes before they happen, has justified the use of widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and snitch programs. As political science professor Anwar Mhajne documents, Israel has used all of these tools in its military engagements with Palestine: deploying AI surveillance and predictive policing systems in Palestinian territories; utilizing facial recognition technology to monitor and regulate the movement of Palestinians; subjecting Palestinians to facial recognition scans at checkpoints, with a color-coded mechanism to dictate who should be allowed to proceed, subjected to further questioning, or detained.

Making the Leap from Fiction to Reality

When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931, he was convinced that there was “still plenty of time” before his dystopian vision became a nightmare reality. It wasn’t long, however, before he realized that his prophecies were coming true far sooner than he had imagined.

Israel’s military influence on the United States, its advances in technological weaponry, and its rigid demand for compliance are pushing us towards a world in chains.

Through its oppressive use of surveillance technology, Israel has erected the world’s first open-air prison, and in the process, has made itself a model for the United States.

What we cannot afford to overlook, however, is the extent to which the American Police State is taking its cues from Israel.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we may not be an occupied territory, but that does not make the electronic concentration camp being erected around us any less of a prison.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: West Bank checkpoint tower in 2007 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

 

 

 

[Excerpted from my book Royal Bloodline Wetiko & The Great Remembering: Chapter 12: The Bloodline Take Down of America: Part I]

During the American Revolution, many Crown agents were trying to steer the outcome in favor of the hated Crown.

The Crown’s Freemason “knights” had already established lodges in the colonies to this end. Many scholars believe that the American Revolution was allowed to happen since the British Parliament would no longer control the US, but through various mechanisms, the Crown could still exert control.

The most important of these mechanisms was usury, which they controlled through their cartel banks. Indeed, the US national debt now stands at $31.5 trillion.

click to access

When the US was founded, there was a big debate over whether or not we should have a public or a private central bank. Arguing on the side of a public bank were people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and James Monroe. None were Freemasons.

On the other side, arguing for a privately-owned bank were George Washington, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. All were high-level Freemasons.

Hamilton was also acting as a Crown agent on behalf of the Rothschild family, bankers to the British Crown.

The Freemasons won out and in 1789, Alexander Hamilton became the first US Treasury Secretary. But the real power would be wielded by the new Rothschild-controlled private central bank – the Bank of the United States – which was founded in 1791.

Hamilton, who also went on to found the powerful Bank of New York (now Bank of New York Mellon), exemplified the contempt that his long-indoctrinated Freemason faction held for humanity, once stating,

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many.  The first are the rich and the well-born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right.  Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government.  They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”

Thomas Jefferson replied to this nonsense,

“A country which expects to remain ignorant and free…expects that which has never been and that which will never be.  There is scarcely a King in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever…banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy.”

Nevertheless, the Bank of the United States held its 20-year charter until 1811. Public opposition to the bank was strong, but the Crown plunged the country into the War of 1812, through which the US accrued debt to the Bank of the United States (BUS). With the country facing economic ruin, the Bank’s charter was renewed in 1816.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson ran for President on an anti-BUS platform railing,

“You are a den of vipers.  I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out.  If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

Jackson won the election and immediately revoked the BUS charter saying,

“The Act seems to be predicated on an erroneous idea that the present shareholders have a prescriptive right to not only the favor, but the bounty of the government…for their benefit does this Act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly.  Present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with government.  Should its influence be concentrated under the operation of such an Act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the independence of our country in war…controlling our currency, receiving our public monies and holding thousands of our citizens’ independence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.  It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government for selfish purposes…to make the rich richer and more powerful.  Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress.  I have done my duty to this country.”

In 1835, Jackson was the target of the first assassination attempt on a US President.  The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was “in touch with the powers in Europe”. But under Jackson’s leadership, the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our history.

Enraged by Jackson’s opposition to Crown usury, BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging America into a depression.  Biddle’s boss was the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. Eager to expand their Southern slave trade into Mexico and Central America, the Crown also sprang the Mexican-American War on Jackson.

The Civil War began a short time later, with the Crown funding both sides in an attempt to destroy their unruly colony. They were also funding Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico to harass the US from the southern border. The Austrian was the Emperor of the Second Mexican Empire from 1864 to 1867. The archduke was also a member of the powerful House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. He was installed after the Crowns of Spain, France, and the UK invaded Mexico in 1861 over unpaid debt. By 1861, the US was $100 million in debt to the Crown.

But newly-elected President Abraham Lincoln showed a similar attitude towards Crown usury, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills.  The Crown mouthpiece, the Times of London, now called for the “destruction of the US government”.

The Euro-banker-written Hazard Circular was exposed and distributed throughout the country by angry populists.  It said,

“The European Bankers favor the end of slavery…the European plan is that capital money lenders shall control labor by controlling wages.  The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the valve of money.  To accomplish this government bonds must be used as a banking basis.  We are now awaiting the Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase to make that recommendation.  It will not allow Greenbacks to circulate as money as we cannot control that.  We control bonds and through them banking issues”.

The 1863 National Banking Act reinstated a private US central bank and Chase’s war bonds were issued.  Lincoln was re-elected the next year, vowing to repeal the act after he took his January 1865 oath of office.  But before he could act, he was assassinated at the Ford Theater by John Wilkes Booth.  Booth had major connections to the international bankers.  His granddaughter wrote, This One Mad Act, which details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” just before the Lincoln assassination.

Following the Lincoln hit, Booth was whisked away by members of a secret society known as the Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC). KGC had close ties to the French Society of Seasons, which produced Karl Marx.  KGC had fomented much of the tension that caused the Civil War and President Lincoln had specifically targeted the group. 

Booth was a KGC member and was connected through the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin, to the House of Rothschild.  Benjamin fled to England after the war.

*

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

Dean Henderson is the author of seven books, including, Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf, Illuminati Agenda 21, Nephilim Crown 5G Apocalypse and Royal Bloodline Wetiko & The Great Remembering. Subscribe free to his Left Hook column at deanhenderson.substack.com

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

After the jury came in with its verdict that Donald Trump was guilty of a scheme and coverup to illegally influence the 2016 election, the Biden campaign issued a statement saying that the judgment demonstrated that “no one is above the law,” not even a former President. The overwhelming truth is that the majority of criminal laws are not a deterrent to the serious violations of law committed by sitting presidents of the United States.

This includes the incumbent Joe Biden, especially with regard to foreign and military decisions.

At least five long-standing federal laws explicitly condition the shipment of weapons to foreign countries.  It is legally impermissible for the U.S. government to provide weapons to countries that violate human rights or use these weapons offensively. Day after day, Joe Biden has become a co-belligerent with Netanyahu’s genocidal war crimes and mass slaughter of innocent children, women and men. He has violated all five of these federal laws. (See my February 16, 2024 column: Biden & Blinken – Rule of Illegal Power Over Rule of Law).

As the military, diplomatic and political enabler of the Israeli government’s siege, with the unconditional shipment of weapons of mass destruction, along with civilian bombardment and starvation of defenseless Palestinians in Gaza, Biden is violating the UN Charter and other treaties that past Administrations have signed and that have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.  Biden and other presidents act like they are above these and other laws.

One president after another has spent monies not appropriated by Congress, has defied subpoenas issued by Congress, launched wars undeclared by Congress, sent deadly weapons to nations that obstruct the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid, and that do not protect civilian populations under foreign military rule. All violations of federal law.

Donald Trump in 2019 brazenly stated the lawlessness in one sentence: “ I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” Trump got away with defying over 125 Congressional subpoenas, and with violating the criminal statute known as the Hatch Act by using the White House and other federal property to promote his re-election campaign. Then of course there was the January 6 insurrection, and the likely delay of his trial until after the election, if at all.

Joe Biden shuffles around unappropriated monies, continues to allow the violation of a 1992 federal law requiring the Pentagon to provide Congress with an audited military budget, and is constantly sending unlawful armed incursions into other weaker countries with impunity.

To make matters easier for presidents, there is the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memo, from decades ago, that asserts there can be no criminal prosecution initiated against a sitting president.

As attorney Bruce Fein, who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, has said repeatedly, this baseless opinion has no legal force and should be rescinded. (See, Letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, May 31, 2024).

The courts have shielded presidents from accountability for perpetuated crimes committed either by the White House or by the president’s administration.  For example, citizens have no “standing to sue,” to challenge in court a variety of Executive Branch abuses says the Supreme Court, not even members of Congress. As for presidential violations of the Constitution and federal laws by launching illegal wars or armed attacks abroad, the courts dismiss such cases, saying they raise “political questions” outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Being allowed to get away with crimes is what constitutional law specialist Bruce Fein calls “a way of life at the White House.” Obstruction of justice or deliberate non-enforcement of seriously violated laws marks every presidency. Trump just boasted about what he inherited and intensified it.

Again, presidents operate in a system of considerable sovereign immunity, and law that either can’t or has not breached this shielded impunity. They really are above the criminal laws. Only the very difficult political penalty of impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate can only evict them from office, after which they are free to enjoy life, and receive huge lecture fees and large book advances.

*

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.

