Global Research

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

***

Even young children can sense that we live in an age in which literally none of the information available is reliable or believable. Information on a global scale is subject to Gresham’s Law: low-quality information spreads everywhere and the truth is hoarded by the few.

What went wrong, and why?

In a sense, the original sin was the confusion of science, the philosophical pursuit of the truth by means of confirmation of accuracy through systematic experiments, with technology, the tools, and the systems based on tools, that serve to create an effect, or to complete a task.

Technology is not science. The Internet, and the supercomputers that lurk behind it, are employed by the rich and powerful to create a virtual reality for us with the intention of convincing us that the images and the effects generated by technology have some relationship to the truth, to science. They want to reassure us that everything is fine when it is not.

If we want to find our way out of this nightmare, we must first recognize that technology today has become the complete opposite of science: a distraction, or a weapon employed to render us passive and ignorant.

As Paul Goodman wrote, “Whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science.” It is the moral aspect of technology that should be foremost in our minds, and not the gaudy special effects that enchant, that pretend to be science.

Before we develop a smartphone, a satellite system or a supercomputer, we must first employ the scientific method to determine what the impact of that technology will be over the long term on the Earth and on humanity. Such a combination of science and technology literally never happens.

Today, thousands of supercomputers calculate the worth of derivatives as part of a money game for the super-rich, a fixed round of poker. Few super computers are calculating how the use of massive amounts of electricity to power the next generation of AI will impact the climate over the next fifty years, or what the impact of the use of plastics will be on the oceans for that the next century, or what the prospects for the production of food for the 200 years will be in light of the rapid degradation of soil.

Supercomputers are being employed to calculate profit, and not sustainability, and they are so assigned for a political, not a scientific, reason. Technology serves as a sheepskin for the most ruthless forms of economic exploitation. The powerful know that if AI was focused on sustainability over centuries, the answer from its calculations would be that we should stop using AI if we wish to survive.

We confuse science with technology at our peril.

How to dumb down youth

Our youth are told by the corrupt media that they must prepare for a technology-driven future that is inevitable, that is coming in accord with some law of nature. They are exhorted to prepare for a supposed “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that will somehow improve their lives even as their jobs are automated away, even as their minds are destroyed by video games, pornography and online gambling.

When the bankers and CEOs call it the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” they are not kidding. It is a revolution in which a tiny handful of people seize control of the means of production, and the ideological apparatus, for the entire Earth.

We are bombarded, against our will, with information produced without review by third parties, by corporations. Much of it is spurious and misleading. The content of movies and dramas, of commercials and advertisements, promotes waste and indulgence and glorifies the idle lives of the rich.

We are forced to rely on corporate-controlled sources like Google or the New York Times for information and we are not told that these organizations have a long history of providing false information for profit. The entire media/ education/ advertising complex has been mobilized to promote campaigns to dumb down people and to encourage anti-intellectual sentiments. The drive to force all education to be conducted on-line speeds up this dangerous trend.

How many times have you heard old timers remark that young people are self-centered, superficial and isolated? The assumption underlying this statement is that youth, who are our future, have gone bad because of the poor choices that they have made.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those youth are identified by corporations as the target for a decadent consumer culture that encourages them to buy and to be distracted by services that they must pay for. They cannot escape from this unrelenting ideology because corporations are free to pump this trash into the lives of youth, from nursery school on. There is no force present to defend our children.

The main purpose of the games, the pornography, the foolish and shallow television programs citizens are subject to, is not sales.

No. Much of this disinformation is offered to us for free because the purpose is to alter our thinking. The funding of the media by advertising from corporations allows them to dictate to journalists the content of their articles, to make journalists present consumption and development in a positive light even as it destroys the environment and alienates our citizens.

The ultimate product is the viewer or reader, not the item presented in the ad. The reader is rendered up to the investment banks and multinational corporations, as a prostrate consumer, not a citizen, a dependent and limited individual with no moral compass to guide him, incapable of distinguishing images from reality. We desperately need to interact with others. We need jobs that let us work together with others to create a better world.

Technology could help, but it does not because it has no relationship to science and it has no moral content any more.

In our daily lives, our interactions with the world are limited to prerecorded messages, automated checkouts, and online classes.

Our culture could be changed if we wanted to change it. The fact that most people cannot read books, or focus for more than 10 minutes on a topic, is a result of habits created by exposure to technology that could be reversed if there were a will.

We could treat serious issues in a serious manner in our society, and we could discuss the history of how we got here, the reality of how our society works, and the wisdom of learning for oneself through art, music, philosophy and literature. We could give more emphasis to the wisdom passed on to us by our parents and grandparents than to the superficial sayings of those made famous by the media.

The murder weapon can be found in the hands of the advertising firms, the puppeteers behind the screen of media. They create a false reality that degrades; they label those who tell the truth false. They make sure that the citizen faces a wasteland on every TV channel, in every newspaper, in every corner of every mall and every office building. Their destruction of intellectual inquiry made possible the rise of clown tyrants and laid the foundations for a media circus dominated by the willful and the indulgent.

We can trace this war on intellectual inquiry back to the efforts of Sigmund Freud’s disciple Edward Bernays in the 1950s to develop concrete methods for manipulating the public through powerful images and simplistic slogans. Bernays gave corporations long-term strategies to make use of weaknesses in human psychology so as to turn citizens into consumers who are drawn to conventional interpretations presented by authority figures.

The manipulation of the human mind by the powerful has a long history. Yet the situation would not have become so dire if our seduction by the stunts of computers, by the legerdemain of mechanical reproduction, had not blinded us to the murder of scientific inquiry.

The death of science is an extension of the death of philosophy. Universities are extirpating philosophy departments left and right, supposedly because they no longer can find jobs for their graduates. The study of philosophy is treated in the media as a quaint field for the impractical. In reality, however, philosophy must be the foundation for all understanding. Without an understanding of the invisible principles according to which the universe, and human institutions, function, our society drifts, our government becomes an unmoored ship, and we slide into treacherous straits.

The death of philosophy means that the visible ― the hurricane, the mass shooting, the speech by a politician ― is the only thing that registers in our minds. Climate change, cultural decadence and political mannerism, the most serious dangers we face, seem like abstractions that do not even enter our discussions.

Without a philosophical foundation, without a methodology for confirming what is true, science is reduced to visual stimulation and rhetoric.

To access the video click screen

The destruction of the intellectual

The obsession with the seen, and the neglect of the invisible and the abstract, is related to the precipitous decline of the intellectual in society.

This process was pushed forward by wealthy ideologues seeking to defend their power such as the Scaife family, the Koch family, and the Coors family. They paid top dollar to create and to circulate narratives in the media that suggested that business administration and marketing were practical and fundamental because they create wealth. They paid newspapers to repeat and repeat that the intellectuals who try to understand the fundamentals of the universe and of society are impractical and elitist.

The exploitation of nature, or of fellow humans, the manipulation of currency and capital by investors, was lauded by the new gurus that these groups funded, and then that argument was fed to us through the commercial media. The criminals who made wealth out of nothing through financial fraud like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are presented to us as icons for genuflection.

Thus, an enormous number of Americans were convinced to pursue careers in business and they dedicated themselves to the proposition that their fellow men should be objects for exploitation, that the principle in all interactions is competition rather than cooperation.

If you do a search for a job, you will find that the only jobs available are in exploitative fields that promote consumption and value growth over values or understanding. Even the careers possible at NGOs with important missions require that one beg ruthless businessmen for funding to keep going.

The decline of the role of the intellectual in a society controlled by corporations did not lead academics to build bridges to working people, or to find solidarity with the impoverished; Quite the opposite. Rather, intellectuals sought refuge in an even more narcissistic and even more elitist institutional culture, one that alienates workers and allowed for the discontent to turn rather to the far right for vision.

The commercialization of the university

The degradation of the intellectual is part and parcel of the commercialization of the university over the last two decades.

Institutions that once promoted intellectual inquiry have devolved into top-heavy academic bureaucracies focused on rewarding deans and provosts with high salaries, and serving the corporate clients that have replaced government as sources of funding. More often than not, the top decision makers are not even academics, but MBAs and accountants who consider research and education a service, the equivalent to supplying broadband to the consumer, and not a moral goal.

The professor has become a day laborer subject to market forces whose value is determined by his or her popularity with his students, the funds he or she raises from corporations and his or her ability to publish in specialized journals that have a low tolerance for originality.

The administrators, responding to “market forces” compel professors to write in obscure language inaccessible to anyone who has not attended graduate school so that they can publish in journals that few will ever read. Professors who do not write for those academic journals cannot keep their jobs.

To top it off, those journals are inaccessible to the citizen, and will never show up in a Google search. Paywall services like JSTOR (a cover for Elsevier and other parasite corporations that make money off of the intellectual labor of others) charge enormous fees for access to research that was funded with tax dollars.

When the American programmer Aaron Swartz, founder of Creative Commons, released to the public JSTOR articles based on research funded by the public, he paid for that act with his life.

Courses offerings at the university have been cut back because, supposedly, students are no longer interested in the humanities or the arts. The fact that the decision of corporations not to hire those with a background in the humanities is not an economic reality, but an explicit political act, is never mentioned.

The promotion by corporations of a shallow materialistic culture in the media that discourages interest in literature and art is considered to be a fact of life, not a criminal conspiracy to dumb down citizens.

The media tells us constantly that democracy is critical, but a society without ethically committed intellectuals, without institutions that can support those intellectuals, is like a body with no bones. No degree of elections, or of heated media debates, can save such a doomed society.

The ideological commitment to public service, and to self-sacrifice, on the part of intellectuals has vanished. Corporations and banks have pressured institutions such universities and research institutes, museums and libraries, orchestras and theatres, as well as government and corporate institutions, to glorify overpaid executives and to marginalize and demean the intellectuals, artists and writers that those institutions were meant to support.

When Drew Faust retired as president of Harvard in 2018, she immediately joined the board of Goldman Sachs ― such a blatant conflict of interest would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

Harvard, once famous for its research and teaching, is now prized primarily by investment banks for its $50 billion endowment. The brand value of “Harvard” has value for corporations who find “strategic alliances” with select professors helpful for pushing their agendas on the American people.

The corporate takeover of academics was fatal for science. As Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy detail in their article “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition” (Environmental Engineering Science, Jan, 2017), truth does not hold a candle to profit maximization.

Professors are hired and fired on the basis of quantitative performance metrics: “publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g., h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents.”

Seemingly scientific, this dark alchemy has little, or nothing, to do with the search for the truth.

The increase in direct, or indirect, corporate funding has increased the number of taboo topics for research (the privatization and militarization of space and the Artic, the takeover of government functions by multinational banks, or the corruption of academics). Intellectuals cannot discuss these topics unless they are ready to be exiled to the margins, to have their writings labeled as “alternative” or “conspiracy theories.”

How technology shut down the American mind

It has become a commonplace comment that the entire world seems to have gone crazy. This compelling impression usually does not develop far beyond that primitive formulation.

Yes, the United States is governed by the insane; Yes, it has become a literal psychopathocracy.

The question is whether we are observing a periodic decadence, akin to the collapse of the Roman empire, or a different phenomenon?

We witness all around us extremes of cognitive dissonance that allow highly educated people to blithely ignore catastrophic climate change, the preparations for world war, and the radical privatization of the entire economy.

Could there be something beyond simple denial and self-centeredness at play here?

When we spend our days staring at smartphones, stay up late playing games, watching pornography, or chatting with friends about popular music or trends in fashion and food, is that smartphone serving as a portal that allows us access to information that we need?

Or could it be that the smartphone is modifying how we think and behave, setting our priorities for us and suggesting to us what values to uphold, how to act?

Are, perhaps, those smartphones that expose us to video games glorifying military combat, to Youtube broadcasts promoting stupid cat tricks, weapons created and distributed to undermine the capacity of the citizen to think deeply, to distract us so we cannot comprehend the radical transformation of our world into a techno-tyranny?

Are those smartphones intended to create addictions and obsessions in us that inhibit organized action to create our own systems of governance?

Advances in technology not only transform the landscape of human society, they also undermine our capacity to comprehend the shifts taking place. Our brains are being reprogrammed by the smartphones that we assume help us to communicate.

Technologically-induced passivity that destroys human society is as devastating as it is invisible, it is a cultural holocaust that first kills the concept of the citizen and of the family member by using seemingly innocuous, even helpful, technology to enter the private lives of the individual.

Nicholas Carr’s book, “What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shallows,” provides extensive scientific evidence of how the Internet remaps our brains to be inclined to respond to instantaneous stimulation and disinclined from complex, long-term, thinking.

Over time, such stimulation renders complex, three-dimensional contemplation of contemporary affairs virtually impossible.

In the case of youth encouraged by corporations to depend on such external devices from infancy, the impact is crippling. It is a form of fascism by subterfuge, or as Sheldon Wolin explains in his book “Democracy Incorporated” such technology creates an “inverted totalitarianism” in which we are controlled by corporations in our daily lives but continue to imagine there exists some form of “democratic process” because of what we see on television.

We are forced to use social media like Facebook or Twitter, but we cannot vote, or even offer our opinions, as to how that social media (technology) is developed, or what the rules for these social media platforms are. We are told that we have a choice of social media, but no one can set up a social media platform of critical scale without enormous amounts of capital. Not a single communally-administered social media platform of scale has been permitted to develop. That means that global investment banks determine that manner in which we interact with others.

Carr explains that the brain’s neuroplasticity allows it to evolve, often in a negative sense, in response to stimulation from the internet. Our neurons want us to keep exercising the circuits we formed through our internet surfing because they offer a seductive stimulation. Quick responses from a Google search, or from a Facebook posting, stimulate neurons and release pleasing stimulants.

The unused neural circuits that were once employed in complex three-dimensional consideration of long-term personal experiences and of shifts in culture and society are ruthlessly pruned away in an invisible neural Darwinism in that process. The result is not technological flexibility and liberation, but rather rigid thinking and behavior.