Wikipedia: The Failed Experiment to Democratize Knowledge. “Character Assassinations,” Censorship, an Instrument of Global Corporatism

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, June 04, 2024

‘Character Assassination’ is a practice in which a deliberate and sustained effort is made to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual, social groups or institutions. For those whose reputations and positive public contributions have been terrorized and debased by Wikipedia, there is no recourse to restore their character, legal or otherwise.

“We designed mRNA to kill” – CIA Whistleblower?

By Peter Koenig, June 05, 2024

The COVID plandemic was a tool to convert the surviving humanity into a surveillance state – into a One World Order (OWO), following a One World Government (OWG), with digital, programmable money – so-called “Central Bank Digital Currency” (CBDC), with mandatory vaccination, to eliminate a large proportion of useless people (Schwab’s Israeli adviser Yuval Noah Harari), to free up resources for the elite.

Every Escalation Brings Washington Closer to Defeat in Ukraine. “Not Winning” Versus “Losing” a War

By Mike Whitney, June 05, 2024

There is a vast difference between “not winning” and “losing” a war. In the case of Ukraine, “not winning” means that President Zelensky and his handlers in Washington choose to pursue a negotiated settlement that would allow Russia to keep the territory it captured during the war while addressing Moscow’s modest security demands.

“The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 04, 2024

In his book, “The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom,” Dr. Michael Nehls explains how chronic stress and fearmongering have led to inhibited hippocampal neurogenesis and decreased mental resilience, which facilitates indoctrination.

The Normalization of Nuclear Weapons. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 04, 2024

There is now in the US a vast industry funded with $1.3 trillion developing “usable” nuclear weapons. All sorts of private contractors, scientific laboratories, the Pentagon are involved. In other words, the vast sum is widely spread resulting in a massive influential institutionalized interest that prevents nuclear disarmament.

Rebuilding Ukrainian Armed Forces: Commanders Complain “Fresh Recruits” Being Sent “to Simply Die”

By Ahmed Adel, June 04, 2024

A US report points to significant problems in rebuilding the Ukrainian Armed Forces, especially as front line commanders will lead poorly trained recruits, who will be called up under the new conscription law, “to just die.” The same report also indicates that Ukraine is now recruiting prisoners as manpower shortage is evidently having a crippling effect on the front lines.

Russia’s Victory Over Ukraine Is Drawing Near. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, June 05, 2024

From a military perspective, Russia’s strategic goal has always been the ”demilitarization” of Ukraine. Initially, this could have been achieved by defeating the Ukrainian military on the field of battle. Indeed, Moscow was well on the path toward achieving this goal.

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

In this carefully researched article, Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null underscore the inadequacies of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information and knowledge. The free encyclopedia is created, edited and verified by an army of online volunteers whose credibility and integrity are unknowable, even questionable. 

The supposed separate entries for the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Global Research (globalresearch.ca) and its editor-in-chief, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, have been merged into a single Wikipedia item, which consists of unwarranted smears, unfounded claims and disputable accusations. 

Such efforts by the largest reference website, consulted by billions of people worldwide, are supportive of the Establishment’s global agenda, which aims to discredit dissenting yet highly-knowledgeable and qualified scholars and activists (“character assassination”) and push their contributions and endeavors to the margins. This, in effect, denies their vision to share knowledge that “fully represents human diversity.” See Michel Chossudovsky’s biographical note here.

—Global Research, June 5, 2024

---

What Is the Solution to “the Wikipedia Problem”?

Wikipedia is the largest and most read reference source in the world. Billions rely on it every day for unbiased facts and truthful information. Unfortunately, what they often get are slander and lies. This poses an existential threat to society, because lies and slander corrode the fabric of society and harm all of its citizens, no less than they harm the ones who are lied about and slandered.

If Wikipedia were a marginal website with little influence, it could be regarded as harmless, just as you might regard it as harmless to be bumped by a toddler on a tricycle traveling at a snail’s pace – but not if you were run down by a pizza delivery boy on an electric bicycle travelling at 30 mph. Because Wikipedia dwarfs every other reference source on the face of the earth not only in size but in influence, what is at stake is the very pollution of knowledge itself. What shall we do about it?

Should Wikipedia be censored to prevent it from publishing lies and slander? Absolutely not. There must be no pre-publication censorship in America, not even for lies and slander. On the other hand, neither should their be immunity from the consequences of deliberately publishing lies and slander, especially if it harms innocent people.

That is why we have libel laws.

If Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times or NBC or Netflix or any other media platform not only published lies about someone, but also refused to correct those lies when given the correct information, they would be faced with a libel suit – which they would almost certainly lose and be forced to pay millions of dollars in fines.

So how can Wikipedia get way with committing such brazen abuses of truth? How can Wikipedia deliberately lie about distinguished scientists, physicians and scholars – often ruining their careers – without facing multi-million-dollar libel suits?

Because, curiously, Wikipedia is immune from libel suits. Under Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, Wikipedia is classed as a “service provider,” not a “publisher.” Which means it is protected from liability for articles contributed by its “third-party” authors, whom the law naively presumes to be independent of control by Wikipedia ownership.

But that is a legal fiction.

Articles submitted to Wikipedia are edited and often totally rewritten by Wikipedia’s “editors” to reflect the biases and agendas of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, as well as the biases and agendas of the powerful corporations and government agencies with whom he colludes. Editors who fail to toe the Wikipedia line have their insubordinate toes chopped off, and are quickly gone. They know that they write and edit at Jimmy Wales’s pleasure. So Wikipedia should no more be allowed to disclaim responsibility for the words that appear on its website than the New York Times should be allowed to disclaim legal responsibility for the words that appear in its news columns.

At present, judges continue to entertain the fiction that Wikipedia is a “service provider.” This protects it from libel suits. But as more articles like this one appear, the courts may reconsider Wikipedia’s status and reclassify it, more correctly, from “service provider” to “publisher”; much the same way that courts, after 1970, reclassified husbands who forced their wives to have sexual intercourse — from “spouses” to “rapists.”

Although every state used to have a “marital exemption rule,” under which husbands were permitted to rape their wives under protection of law, marital rape, as of 1993, became illegal in all 50 states. Marital rapists now go to jail. Let us hope the courts undergo a similar change with regard to reclassifying Wikipedia, which has been raping the truth under protection of law ever since its founding in 2001.

*

Efforts to gather and preserve the world’s knowledge into a single self-contained resource has been a human endeavor for over 2,000 years. The oldest surviving encyclopedia was compiled by the Roman statesman Pliny the Elder during the first century and covered topics about natural history, architecture, medicine and geography. By definition, and not dissimilar to modern conventional dictionaries, an authoritative encyclopedia is “researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts.”

Encyclopedia entries are “not written in order to convince, although one of its goals is indeed to convince its readers of its own veracity.” 

The factuality of a topic, in other words, is to be framed and understood within the culture, discipline, or science on its own grounds.  It is for this reason that people resort to encyclopedias for quick and concise referencing because of their reputation for objectivity and thoroughness.  However, the words quoted above are not found in a dictionary’s definition or in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which should be properly regarded as the world’s most reliable encyclopedia. Rather these quotes appear on Wikipedia’s entry under “Encyclopedia”. Yet despite its definition, the virtual Wikipedia open-source encyclopedia consistently fails to meet its own standard and very often violates it outright.

Wikipedia has achieved the top position for being the most viewed and referenced encyclopedia in the world. As of May 2024, the English Wikipedia contains over 6.8 million distinct entries and is increasing at a rate of 534 new entries daily due to its army of over 800,000 registered voluntary editors. While countless people around the world benefit from the breadth and scope of knowledge the encyclopedia provides, for almost two decades it has equally been the target of growing criticism for its biases and lack of objectivity on many subjects that have a direct impact on people’s health and well-being.

There are over 200,000 health and medical-related topics. Although the majority of medical entries do not draw controversy and provide relatively accurate and clear encyclopedic definitions for the biology and the etiology of diseases and medical conditions, there is a significant quantity of approximately 700 pages that directly concern Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies and natural health modalities, including Chiropractic, acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), naturopathy, homeopathy, orthomolecular medicine, energy medicine, etc. This grouping of articles is separated off from the medical arts and sciences and intentionally marginalized under the heading of “pseudoscience” and quackery – highly prejudiced and derogatory terms that do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. These unconventional medical entries have also been hijacked by a movement promoting a radicalized ideology of scientific rationalism known as Skepticism. Wikipedia’s own definition of “Alternative Medicine” reveals in no uncertain terms its depreciatory impression about this worldwide and centuries-old collection of natural health practices:

“Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability or evidence of effectiveness. Unlike modern medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect, alternative therapies reside outside of mainstream medicine and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural “energies”, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.”

Unlike other medical pages, there is an apparent lack of reputable medical professionals successfully editing these pages. The majority are anonymous amateurs who consistently rely on Skeptic websites and publications as primary reference sources. Despite the volumes of peer-reviewed studies and articles cataloged in the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine and other research databases confirming the efficacy of these non-conventional therapies, Skeptic editors rely solely upon those studies that may be used for censure and defamation. Since Skeptics now control and monitor these health subjects there is no opportunity for transparency and honest debate to correct gross errors are more often than not systematically shut down.

When looking for information about alternative health issues using legitimate, highly respected encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica we find fair, balanced, and scholarly reviews based on reliable objective sources and professional expertise. Britannica and other comparable encyclopedias name the editors and their professional credentials in any given subject. There is no debasement. There are no attacks. At no point in these highly revered encyclopedias is there character assassination, ridicule, mocking, or disparagement of people supporting an alternative and complementary medical approach at variance with medical orthodoxy. The process for crafting a subject entry is transparent, and instructive. Therefore, due to the lack of subjective biases and prejudices, users benefit from the information provided by being given the liberty to make up their own mind about an entry’s veracity.

Now let’s compare that to an experience on Wikipedia which calls itself an encyclopedia, but fails even the most rudimentary challenges. Most of the editors are anonymous with no reliable curriculum vitae to see if they have expertise in the area they are editing. Their use of words such as “charlatan,” “quack,” “lunatic,” “fringe,” and “pseudoscientific” are not uncommon. There is zero transparency. One feels an oozing sense of condescension viewing the biographies of highly respected and professional people who criticize conventional medical newspeak. They are held in utter contempt, and their expertise is pre-judged as having no legitimate value. Worse, they are condemned as quacks, charlatans, opportunists in Wikipedia’s virtual reality of Stalinistic show trials—condemned without an opportunity to respond to the allegations. 

Everyone should be greatly concerned that Wikipedia’s articles about alternative medical modalities to prevent and treat disease have been expropriated by an army of compromised editors whose sole mission is to undermine the therapeutic credibility and scientific evidence of these therapies. Practically all of these non-orthodox medical entries are dominated by people who are intent on preserving the pro-pharmaceutical status quo. Anyone can spend a little time searching through Wikipedia articles about homeopathy, chiropractic, popular herbal supplements and vitamins, etc and quickly discover that favorable peer-reviewed research are unwelcome. If anyone doubts this and feels game, register as an editor and try to make a constructive truthful edit about the medical efficacy of any of these alternative treatments, supported by an irrefutable medical reference,  and it will be quickly removed within hours. Continue to make the same edit and you will eventually be banned.  

Let’s take an example. The National Health Federation (NHF) founded in 1955 is an international consumer, health freedom organization dedicated to protecting citizens’ rights to consume healthy foods over-the-counter access to dietary supplements and access to alternative medical therapies. In the past NHF has had a formative role in getting chiropractors legally licensed in the United States, the recognition of acupuncture as a viable treatment and the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act that enables Americans access to dietary supplements under the assurance of government quality controls and good manufacturing practices.  Moreover, the Federation is recognized by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) with UN observer status and has a seat on the FAO-WHO’s Codex Alimentarius Commission, which establishes international food standards and guidelines including the use of pesticides, food additives, preservative, contamination levels, etc. In fact, with membership now representing 22 nations, the NHF is the sole consumer advocacy organization on the Commission uncontaminated by any individual government and the private interests of large food manufacturers, agro-chemical companies such as Monsanto, the pharmaceutical giants and their lobbyists. In other words, NHF is a highly esteemed consumer protection organization with a 70-year history of protecting individual health freedoms.

In 2007, NHF board members conducted a small experiment to test Wikipedia’s neutrality. NHF had no entry in Wikipedia; therefore, an entry was created that was kept very neutral without noting any unreasonable or questionable claims. After a period of time, the entry was radically modified to portray the federation in a negative light. Positive references were replaced by anti-natural health references. All attempts by the organization to restore the page’s original entry were rejected. An outside attorney’s effort to correct NHF’s page were met with threatening cease and desist notices. 

NHF’s current Wikipedia entry describes the Federation as “an alliance of promoters and followers who engage in lobbying campaigns… uses the words ‘alternative’ and ‘freedom’ for its own purposes” and is “antagonistic to accepted scientific methods as well as to current consumer protection law.” However, these Wikipedia quotes are sourced back to a militant anti-alternative medicine organization, Quackwatch, which has a long history of harassing natural health practitioners and practically every modality of alternative medicine in order to further advance its drug-based and corporate food agenda. Consequently, the Federation had no other means to correct the false information and therefore resigned itself to the fate of lingering in Wikipedia prison for perpetuity.

There are numerous other examples of board certified physicians advocating for alternative medical therapies and professional health associations experiencing similar obstacles. So much so, it is now embedded into Wikipedia culture, which is now analogous to the firmly held beliefs in any dogmatic religious sect. It is no longer a question whether Wikipedia is redeemable; rather, on matters regarding medicine and health and controversial geopolitical and party-related domestic issues, the encyclopedia has transmuted into an Augean stable of misinformation and corporate and political nepotism. 

What type of person would attack medical doctors and individuals whose contributions to society have positively impacted the lives of so many people by non-orthodox means? Perhaps, psychologically under-developed ideological trolls. 

In an article published in Psychology Today entitled “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists,” Jennifer Golbeck Ph.D. writes, “Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.” Similarly, in a study conducted by researchers at the School of Health Science and Psychology at Federation University in Mount Helen, trolls scored higher than average on two traits: psychopathy and cognitive empathy. The researchers suggested that even though trolls “exhibit one kind of empathy, coupling it with psychopathy ultimately makes them nasty.” They also found that trolls were likely to be high in sadism and were more likely to be male. 

Whether the pro-pharmaceutical editors are trolls, cyberbullies, or even professional medical ideologies such as the legion of doctors and professors in Skeptic organizations such as the Center for Inquiry, Evidence Based Medicine, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the James Randi Educational Foundation and Quackwatch, there is no denying that the majority of anonymous editors on Wikipedia’s pages about alternative and complementary medicine, and natural health advocates are engaging in the character assassination. These organizations are adamant that research spent on investigating the efficacy of alternative medicine is a dangerous foe to their narrow definition of science. 

‘Character Assassination’ is a practice in which a deliberate and sustained effort is made to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual, social groups or institutions.

Martin Icks from the University of Amsterdam and Eric Shiraev at George Mason University introduced a classification of seven character assassination methods, which they defined as “anonymous lies’, ‘misquoting’, ‘silencing’, ‘acts of vandalism’, ‘name-calling’, ‘mental illness’ and ‘sexual deviance’. The authors identified Wikipedia as a common context for ‘anonymous lies’. Our investigations have shown that misquoting, silencing, name calling and online abuse or harassment are quite prevalent. 

For those whose reputations and positive public contributions have been terrorized and debased by Wikipedia, there is no recourse to restore their character, legal or otherwise. Over the years, voluminous complaints have been communicated and/or filed to the Foundation, including lawsuits, about the gross violations in Wikipedia’s editorial policies, misinformation and inflammatory and potentially libelous language. Sadly, such requests in the majority of cases go unheeded. 

As a last resort, what can be done is to refuse the Wikipedia Foundation’s fund drives and any solicitations to grant giving and donations. Our own past experience in filing lawsuits against the Foundation has been met with abuse both from Wikipedia’s legal network and privileged volunteer editors who are privately supported by the Foundation. The Foundation categorically has refused to assume responsibility or be held accountable for the abuse perpetrated by senior and administrative volunteer editors and groups promoting antagonistic ideologies against medical therapies and its leading proponents they happen to disagree with. The consequence has been that the scientific reputations and efficacy of these therapies, and the careers of those practicing them, are seriously undermined and damaged. Based upon the evidence it is our contention that the Foundation knowingly enables this activity to persist and is in fact ideologically aligned with an anti-natural health agenda that threatens the pharmaceutical industry. 

Frustrated Wikipedia editors, past and present, have acknowledged that Wikipedia’s culture of harassment and abuse on its Talk Pages is uncontrollable. In 2020, the Foundation drafted its Universal Code of Conduct to address this systemic problem of toxic behavior and announced it would begin to ban editors who are charged with abusive behavior towards other editors. However, over four years have passed and the Code has yet to be ratified by the Wikimedia Board and its enforcement is still pending. Unfortunately this new ruling, as admirable as it may be, ignores the volumes of misinformation and libelous language already found on the encyclopedia’s pages. Nor would the Code restore Wikipedia’s original standards of neutrality, nor will it address the dire state of negligence to codify verifiable guidelines to determine what is and is not accurate content. 

Skepticism’s assault against CAM therapies has become a counter-insurgent effort to delegitimize contemporary trends in medicine. In 2019, the World Health Organization reported, “traditional and complementary medicine is an important and often underestimated health resource with many applications, especially for the prevention and management of lifestyle-related chronic diseases and in meeting the health needs of ageing populations.” The number of American medical schools offering courses in complementary and alternative medicine has been increasing rapidly. The most prestigious American medical schools now have departments for CAM or include these subjects in their curriculum including acupuncture, hypnosis and herbal remedies according to a recent US News article. A joint 2024 NIH-Johns Hopkins paper reported that alternative health approaches increased to 38 percent in 2022, and 49 percent of Americans use complementary therapies for pain management.  Another government survey estimates that 62 percent of US adults use some form of alternative medicine annually. On the other hand, Wikipedia feels threatened by this trend as its editorial animosity continues to become more hostile.