The neurologist Norman Doidge writes: “If we stop exercising our mental skills, we do not just forget them: the brain map space for those skills is turned over to the skills we practice instead.” That is to say, that it becomes impossible for the brain to return to its original capacity for deep thinking after being subject to this diet of intellectual junk food.

Hours on smartphones, exploring social media and chatting with friends, has rendered us incapable of comprehending risk involved in climate change, or in the arms race, or in the promotion of a bogus COVID19 virus to justify totalitarian corporate control.

The psychopath behind the psychopath

There is one more piece to this puzzle.

Is it simply the case that greedy billionaires use technology as a means to reduce us to slavery as they seek to further increase their wealth, or are they also being drawn into the trans-human realm and losing their bearings in the process?

If we peer behind the curtains, will we discover that technology has taken over the entire system of things?

Could it be that there is an ultimate psychopath behind psychopaths like Bill Gates and Elon Musk

The psychopath playing the flute for the billionaires as they lead us to our collective doom, is not a specific monster, but the network connecting together tens of thousands of supercomputers around the world. Those supercomputers are the real power that stand beyond the reach of the constitutions of any of the pathetic little nation states, or of any misshapen global institutions like the United Nations.

Those supercomputers purr softly as they calculate to the tenth decimal point how to maximize profit every day, every minute and every second. They make the ultimate decisions for international banks and corporations, and not only because they are fast and perfectly integrated. They are capable of something that no human can do: they can assess the monetary value of the entire Earth and can extract profit from every aspect of human society in perfect accord with the algorithms they were assigned, and do so without any hesitation, without the slightest ethical qualm. They were not programmed to calculate the sustainability of the Earth.

We do not have to wait for supercomputers to achieve consciousness in order to lose control of our civilization. All we need is for computers to set the priorities for our society on the basis of profit without any consideration for our long-term needs. If social media, videos and games, remap the neural networks of our brains, the computers will take over by default long before they have consciousness. We have delegated the administration of our economy to supercomputers without even noticing it.

Do those supercomputers act on the basis of what we ask of them? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

There is one critical imperative for the network of supercomputers consuming electricity on a huge scale. That imperative has nothing to do with the id or the ego. These networks are compelled by the second law of thermodynamics to create greater entropy, to consume more energy. It is this drive, rather than any fuzzy consciousness more appropriate for science fiction novels, that powers their decisions as a system.

The result?

The one-eyed humans whose reasoning and perceptions have been degraded by the stimulation of technology, who have been deprived of science and metaphysics, are being led to the precipice by a massively-parallel blind man.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In late January, a top US general declared that a war over Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Are we shortly to find ourselves confronted with a second flashpoint in Asia after Ukraine? We put the question to China expert Dirk Nimmegeers.

To fully understand what exactly is going on, it is important to grasp Taiwan’s special status. Can you explain that status a bit?

Taiwan does have its own government and parliament, but essentially it is not a sovereign or independent state because it is part of China. Almost every state in the world, including the US, recognizes that. Taiwan, for instance, has no seat at the UN.

There is only one China with a government based in Beijing. The Taiwanese political entity was installed in 1949 by the losing side in the Chinese civil war, after being expelled from the rest of the country by the Communist Party of China.

Legally, the island has been part of China for centuries like Flanders is part of Belgium, or Friesland is part of the Netherlands. In a way you can see Taiwan as a rebellious province.

What is China’s relationship towards this ‘rebellious province’?

China’s policy has been unchanging for years: Taiwan should be reunited peacefully with the rest of the country. Beijing would like to see economic ties between the mainland and the island province restored to the same strength as they were until recently. More social and cultural contacts would also be beneficial.

However, Beijing has always warned – and does so every time it is gravely provoked – that any declaration of Taiwanese independence or serious moves towards it would lead to a military response. Essentially, the ‘Taiwan issue’ is a domestic one, which the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will settle between themselves.

How do they view that issue in Taiwan?

In Taiwan, there are two main parties. Currently, the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) is in power. This party is pushing for separatism. The position of the DPP and its current leader Tsai Ing-wen is that Taiwan is already independent and that China and Taiwan do not belong together.

This is in contrast to the view of the other major Taiwanese political party the Kuomintang (KMT). This party is still loyal to the ‘one China’ constitution, which assumed that a government from Taiwan would succeed in reclaiming all Chinese territory. Of course, the KMT also knows that this has since become an illusion, and that is why the party drew up the ‘1992 Consensus’.

This states that ‘there is but one China, but this is interpreted differently on both sides of the Strait’. For Beijing and the KMT, this remains a good basis for mutual contacts and negotiations. The DPP separatists have always refused to recognize that Consensus.

And what is the US stance on the issue? 

Traditionally, the US has held the view that Taiwan is indeed part of China, and that there is only one China, with Beijing as its capital. In 1982, the US promised to phase out arms sales to Taiwan. 

When meeting Xi at the G20 in Bali in November 2022, Biden reiterated that the US sticks to its ‘One China’ policy. The US president also stated then that he and his administration remain in favor of the status quo, i.e., the situation where Taiwan does not declare independence but continues to operate autonomously. The US would intervene militarily if any of the parties involved changed that status quo unilaterally and by force.

So, the US adheres to maintaining the status quo?

What happened in the months before and after the Bali conversation raises serious doubts about the sincerity of Biden’s statements. Rather, it seems that Washington is encouraging the most reckless separatist and militaristic politicians on Taiwan.

It is as if the US wants to fulfil its own prophesy that war with China is unavoidable. It seems that leaders in Washington are preparing for that conflict and recruiting or pressuring allies to join it.

Could you concretely elaborate on this?

First, you have the US global strategy. Washington is going to spend unprecedented sums on armaments. Annually, Congress will allocate $858 billion to the military. That’s $45 billion more than Biden had requested, and it is as much as the spending of the next nine countries combined.

With this arms race, they particularly put Russia and China in the crosshairs. That is not even what I am saying, Washington itself is very open about this. Two US strategic documents argue this and explain how Washington plans to deal with it. The National Security Strategy (2022) and the Nuclear Posture Review (2022), even state in bellicose language that the US has the right to use a nuclear bomb for the purpose of ‘deterring strategic attacks’, i.e. not just nuclear attacks!

Indian commentator Vijay Prashad notes, ‘this, combined with Washington’s refusal to adopt a ‘no first use’ strategy, with Washington’s modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and with Washington’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Missile Treaty, has meant the fear by many countries – certainly by China and Russia – that the United States might position intermediate-range missiles in their vicinity and arm them with nuclear warheads.’ Encircling China, more specifically in the Indo-Pacific, the US is expanding its fleet. Pacts such as AUKUS, the military treaty between the US, Britain and Australia, are also increasing the military bidding in the region.  So is British military cooperation with Japan, a country that, like Germany, is doubling its military spending at the instigation of the US and NATO.

Washington now has agreements with Australia to move nuclear weapons with B-52 and B-1 bombers to Australia. Spending on the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative will be increased by $11.5 billion.

It is clear, and again, Washington does not deny it, that all this is primarily directed against China.

This military strategy goes hand in hand with economic warfare. Recently, Biden launched a real chip war against China. With sweeping export restrictions, the US is trying by all means to block China’s economic, technological and military development.

That is the overall strategy. What role does Taiwan play in this?

One could argue that Taiwan has been assigned the role of a kind of military base by the US. Washington seems determined to use Taiwan against China as it is using Ukraine against Russia, however big the differences between the war that is already being waged and the one that seems to under preparation.

Before and often, US presidents have broken the 1982 promises to roll back and stop arming Taiwan. The Biden administration, however, is taking this the furthest. It has been able to convince the island’s current leaders to use purchases of massive amounts of arms to boost the profits of US arms manufacturers.

Under the recently planned military budget, Taiwan will receive $10 billion in additional military aid. To that will come another $6.5 billion under a new law called the Taiwan Policy Act.

The White House wants to invest in ‘war games, large-scale military exercises and a continued US rotational military presence’. The House of Representatives calls on the US Navy to invite the Taiwanese navy to the Rim of the Pacific 2024 military exercises.

On 7 January, yet another US Navy destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait, the first such transit reported by the US Navy this year. As always, Washington claims it is a ‘freedom of navigation’ operation, while China obviously does not impede commercial shipping and has no intention of ever shooting itself in the foot like that.

New provocative and illegal ‘official visits’ to Taipei (the self-proclaimed ‘government’ of Taiwan), along the lines of Nancy Pelosi, are being prepared in the newly elected US parliament.

How does Taiwan’s government respond to this?

The separatist party in power there welcomes these actions and constantly calls for even more weapons. Taipei is extending military service from four months to a year and is doing everything possible to convince the population that there is a military threat from China. There are even plans to teach children in kindergartens to distinguish the sound of artillery shells.

On the economic front, Taipei is also joining the escalation. Major companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) are being forced to set up factories in the United States in an attempt to cut off the obvious and beneficial cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

You put the warmongering on the US side, but most people here have the opposite impression and assume China is the aggressor.

I am afraid people do so indeed. Politicians, commentators, academics and mass media do their foremost every day to convince the people of the US and its allies that it is China that is increasingly aggressive and a threat to its neighbors and peace.

For instance, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies conducted a study based on a simulation of a possible ‘invasion’ of Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 2026, to find that it would lead to heavy losses for the parties that would be involved: mainland China, the island of Taiwan and the US with its ally Japan.

In early January, the well-known US magazine Foreign Policy released a special issue with 12 essays by former CIA directors, US military commanders, a former NATO secretary general, a Trump administration minister and representatives of think tanks.

They think Ukraine’s victory is imminent in the war that was started by Russia, and they put forward what they regard as some lessons to be learned from it. For some, the lesson is: ‘we should definitely deter China by arming Taiwan much more.’ Others are already speaking bluntly about the best way to wage war against China ‘in defense of Taiwan’.

Just now, a top US general declared that a war for Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Thinking back to Biden’s words about the ‘undermining the status quo’ and ‘unilateral and violently changing the status quo’, it seems clear that it is precisely the US that is guilty of this, with contacts and visits that treat Taiwanese leaders as if they were official representatives of an independent state, with large-scale armaments and war propaganda.

Yes, but surely you cannot get around the fact that China regularly deploys military force in the region; this was the case, for example, shortly after Parliament Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.

As I said, China is aiming at a peaceful reunification. But it also wants past agreements to be respected. Every time the US and Taiwan go a step too far in their salami tactics to bring Taiwan’s independence closer only stopping at declaring that independence by means of a resounding proclamation, the Chinese government will defend itself against the provocation with symbolic exercises to show that it does not intend to give up the military option.

During those exercises, the Chinese air force also crosses the boundary of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) declared by Taiwan. Of course, China does not recognize that air defense identification zone because such a thing can only be established by a recognized state. The imaginary border had not been until recently because China wanted to show its goodwill.

Still, as Washington and Taipei escalate their war preparations, Beijing will try its utmost not to fall into the trap of an arms race. However, China will never give up its aspiration to reunite Taiwan with the homeland and is making every effort to make that happen non-violently on the path towards the ‘one country with two systems’ model.

To this end, Beijing wants to resume the favorable development of economic relations, investment and trade between the mainland and the island, as well as reunions between relatives and other people-to-people contacts. A peaceful evolution that was interrupted by the election victories of the separatist DPP, which quickly emerged as an ally of the Trump and Biden governments with their new aggressive course.

Finally, do you think it could come to a war in Taiwan?

I am not clairvoyant, but such a war should be avoided at all costs. The war in Ukraine, terrible as it is, will be child’s play compared to what may await us in a war over Taiwan. 

We should try to keep our cool and not be swayed by the war fever currently raging among much of the establishment in the US and Europe. The peace movement surely has its work cut out here.

The interview was conducted by Marc Vandepitte

Source: https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2023/02/01/oorlogskoorts-na-oekraine-taiwan/

Note:

 In the 3rd communiqué of understandings between the US and China of 17/8/1982, paragraph 5 states that the US ..‘does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution’..

Pfizer on Tuesday announced 2022 profits of $31.4 billion on record sales of $100.3 billion. Sales from its COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid, used to treat COVID-19, totaled $56 billion — more than half the vaccine maker’s annual revenue.

However, the company warned investors to expect sales of those two products to plummet up to 58% in 2023, to only about $21.5 billion — $3 billion short of Wall Street projections. Pfizer projected total 2023 revenue of only about $67-$71 billion.

The news followed on the heels of a string of developmentscalling into question the COVID-19 vaccines — including comments last week by billionaire and vaccine investor Bill Gates, who criticized the efficacy and durability of the vaccines during a talk at Australia’s Lowy Institute.

Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel on Tuesday revealed the extent of Gates’ profit-making from his investments in Pfizer partner BioNTech. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made 15 times its initial investment when the foundation sold its BioNTech shares at the height of their value in 2021.

Pfizer’s stock fell 15% in January.

Pfizer and Moderna said they likely will quadruple the price of their COVID-19 vaccines to between $110 to $130 per dose when the U.S. government stops paying for the shots later this year.

Bill Gates reaped massive profits from ‘impeccably timed’ sale of Pfizer stock

Schachtel reviewed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and found the Gates Foundation downsized its BioNTech holdings by 86% — from 1,038,674 to 148,674 shares — over the third quarter of 2021, BioNTech’s best-performing quarter.

The foundation had purchased the shares in September 2019 — just months before the pandemic was announced — at a pre-public offering price of $18.10 per share.

When the foundation sold the shares — at an average sale price of $300 per share — it pocketed a profit of approximately $260 million, or more than 15 times its original investment.

Schachtel said $242 million of that profit is untaxed because the money was invested through the foundation.

The Gates Foundation sold an additional 2 million shares prior to the third quarter of 2021, and subsequently sold 1.4 million shares of CureVac, a German-based mRNA company, making another $50 million, Schachtel found.

“Bill Gates secured hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from his foundation’s impeccably timed investment in BioNTech — the Pfizer partner for its mRNA Covid shots — before dramatically reversing course and proceeding to openly cast doubt on the whole of mRNA technology,” Schachtel wrote.

After dumping his stocks, in November 2021, Gates said, “We need a new way of doing the vaccines,” because the vaccines didn’t stop transmission, despite all of his previous claims to the contrary.

Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Gates said:

“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

With those comments, “Gates amped up his doubtful rhetoric about mRNA, continuing to distance himself from the once hyped technology that he used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic profits,” Schachtel said.

More questions swirl around COVID vaccines

Over 85% of the U.S. population hasn’t been boosted, despite the massive government-sponsored media push, suggesting people aren’t buying the narrative that the boosters are necessary, safe and effective, Russell Brand said.

The U.K. announced last Wednesday it will no longer recommend COVID-19 boosters for healthy people under 50 and will discontinue free distribution of the primary two-shot series.

Denmark ended its universal COVID-19 vaccination campaigns for healthy individuals in February 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month said it is considering changing the vaccination schedule, recommending adults be boosted just once a year to “stay protected” against COVID-19.

And the Biden administration announced that it will end the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies on May 11, which will end government-sponsored testing, vaccination and treatment.

Several prominent doctors have also publicly raised concerns about the adverse effects of the vaccines.

British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra recently“truthbombed” the BBC during a live appearance telling viewers the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose a cardiovascular risk.

This weekend a number of healthcare professionals and doctors also took to Twitter, swearing not to take any more vaccines without randomized controlled trials.

Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, said he wouldn’t take any additional shots until clinical trial data become available. “I took at least one dose against my will,” Prasad said. “It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt.”

Notable participants in the campaign also include Dr. Todd Lee, an infectious disease expert at McGill University, Dr. Mark Silverberg, Ph.D., who founded the Toronto Immune and Digestive Health Institute, Dr. Tracy Høeg, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco and Kevin Bass, M.S., a medical student whose op-ed in Newsweek Monday called out the scientific community for its role in perpetuating a false COVID-19 narrative.

Late Sunday night, Retsef Levi, Ph.D., with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a video on Twitter calling for an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, The Defender reported.

Levi said the vaccines failed to deliver the promised efficacy, and that based on his risk analysis, the vaccines “cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

Meanwhile, Pfizer officials face a potential ban from the European Parliament due to the company’s lack of transparency regarding COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements during the pandemic.

Pfizer in a ‘transition year,’ CEO says

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in the earnings press releasethat 2023 would be a “transition year” for Pfizer’s COVID-19 products, before likely returning to growth in 2024.

Bourla said:

“Our focus is always on what is next. As we turn to 2023, we expect to once again set records, with potentially the largest number of new product and indication launches that we’ve ever had in such a short period of time.”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Pfizer also will lose patent protections for some big-selling drugs after 2025.

To make up for the loss of revenue the vaccine maker has turned to acquisitions, spending about $25 billion to buy Biohaven Pharmaceutical, Arena Pharmaceuticals and Global Blood Therapeutics.

The company also launched five new products last year and hopes to introduce as many as 14 more over the next year and a half, including a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virusand an mRNA flu vaccine.

Pfizer expects the vaccination rate to increase again after 2023, Fierce Pharma reported, assuming a combined COVID-19/flu shot is developed.

During a meeting last week of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, the agency said it was investigating whether the stroke safety signal the FDA identified, associated with the bivalent vaccines, might be related to the co-administration of the flu and COVID-19 vaccines.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are 55 documented cases of performers collapsing, dying, or falling ill in late 2022 through 2023 in this video.

And in almost all of these cases, the media will say: “We don’t know what caused this, but it was definitely not the COVID vaccine.”

Really? And we saw this happening prior to the roll-outs of the COVID “vaccines”? Did we see this in 2020 during the height of the COVID “virus pandemic” when they said we would see people dropping dead on the streets because the COVID “virus” was so bad?

No, we did not see this. This began later in 2021, and continued throughout 2022 after the shots had been injected into the majority of the population.

This is on our Bitchute channel. Thanks to checkur6 on Bitchute for compiling most of these.

You’re not likely to find these videos on YouTube. The Government won’t allow it.

On January 3, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised upwards Russia’s GDP forecast, expecting it to grow by 0.3 percent this year, which is a remarkable improvement from the previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction, even though some sectors of the Russian economy have been having issues since the beginning of special military operation in Ukraine. In addition, the IMF now expects Russian crude oil export figures to remain quite strong even under today’s  $60-per-barrel limit cap on the price it can charge for oil, as imposed by the EU.

This in itself is interesting enough but according to economics journalist Matthew Klein, co-author of “Trade Wars are Class Wars”, the value of global exports to the Russian Federation in November 2022 was merely 15 percent below the pre-conflict average figures and, moreover, he estimates they might have already gone back to those figures in December last year, although much trade data for the last month is not available yet. Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, has reached a similar conclusion, in its January analysis, even suggesting Russian imports have already surpassed pre-conflict levels by September 2022.

Sanctions on Russia are part of today’s economic warfare. The problem, from a Western perspective, is that the Eurasian power is neither Cuba nor North Korea, and therefore it is not so simple to “isolate” it as Western political elites seem to have thought.

This is so largely thanks to Moscow’s rise in trade with neighbors and regional partners and allies, according to Ana Swanson, who writes on international trade for the New York Times. In the post-sanctions world, Russia’s trade has been managing to basically redirect itself to other nations. In Armenia, for instance, Swanson remarks, smartphone exports to the Eastern Slav country have surged – and the same trend is also taking place with computer chips, and a number of other products from states such as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. China’s exports to Russia also reached a record high in December, and products from Western companies are reaching the country too, as they are supposedly being “rerouted” through nations in central western Asia, and other former Soviet republics.

The irony of these new developments is that they may boost Eurasian integration and some proposals to further expand it, aiming at encompassing the area formerly claimed by the Soviet state which is the very area British geographer Halford Mackinder famously described as the Heartland. Washington’s foreign policy remains largely shaped by Mackinder’s ideas about controlling this core of Eurasia to dominate the globe.

The Treaty of the EurAsian Economic Union (EAEU) was signed in May 2014 by Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, which were later joined by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. This bloc is a major player in the global arms, energy, and raw materials industry, as well as agricultural production. Some of its main goals is to develop a single market, thereby achieving free movements of people, goods, capital, and services. It also seeks to increase its trade with East Asia.

The aforementioned new trade trends may provide new opportunities for countries such as Armenia. Armenian political elites in Yerevan have long envisioned their country as a potential bridge between the EU and the Eurasian Union. Although Armenia’s trade with the EU currently outweighs that with the EAEU, the country counts on Moscow for its security, especially in light of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Morever it is a Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member.

Much has been talked about an Armenian “retreat” back into the Western Atlantic camp, as reasons former Armenian deputy minister of justice Artyom Geghamyan, but one could argue that  reality is much more complex as the political West has benefitted from the Nagorno-Karabakh escalation, and Europe is turning to Azerbaijan, Armenia’s main rival, for energy. Moreover, Yerevan in fact has been playing a quite significant role in helping Moscow navigate Western sanctions in such a way that is mutually beneficial for both states, by increasingly implementing bilateral economic and trade cooperation.

In today’s world, insulating local industries from geopolitical disputes is becoming increasingly difficult. Moscow has been seeking to strengthen the Eurasian Union alongside the CSTO and the BRICS group. The EAEU focuses on Eurasian economic integration and development, while the CSTO is tasked with security issues pertaining to the territorial sovereignty of its member states. From the US perspective, such groupings and developments are a threat to American global unipolar hegemony and are therefore seen with suspicion and hostility. Thus, the challenge for countries such as Armenia will involve “balancing” their bilateral relations with an increasingly “cold war mentality”-driven West and with their Eurasian partners.

To sum it up, much has been talked about Western sanctions against Russia having largely backfired, but beyond that they are also reconfiguring international trade, what may pave the way for new opportunities in Eurasia.

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

 .

Introduction

People Worldwide are being impoverished.

Protests are unfolding against inflation, rising energy prices and the collapse of social services. 

It is important to address the broader picture and the history of the last three years.

Large sectors of the World population commencing in February-March 2020 have been marginalized and impoverished. Famines currently prevail in  all major regions of the World. 

What is at stake is an engineered economic depression which from the outset in January 2020 has created economic and social chaos at the level of the entire planet. 

Protest Movement in the United Kingdom 

The protest movement in the U.K is largely centered on the impacts of inflation, the loss of purchasing power and the fraudulent hike in  energy prices, presented to public opinion as a means to combating “climate change” and the dangers of CO2 emissions. 

Video Britain: Tax the Rich. Say No to the Rise in Energy Prices

Huge mid winter strikes in #Britain by teachers, health workers, transport workers and public servants. Brit government refuses pay rises as recession and energy crisis bite. https://t.co/TDMnx31LUCpic.twitter.com/dxFQvDkLHs

— tim anderson (@timand2037) February 2, 2023

According to Don Hank:

These protesters are only addressing a very tiny part of the issue, ie, demanding   government intervention to raise salaries.  

Unfortunately, these Brits are barking up the wrong tree, unaware that their own government has mortally wounded its own economy with its Malthusian policies of impoverishment … The UK government currently faces a self-inflicted economic slump that no government official or politician is prepared or willing to tackle head-on, and nothing of import will result from these protests because the government is going broke and neither it nor its clueless citizens recognize the underlying cause of the problem.  

It ought to be obvious that a broke government that is at the origin of the low salaries in the first place can’t help even if it wanted to.  And the weak and clumsy attempts of politicians and central banks are all in vain.  …

 (Don Hanks, excerpt from article sent to the author)

Three Years: Deep-seated Economic and Social Crisis

The broader issue of causality of this crisis cannot be disregarded, namely fraudulent covid mandates, engineered financial crises starting in February 2020, followed by successive lockdowns starting in March 2020 which essentially “confine the labor force” and freeze the workplace, which inevitably leads to economic and social chaos.

Most of the people who are protesting in the United Kingdom are the victims of both the covid lockdowns as well as the mRNA vaccine launched in December 2020.

From the outset, the trade unions endorsed the covid consensus including the imposition of the lockdowns, which constitute a derogation of workers rights.

Trade unions leaders have betrayed their members at the grassroots. They are routinely and selectively invited to Davos for informal consultations.

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, including the sanctions regime, Washington’s pressures on the European Union to curtail imports of gas from Russia has also played a key role in the hike of energy prices, not to mention the price of food.

Protest is Not Enough

We are in solidarity with the protest movement. But “Protest” is not enough. Corrupt politicians must be removed from office.

What is required is a mass movement which questions the legitimacy of corrupt government officials, who are acting on behalf of powerful financial groups.  The latter are the architects of of a Worldwide process of economic engineering and social chaos.

Everybody is Indebted, The Billionaires and the Creditors Call the Shots

At the outset of 2023, its Global Debt worldwide, included the following:

• an unprecedented country level public debt and fiscal crisis of the State, 
• engineered corporate debt leading to bankruptcies,
• the debt of small and medium size enterprises,
• personal and family debts including mounting credit card debts, 
• home mortgages,
• consumer debts, etc. 

It’s a Worldwide Process of Engineered Impoverishment 

Debt is the driving force which is leading the entire planet to mass poverty.

Families Worldwide are unable to “make ends meet”, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to pay their monthly gas and electricity bills. 

In the words of Klaus Schwab: “Own nothing, be happy”.

What is required is real “regime change” (by the people) supported by a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the governments as well as the architects of this economic and social crisis, which from the outset in early 2020 have been involved fraud, fake science and corruption.

The Road Ahead

Below is an excerpt from the concluding Chapter XV of my book entitled: The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity (click to download)

To download Michel Chossudovsky’s E book (15 chapters), FREE, see below

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

The Climate Imperative Foundation is the newest and richest anti-hydrocarbon, anti-natural gas group you’ve never heard of.

How rich is Climate Imperative?

According to the latest report from Guidestar, the group took in $221 million in its first full year of operation. (Guidestar calls the income “gross receipts.”)

That means that Climate Imperative, which is less than three years old, is already taking in more cash than the Sierra Club, which bills itself as the “nation’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.”

According to Guidestar, the Sierra Club collected $180 million in its latest reporting year. Climate Imperative is also taking in more money than the Rocky Mountain Institute which collected about $130 million in its latest reporting year. I use those groups for comparison because they are pushing anti-gas initiatives across the country. More on them in a moment.

The emergence of Climate Imperative — which has received virtually no attention from legacy media outlets — is important for several reasons.

First, it shows that the effort to “electrify everything” and ban the use of natural gas in homes and businesses – and that includes gas stoves — is part of a years-long, lavishly funded campaign that is being bankrolled by some of the world’s richest people.

Second, despite numerous claims about how nefarious actors are blocking the much-hyped “energy transition,” the size of Climate Imperative’s budget provides more evidence that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex has far more money than the pro-hydrocarbon and pro-nuclear groups.

Indeed, the anti-hydrocarbon NGOs (most of which are also stridently anti-nuclear) have loads of money, media backing, and momentum. As can be seen in the graphic below, the five biggest anti-hydrocarbon NGOs are now collecting about $1.5 billion per year from their donors. (All data is from Guidestar.) That sum is roughly three times more than the amount being collected by the top five non-profit associations that are either pro-hydrocarbon or pro-nuclear.

Third, banning the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses may be worse for the climate.

You read that right. Burning gas directly allows consumers to use about 90% of the energy contained in the fuel. Using gas indirectly — by converting it into electricity and then using that juice to power a heat pump, stove, or water heater — wastes more than half of the energy in the fuel.

That point was made by Glenn Ducat, in his excellent new book,

Blue Oasis No More: Why We’re Not Going to “Beat” Global Warming and What We Need To Do About It. Ducat is a Ph.D. nuclear engineer who worked at Argonne National Lab, as well as at two electric utilities.

He explains

“Burning natural gas by residential commercial and industrial customers is at least twice as efficient and emits about half as much CO2 as processes that use electricity produced from fossil fuels. Converting process-heat applications to electricity before the electricity grid is completely carbon-free will increase CO2 emissions.” (Emphasis in the original.)

I began tracking Climate Imperative in late 2021, when Axios published a story headlined, “climate movement veterans launch major new foundation.”