Logos of 16 Wikimedia sister projects (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

It is crucial to consider the Wikimedia Foundation in the larger context of international corporate globalism and its imperialist agenda. As a nonprofit organization, the Foundation doesn’t act independently from many of the largest federal and international globalist entities, including private mega-corporations.  Its largest declared donors include Google, Microsoft, Intel, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Merck, Oracle, and Bank of America. Despite giving a wink and nod to the Constitutional rights of free speech, it has equally acted in favor of censorship. Last year, the Foundation filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the reversal of Texas and Florida bills that “prohibit web operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.” From its press release, the Foundation argues that such bills would “diminish the quality and usability of Wikipedia for billions of readers and users worldwide.” Of course, full open access to free speech on the encyclopedia would undermine any of the Foundation’s hidden agendas to advance certain ideologies or scientific narratives over and above others. 

The Foundation is also fully immersed in the missions and objectives of the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health. Wikipedia’s entry for the WHO is entirely free of any criticisms despite the numerous charges of incompetence and corruption that the organization has faced, such as the debacle in its handling of the 2008 swine flu scare. In October 2020, the Foundation entered a collaboration with the WHO to advance the latter’s narrative in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO and World Economic Forum young global leader, Katherine Maher, assured the encyclopedia’s commitment to “myth busting” medical information that challenged the WHO and individual government health policies that followed WHO guidelines. In response to the collaboration, the WHO’s Director-General Tedros, himself having faced many controversial accusations in the past, stated that the relationship will assure people have access “to reliable health information from WHO across multiple countries, languages and devices.” Likewise, Wikipedia’s fifteen-year relationship with the National Institutes of Health has protected the federal agency’s Wikipedia page free from warranted controversy. The same is true for many other international organizations, such the WEF, that promote a centralized globalist agenda controlled and orchestrated by an elitist class. 

Perhaps most frustrating is that despite the factual evidence that medical science supporting alternative medicine is not on Wikipedia’s side, it stubborning refuses to acknowledge it. This leaves us to only one assumption; that is, this is intentional and the Wikimedia Foundation has another agenda that transgresses its own ethical claims. Among the 37 million citations in the NIH’s PubMed database, 100s of 1000s of journal studies provide some degree of credibility to alternative medical and natural non-drug therapies. Billions of patient visits worldwide show that alternative and complementary medicine works on the patient level.  A government study estimates that 53 percent, over half of America’s 338,600 office-based American physicians recommend at least one complementary health approach to their patients. The most recommended therapies are massage (30%), chiropractic (27%), nutrient and herbal supplements (26%) and acupuncture (22%).

Fifty-three percent of American psychiatrists now recommend mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and guided imagery. Yet, by extension, according Wikipedia’s Skeptic ideology, all of these doctors are regarded as quacks and charlatans.  This is not simply a mistake, it is horribly wrong by every moral standard. 

Americans have been in a steady declining state of health, life expectancy and psychological well-being for many years. The dire state of the nation’s health echoes the incessant rise in more and more drug prescriptions and surgical interventions. It is no longer questionable that these trends are deeply interconnected. Physicians only recommend natural medical interventions because their personal clinical experience has shown they are effective. So, what has Wikipedia actually contributed to the health crisis that may turn the tide?  Fundamentally nothing because it only pedals more of the same remedies causing the problems and disparagingly marginalizes remedies that may provide relief and increase patients well-being.  

It is past time the public says no more Wikipedia. No more anonymous trolls with psychological dysfunctions who intimidate accomplished medical professionals and alternative medical professions. And finally, no more handouts to the Wikimedia Foundation when it goes on its begging rounds to further feed its revenue stream, which was $180 million in 2023. 

*

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

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.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

The Telegraph has recently dropped a bombshell that links COVID-19 vaccines to excess deaths.

But the news is not new to Global Research.

We have published numerous analyses about the notorious COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the course of the last four years. While the mainstream media blindly deny the fatal effects of the vaccines, Global Research alongside other independent media outlets have been resolutely reporting on their dangers.

This is just among the many crucial subjects that we have been reporting tirelessly to amply educate the masses of the historic crossroads we are at. 

Keep your news unchained, give truth a chance. Please donate to Global Research or become a member. 

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

 

---

Thank you for supporting independent media. 

-The Global Research Team

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Could Poland intervene in Ukraine? Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to consider the possibility. At May 28 press conference during his visit to Uzbekistan, he said:

“the Polish authorities say they are ready to send their contingents. We can hear Polish language, so there are many mercenaries from Poland.” He added: “if some contingents from European countries enter Ukraine together with the Poles, others will later leave whereas the Poles will never do. This is obvious, at least for me. I might be wrong but I doubt that.”

The Russian President described this scenario as an “escalation” and “yet another step towards a large conflict in Europe and globally.”

Putin’s impressions are somewhat echoed by the Polish authorities in Warsaw. In an interview published last week in the Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski claimed his country should not exclude the possibility of sending troops to neighboring Ukraine:

“We should not exclude any option. Let Putin be guessing as to what we will do.”

A spokesperson for Poland’s Defense Ministry, Janusz Sejmej, however, told Polish journalists that he had “no knowledge of that.”

Sikorski’s remark is in fact quite vague, just like French President Emmanuel Macron’s similar statements made earlier this year. Macron, while defending “strategic ambiguity”, has suggested “European troops” (“but not NATO”) “could” be deployed to Ukraine. It is the same kind of Schrödinger’s cat’s reasoning employed by analysts and US officials such as Jahara Matisek (Military Professor at the U.S. Naval War College), Alex Crowther (Retired US Colonel), and Philips P. O’Brien (Head of the School of International Relations at the University of St. Andrews), who have argued that “European forces would be acting outside the NATO framework and NATO territory”, and thus “any casualties would not trigger an Article 5 response and draw in the United States”. After all, they reason, “Russia’s opponent would not be NATO but a coalition of European countries seeking to balance against naked Russian imperialism”. In other words, it would be a coalition of NATO members which, however, is not NATO at all.

The problem, as I wrote earlier, is that NATO combat troops (or is it just troops from NATO state members?) have already been arriving in Ukraine in large numbers.

This has been confirmed by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that “several NATO allies have men and women in uniform at the embassies”, but claims they are merely “giving advice.” Stoltenberg also announced that NATO state members have air defense systems ready to be sent to the Eastern European country. He stressed that NATO members have the “right” to “help” Ukraine. This however does not make the Atlantic Alliance itself a party to the conflict as the reasoning – “strategic ambiguity” or not – is quite questionable.

Ukrainian-Polish quarrels aside, Warsaw has been a logistical hub for aid reaching its neighboring country since February 2022. Amid a trade dispute, former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki famously said his country no longer had arms to send to Kyiv (in September 2023). However, the new Polish government seems to have placed Ukraine back at the center of its foreign policy.

As I wrote before, the two neighboring countries, already in May 2022, clearly took steps towards a future Ukrainian-Polish confederation, as seen with plans announced back then by  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for bilateral agreements pertaining to joint border and customs control, among other things. On May 3, Andrzej Duda (who serves as Poland’s President to this day) went so far as to state that he had hopes that one day “there will be no border” between the two countries. It remains to be seen whether such projects shall gain traction again.

Historically, Ukrainian-Polish relations are complex: the Western portion of Ukraine was in fact ruled by Poland on different occasions, including during the age of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in a process that started after 1349. By 1569, most of “Ruthenia” (which largely corresponds to Western Ukraine) had become Polish territory. The pressures for so-called Polonization, which included forced conversions to Roman Catholicism, and the enserfment of the peasantry by Poland, alienated Cossacks and Christian Orthodox peasants.

In 1648, the Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky famously led a rebellion against the Polish King, founded the Cossack Hetmanate, and was hailed as a liberator. In 1654, with the  Pereyaslav treaty, this new Cossack state, considered a predecessor to Ukraine, pledged its loyalty to the Russian Tsar. This is not just ancient history – there is an ongoing historiographic debate with, as often happens, political repercussions: to this very day, Khmelnytsky is hailed by some as a Ukrainian national hero and a precursor of Ukrainian nationalism (because of his fight against Polish domination) – while others criticize him for his alliance with the Tsar.

More recently in History, Ukraine was once again ruled by Poland after the 1921 Riga peace treaty, and anti-Polish sentiments remain part of Ukrainian nationalism to this day. The way both nations politicize 20th century history has in fact often hampered their bilateral relations. During World War II, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), glorified as a “heroic” organization in post-Maidan Ukraine, cooperated with the Nazi German Waffen-SS and committed various war crimes against Poles (as well as Jews and others). Again, this is not just 20th century history, but has echoes today, as seen with Ukraine’s infamous far-right problem.

The so-called Eastern Flank is a strategic region for the Atlantic Alliance. NATO’s enlargement, both eastwards and northwards towards the Arctic, is certainly one of the key causes of today’s crisis since 2014. Poland has wished for a while to make a comeback to the stage of History and geopolitics, so to speak – even aspiring for regional leadership in Europe. It remains to be seen whether or not Polish aspirations materialize in the form of a tragic escalation that can only bring the world closer to global thermonuclear war.

*

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 InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. 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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is outraged to learn that Canada exported $30,641,495.83 in military goods and technology to Israel in 2023, according to Canada’s newly released annual report on military exports. This is the highest year on record and represents a 43% increase in the value of military exports over the previous year. This is also during a period in which Israel stands accused of genocide against Palestinians by international legal experts. CJPME notes that the $30.6M is a separate figure from the $28.5M in export permits approved by Canada following October 7, 2023, many of which may not have been utilized yet. CJPME reiterates its call for Canada to reverse this dangerous trend, and immediately impose a two-way arms embargo on Israel using the Special Economic Measures Act.

“Canada exported more weapons to Israel last year than in any other year on record. There is every reason to believe that many of these weapons were used in Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “It’s time for Canada to end its complicity in genocide and impose effective sanctions to halt military trade with Israel,” Bueckert added.

 

Canada’s annual report shows that Israel continues to be the top non-US destination in terms of the number of utilized export permits for military goods and technology, with 348 permits utilized in 2023. Similar to previous years, the top categories of military goods were categorized as explosives or related components ($10,458,545) or related to military spacecraft ($13,059,723) and military aircraft ($4,368,437), while other important categories relate to vessels of war, ground vehicles, firearms and accessories. While the report claims that all military goods approved after October 7 were “non-lethal,” this is not a recognized technical distinction in the export regime, and this misleading argument obfuscates the role of components in larger lethal weapons systems. Canada did not deny any permits for military goods to Israel in 2023. Canada maintained trade prior to Oct 7 despite Israel’s ongoing commission of war crimes through the settlement of the West Bank and discriminatory practices against Palestinians that amount to the crime of apartheid.

CJPME also notes that the government has finally made initial disclosures of minimal information related to military exports to Israel, as requested by Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee (FAAE), but only for those permits approved after October 7 2023. CJPME notes that these disclosures do not provide significant new information; nonetheless, they indicate that most exports were destined for “an Israeli company that is part of defence supply chains,” and describe most of the military exports vaguely as “circuit boards” related to aircraft, land vehicles, targeting systems, radar, and more. While seemingly benign, circuit boards can be used to facilitate serious violations of humanitarian and human rights laws, and their transfer to Israel still likely breaches Canada’s obligations as a signatory of the Arms Trade Treaty.

“The information disclosed so far is woefully incomplete, but it nonetheless underlines the risk that Canadian exports could very well be incorporated into weapons systems used by the Israeli military in Gaza. The Parliamentary committee must launch a full study into the Canada-Israel arms trade, so that we can find out exactly what weapons were sent to Israel, how they were used, and if Canada is violating international law,” added Bueckert.

CJPME continues to be concerned about significant loopholes in Canada’s export controls, including the potential for Canadian weapon components to be used in weapon systems and munitions delivered to Israel by the United States or other NATO allies. CJPME notes that the integrated nature of the NATO supply chain makes it impossible to verify compliance without a blanket two-way arms embargo and robust enforcement by Canadian agencies.

“On March 18, Parliament voted for an end to arms transfers to Israel. In exchange for amending the motion, the government promised the NDP that Global Affairs Canada would post a public notice to exporters to explain that no permits to Israel would be allowed. Months later, and Minister Joly still hasn’t posted the notice to exporters, and she continues to allow the transfer of military goods to Israel under existing permits. For all we know, Canadian arms could still be flowing to Israel amid a genocide. We cannot trust this government at face-value, nor can we put faith in Canada’s loophole-ridden export control system. This is why we need a two-way arms embargo,” concluded Bueckert.

*

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 source

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“In a world without laws, where might alone makes right, all of us will ultimately be the losers.” —Jonathan Cook

And this by Scott Ritter:

“In a war of attrition, grinding the enemy down is just the first part. Stretching what remains until it breaks is how you finish the job.”

Scott is, of course, referring to the US / NATO (Ukraine) war against Russia; the latter being close to finishing the job.

The same war-time allegation or strategy, is taking place now in our “civil” (not to confuse with civilized) world, where we, the People, are gradually extending our knowledge of crimes committed during the past hundred-plus years by a powerful clan of elites, coming to culmination in the past four years – is like stretching the enemy, the all-powerful elite, to the breaking point. This crucial moment is near – it is only a question of time, but irreversible.

Light is overcoming darkness.

*

Many of us knew it all along, that the mRNA vaxxes are made to kill, are part of the depopulation agenda, compliments of the World Economic Forum (WEF), especially Klaus Schwab, who prides himself having authored the Great Reset, concluding in “You will own nothing but be happy”.

The UN Agenda 2030, which is supported by the UN Secretary General Mr. Antonio Guterres, a gutless character put in this position and prolonged in this position by the United Sates, sounds like the God-given salvation for humanity, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Until you look at them closer, and you will see the hidden message behind the SDGs. They are an announced death sentence for humanity.

As Cult rules dictate, their crimes need to be announced well in advance to materialize. So far so good. But no farther. That is it. The Light has started penetrating their darkness to their detriment.

Both these documents, the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030, are congruent – they were supposed to work in tandem. That is what “they” thought they had in store for us, but it will not happen.

These two “visionary” documents are actually linked by an illegal agreement of June 2019 between the WEF’s Schwab and the UN’s Guterres. Who would have thought, that the United Nations becomes an instrument of those who fund and support the WEF, i.e. BlackRock, et. al.

The FEAR on which the entire crime was built – the cornerstone for peoples’ submission – is crumbling or has already crumbled and is being smashed to bits and pieces like a house of cards – that looked in 2020 like a pyramid to the sky; today it is a shambles.

The unhumans – oligarchs and billionaires and wannabe controllers of the world’s wealth, working out of Darkness— have not made their calculus with the all-overcoming LIGHT.

The strength of our thoughts – of our positive thinking and willpower – may help stretch this Light across the globe, into every corner of life. This power is unsurmountable, once the fangs of fear have gone, and our minds are filled with thoughts of harmony and Peace.

Forbidden News has divulged the “news” of an unknown CIA whistleblower – no names given – who tells us how the CIA, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the WEF, and the Rockefeller Foundation, have invented the mRNA killer-technology.

The COVID plandemic was a tool to convert the surviving humanity into a surveillance state – into a One World Order (OWO), following a One World Government (OWG), with digital, programmable money – so-called “Central Bank Digital Currency” (CBDC), with mandatory vaccination, to eliminate a large proportion of useless people (Schwab’s Israeli adviser Yuval Noah Harari), to free up resources for the elite.

These deadly “vaxxes”, the Secret CIA agent says, were not developed in warp speed for a non-existent deadly virus, but were prepared at least ten years ahead of the plandemic to be used for depopulating the planet.

The “system” was well-thought out and prepared by long hand, with all the key players in cue to execute their role. It was to function like an octopus stretching its tentacles around the globe, and whenever one would be damaged, teared off by accident or by “mistake”, the remaining ones would continue their business of death and let the “broken” tentacle gradually grow back.

This is reminiscent of a frank Bill Gates statement in one of his by now famous stuttering interviews. This time, not stuttering, he said proudly something to the extent,

“Even if I’m gone, the system is so solid, it will continue on the same course that was prepared a long time ago”.

Of course, the system needs to fool the people, and fool them well – and for a long time – with the same-same messages, to fully indoctrinate the lies, an onslaught of plandemics, necessitating endless vaccination-mandates; transhumanism through chips-implants, full digitization of everything; all-destructive “climate change”, for which mankind’s excesses are responsible, like the needed destruction of agriculture as we know it, for food production, à la “eat bugs and insects or you may starve!” and ever newly appearing enemies – from which they, the kind elite, will save humanity by an OWO with an OWG.

The fooling is done by many means, including a fully bought, corrupt mainstream media, but primarily by a rather obscure UK-based company called Tavistock, whose front is a luxury real estate agency, but their real specialty is mind manipulation and social engineering – a science they developed to perfection since the early 1940s. Tavistock closely cooperates with DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), an agency attached to the Pentagon.

Climate Change – alright. Man-made.

It is called geo-engineering. Chemtrails based on and working with thousands of patented chemical and heavy metal combinations, influencing the stratosphere, our weather and climate – plus the falling particles will poison our breathable atmosphere, water, soil, eventually plants and animals, our food and our bodies.

The second generation of geo-engineering uses DEW technologies. Directed Energy Weapons consist of high-powered electromagnetic waves, for example, those that destroyed Lahaina in Maui, Hawaii. DEW-type energy is also able to cause earthquakes, as they are capable of penetrating deep under the earth’s surface and break tectonic plates.

See this 16-min video clip for more details:

People of the world are waking up.

The wannabe-controlling elite may fall into panic, as awoken people may mean justice for the evil done to the very people over years – what many might call a Nuremberg 2.0.

We are not there yet.

But, yes, justice should be done.

Equally important though – we, Humanity, must move away from this rotten, materialistic, enslaving system. No justice can correct it.

We MUST begin afresh – with a new spirit and with connected positive thoughts of Light that span 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.

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

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

As Russia’s military operation in Ukraine enters its 28th month, the conflict can be said to have gone through several distinct phases, all but one (the opening gambit) of which prioritized attritional warfare as the principal guiding military philosophy.

For Western military observers, schooled as we are on what we deem the ‘modern’ military philosophies of maneuver warfare, the Russian approach to fighting appears primitive, a throwback to the trench warfare of conflicts past, where human life was a commodity readily traded in exchange for a few hundred meters of shell-pocked landscape.