Axios reported that the new group has “a planned budget of $180 million annually over five years.” That number caught my attention. Here was a new group with a planned five-year budget of $1 billion, and yet, Axios was the only media outlet to report on it.

On its website, the group makes it clear that the electrify everything push is a major focus of its work, saying its “imperatives include rapid scaling of renewable energy, widespread electrification of buildings and transportation, stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, reducing pollution from major industrial sources, and economy-wide pathways to reduce emissions from the biggest sources.” The website lists some of Climate Imperative’s grantees, a group that includes the Building Decarbonization Coalition and the American Lung Association.

Axios went on to note that the San Francisco-based foundation, “began making grants in the spring of 2020.” It also noted that the group is headed by two former Sierra Club officials: Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt. Nilles spent more than a decade heading the group’s Beyond Coal campaign. Climate Imperative’s advisory board includes Margo Oge, a former top EPA official, and Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado.

Where is Climate Imperative getting its money? The board of directors likely holds the answer. The most recognizable names on the six-person board are Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The other board members include Anita Bekenstein, Sanjeev Krishnan, Greg Nelson, and George Pavlov. A source with knowledge of the group’s funding told me this week that the majority of the money is coming from Doerr and Jobs. Forbesmagazine estimates that Doerr has a net worth of $12.7 billion. Forbes puts Jobs’ net worth at $17.7 billion. None of the other board members appear on Forbes’ list of America’s richest people.

The effort to demonize gas stoves began in early 2020, at about the same time Climate Imperative was launched. That year, the Sierra Club claimed that gas stoves are “linked to respiratory illnesses, and children who live in homes with gas stoves are 42% more likely to have asthma.” The source for that claim was a paper by the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Colorado-based non-profit founded by renewable-energy promoter Amory Lovins.

One of the first legacy media outlets to publish an article promoting claims about bad air quality from gas stoves was The Atlantic. In October 2020, it published an article headlined “Kill Your Gas Stove.”

It may be a coincidence, but The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. It’s also interesting to note that in 2018, The Atlantic published a piece titled “How the Gas Oven Changed Humans’ Relationship With Fire,” and noted that the “ability to turn flames on and off at will was ‘one of the single greatest contributors to human happiness in the kitchen.’”

Since 2020, the Rocky Mountain Institute has continued its anti-gas crusade. Earlier this month, a spate of news stories were published after the group released a paper that claimed 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas are due to gas stoves. One of the authors of that paper, Talor Gruenwald, works at RMI. Gruenwald is also a research associate at Rewiring America, a San Francisco-based outfit that calls itself the “leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses, and communities.” (Rewiring American doesn’t publish a Form 990. It is sponsored by Windward Fund, which took in $273 million in 2021.)

But RMI’s asthma claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most-definitive analysis of the issue was a 2013 study published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine which studied half a million school children in 47 countries over a multi-year period. It relied on questionnaires filled out by the mothers of children. What did it find? “We detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

Furthermore, just a day or two after the RMI paper came out, the group walked back its claim about asthma, with one RMI official telling the Washington Examiner that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship” between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.

Where does RMI get the money to push its electrification agenda?

Some of it is coming from Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos. In 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund gave RMI $10 million, which the group said will be used to “reduce GHG emissions from homes, commercial structures, and other buildings, enabling RMI to increase its current work with a coalition of partners in key states. The project will focus on making all U.S. buildings carbon-free by 2040 by advocating for all-electric new construction…”

Bezos is also a big backer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the group that shamelessly bragged about its role in the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. In 2020, the NRDC issued a press release touting the $100 million grant it got from the Bezos Earth Fund. It said the money “will be used to help NRDC advance climate solutions and legislation at the state level, [and] move the needle on policies and programs focused on reducing oil and gas production…” (Emphasis added.)

The Sierra Club has been a prime beneficiary of former New York City mayor  Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has pledged $500 million to the Beyond Carbon project. In 2019, the pledge was considered the largest ever “philanthropic donation to combat climate change.” The Sierra Club has been a primary beneficiary of Bloomberg’s giving. About two years ago, a Sierra Club employee told me that it is getting about $30 million per year from Bloomberg. On its website, the group touts its role in the Beyond Carbon initiative, calling it “the largest climate campaign in the U.S., with the goal of closing all domestic coal plants by 2030 and stopping the use of gas as a transition fuel.” (Emphasis added.)

Last August, the Sierra Club asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all natural gas appliances at the federal level. The group has had success in getting bans adopted in California. According to its website, 69 communities in the state have now “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.” In September, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all natural gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. In addition, New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is also rolling out a new measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.

The money coming from Bezos, Bloomberg, Doerr, Jobs, and other deep-pocketed donors means that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex can easily outspend the entities that are promoting nuclear energy.

For instance, the Nuclear Energy Institute, according to the latest Guidestar numbers, had gross receipts of about $143 million in its latest reporting period. Meanwhile, the top associations that support hydrocarbon producers and distributors — including the American Petroleum Association, American Gas Association, Western States Petroleum Association, and Society of Petroleum Engineers — had combined gross receipts of less than $400 million.

Two final points. The first is the hypocrisy of billionaires funding efforts to slash hydrocarbon use while they are consuming staggering amounts of hydrocarbons. According to a 2020 article in Vanity Fair, Michael Bloomberg owns eight houses in New York state alone, and “he also reportedly owns several properties in London, Florida, Colorado, and Bermuda.” Thus, Bloomberg may own a dozen houses. How many of those houses have gas stoves? I’ll make a wild guess and bet that it’s more than one. Oh, and according to Vanity Fair, while he was mayor of New York, Bloomberg “was known to spend weekends” at his house in Bermuda, “traveling back and forth on private jets.” And what is fueling those private jets? I’m guessing here, but it’s probably not organic quinoa.

Speaking of jets, Forbes recently reported that Jobs owns a Gulfstream G650 (list price about $66 million) that burns about 500 gallons of jet fuel per hour. When not zooming around on her jet, she also spends time on a $120 million yacht called the Venus. Bezos reportedly owns two Gulfstream G-650ERs. After Bezos flew to the 2021 climate meeting in Glasgow, a representative from the Bezos Earth Fund told Business Insiderthat all was well because the billionaire “uses sustainable aviation fuel, and offsets all carbon emissions from his flights.”

That line puts the hypocrisy of the billionaires funding anti-hydrocarbon initiatives in a nutshell: Bezos, Bloomberg, Jobs, and other uber-rich, hyper-mobile elites can purchase “offsets” for their private jets and mega-yachts, but the shlubs in the barrio can’t be allowed to use a gas stove to cook dinner because, in the words of RMI’s Talor Gruenwald, “Gas stove emissions are significant contributors to the climate crisis.” Never mind that, as the Breakthrough Institute’s Alex Trembath recently noted, that gas stoves account for just 0.4% of total U.S. gas use.

The final bit of hypocrisy at work here is the regressive nature of the gas bans. Indeed, it’s clear that banning natural gas will mean higher costs for consumers. Last March, in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy published its annual estimate for residential energy costs. It found that on a per-BTU basis, electricity costs about 3.5 times more than natural gas. It also found that gas was, by far, the cheapest form of in-home energy, costing less than half as much as fuels like kerosene, propane, and heating oil.

That means that efforts to ban natural gas are, in practice, an energy tax on the poor and the middle class. During a recent interview, Jennifer Hernandez, a California-based lawyer who represents The 200, a coalition of Latino groups that has sued the state over its climate policies, told me that “Natural gas is the last source of in-home affordable energy. And these climate extremists can’t stand it.”

Last October, the Department of Energy provided more evidence that natural gas is the cheapest form of energy for homeowners in its Winter Fuels Outlook. The DOE estimated that heating with electricity this winter will cost about 46% more than heating with natural gas. These numbers show that forced electrification will mean higher energy bills for consumers. Low- and middle-income Americans will bear the brunt of forced electrification because they will have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on energy than wealthy consumers.

The bottom line here is obvious: the effort to ban natural gas in homes and businesses is, at root, more about class than it is about climate change.

Over the past several months, I sent several emails to the leaders at Climate Imperative, Mary Anne Hitt and Bruce Nilles, asking about the foundation’s funders, their grantees, their stance on nuclear energy, and the potential cost impact of the electrify everything campaigns on low- and middle-income consumers. I followed up this week with an email to Hitt. She did not reply.

I sent similar questions to Panama Bartolomy, the director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition. His reply: “I will not be responding to your questions.”

*

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.

Featured image: Laurene Powell Jobs, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, and Jeff Bezos (Source: Robert Bryce)

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.

***

Romantic nationalism and the Balkans

In the 19^th century, Europe witnessed the rise of romantic nationalism, which created contemporary nations.[i] Many European states, based on the concept of ethnicity (common origin, culture, history, language, and tradition), were founded at the time, including the people living in the territories of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Romania. However, a number of contemporary regional nations remained at that time without their national states like Slovenians, Croatians, Macedonians, and Albanians. Some of these nations temporarily solved in the 20^th century their national aspirations via common states, like Croats, Slovenians, and Macedonians (within several types of Yugoslav political entities).[ii]

The Balkan Albanians, who never had a national state before the 1912−1913 Balkan Wars, started their struggle for the national state rather late, relative to the other nations in the region, for understandable reasons. Unlike other nationalities mentioned, the Albanians had first to forge the concept of the Albanian nation, before attempting to found a national state. Since their Balkan homeland was much retarded in every respect, the initiative for the first stage mentioned came from the Albanians living outside proper Albania. The first concrete action in that direction was made at Prizren, which lies on the traditional Serbian land of Kosovo-Metochia (KosMet) and which at that time was populated with a clear Serbian majority (70%). The so-called First (Albanian Islamic) Prizren League was founded in 1878[iii] in the same year when Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro were definitely recognized by the European Great Powers as the sovereign and independent states at the 1878 Berlin Congress.[iv]

Prizren and the First Albanian League (The League of Prizren)

The question is why the Albanians chose exactly the town of Prizren to organize the first Albanian political league there and to promulgate the first pan-Albanian national program of Greater Albania?

Albanian Question 1919-1920

Prizren was not only in Serbia, but it was her capital during the reign of Stefan Dušan, a Serbian King and Emperor (1331−1355).[v] He assumed the title of the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks and put together a great Serbian Empire which reached from the Mediterranean coast opposite the Island of Lefkada to the River of Danube and controlled the whole of the Bulgarian hinterland.[vi] The geographic location and political, cultural, and ecclesiastical status of Prizren imply that the town was at the core of Serbian territory and even autonomous bishopric territory.[vii] The town of Prizren was mentioned for the first time in the 11^th century when the fortress above the town has been erected by the Byzantine authorities. Prizren fell to Bulgarian rule in 1204 and 1282 was included in Serbia (Rascia). The history of the town is closely connected to the personality of Serbian King and Emperor Stefan Dušan Almighty who held court in the town and built a famous Christian Orthodox Church of Ss. Archangels which was later destroyed by Muslim Albanians and Turks who used the material of it to build the Sinan Pasha Mosque in the town. Prizren became occupied by the Ottoman army in 1455 and 1570 became the administrative center of the Ottoman sanjak (administrative unit). From the Ottoman time, a massive influx of neighboring Albanians from North Albania to Prizren and KosMet occurred to such an extent that in the year 1878, there were already 1/3 of the town’s population to be (Muslim) Albanians, the rest the Christian Orthodox Serbs and Roman Catholics. According to the Ottoman census of 1878, the town was populated by 43.922 inhabitants and subsequently making it one of the largest towns in the Ottoman Balkans.

Today, there are three most important cultural-historical buildings in Prizren among others: 1) Serbian Christian Orthodox Church of Bogorodica Ljeviška, built by Serbian King Milutin in 1307−1309 (heavily damaged by Muslim Albanian mob in March 2004); 2) The Sinan Pasha Mosque dating from 1615; and 3) The house of the League of Prizren of 1878 (museum). During the 1998−1999 Kosovo War, Prizren did not suffer the destruction, but, a good part of the town, with its traditional Serb houses in oriental style, was burned down by ethnic Albanians in the summer of 1999 under NATO’s umbrella, and much more have been destroyed by Albanian mob during the organized ethnic cleansing of the Serbs on March 17−19^th, 2004, under the very eyes of German Kosovo Force (KFOR) troops.[viii] The Serbs were expelled from Prizren in June 1999 with very few old people left in refuge at the Bogoslovija Orthodox seminary who were later resettled elsewhere, but the house of Bogoslovija was itself burned to the ground by an Albanian fanatic Muslim mob on March 17^th, 2004, as was the same with the nearby Serbian Christian Orthodox Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael. That is the historical destiny of the town of Prizren – “Serbian Constantinople” which according to the Yugoslav census of 1991, had a population of 178.723. Today, there are no Serbs in Prizren.

On June 10^th, 1878, Muslim Albanian delegates assembled in Prizren’s mosque for the purpose to work out a common political platform in order to counter both the Russian-Ottoman Treaty of San Stefano signed on March 3^rd of the same year and the coming resolutions of the Congress of Berlin (from June 10^th to July 10^th, 1878), which had with a great reason ignored Muslim Albanian nationalistic claims and wishes to create a Greater Albania in the Balkans. The League initially had full political support from the Ottoman authorities which basically initiated its creation and functioning under the leadership of Albanian public figure Abdul bey Frashëri (1839−1892). The League submitted on June 13^th a Memorandum to the British representative at the Congress of Berlin – Benjamin Disraeli. The resolutions of the League (Kararname) have been signed by 47 Muslim Albanian feudal lords (beys) on June 18^th, 1878 in which they refused to give up any land to Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece which they assumed to be “Albanian”, demanded the return of all “Albanian” territories annexed by Serbia and Montenegro, required Albanian autonomy within the Ottoman Empire in the form of the creation of united Albanian province composed by for “Albanian” vilayets (a Greater Albania), and, finally, required no more conscription for, and taxation by, the central Ottoman Government in Istanbul.[ix]

Image: Greater Albania diaspora

After the meeting in Prizren, Abdul bey Frashëri, representing the Central Committee from Istanbul, and a person who had an opening speech at the first meeting of the League of Prizren, returned to South Albania to organize a League Committee and gather Albanian militia to oppose the annexation of this part of Albania by Greece. He as well as traveled to Berlin, Vienna, Rome, and London to seek support for the creation of a Greater Albania according to the resolutions of the League of Prizren. However, the Ottoman Government in April 1881 sent military detachments to pacify the Albanian anti-Ottoman uprising, and as a direct consequence of the intervention, the League was suppressed. Abdul bey Frashëri was arrested by the Ottoman soldiers and later sentenced to life imprisonment but in 1885 he was pardoned. He died in Istanbul after a long illness.[x]

Nevertheless, the League of Prizren has to be considered the formal beginning of the Albanian struggle for the creation of a (Muslim) Greater Albania which was for the first time a project was realized in the practice during WWII by B. Mussolini and A. Hitler and after the 1998−1999 Kosovo War to be in the process of revival under the umbrella of the NATO and the EU.

Peć and the Second Albanian League (The League of Peja)

KosMet is at the center of Serbian national identity, culture, history, and spiritual life for many reasons. The region was in the core of the Serbian medieval state where its capital was in the town of Prizren and the headquarters of an independent Serbian Orthodox Church – the Patriarchate of Peć, located at the mouth of the Gorge Rugova, on the western outskirts of the town of Peć. The monastery, founded on this place in the 13th century at the time of Serbian St. Sava (Rastko) Nemanjić, was the HQ of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate from 1346 onward. It is here that the medieval Serbian archbishops and patriarchates lie buried, but, however, in 1455 the Ottoman conquest of KosMet put an end to the power of the Patriarchate of Peć.

The patriarchate was not officially abolished, but the power of the Serbian Orthodox Church fell increasingly to the Greek Archbishopric of Ohrid. Nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Peć was restored in 1557 by Sultan’s decree due to the influence of Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokolović (Islamized ethnic Serbs from East Bosnia) and thereafter managed to exercise its authority over the Serbs within the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Sultanate.[xi] However, after the First Great Serbian Migration of 1690 from KosMet and Central Serbia under the Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević (of Montenegrin origin), the Serbian Orthodox Church split into two parts: 1) the Patriarchate of Peć was responsible for the Ottoman Serbs, while 2) newly established Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci had jurisdiction over the Habsburg Serbs. Nevertheless, a Greek Patriarch of Constantinople abolished the Patriarchate of Peć on September 11th, 1766, and now no more than a little island of Christian Orthodoxy in a Muslim sea.[xii]

In the garden of the Patriarchate of Peć, there are beautiful and extremely valuable Serbian Christian Orthodox churches, veritable jewels of medieval Serbian art: The Church of the Holy Apostles (about 1253); the Church of St. Demetrius, built by Archbishop Nikodim in 1321−1324; and the Church of the Mother of God (Hodegetria), built by Archbishop Danilo II around 1330. However, according to Albanian Kosovo authorities today, all of, in fact, Serbian Christian Orthodox monuments in KosMet are built by ethnic Albanians or the Byzantine authorities but not by the Serbs. The ethnic Serbs left the town of Peć in June 1999 after the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops according to the Kumanovo Agreement.

The town of Peć (in Albanian, Peja, in Turkish Ipek) is of extreme importance for the Albanian nationalistic ideology and programs regarding the creation of a Greater Albania. The Second Albanian nationalistic organization – The League of Peja was established at a meeting of Albanian leaders (Muslim feudal lords) on January 23−29th, 1899 by the Muslim Albanian cleric and nationalist figure, Haxhi Zeka for the very purpose to recreate and reform the First Albanian League of Prizren (1878−1899). The League of Peja (known as Pledge for a Pledge) was attended by some 500 delegates of whom the biggest number arrived from KosMet, regardless of the very fact that the invitations have been sent to the leaders from all Albanian lands.

There were two crucial political-national aims of the League of Peja:

1. The focal purpose of the Albanian League of Peja was to create a „besa“ – a general truce on feuding and warfare so that the Muslim Albanians could direct their national efforts on the creation of a Greater (Muslim) Albania within the Ottoman Empire rather than on fighting among themselves. Such Greater Albania had to be established by allegedly four „Albanian“ vilayets (Ottoman administrative districts) as it was fixed already by the First (Muslim) Albanian League of Prizren in 1878.
2. The second purpose was to preserve the Muslim Albanians from the western-oriented Sultan’s reforms, which have been carried out in Istanbul in the favor of the Ottoman Christians and democratic liberalization of the Ottoman Sultanate.

The final program of the League of Peja came out with 12 points for the territorial creation of a Greater Albania within the Ottoman state with an expression of full loyalty to the Ottoman authorities. Nevertheless, the chief message was to preserve Muslim Albanians from Sultan’s pro-western reforms and to guard public order by – and to enforce Sharia Law.

Here, it has to be noticed that since the 1878 League of Prizren onward, any Albanian program on the creation of a Greater Albania was supported by unproven claims that the Albanians are direct descendants of the ancient Balkan Illyrians.

*

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.

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.

Notes

[i] On this issue, see more in [J. G. Fichte, Reden an die Deutsche Nation, Berlin, 1808; F. O. Walzel, German Romanticism, New York: Capricorn Books, 1966; F. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790−1800, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992].

[ii] On the history of Yugoslavia, see in more detail in [B. Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije, I−III, Beograd:Nolit, 1988; B. Petranović, M. Zečević, Agonija dve Jugoslavije, Beograd: IKP Zaslon, 1991].

[iii] It was done after a meeting of Albanian leaders in Bajrakli Mosque in Prizren. For the Serbs, Prizren is an “Imperial City” as it was the capital of the 14^th century-Serbian Empire. According to historian Peter Bartl, the initiative for the creation of the First Prizren League came from Istanbul Albanians, i.e. from the Central Committee for Defence of the Rights of Albanian Nation [П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94]. The League was legally active from 1878 to 1881.

[iv] G. Castellan, History of the Balkans from Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, 318−320.

[v] About Stefan Dušan and his Serbian Empire, see in [М. Стевановић, Душаново царство, Београд: Књига-комерц, 2001].

[vi] G. Barraclough (ed.), The Times Atlas of World History, Maplewood, New Jersey, US: Hammond, 141.

[vii] See the map in [A. Galimberti (ed.), Nuovissimo Atlante Storico Mondiale, Milano: Touring Club Italiano, 2001, 40−41].

[viii] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 145; B. V. Jokić (ed.), March Pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija, March 17−19, 2004, with a Survay of Destroyed and Endangered Christian Cultural Heritage, Belgrade: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia−Museum in Priština (displaced), 2004. About Albanian terror in KosMet after the Kosovo War, see more in [М. Чупић, Отета земља. Косово и Метохија (злочини, прогони, отпори…), Београд. Нолит, 2006; H. Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009; П. Пеан, Косово: „Праведни“ рат за стварање мафијашке државе, Београд: Службени гласник, 2013].

[ix] П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94−97.

[x] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 60−62.

[xi] В. Ћоровић, Историја Срба, Београд: БИГЗ, 1993, 415−421.  

[xii] М. Јовић, К. Радић, Српске земље и владари, Крушевац: Друштво за неговање историјских и уметничких вредности, 1990, 126−146.

All images in this article are from the author

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

British Cyprus

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, officially the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia^[2] (SBA),^[a] is a British Overseas Territory on the island of Cyprus. The areas, which include British military bases and installations, as well as other land, were retained by the British under the 1960 treaty of independence, signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and representatives from the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, which granted independence to the (then) Crown colony of Cyprus. (Wikipedia)

The US Air Force has had a base on British territory on Cyprus for nearly half a century, but its size is kept secret from the public on both sides of the Atlantic. Declassified now reveals the increasing US military presence on the Mediterranean island.

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.

***

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

“Russian-Pakistani Economic & Energy Cooperation Just Took A Great Leap Forward” in mid-January after the latest intergovernmental commission between these two non-traditional partners saw them agree to comprehensively expand related ties between them.

This was followed shortly thereafter by Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto visiting Moscow this week, almost one year after former Prime Minister Imran Khan (IK) did.

The two trips evoked a sense of déjà vu since they both concerned economic and energy cooperation, which each respective representative agreed to further expand with their Russian hosts. The difference between them, however, is the context in which they occurred as well as the outcome for each of them personally. IK coincidentally visited on the exact same day as Russia launched its ongoing special operation in Ukraine and Pakistan’s ties with the US were noticeably tense at the time.

He was swiftly deposed in early April through a US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect was supervised by former Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa. Ties with Russia were informally frozen while those with the US improved, at least rhetorically. Pakistan then descended into the post-modern dictatorship where it remains today amidst the global systemic transition to multipolarity chaotically accelerating towards uncertain ends.

Between then and now, cascading economic, financial, political, and security crises hit Pakistan, the roots of which predated last April’s post-modern coup in some sense (at least insofar as the interconnected economic and financial ones) but were indisputably exacerbated by it. The failure of IK’s replacements to clinch the preferential energy deal that he was negotiating with Russia, obviously due to US pressure, further worsened the hardships imposed upon average Pakistanis.

Nevertheless, Pakistan officially remained neutral in the New Cold War over the direction of the earlier mentioned global systemic transition between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part by refusing to condemn Moscow at the UN. The appointment of new COAS Asim Munir in late November coincided with Pakistan seriously resuming its economic and energy talks with Russia that were unofficially frozen for the most part since last April.

It was in the run-up to that changing of the guard that the “official narrative” about Russian energy imports that was artificially manufactured by the post-modern coup regime after IK’s ouster began to change. Instead of continually to counterfactually insist that Pakistan couldn’t process Russian oil, they now predicted that a major energy deal could help resolve their country’s crisis. The US catalyzed this reversal by officially reassuring Pakistan in mid-October that such purchases aren’t sanctionable.

Washington reaffirmed this stance immediately prior to BBZ’s trip to Moscow, which can be interpreted as having given the greenlight for Pakistan to purchase Russian resources, unlike its previously presumed hostility to this course of action in the run-up to IK’s visit almost a year ago. What appears to have changed is that the US realized that Pakistan’s reliable access to discounted Russian resources is required to help keep its imported post-modern coup regime in power there.

In the last months of IK’s tenure, the US regarded such reliable access as a valve from rising domestic pressure brought about by Pakistan’s impending economic and financial crises at the time, which it subsequently sought to weaponize in the court of public perception to justify its post-modern coup. After having sabotaged those talks through his ouster, which were unofficially frozen in the aftermath, everything went into free fall.

On the one hand, this disastrous outcome served to enable the US to reassert its declining unipolar hegemony over the Pakistani state by making related relief such as that from the IMF or Russian energy deals dependent on America’s approval. On the other hand, however, it inadvertently contributed to the large-scale but purely peaceful protests led by IK after average Pakistanis realized that his replacements are incapable of improving the economy like they promised (and was why they claimed to oust him).

In such a situation, the most pragmatic recourse from the perspective of the US’ grand strategic interests was to greenlight the resumption of Pakistani-Russian energy talks in the hope that its restored regional proxy state could relieve some of the self-inflicted economic and financial pressure. Failure to do so could prompt further protests, which in turn might only be able to be put down with brutal force that would thus risk fully discrediting the post-modern coup regime in the eyes of the Western public.

It was therefore within this newfound context that BBZ visited Moscow almost a year after IK did and for the very same reason as that ousted leader, hence the déjà vu that keen observers are experiencing. The outcome of their respective trips is completely different though since the US approved BBZ’s energy talks with Russia while disapproving of IK’s, which is why the former isn’t at risk of being ousted like the latter ultimately was.

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after IK’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

The takeaway is that the damage inflicted upon Pakistan by the US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect COAS Bajwa oversaw against IK as punishment for his independent foreign policy was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. The indisputable consequence is that this country is now altogether much weaker than it was a year ago, which confirms that those who overthrew him truly harmed Pakistan’s objective national interests.

*

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

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

And now for some Tuesday humor, brought to you by the US Treasury Department, which sees no indication whatsoever that US funds have been misused in Ukraine, following last week’s massive political shake-up wherein some dozen top Ukrainian officials were booted from their posts amid persistent corruption, embezzlement and fraud allegations so glaring it even shocked the Ukrainians.

“We have no indication that U.S. funds have been misused in Ukraine,” Treasury spokesperson Megan Apper said in Treasury’s first comments since the ‘shock’ resignations.

In the official statement given to Reuters, the US government also hailed the supposed “safeguards” which the Ukrainians have put in place, though without actually specifying any: “We welcome the ongoing efforts by the Ukrainian authorities to work with us to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place so that U.S assistance reaches those for whom it is intended,” Apper said.

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.

***

U.S. elites have predictably reacted with hysteria to China’s rise and could go so far as to provoke a world war to try to salvage their Southeast Asia empire—as the Roosevelt administration did with Japan on the eve of Pearl Harbor.

From 1991 to 2021 China achieved ten-fold growth in incomes and labor productivity, and a thirteen-fold increase in GDP—largely because of sound economic policies.

The country’s growing economic as well as technological primacy placed it in an increasingly strong position to create an East Asian economic and possibly a security bloc to pull Asian states out of their dependence on the West.

The former was in the process of being achieved with a) China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provided loans to other Southeast Asian countries without the same stipulations as those meted out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank; and b) the advent beginning in 2013 of the One Belt-One Road Initiative (BRI), which has invested massively in infrastructural development projects in many different countries that are designed to tether their economies to that of China.

A.B. Abrams^[1] points out in his book, Power and Primacy: A History of Western Intervention in the Asia-Pacific (New York: Peter Lang, 2022), that China is poised to achieve by cooperation in the next decade what Japan set out to achieve by coercion in the first three decades of the 20^th century—the creation of a Southeast Asia power bloc capable of resisting Western empires that have ravaged Southeast Asia since the 16^th century.

Predictably, U.S. elites have reacted to China’s rise not too differently than they did Japan’s—through a campaign of demonization and large-scale military buildup in the Asia Pacific along with the institution of economic warfare that threatens the outbreak of another world war.