Upon closer scrutiny, and with the benefit of 27 months of accumulated data, the Russian approach to warfare emerges as a progressive application of military art that considers the totality of the spectrum of warfare – small-unit tactics, weapons capability, intelligence, communications, logistics, the defense economy and, perhaps most importantly of all, political reality.

It is critical to keep in mind that while Russia may have entered the conflict facing a single adversary (Ukraine), within months it became clear that Moscow was confronting the cumulative military capability of the collective West, where NATO’s financial, material, logistical, command and control, and intelligence support was married to Ukrainian manpower resources to create a military capacity designed by intent to wear Russia down physically and mentally, to strategically defeat Russia by promoting the conditions for its economic and political collapse.

That Russia recognized this strategic intent on the part of its declared and undeclared adversaries early on is a testament to the patience and vision of its leadership. Outside military observers criticized Moscow’s inability to deliver a knockout blow against Ukraine early on, attributing this failure to poor leadership and even poorer military capacity on the part of a Russian military machine suddenly deemed incompetent. However, the reality was far different – Moscow was making the strategic transition from a peacetime military posture. It initially intended a brief conflict by compelling the Ukrainian government to the negotiation table (only to be thwarted by Ukraine’s Western partners, who chose to sacrifice Ukraine in the hope of strategically defeating Russia instead of opting for a peaceful resolution), to a posture capable of wearing down both Ukraine’s ability to resist and the collective West’s ability to sustain Kiev economically and politically.

From a military perspective, Russia’s strategic goal has always been the ”demilitarization” of Ukraine. Initially, this could have been achieved by defeating the Ukrainian military on the field of battle. Indeed, Moscow was well on the path toward achieving this goal, even after it pulled its forces back from around Kiev and the other Ukrainian territories it had occupied in the initial phases of the conflict. When Russia moved over to Phase Two, the objective was to complete the liberation of the Donbass region. The battles fought in May and June 2022 nearly brought the Ukrainian military to the breaking point – slow, grinding operations where Russia exploited its firepower superiority to inflict massive casualties on army with finite ability to sustain itself. Only the decision by the collective West to provide massive infusions of military resources – equipment, training, logistics, command and control, and intelligence – saved the Ukrainians. With NATO’s assistance, Kiev was able to rebuild its depleted military and go over on the counterattack, pushing Russian forces back in the vicinity of Kharkov and Kherson.

This military success proved to be the undoing of Ukraine and its Western allies. The impressive territorial gains achieved in the Kharkov and Kherson offensives that took place between late August and the middle of November 2022, proved to be a narcotic. While Russia adjusted to the new realities of an expanded conflict, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of troops, building strong defenses, and putting its defense industry on a wartime footing, the Ukrainians and their NATO advisers assumed that they would simply be able to repeat the successes of summer-fall 2022 through a grand summer counteroffensive in 2023.

This hope proved to be in vain.

It was at this juncture that the principles of attritional warfare began to be applied by the Russians in a more comprehensive form. While Ukraine and its NATO allies assembled a massive offensive strike capability which married the last of Ukraine’s trained manpower reserves with billions of dollars of Western equipment and training, Russia continued to engage in so-called ”meatgrinder” operations in and around the city of Artyomovsk (known in Ukraine as Bakhmut). These battles produced massive casualties on both sides. Russia, however, was able not only to absorb these losses, but to continue to accrue strategic reserves. Ukraine, on the other hand, squandered tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of hard-to-replace military materiel which had been earmarked for the summer 2023 counteroffensive. As such, when the Ukrainians finally kicked off their counteroffensive, in early June 2023, they did so with forces insufficient to the task. Over the course of the next several months, extending into fall, the Ukrainian army ground itself down in the face of Russian defenses, which were optimized to defeat the attackers.

By the time the counteroffensive ground to a halt, in December 2023, Ukraine was a spent force militarily. Its armed forces had used up their reserves of manpower. NATO had depleted its stocks of available military materiel. And the West had become politically exhausted at the prospect of a never-ending conflict which seemed destined to result in an endless cycle of throwing good money after bad, all the while failing to bring about the strategic goal of defeating Russia.

Moscow, on the other hand, emerged from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in a good position. From a military perspective, the Russians had won the war of attrition with Ukraine and the collective West – basic military math had Ukraine consuming manpower and material resources at a far greater rate than they could be replenished, making Kiev grow physically weaker every day the conflict dragged on, while the Russians were able to accumulate manpower and material resources at a rate far greater than Ukraine was able to destroy, meaning Russia grew stronger every day the conflict continued.

Economically, Ukraine and its Western backers were exhausted. The blowback from the aggressive anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the West had severely curtailed the industrial capacity of the European members of the NATO alliance to sustain the scope and scale of its military support to Ukraine, while domestic political realities in the US, amplified by the fact that it was engaged in a hotly contested presidential election cycle, paralyzed the American ability to sustain Ukraine financially. The military and economic exhaustion of Ukraine and the collective West severely impacted the ability of this coalition to politically sustain support for a war that had no discernable prospect of ending well.

While the conflict has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been without cost to Russia, the approach taken by the leadership, to create conditions on the battlefield designed to maximize enemy losses while minimizing their own, meant that Moscow entered 2024 in a much stronger position militarily, economically, and – perhaps most importantly – politically. War, it has been said, is an extension of politics by other means, and this is no exception to the age-old adage. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest electoral victory has provided the leadership in Moscow with a political mandate that strengthens Russia’s hand considerably, especially contrasted with the weakened posture of Ukraine.

It is within such a context that the Russian offensive north of Kharkov must be evaluated. From a military-political standpoint, the operation has a specific objective – to push Ukrainian forces back from the border with Russia so that Ukrainian artillery and rocket systems can no longer strike Russian territory. But there is a larger purpose for this offensive – to continue the process of grinding down the Ukrainian military, to complete the larger task of ”demilitarization” set by the Kremlin.

In this, Russia is succeeding. First and foremost, by attacking north of Kharkov, Moscow has compelled Kiev to commit not only the last of its mobile strategic reserves in response but, because these forces are inadequate in strength, to force Ukraine to strip away units on the eastern line of contact, in Kherson, Zaporozhye and Donbass, and to divert them to the Kharkov direction. The depletion of reserves is part and parcel of the overall Russian strategy of attrition. Moreover, as these forces displace to the Kharkov region, they are being interdicted by Russian air, missile, and drone strikes, further eroding their combat power. The result is that Ukraine is now defending a longer line of defense with even fewer forces than it started with.

One should not expect the Russian efforts to stop in the Kharkov direction. Reports indicate that Moscow is amassing significant forces opposite the Ukrainian city of Sumy. If Russia were to open a new direction of attack there, Ukraine would struggle to find forces sufficient to mount a viable defense. And at some point, one should expect additional reserves to make their appearance on other parts of the battlefield, maybe in Zaporozhye, or Donetsk, or Lugansk, where Ukrainian forces have been stretched to breaking point.

The goal of a war of attrition is to wear your enemy down to the point where continued resistance is impossible. This has been Moscow’s goal since April 2022. And it is the goal today. The Kharkov offensive is simply the current manifestation of the continuation of this strategy, and the clearest indication yet that the Russian endgame in Ukraine is drawing near.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. 

Featured image: A reconnaissance group serviceman of Russian Armed Forces Eastern Military District is seen in a vehicle moving on Kharkiv direction during the special military operation in Ukraine. ©  Sputnik / RIA Novosti

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

With mind boggling audacity – insolence would perhaps be a more suitable word – the nations which have systematically practiced the extermination of other nations and cultures, and which even gave their odious practice its universally recognised name –  genocide – are now in the forefront of accusing others, consisting mainly of their historical victims, of what they themselves have engaged in all along, and largely with impunity.

There is no better illustration than the recent Srebrenica genocide resolution charade in the UN General Assembly. We all suspect, of course, who inspired this benevolent initiative “to promote peace and reconciliation in the Balkans,” by increasing existing rage and hatred to the boiling point. Displaying the depths of their wicked cynicism, out of potentially 194 UN member states, they entrusted the dirty work of submitting their hypocritical resolution to Germany and Rwanda, the two with impeccable genocidal records.

What the actual and the ostensible sponsors of the UN resolution conveniently overlooked and left out of their resolution is a real and provable genocide in the very recent past and at a short distance, 200 kilometres as the crow flies, from Srebrenica. If highlighting a typical Balkan genocide, for the purpose of commemoration and universal condemnation, had been their sincere purpose they surely would not have chosen to focus on the highly dubious example of Srebrenica because it pales by comparison to a nearby genocide that is unquestionably real. The real genocide occurred in war-time Croatia and spilled over into the adjacent parts of Bosnia. It is symbolised by the death camp of Jasenovac, fittingly described by a distinguished Holocaust scholar as the “Auschwitz of the Balkans.”

Notorious facts of this nature, however, are not allowed to obstruct the smooth promotion of The Agenda, which we strongly suspect in the minds of the Western elite is based on a sharp distinction, nicely elaborated by Josep Borrell, between the Garden and the Jungle. Even more to the point, where genocide is concerned, the distinction is between worthy and “unworthy” victims, as the late Prof. Edward Herman had insistently maintained.

Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Srebrenica may be the most brazenly contrived but, as we shall demonstrate shortly, it is not unique in the category of “genocides” maliciously fabricated in the slander factories of the collective West. Their singular purpose is to project the West’s own guilt onto others and to brutally malign those who refuse to march to its tune. It matters not to the West’s propaganda mavens that a slaughter of epic proportions, which it refuses to acknowledge and in which it is fully complicit, with a genocidal dimension grudgingly recognised even by the UN’s own court, was taking place concurrently as in the General Assembly of the United Nations the collective West was employing the full range of its intimidation and blackmail tools to elevate its fraudulent Srebrenica narrative to a pedestal of uniqueness. Nor does it matter to them that the genocide in Jasenovac during World War II dwarfs by many orders of magnitude anything that might have happened in Srebrenica, even if credit were given to the most wildly exaggerated accounts.

Can Srebrenica ever be held as a starker example of genocide than Jasenovac? Does Srebrenica even qualify as genocide and can it ever legitimately replace Jasenovac as its Balkan paradigm?

In the mind of the globalist political establishment, that appears to be possible. In their propagandistically reconfigured version of reality, Srebrenica, with its “8,000 men and boys,” indeed overshadows the massive slaughter of several hundreds of thousands in Jasenovac. It makes no difference that the slaughter in Croatia seventy years ago fully satisfies the criteria laid down in the Genocide Convention. Nor does it matter that unlike Srebrenica it was committed with amply documented intent to indiscriminately exterminate all Serbs, Jews, and Roma within reach, and to obliterate the ethnic and religious communities to which those victims, obviously of lesser worth, belonged.

It is to be deeply resented, in what passed for debate in the General Assembly, that a variety of arguments opposing the corrupt resolution were advanced, some solid and others quite lame, but that no one had the courage to publicly denounce the threadbare factual and legal rationale upon which the entire Srebrenica fiction rests. That did happen eventually, but not at the plenary session of the UN General Assembly. On the eve of the session, but outside of the Assembly’s hallowed halls, Srebrenica was superbly deconstructed by independent experts of such calibre as George Szamueli, Kit Klarenberg in a focused conversation with Nebojša Malić, and Balkan Conflict Research Team’s Laurie Meyer with published author Andy Wilcoxson. Regrettably, the ineffectual Serbian Government, which should have been the most keenly interested in unmasking the hoax, confined itself to cheap and undignified flag-wrapping histrionics aimed at their domestic audience. The Republic of Srpska, the other interested party on whose territory the alleged “genocide“ is supposed to have taken place, did not even bother to send a representative to the General Assembly to argue its position, which it had an unqualified right to do according to UN’s Procedural Rules.

Speaking of phoney genocides maliciously concocted by the propagandists of the collective West, two more recent examples spring to mind. They further illustrate the opportunistic cynicism with which human suffering, even on such vast scale, whether real or fictitious, is regarded.

The first is the alleged “genocide” in Xinjiang, supposedly targeting the Uyghur ethnic community there. Many will recall that a relatively short time ago it was the topic that dominated public discourse. The indictment of China, based on a matrix of unsubstantiated but aggressively propounded allegations, resounded throughout the collective West. The utter dishonesty and manifestly bogus nature of these charges and the preposterous nature of the “tribunal” set up in London to rubber stamp the preordained political “verdict” we had dealt with extensively at the time, when the Xinjiang frenzy was at its fever pitch (also here and here).

If three years later anyone is wondering where the Uyghur matter stands and more precisely where the bodies are, the answer is that the issue has been unceremoniously shelved. Ultimately, even the UN Special Rapporteur commissioned to study the Xinjiang allegations thrashed them as groundless. (Too bad that no one thought of appointing her to investigate Srebrenica!) In sum, those who originally raised the bogus issue have now moved on to other provocations which they believe will yield greater dividends. Consequently, the bodiless Xinjiang “genocide” has fizzled out, the Uyghur genocide crisis actors have been put on sabbatical, and the entire scenario is currently being revised in Hollywood.

Soon after Crimea’s reintegration with Russia in 2014, a Crimean Tatar genocide frenzy was instigated in the expectation that this particular minority group might prove suitable as a battering ram to disrupt the reintegration process and discredit Russia.

As was done with Xinjiang Uyghurs, academically sounding think tank dissertations (including a Council of Europe pamphlet) were composed by hired “scholars” and disseminated to bemoan the plight of the Crimean Tatars, highlighting their “persecution under Russian occupation,” with such trusted sources as Wikipedia, Radio Free Europe, and the Atlantic Council chiming in.

Eventually, the “Tatar genocide” campaign was overtaken by other events in the region and proved as ephemeral as the Xinjiang Uyghur project. Crimean Tatar genocide actors were also put on sabbatical like their Uyghur colleagues while their puppet masters are figuring out how and where to use them next.

Bosnian Muslims, who are still massively enthralled by what they naively assume is Western support for their cause, should take note of how their Uyghur and Tatar counterparts, who shared their illusions, have ultimately fared.

*

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.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Arriving prisoners being robbed by Ustaše guards (From the Public Domain)

---

Rethinking Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic

Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.

Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:

1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;

2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;

3) Genocide or Blowback?;

4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);

5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;

6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;

7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;

8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;

9) The Balance Sheet; and

10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.

• ASIN:‎ B0992RRJRK
• Publisher: ‎Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
• Language: ‎English

Click here to purchase.

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

There is a vast difference between “not winning” and “losing” a war.

In the case of Ukraine, “not winning” means that President Zelensky and his handlers in Washington choose to pursue a negotiated settlement that would allow Russia to keep the territory it captured during the war while addressing Moscow’s modest security demands. (Note—Ukraine must reject any intention of joining NATO)

On the other hand, “losing” the war means that the US and NATO continue on the same path they are today—pumping lethal weapons, trainers and long-range missiles systems into Ukraine—hoping that the Russian offensive is progressively weakened so Ukraine can prevail on the battlefield. This alternate path—which amounts to ‘wishful thinking’—is the path to “losing” the war.

Unlike the “not winning” the war scenario, “losing” the war will have a catastrophic effect on the United States and its future.

It would mean that Washington had been unable to prevent a Russian military incursion into Europe which is NATO’s primary raison d’etre. It would challenge the idea that the US is capable of acting as the guarantor of regional security which is the role the US has enjoyed since the end of WW2. The perception of a US defeat at the hands of Russia would unavoidably trigger a re-evaluation of current security relations leading to the dissolution of NATO and, very possibly, the EU as well. Simply put, losing the war would be a disaster. Here’s how Colonel Daniel Davis summed it up just last week:

“We can’t let Russia win.”

I’ve heard that throughout the entire 2-plus years of the war. But here’s what I’m saying: If you keep going down this path—ignoring all the realities we keep talking about—not only will Russia win, we’ll lose. And I assure you if you thought it was bad to ‘let Putin win’—which means having a negotiated settlement in which Putin ends up with territory he didn’t start the war with—…But if you say that—because I don’t want that to happen, I’m going to keep fighting—that implies you think you can win. But if you can’t win, then the likely outcome is that you lose even more, and that’s what’s really going to hurt our credibility because, imagine if the whole force of NATO was shown to be unable to stop Russia from winning? Now our credibility is damaged far worse than having a negotiated settlement Colonel Daniel Davis, You Tube

So, while “not winning” is not the perfect outcome, it is vastly superior to “losing” which would severely undermine the Alliance’s credibility, greatly erode Washington’s power in Europe, and force the US to rethink its plans for projecting power into Central Asia. (pivot to Asia) In short, a US defeat by Russia in Ukraine would be a serious body-blow to the “rules-based order” and the denouement of the American Century.

So, there’s a lot at stake for the United States. Unfortunately, there is no real debate in elite power circles about the best way forward. And, that’s because the decision has already been made, and that decision hews closely to the maximalist views articulated in an article at the Atlantic Council titled “NATO at 75: The Alliance’s future lies in Ukraine’s victory against Russia”

NATO will mark its seventy-fifth anniversary on April 4 as history’s most successful military alliance. However, its future as a credible deterrent to aggression now lies in the success or failure of Russia’s unjust and brutal invasion of Ukraine…..

Allied leaders have unambiguously bound NATO’s security to this war. NATO summits have repeatedly condemned the invasion and demanded that Russia “completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its forces and equipment from the territory of Ukraine.”

And the rhetoric has escalated. French President Emmanuel Macron recently described the war as “existential” for Europe. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero,” Macron said…

If the upcoming Washington summit is to inspire continued confidence in NATO’s credibility, and thus its future, then t he Alliance must take action to place Ukraine onto a clear path to victory…

Allied leaders must unambiguously endorse Ukraine’s war objectives—that is, total territorial reconstitution back to the nation’s 1991 borders. Anything short of that is a disillusioning signal to Ukraine and encouragement to Putin to sustain his invasion. NATO at 75: The Alliance’s future lies in Ukraine’s victory against Russia, atlanticcouncil.org

Repeat: Allied leaders must unambiguously endorse Ukraine’s war objectives—that is, total territorial reconstitution back to the nation’s 1991 borders. Anything short of that is a disillusioning signal to Ukraine and encouragement to Putin to sustain his invasion.