Japan’s Empire Threatens to Undermine Western Primacy in Southeast Asia

Abrams provides a revisionist history of the Japanese empire at the turn of the 20th century that challenges the orthodox interpretation presenting Japanese leaders in the 1930s and 1940s as morally equivalent to Nazis and that blames Japan for the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific.

While the Japanese overreached and committed unconscionable atrocities, like in the Rape of Nanking, Japan’s Greater Co-Prosperity sphere—in which Japan colonized Taiwan and Korea and made moves to try to take over European colonies—provided a counterweight and challenge to Western imperialism and inspired Asian nationalists to overthrow the yoke of Western colonial rule.

Source: history.stackexchange.com

Historian Eri Hotta attributed the independence of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Korea and Cambodia after World War II to the “psychological impact of Japanese victories over Western empires,” which had “defeated the idea of European supremacy” while “delegitimizing Western imperialism in the eyes of the Asian people.”

Japan had escaped the fate of other Southeast Asian countries in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by adopting a strict policy of isolation under the Tokugawa Bakufu and successfully industrialized its economy following the Meiji restoration in the late 1860s while building a formidable military that defeated Russia in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.

In the Battle of Nanshan, Lieutenant Shibakawa Matasaburô leads his men and slaughters Russian troops holding up a rising sun (1904). The image is from a woodblock print from the collection of the Boston museum of Fine Arts. [Source: visualizingcultures.mit.edu]

Beginning in the early 20th century, Japan’s leaders saw the need for an empire of their own that could lead a new Asian renaissance. While political freedom was largely stifled, Taiwan and Korea experienced significant economic gains under Japanese rule marked by extensive industrialization and infrastructural development.

According to Abrams, the discrepancy in industrial development between Japanese and Western controlled territories in East Asia was tremendous, with Manchuria’s steel output coming to eclipse that of Japan itself.

The Sui-ho Dam in Korea under construction in 1942 when Japan ruled Korea. The dam was the second largest in the world. [Source: upload.wikimedia.org]

Japanese industrialization of the wider Southeast Asia region posed an imminent threat to Western interests by “ending the vast disparity between the industrialized west and the underdeveloped, non-western world.”

The Roosevelt administration responded by instituting a large-scale naval build-up in the Asia Pacific, along with a crippling oil embargo on Japan while banning steel exports, which it was known would lead to war.

Pacific War As Brutal Race War

Seen in proper historical context, the Pacific War was a war for empire, which resulted in the destruction of the U.S.’s imperial rival in the Asia-Pacific.

Charles Lindbergh, the famed aviator and member of the anti-interventionist America First Committee, wrote in 1969 that “more than a generation after the war’s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom.”^[2]

The thorough dehumanization of the Japanese during the war was epitomized by a U.S. Navy film which described them as “snarling rats.” Life magazine’s picture of the week in May 1944 showed a woman with a Japanese skull from her boyfriend autographed by him and thirteen others and inscribed: “This is a good Jap—a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.”^[3]

During the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, the U.S. Air Force dropped half a million incendiary cylinders in one night alone, destroying the homes of 372,000 Japanese families and killing as many as 200,000 people, mostly from burning or asphyxiation. The huge number of bodies stopped the Sumida River entirely like some “hideous, grotesque beaver dam,” according to an eyewitness.

Road passing through part of Tokyo that was devastated in March 1945 by U.S. air raids. [Source: wikipedia.org]

A U.S. Army intelligence officer, Colonel Harry F. Cunningham, reported that “the entire population of Japan is properly a military target…there are no civilians. In Japan, we intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time.”

The violence in the Pacific War culminated with the dropping of the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war, but sent a signal to the Soviets not to mess with the boss of the new world order.

After the war, Japan evolved into a key U.S. client state hosting U.S. military bases that were used as launching pads for aggression across Southeast Asia.

During the U.S. military occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952, General Douglas MacArthur, head of the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers (SCAP), carefully vetted all the political candidates in elections that were rigged to favor the pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).^[4] Journalist Robert Smith concluded that Japan at the time was “about as far from a democracy as could be conceived short of putting power back in the hands of the shoguns [the military rulers of Japan until 1861].”

General Douglas MacArthur with Emperor Hirohito after the Japanese surrender. [Source: wikipedia.org]

In 1983, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to Japan as “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Pacific.” The region had been transformed since the end of the Pacific War into what General MacArthur termed an “Anglo-Saxon lake”—a most dramatic transformation from the 1930s when Japan had challenged Western primacy.

Thirty-Year War to Destroy the People’s Republic

With Japan functioning as a U.S. client state, the banner of resistance to empire in Southeast Asia was picked up by communist China following the 1949 victory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong in China’s civil war.

The United States during the civil war provided approximately $2 billion in military assistance to nationalist Guomindang leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who had split from the Maoists in the 1920s.

U.S. military forces bombed PLA strongholds and carried out severe reprisals against communist guerrillas who had sunk deep roots among the local population.

General David Barr, head of the U.S. military mission in China, concluded that the Guomindang’s defeat, despite marked superiority in all types of equipment, was the result of the “world’s worst leadership,” “widespread dishonesty and corruption in the armed forces,” and “many other morale destroying factors that led to a complete loss of will to fight.”

The communists under Mao’s leadership by contrast had worked to increase the living standards of China’s peasants and built a reputation for honesty, having transformed themselves into “China’s most dynamic political force.”

In the summer of 1949, the GMD leadership fled to Taiwan, taking numerous national and artistic treasures and China’s gold reserves with them.

Massacres carried out against the local population resulted in the death of at least 28,000 Taiwanese. Americans present in Taiwan equated the imposition of Guomindang rule with having “put all Formosans [Taiwanese] into slavery.”

“The Horrifying Inspection,” a woodcut by Taiwanese printmaker Li Jun. It shows a Guomindang soldier shooting a Taiwanese native, which was symptomatic of the period of white terror that is largely ignored in contemporary discussions about Taiwan. [Source: wikipedia.org]

CIA agent Ralph McGehee, who worked at the CIA station in Taiwan, stated that the CIA trained and equipped Special Forces in Taiwan who were dropped onto the Chinese mainland with instructions to develop resistance movements, carry out sabotage and psychological warfare operations, and gather intelligence on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The CIA at the same time began training remnants of the Guomindang in Myanmar (Burma) to mount incursions into Chinese territory, with weapons being flown into jungle airstrips built by U.S. engineers throughout Thailand.

The secret operations—funded in part through opium and which contributed to Myanmar’s destabilization— were exposed when two CIA agents, John Downey and Richard Fecteau were shot down while trying to smuggle arms and other military supplies into China in 1952 (they were released from captivity only in December 1971).^[5]

From April 1951 through 1952 alone, the CIA spent $100 million buying enough arms and ammunition for 200,000 guerrillas.

In northwest China, the CIA recruited clans from the Muslim Hui minority commanded by tribal leader Mu Pu-Fang who had ties to the Guomindang.

CIA agent Douglas Mackiernan worked out of the Urumqi consulate under State Department cover in an attempt to activate Muslims in the Xinjiang province to “continue the civil war against the Chinese communists.”

Filling his jeep with weapons and gold bars, Mackiernan—the first CIA agent killed in action—relocated to Tibet, where the CIA launched a covert operation to train Tibetan separatist guerrillas, some of whom were transported to a military base in the mountains of Colorado whose high altitudes simulated those of their homeland.

Not quite the pacifists as they were portrayed in the Western media, the CIA’s Tibetan guerrillas sabotaged infrastructure, mined roads, cut communication lines and ambushed the PLA.

The establishment of the PRC ironically had freed Tibetans from feudal conditions under the ruling lamas. It also emancipated women and oversaw a surge in literacy rates and life expectancy, building many hospitals and schools.

The 14th Dalai Lama wrote years later that Western support for Tibetan separatism came “not because they cared about Tibetan independence, but as part of their worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments.” He also said that cooperation with the CIA “only resulted in more suffering for the people of Tibet.”

A Brutal History—That Explains a Lot About Today

The history of U.S. destabilization efforts in China, including through attempts to manipulate disaffected minorities and fortify a strategic base in Taiwan—which the Chinese consider to be part of the Chinese nation—helps explain many of China’s policies today along with those of Japanese leaders during the 1930s.

During the Korean War (1950-1953), General Douglas MacArthur advocated for a nuclear attack on China, which intervened to save the autonomy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

The Truman administration had justified its aggression in Korea by claiming that the DPRK—under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, the son of a prominent nationalist who led anti-Japanese guerrillas in Manchuria—was a puppet of the Soviets and Chinese, which was a myth.

Between 1946 and 1949, Kim’s administration earned significant domestic support by increasing industrial output by 340% and state industry by 420%, with salaries of North Korean factory and office workers increasing 83% in that time.

Kim Il Sung depicted in the mid 1930s as an anti-Japanese guerrilla resistance leader. [Source: wilsoncenter.org]

After World War II, the Truman administration tried to impose a client government in South Korea under conservative Syngman Rhee, who presided over what Time magazine called “an economic wasteland” and massacred tens of thousands of his own people before the Korean War officially broke out.

Characterized by General Archer Lerch as “a man U.S. forces might have to lock up in jail,” Rhee had been flown into South Korea, after more than 25 years living in exile, on an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) plane by General Douglas MacArthur.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 1950, South Korea’s Office of Public Information reported a South Korean military attack on the border city of Haeju, which North Korea confirmed but South Korea later retracted.

A detailed study by historian Karunakar Gupta of the University of London found that South Korean government claims that their attack on Haeju had occurred much later were effectively impossible and that a South Korean attack likely did occur to precipitate the war.

Source: britannica.com

After the U.S.-UN forces retook the offensive into North Korea following General MacArthur’s famous behind-enemy-lines landing at Inchon, many parts of North Korea were left a moonscape by ferocious U.S. bombing attacks.

General Matthew Ridgway said it was “destruction for destruction’s sake,” while Dean Rusk, the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950-1951, said that U.S. bombers would “attack everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.”^[6]

U.S. troops in Korea generally behaved as they did in Japan: strafing refugees, massacring civilians, and committing large-scale rape. They also emulated Japanese practice in China by unleashing disease-infected insects over North Korea and China, while U.S. doctors performed sadistic medical experiments on captured North Korean and Chinese POWs.^[7]

A depiction of the scene under the No Gun Ri Bridge from the 2009 South Korean feature film A Little Pond. U.S. troops massacred hundreds of civilians at No Gun Ri in one of the many massacres that took place during the war. [Source: wikipedia.org]

“Hundreds of My Lais”

The barbarous U.S. troop behavior during the Korean War set the groundwork for the Vietnam War where atrocities like My Lai—where U.S. troops shot up a village of 500 people—helped to ignite large-scale anti-war opposition.

Victims of the infamous My Lai massacre. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Colonel David Hackworth, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, noted that “Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go…There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the numbers of bodies you counted.”

Under the “mere gook rule,” it was “no crime to kill or torture or rob or maim a Vietnamese because he was a mere gook.”

Vietnamese girls were tortured with lit cigarettes and electricity and had their bodies mutilated after they were raped and killed. Infantryman Michael Farrell recalled: “Our platoon sergeant told us ‘if there’s a woman in a hootch, lift up her dress, you know, and tell by her sex; if it’s a man, kill him; and if it’s a female, rape her.’” The sergeant was a veteran of two previous wars, and may well have learned such practices in Korea, Okinawa or elsewhere

After the My Lai massacre was uncovered, a U.S. general named Willoughby characteristically asked: “What is all the fuss. In Korea we had My Lais all the time.”

Imperial Objectives

A key factor driving the atrocity-producing environment in Vietnam was the imperial context of the war, which most mainstream histories obscure.

The U.S. war objectives were to transform South Vietnam into a U.S. client state along the model of South Korea, Philippines and Indonesia, and a base for regional military operations, and to integrate South Vietnam’s economy with the regional power bloc led by Japan.

After bankrolling the French war effort, the Eisenhower administration artificially divided Vietnam at the 17^th parallel, and blocked elections to reunify the country under nationalist Ho Chi Minh—who had led the liberation war against France and quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence in his September 1945 independence speech.

The Eisenhower administration also supported a client government in South Vietnam, led by Ngo Dinh Diem who had lived in exile during the 1st Indochina War, that favored Catholics over the majority Buddhists and tortured or killed all its political opponents.

When Diem lost his political utility, the Kennedy administration sponsored a coup against him that resulted in his death. The Johnson administration then fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident that made it appear that a U.S. naval vessel suffered an unprovoked attacked by North Vietnam in the South China Sea as a pretext for the major U.S. troop escalation.

Neocolonialism in the Philippines

The horrors of U.S. imperialism are well known by Filipinos who suffered first from the U.S. military invasion at the turn of the 20^th century and from repeated U.S. counterinsurgency operations that helped to install a pro-American elite. Now, the U.S. is planning to build new military facilities in the Philippines in its effort to contain China and restore old bases.

After the Philippines gained its independence from Spain in 1898, the U.S. invaded the Philippines in order to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia and proceeded to kill more than 200,000 civilians. Historian George Taylor wrote that “demands were made of the Philippines [at the time] for the commercial advantage of the U.S. but none for the social and political advantage of the Philippines.”

Heavy social inequality after World War II led to the rise of the Hukbalahap, an agrarian reform movement that the CIA was sent to help suppress. CIA agent Edward Lansdale adopted brutal methods such as the vampire trick where dead Huks would be placed on poles in town squares and made to look like a vampire haunting the population if they continued to resist.^[8]

Lansdale wrote the speeches for U.S. puppet Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957), who, with his successor Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986), helped transform the Philippines into a staging ground for U.S. covert military operations across Southeast Asia during the Cold War. Which is what the Biden administration wants to turn it into again in the New Cold War under Marcos’ son, Bongbong, who was elected Filipino president last year.

The CIA and Genocide in Indonesia

Indonesia came into the CIA’s focus after the Korean War when the Agency realized that Indonesia had 20 billion barrels of untapped oil, a leader who spurned the U.S. (Sukarno, who headed the non-aligned movement), and a rising communist movement.