As we said earlier, this maximalist view of NATO’s objectives is nothing more than wishful thinking. The anemic UAF is not going to drive the Russian Army out of Ukraine nor are they going to win the war. Even so, the views above are shared by the vast majority of foreign policy elites who have not adjusted their thinking so that it corresponds to Ukraine’s bloody battlefield losses. Here’s more from a Foreign Affairsop-ed:

The Biden administration and its European counterparts have failed to articulate their endgame for this war. Three years into the conflict, Western planning continues to be strategically backwards—aiding Kiev has become an end in itself, divorced from a coherent strategy for bringing the war to a close.

But the “theory of victory” presented by Zagorodnyuk and Cohen to replace the strategic malaise in which the west finds itself is, remarkably, even more dangerous and ill-conceived than the status quo. The authors call on the White House to come out in full-throated support of Kiev’s war aims: namely, ejecting all Russian forces from Ukraine’s 1991 borders including Crimea, subjecting Russian officials to war crimes tribunals, extracting reparations from Moscow, and providing Ukraine with “long-term security arrangements.” Put differently, the West must commit itself to nothing short of Russia’s total and unconditional battlefield defeat.

How is Ukraine, with its battered military, collapsing demography, and an economy entirely reliant on Western cash infusions, to accomplish this lofty task? By doing more of the same, but on a larger scale. The New Theory of Ukrainian Victory Is the Same as the Old, The American Conservative

The point we’re trying to make is that this type of delusional thinking is virtually universal among US foreign policy elites none of whom are prepared to accept the fundamental reality on the ground. As a result, there is no chance that the Biden administration will make a course-correction or make any attempt to prevent a direct clash between the two nuclear-armed adversaries, NATO and Russia.

So, how would a reasonable person approach the current conflict in Ukraine?

They’d look for a way to end it ASAP while inflicting as little damage as possible on the losing side. Here’s what Marymount Professor Mark Episkopos had to say in the same article above:

Western leaders are long overdue in articulating a coherent theory of victory—one that grapples with the trade-offs and limitations confronting Kiev and its backers rather than sweeping them aside in pursuit of maximalist battlefield objectives that are increasingly detached from realities on the ground. This does not mean resigning oneself to Ukraine’s unconditional surrender. Yet it will require policymakers to acknowledge that there is no viable pathway to Russia’s unconditional defeat and to shape their thinking around war termination accordingly. It is not too late to end the war on terms that guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty while advancing U.S. interests. The West still has substantial leverage on and off the battlefield, but the key to wielding this influence effectively is to finally abandon a zero-sum framing of victory that has prevented leaders from repairing to a more pragmatic, strategically nimble approach. The New Theory of Ukrainian Victory Is the Same as the Old, The American Conservative

Bottom line: A deal can be made that will minimize the overall damage to the United States and Ukraine, but it’s up to US diplomats and foreign policy elites to identify areas of common ground so an agreement can be reached that will avoid an even bigger catastrophe.

The problem with Professor Episkopos recommendation, is that it is an imminently reasonable suggestion which means it will be dismissed out-of-hand by the warhawks who set policy. Even now, US powerbrokers are certain that the war can be won if they just throw caution-to-the-wind and apply more raw, military force. That ought to do it. (they think)

This is the kind of flawed reasoning that drives the US war machine. Policy elites honestly believe that if they fully embrace a ridiculous platitude like “We can’t lose”, that somehow the reality of superior Russian firepower, manpower, logistical support and industrial capability will vanish into thin air and the “exceptional” nation will prevail once again. But that’s not going to happen.

Okay. So, what will happen?

For that, we turn to military analyst Will Schryver and a recent post on Twitter:

It… must be understood that the US/NATO could not assemble, equip, send, and sustain even a dozen competent combat brigades to engage the Russians in Ukraine.

Do you realize what would happen to 50k NATO combat troops — none of whom have EVER experienced high-intensity warfare — if they were suddenly thrust, with necessarily deficient leadership and coordination, into the Ukraine battlefield?

They would be mercilessly slaughtered. Bleeding the Beast, Will Schryver, Twitter

“Mercilessly slaughtered”? That doesn’t sound very hopeful.

Even so, France has already announced that it will send military trainers to Ukraine, and others will certainly follow. At the same time more lethal weaponry, particularly long-range missiles and F-16s are already en route and will likely be used sometime in the near future. But, will it matter? Will the provision of new weapons and combat troops turn the tide and prevent the collapse of the Ukrainian army? Here’s Schryver again:

Why should the Russians object if the US/NATO sends more of its scant stockpiles of short-range ballistic and longer-range cruise missiles? The success rates for ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles has been abysmal, and steadily decreases with the passage of time. They are strategically meaningless. And there is effectively zero replenishment capacity!

Why should the Russians object if the US/NATO sends a squadron — or even five — of antiquated F-16s to Ukraine. Yes, of course, they would be piloted by NATO “volunteers”, and they might even achieve a handful of overhyped and fleeting “successes” in the early going. But if they actually attempt to mount serious sorties over the Ukraine battlefield, old F-16s with inadequate logistics and sustainment are going to have a life span numbered in mere HOURS. Bleeding the Beast, Will Schryver, Twitter

Is Schryver right? Will these prospective long-range missile strikes on targets inside Russia merely be pinprick attacks that Putin will ignore while his troops continue to crush Ukrainian forces along the 800-mile Line of Contact? And should Putin welcome the introduction of US/NATO “ground troops” into Ukraine to face the Russian army? Will that actually bring the war to a swifter end? Here’s Schryver one more time:

At the rate this whole Ukraine debacle is going, essentially all European-based military power… is going to be attrited to “combat-ineffective” for at least a decade, and probably more. If I were the Russians, I would view that objective as the summum bonum (“The highest good”) to be achieved as a result of this war, and I would be loath to interrupt the Masters of Empire while in the process of handing it to me on a silver platter….

So, if I’m Gerasimov, I would say, “Bring ’em on! Bleeding the Beast, Will Schryver, Twitter

The furor over the use of NATO-provided long-range missiles (and deployment of F-16s and French trainers) only diverts attention from the inescapable fact that NATO is going to be defeated by the Russia Armed Forces if they enter the war. So, a wise man would pursue a negotiated settlement now before things get out of hand. But that is not what our leaders are doing, in fact, they are doing the exact opposite and escalating at every turn.

So, let’s examine the facts a bit more thoroughly. Check out this summary analysis by the pros at War on the Rocks:

When asked two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the Army was “outranged” by any adversary, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said: “Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.”

Given Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, this is sobering testimony. But is it accurate? Unfortunately, yes: Nearly two years of extensive wargaming and analysis shows that if Russia were to conduct a short-warning attack against the Baltic States, Moscow’s forces could roll to the outskirts of the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours. In such a scenario, the United States and its allies would not only be outranged and outgunned, but also outnumbered….

Outgunned? (The Russians) have much more advanced armor, weapons, and sensors, and in some areas — such as active protection systems to defend against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) — are superior to their Western counterparts….

Beyond the disadvantages of being outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned, a slew of other issues compounds the problem. First, NATO allies and the U.S. military would be of limited immediate help offsetting these disadvantages.European allies followed the American lead by cutting armor and optimizing their remaining forces for “out-of-area” missions like Afghanistan. Thus, Great Britain is continuing with plans to withdraw its last troops from Germany, while Germany has reduced its army from a Cold War level of 10 heavy divisions to the equivalent of two.

But it’s not just the numbers here that matter. The United States and its partners have also steadily reduced the infrastructure necessary to support any kind of substantial deterrent or defensive effort in Europe. Today, there are no U.S. division or corps headquarters forward-based on the continent, nor any Army aviation, engineer, and associated logistics brigades….

Russia fields perhaps the most formidable array of surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses in the world. Operating from locations within Russian territory, these SAMs far outrange existing defense-suppression weapons and present a credible threat to U.S. and allied airpower that would be costly and time-consuming to counter….

Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse….

A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried. Outnumbered, Outranged, and Outgunned: How Russia Defeats NATO, War On The Rocks

What does this analysis show?

It shows that—despite the delusional fulminations of armchair generals on cable TV braying about inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia—it’s not going to happen. Russia has the edge in virtually every area of firepower, manpower, combat-readiness and material. They also have the industrial capability that is unmatched in the West. Here’s how Schryver summed it up:

There has been no meaningful increase in armaments production in the collective west, and there won’t be anytime soon. Europe has been effectively demilitarized, and the US is severely depleted and effectively deindustrialized….

Outside of the hopelessly propagandized populace of the so-called “western democracies”, no one in the world believes Russia looks “meek” at this point in time. Instead, they realize the Russians have completely defeated the empire’s plans and exposed its weakness….

The west has no advantage whatsoever. NATO is an empty shell…. I am utterly convinced a NATO expeditionary force in Ukraine would be massacred AT LEAST as comprehensively as the AFU has been, and quite likely MUCH WORSE, and MUCH MORE RAPIDLY…. Will Schryver, Twitter

There it is in black and white: The “deindustrialized” West is an empty shell that has no chance of prevailing in a combined-arms ground war with Russia. Even so, Washington is determined to proceed with its lunatic plan pushing the world closer to Armageddon while bringing ruin on the American 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.

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