By the mid 1950s, the CIA had an active regime-change operation in place. The Agency provided $1 million to the Islamist Masyumi Party, which opposed Sukarno, and sought to manufacture a pornographic film superimposing Sukarno’s face onto that of one of the actors.

Sukarno claimed in 1958 that a CIA bombing attack killed more than 700 civilians after it struck a ship and a church, killing everyone onboard and inside—a claim that was supported by American sources.

In May 1959, the CIA’s air units bombed the Amban marketplace, killing dozens of civilians on their way to church on Ascension Thursday, a Christian holy day.

CIA pilot Allen Pope who was captured and imprisoned by the Sukarno regime, said years later that he had “enjoyed killing communists” and “liked to kill them any way he could get them.” In Pope’s assessment, Indonesia was a great success of U.S. foreign policy as “we knocked the shit out of them. We killed thousands of communists.”

On the night of September 30, 1965, General Suharto—who stole between $15 and $35 billion from the Indonesia treasury during his long rule lasting until 1998—used the pretext of a communist coup to seize power and try to wipe out the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

Islamic groups participated in mass killings after their religious leaders spread word about the evils of the atheistic communist menace.

For years, the CIA and U.S. government had cultivated assets in the Indonesian military and police and had helped plan the coup by provoking tensions between the military and PKI. The CIA also supplied lists of dissidents who were targeted in the pogroms, which left between 500,000 and three million people dead.

Mary Vance Trent, the First Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, was characteristic in reporting to Washington that the elimination of the PKI and mass killing of civilians was a “fantastic switch which has occurred over ten short weeks.” She also wrote, in a December 1965 cable, about the “striking success” of the army’s campaign.

Suharto’s government opened Indonesia to foreign corporations and, during the Vietnam War, provided radars to the CIA that helped develop electronic warfare counter-measures against Soviet S-75 air defense systems adopted by the North Vietnamese, which helped facilitate mass bombings and napalm saturation of North Vietnamese cities.

CIA agent Ralph McGehee reported that the CIA had forged documents and falsified information to implicate the PKI in the phony coup plot that was used by Suharto and the Indonesian military as a pretext to seize power. McGehee also said that the Indonesia coup became a model for subsequent covert operations carried out by the CIA in Southeast Asia that also had a deadly societal impact.

Pivot to Asia and Looming Prospects of War

Abrams’ final chapter provides critical insights on the pivot to Asia policy, or large-scale regional military build-up, that was introduced symbolically in November 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a U.S. naval destroyer in Manila Bay, the location for America’s original pivot to Asia in the 1898 Spanish-American Philippines war.^[9]

All of a sudden at this time, the Obama administration and its successors promoted their concern about China’s alleged seizure of territorial islands in the South China Sea to which China in fact had long-standing historical claims going back to the Han dynasty 1,800 years ago.

China’s alleged seizure of these islands along with alleged human rights abuses toward the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang provided the pretext for greater U.S. military intervention along with China’s alleged crackdown on “pro-democracy” activists in Hong Kong and threatened aggression in Taiwan.

Since 2014, the U.S. has staged provocative military maneuvers preparing for war with China, while initiating an attempted economic blockade of the Strait of Malacca and ramping up economic warfare.

These measures are eerily similar to ones initiated by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s that provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and world war in the Pacific.

The difference today is that U.S. economic warfare measures are largely counterproductive because of the dependence of the U.S. economy on China’s.

China has also eclipsed the U.S. in its military-technological capabilities and effectively cultivated regional allies through a soft-power approach under the BRI, while working toward interlinking regional economies in an anti-imperialist coalition that looks to be far more durable than that forged by Japan coercively in the 1930s.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Abrams is the pseudonym for a former U.S. intelligence officer with deep experience in Southeast Asia who is a prolific writer on geopolitics and an astute political analyst. 

2. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 238. 
3. President Franklin Roosevelt said of one skull sent to the White House: “This is the sort of gift I like to get…There will be plenty more such gifts.” 
4. Nobusuke Kishi, Japan’s Prime Minister from 1957 to 1960, had served in the war-time cabinet of Hideki Tojo. 
5. The covert war against China continued until about 1961, at which time most of the CIA advisers went to Laos where they organized opium-growing hill-tribes into a private army that fought the pro-communist Pathet Lao. 
6. As much as 30% of the North Korean population was killed in the U.S. onslaught. A U.S. Marine wrote of these deaths in the following terms: “They’re just a bunch of gooks, who cares about the feelings of people like that.” 
7. See Wilfred Burchett, This Monstrous War (Melbourne: Joseph Waters, 1953), https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/KoreanWar.pdf 
8. Lansdale’s Filipinos tellingly were described as the type who would “slit their grandmother’s throat for a dollar eighty five.” They played a key role characteristically in the Phoenix program, a targeted assassination program during the Vietnam War that was used as a blackmail scheme by the South Vietnamese government. 

9. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2009), 193. 

Featured image is from scmp.com

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticized the decision by his NATO allies to provide Ukraine with over 300 heavy tanks to prolong the war against Russia, calling it a “high-risk move.”

“I personally can’t say that sending tanks will resolve this issue,” Erdogan told state broadcaster TRT during an interview on 1 February. “This is a high-risk endeavor and will only line the pockets of gun barons,” he added.

The Turkish leader also said his nation would continue talks with both Russia and Ukraine as part of efforts to find a path to peace.

Erdogan’s criticism of his western allies is the latest show of discord between Ankara and NATO, as over the past year, Turkiye has been holding up Sweden and Finland’s ascension to the war alliance.

The two Nordic nations formally applied to join NATO last May, abandoning decades of neutrality. Any country joining NATO requires the unanimous approval of member states.

Tensions recently spiked between Ankara and Stockholm after Danish-Swedish extremist Rasmus Paludan burned copies of the Quran on two separate occasions last week.

“Despite warnings, Sweden turned a blind eye to the Quran burning, and police protected the perpetrators. Hate crimes against Muslims are not acceptable,” Erdogan said, adding that “an apology from Sweden won’t fix issues.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Erdogan said Turkiye “looks positively” on Finland’s application for NATO membership, but does not support Sweden’s bid.

“Sweden should not bother to try at this point. We will not say ‘yes’ to their NATO application as long as they allow burning of the Quran,” Erdogan said during a speech in parliament.

Last month, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters that Stockholm wants to resume talkswith Turkiye.

“Our collective message is that we want to call for calm, for reflection, for calm in the process so that we can return to functioning talks between Sweden, Finland, and Turkiye on our common NATO membership,” Kristersson told reporters.

One of Biden’s promises during his presidential campaign was to immediately move to end all support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.

In February 2021, Biden stood at a podium at the State Department and proclaimed that the war in Yemen must end.

Biden underlined the humanitarian crisis as the key reason the United States withdrew support.

An investigation (PDF) by the Government Accountability Office found that the United States is training the Saudi-led coalition, and the US has troops on the ground in Yemen.

Biden confirmed that the United States has troops in Yemen in a letter to Congress in June last year. Biden lied to the American people when he claimed that the United States was withdrawing US support for the war in Yemen in 2021.

On the contrary, the United States is making billions of dollars from the war in Yemen as 200k have been killed from direct violence. Between 2015 and 2021, the United States sent 54.2 billion dollars in weapons and services to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to data acquired from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. In addition, the Department of Defense provided 644 million dollars for military training to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, almost entirely through the Foreign Military Sales program. The DoD uses acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to bill nations for logistical support and items ranging from flying hours, fuel, and bombs. Saudi Arabia paid the United States 157 million dollars in flying hours, and the UAE paid 104 million for flying hours since the GCC-led invention in Yemen’s civil war in 2015. The United States billed Saudi Arabia and the UAE for 319 million dollars in acquisitions and cross-servicing agreements for logistical support.

The United States sent 18.6 billion dollars in missiles, 6.2 billion in aircraft, 3.3 billion in ships, and 2.8 billion in military training to attack one of the poorest nations in the world. As the Wikileaks Yemen Files prove, the United States was one the biggest supporters of the military in Yemen. Former president Saleh of Yemen was once considered a cornerstone in the War on Terror in the early 2000s and built the army to combat AQAP for many years in Yemen. The United States is well aware that the GCC-led coalition is not fighting an advanced military in Yemen from AQAP or the Houthis. Billions of dollars have been spent destroying Yemen, killing hundreds of thousands of people, but the Houthis still control Sanaa, and AQAP is still active in Yemen. The UN Security Council approved a resolution to blockade Yemen every year since 2015 to prevent arms from flooding the conflict; however, the embargo has only succeeded in starving the Yemenis into famine.

On a February 9th phone call in 2022 with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud president Biden assured him that the United States would continue to support the war in Yemen. The phone call came one year after Biden lied to the American people and announced that the US was withdrawing its support of the war in Yemen.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Defense Institute of International Legal Studies conducted training at the Saudi War College that focused on the law of armed conflict, including laws related to air-to-ground targeting, in May 2017, April 2018, June 2019, and May 2020. The DoD claims they are not responsible for civilian deaths because they provided the Saudis with training to avoid civilian casualties. Despite spending millions on preventing civilian deaths, 23,627 Saudi-led coalition air strikes since March 2015 have led to over 18,600 civilian casualties, according to the Yemen Data Project.

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.

***

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report in January which outlines the consequences that US arms deliveries to Ukraine had on its own stockpiles. The conclusions of the report will surely galvanise factions in the US political system that are against the sending of arms to Ukraine because Washington is not prepared for a large-scale conflict with China.

According to the report’s authors, events in Ukraine make it clear that an armed conflict between two Great Powers is bound to develop into a protracted war, and not only on the battlefield, but also in industry, which must supply the front with everything it needs without interruption from arming soldiers to high-precision missiles and bombers.

Seth G. Jones, director of CSIS’s International Security Program, wrote in another report:

“As the war in Ukraine illustrates, a war between major powers is likely to be a protracted, industrial-style conflict that needs a robust defence industry able to produce enough munitions and other weapon systems for a protracted war if deterrence fails.”

He warned that the US defence industry lacks adequate surge capacity for a major war as it is operating in a peacetime situation rather than the current competitive security environment.

“The United States has been slow to replenish its arsenal, and the DoD (Department of Defense) has only placed on contract a fraction of the weapons it has sent to Ukraine,” Jones said.

These problems, he argued, are particularly concerning since China is heavily investing in munitions and acquiring high-end weapons systems five to six times faster than the US.

Currently there is an immediate demand for the M777 155mm howitzer in the US. The Pentagon has supplied Ukraine with more than 160 M777 howitzers, along with more than a million rounds of ammunition. In addition, the stockpile of Javelin ATGM (mainly fire control units and launchers), Stinger MANPADS and AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars are decreasing sharply. Ukraine has received more than 8,500 Javelin ATGMs, 1,600 Stinger MANPADS and 50 AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars.

According to the think tank, rapidly increasing production is impractical. However, they argue that Washington is taking steps in the right direction and can expect to triple their 155mm ammunition production within three years. None-the-less, the report calls for the hoarding of other critical weapons.

According to the CSIS report, the US will probably lose the war for Taiwan. A war over Taiwan would mainly take place in the air and at sea. In this context, it is unlikely that the US can supply weapons to the island because the People’s Liberation Army Navy will immediately blockade it.

The Pentagon has repeatedly hosted simulated war games to visualise how conflict with China would look. Results from war drill scenarios show that the key condition for victory is the destruction or serious weakening of China’s navy. However, simulations almost never lead to unconditional success as China has a strong air defence system, many warships and fighter jets.

According to analysts, in such conditions, the JASSM-ER stealth anti-ship missile becomes important because it can hit targets up to 925km away. However, in a war, hundreds would be needed every week, if not thousands, meaning that the JASSM-ER missile stockpile would run out in less than a week. In addition, it would take the US two years to restore the supply of the JASSM-ER missiles.

The Pentagon will soon encounter a shortage of SM-6 air defence missiles, as well as Tomahawk missiles for the Navy. A problem for the US Navy is that missile contracts are not always approved by Congress. In January, US Navy Commander Michael Gilday complained to reporters that a $33 million contract for 11 LRASM missiles had been rejected at the highest level.

Shortage of anti-ship missiles is not the only problem though, but also the means of carrying them. In 2021, the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute published a report concluding that the US could lose most of its aircraft if a conflict over Taiwan broke out.

The main problem, according to them, are the condition of refuelling planes far from home airfields. Fighter planes and bombers will not be able to hit targets at long distances. This is especially important in conflicts with countries with large territories, such as China. After the end of the Cold War, the US fleet of aerial refuelling aircrafts was nearly halved to 470. This number is clearly not enough for an all-out war with China over Taiwan.

It appears, according to the experts, that the US has very little prospect for victory in a war with China over Taiwan. These damning conclusions could galvanise factions in the US who oppose the sending of weapons to Ukraine, especially as there is a growing call to confront China instead of Russia.

*

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.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament approved an anti-strike bill that, if made into law, would enforce “minimum service levels” for railroads and emergency services, Julia Conley reports.

Roughly half a million British workers walked out on Wednesday in the country’s largest coordinated strike in more than a decade.

About 300,000 of the striking employees are educators, and they were joined by civil servants, railroad workers, university professors, London bus drivers, museum workers and border officials, among others, with 59 percent of Britons telling YouGov in a recent poll that they supported the walkout.

The strong support comes even as an estimated 85 percent of schools across the U.K. were closed on Wednesday. Students and parents stood on picket lines alongside teachers, whose wages have not kept up with inflation and who are struggling to teach in schools where per-pupil spending for the 2024-25 school year is now expected to be 3 percent lower than it was in 2010.

Today I was privileged to join hundreds of thousands of workers who sacrificed their pay so that others may live in a fairer society.

This is what spreading love and humanity achieves. pic.twitter.com/oa6Xbn7kqr

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) February 1, 2023

“It’s partly about pay, which has been reduced by 11% over the last 10 years,” Jon Voake, a drama teacher in South Gloucestershire, told The Guardian. “But it’s also about how our workload’s going up. We’re all working with bigger groups. Children’s education is going to suffer and enough is enough.”

In the most economically deprived parts of the country, the National Education Union said, teachers’ pay has gone down by more than 20 percent since 2010 as the rate of inflation in the U.K. stands at 10.5 percent —”the highest among the G7 group of advanced economies,” according to Al Jazeera.

“We’re struggling,” a London teacher named Mehnaz told Tribune magazine last October. “Many of us are living in cold homes because we need to save wherever we can … I know colleagues who are worried about how they’ll pay their rent or their mortgage, or how they’ll be able to afford childcare when they’re at work because their children’s schools are also having to reduce hours and close earlier than they previously did.”

Strike organizers said it’s entirely within the  Conservative government’s power to ensure public sector employees are paid fairly .

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) says that the average public sector worker in the U.K. now has $250 less per month than they did in 2010, accounting for inflation. A graph the organization shared on social media as the workers walked out showed that teachers’ real compensation is now far lower than the range among other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A 5 percent pay raise offered to public sector workers last year is actually a 7 percent pay cut when accounting for soaring inflation, union leaders say.

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament passed an anti-strike bill that would enforce “minimum service levels” in a railroad sector and emergency services, threatening workers with termination if they take part in a work stoppage.

The bill still needs to pass in the House of Lords before becoming law. The TUC has said it could take the government to court over the proposal, which TUC assistant general secretary Kate Bell told The Guardian is “unnecessary, unfair, and almost certainly illegal.”

Ambulance drivers and nurses are reportedly planning to stage a work stoppage in the coming days.

Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told public health workers on Monday, “I would love, nothing more would give me more pleasure than, to wave a magic wand and have all of you paid lots more” — but organizers and labor advocates on Wednesday said Sunak’s government simply needs to change its tax policies to mitigate the cost-of-living crisis.

“We just need a fair taxation system,” John McDonnell, a Labour MP and former shadow chancellor of the exchequer, told The Guardian. He called on the Tories to tax capital gains at the same level of income to pay for raises. “The issue at the moment is that we seem to have a government that is redistributing wealth upwards,” McDonnell said.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, told The Guardian that the Tories have claimed it would cost £29 billion ($35 billion) to give raises to public sectors, while the actual amount is about £10 billion ($12 billion).

“And £10 billion in an economy like ours can easily be found,” said Serwotka.

Mick Lynch, secretary general of the National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers, rallied thousands of teachers outside Downing Street in London.

“We are the working class, and we are back,” said Lynch. “We are here, we are demanding change, we refuse to be bought, and we are going to win for our people on our terms.”

“We are the working class. We are back, we are demanding change and we are going to win for our people.”

– @RMTunion Mick Lynch addresses 40,000 striking workers today#EnoughIsEnough pic.twitter.com/bvfgaZwMdS

— Enough is Enough (@eiecampaign) February 1, 2023

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

This article is from  Common Dreams.

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, by way of contextual backdrop, let me offer a quick recap of some relevant developments, which I describe in more detail in The New Abnormal:

• November 2021: As reported by the New York Times, the Israeli government issued emergency pandemic legislation permitting Shin Bet (their equivalent of the CIA), to access mobile phones and extract track and trace data from suspected covid patients without their knowledge or consent.
• December 2021: Canada’s Public Health Agency confirmed that it had been extracting mobile phone data from the outset of pandemic to covertly track citizens’ movements, again without their knowledge or consent. Unlike Israel, this was not done legislatively or publicly. The agency confirmed that it planned to expand and continue this program until 2026.
• May 2022: Vice broke story that over the past two years, “The CDC tracked Millions of Phones to See If Americans Followed COVID Lockdown Orders.” The CDC used phone location data to, among other things, monitor citizens movements at schools and churches. They confirmed plans to use the data for applications beyond covid in coming years. Researchers from Princeton demonstrated that with only four location data points, the supposedly anonymized data could easily be connected to specific persons.
• Evidence also emerged last year that the CIA has been using unauthorized digital surveillance to spy on Americans. Two members of Senate Intelligence Committee warned that “documents reveal serious problems associated with warrantless backdoor searches of Americans.”

Not to be left out of the digital panopticon game, news from Britain broke this week with the following headline:

The article begins:

A shadowy Army unit secretly spied on British citizens who criticised the Government’s Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Military operatives in the UK’s ‘information warfare’ brigade were part of a sinister operation that targeted politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the official pandemic response.

They compiled dossiers on public figures such as ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming death toll predictions, as well as journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Toby Young. Their dissenting views were then reported back to No 10 [Downing Street, the office of the British Prime Minister].

Documents obtained by the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, and shared exclusively with this newspaper, exposed the work of Government cells such as the Counter Disinformation Unit, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office.

But the most secretive is the MoD’s 77th Brigade, which deploys ‘non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of adversaries’.

As happened with so many of our federal agencies in the US, which have strayed beyond their original mission of protecting citizens from foreign threats to protecting the state from its own citizens, we see the following developments in the UK:

According to a whistleblower who worked for the brigade during the lockdowns, the unit strayed far beyond its remit of targeting foreign powers.

They said that British citizens’ social media accounts were scrutinised – a sinister activity that the Ministry of Defence, in public, repeatedly denied doing.

Papers show the outfits were tasked with countering ‘disinformation’ and ‘harmful narratives… from purported experts’, with civil servants and artificial intelligence deployed to ‘scrape’ social media for keywords such as ‘ventilators’ that would have been of interest.

The information was then used to orchestrate Government responses to criticisms of policies such as the stay-at-home order, when police were given power to issue fines and break up gatherings.

It also allowed Ministers to push social media platforms to remove posts and promote Government-approved lines.

The Army whistleblower said: ‘It is quite obvious that our activities resulted in the monitoring of the UK population… monitoring the social media posts of ordinary, scared people. These posts did not contain information that was untrue or co-ordinated – it was simply fear.’

Last night, former Cabinet Minister Mr Davis, a member of the Privy Council, said: ‘It’s outrageous that people questioning the Government’s policies were subject to covert surveillance’ – and questioned the waste of public money.

Our Missouri v. Biden case and the Twitter Files have revealed these kinds of surveillance and censorship policies to be operating in the US, as I have previously written about here.

This latest story suggests the British government has likewise been engaging in the same totalitarian policies against its own citizens.

I am reminded here of CISA, a little known U.S. government agency that’s been around for only about six years. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency was originally set up to protect us from cyberattacks—malware, computer viruses, etc. But a year or so into their existence, CISA leadership decided that their real mission was combatting another kind of threat, which they called—in a brilliant Orwellian euphemism—domestic threats to our “Cognitive Infrastructure”.

Now, just what does this refer to? The new dangerous threats to our cognitive infrastructure are your thoughts, your ideas, the things you express for example on Twitter or Facebook or in the newspaper. With this sleight-of-hand, CISA quickly positioned itself to become the thought police at the center of the US government’s illegal censorship regime.

But back to the UK. The article describes the targeting of one of my favorite British journalists, Peter Hitchens:

Mail on Sunday journalist Mr Hitchens was monitored after sharing an article, based on leaked NHS [British National Health Service] papers, which claimed data used to publicly justify lockdown was incomplete. An internal Rapid Response Unit email said Mr Hitchens wanted to ‘further [an] anti-lockdown agenda and influence the Commons vote’.

Writing today, Mr Hitchens questions if he was ‘shadow-banned’ over his criticisms, with his views effectively censored by being downgraded in search results.

He says: ‘The most astonishing thing about the great Covid panic was how many attacks the state managed to make on basic freedoms without anyone much even caring, let alone protesting. Now is the time to demand a full and powerful investigation into the dark material Big Brother Watch has bravely uncovered.’

The whistleblower from 77 Brigade, which uses both regular and reserve troops, said: ‘I developed the impression the Government were more interested in protecting the success of their policies than uncovering any potential foreign interference, and I regret that I was a part of it. Frankly, the work I was doing should never have happened.’

The source also suggested that the Government was so focused on monitoring critics it may have missed genuine Chinese-led prolockdown campaigns.

Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This is an alarming case of mission creep, where public money and military power have been misused to monitor academics, journalists, campaigners and MPs who criticised the Government, particularly during the pandemic.

‘The fact that this political monitoring happened under the guise of ‘countering misinformation’ highlights how, without serious safeguards, the concept of ‘wrong information’ is open to abuse and has become a blank cheque the Government uses in an attempt to control narratives online.

‘Contrary to their stated aims, these Government truth units are secretive and harmful to our democracy. The Counter Disinformation Unit should be suspended immediately and subject to a full investigation.’

If you scroll to the bottom of the article, you’ll find that the Mail also published an accompanying commentary from the anonymous whistleblower,

“This snooping was wrong, it hangs over my proud Army career like a black cloud,”

and a commentary from Peter Hitchens,

“How shadowy censors tried to remove my ‘unhelpful’ Covid views from YouTube”.

In Britain, Orwell’s country of origin, seven decades after the publication of 1984, it turns out that Big Brother is Always Watching. Perhaps this is a good moment to remind everyone that Orwell’s classic dystopian novel was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author

A new wave of activity is expected for the Russian special military operation during February. The recent changes in the command of the operation appear to have been carefully planned in order to elevate the combat to a new level and several of Moscow’s strategic objectives may soon be achieved, radically changing the course of the conflict.

According to information provided by Russian military, a major offensive is being prepared for the period between February and early March. The informants say that the objectives will be:

1. Reaching the borders of the regions recently reintegrated into the Russian Federation, pacifying the new oblasts;

2. capturing Nikolaev, Odessa, as well as the entire Black Sea coast, reaching Transnistria;

3. seizing Kiev, forcing a political capitulation of the neo-Nazi regime until early March.

The territory of Belarus will become the main springboard for the upcoming strike. Mobilized Russian servicemen are being trained in training camps in Belarus, where heavy military equipment and combat aircraft are concentrated. A large bombardment force is in readiness for action. Also, Russian forces in Belarus have been collecting strategic information on the location of Ukrainian units, mainly about Kiev’s air defense, gathering intelligence data that will be used to plan the attacks.

In parallel to Belarus, Zaporozhye and Lugansk are also key zones for the Russian strategy. It is expected that massive attacks will come from these regions during the offensive, destroying enemy units in a short period of time which will allow a rapid Russian advance on the battlefield, reaching the zones listed in the above-mentioned objectives.

Sources also report that for the offensive to be successful Russian forces will focus on blocking all enemy’s supply lines. The main route of arrival of supplies to Ukraine is the border with Poland, where there is the transit of NATO’s ammunition and military equipment.

In fact, the battlefield conditions seem favorable for these objectives to be achieved. The Ukrainian forces are currently exhausted and weak. On the other hand, the mobilized Russian soldiers are fully prepared to engage in high-intensity combats. In addition, Russian artillery positions in Belarus and in the liberated territories have a privileged location, which significantly increases the chances of victory in the coming offensive.

Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was promoted to the position of Commander of the Joint Forces of the Russian Federation in the Special Military Operation Zone. Gerasimov’s arrival to power seems to have been a move towards the final stage of the special military operation.

His predecessor, General Surovikin played an important role while in command. A veteran of Chechnya and Syria and having extensive experience in counterterrorism, Surovikin was appointed to the post at a time when Ukrainian terrorist actions were on the rise. He fulfilled the goal of neutralizing the enemy’s offensive potential with his strong actions on the Ukrainian critical infrastructure, at the same time that he saved thousands of Russian lives with his policy of avoiding trench warfare and prioritizing long-distance bombing. Now, however, the special military operation needs a new direction.

And this was the main reason for the appointment of Valery Gerasimov. As Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, he is undoubtedly the most prestigious Russian officer and therefore the right man to lead the operation’s most decisive moves. The objective now is no longer to break the enemy’s offensive potential, but to force Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime into capitulation through a huge offensive.

After so many Russian attempts to negotiate a peaceful resolution, with the Ukrainian government ignoring them and insisting on an irresponsible military campaign, now there seems to be no other possible end to the conflict than a Russia’s offensive strong enough to liberate the entire Ukrainian coastline and capture Kiev.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,  geopolitical analyst, frequent contributor to Global Research

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

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

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

***

Today I received reports that Dutch pro cycling star Lieuwe Westra (40) and University of Arizona star swimmer, Ty Wells (23) have, in recent days, died suddenly. Judging by media reporting, the cause of their deaths is unknown. The two great athletes—both at the pinnacle of human fitness—apparently just died.

News of their deaths reminded me of a new book that I’ve been meaning to review for the last six weeks. The only reason I’ve hesitated is that this particular book strikes me as one of the most momentous ever written, so strange that it almost defies belief. The story it tells seems like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, but in fact it falls squarely within the true crime genre.

At its heart is a mystery that now confronts all of mankind. Something out there—some horrible agent that entered the world in 2021—is killing humanity’s fittest. What could it be? What could be causing this “Epidemic of Sudden Deaths,” to quote the subtitle of Edward Dowd’s new book, CAUSE UKNOWN.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. introduced the author in the book’s Forward:

Among the world’s towering financial titans is BlackRock, a company with a bigger economy than every country on Earth except the U.S. and China. They manage $10 trillion in assets. In 2002, BlackRock recruited the brilliant Wall Street careerist, Edward Dowd, and soon promoted him to serve as Managing Director. Turns out BlackRock made a very good bet on Ed Dowd: The Growth Fund he managed started at $2 billion; by the time he left BlackRock it was at $14 billion. His work with BlackRock required a keen ability to understand markets, pick stocks, analyze statistics, and identity trends.

In 2021, Dowd found himself withdrawing from Wall Street to study an entirely new kind of trend: the expanding and tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people.

CAUSE UNKNOWN presents the results of Dowd’s investigation. Since I received my copy, I have tried very hard to play the Devil’s Advocate against it, but in the final analysis, the “tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people” cannot be a fluke of increased detection and reporting, hyper-vigilance, or confirmation bias. What Mr. Dowd documents is terrifyingly real.

What, Dowd asks, was introduced into our world in 2021, when the epidemic began? Like all good true crime authors, he doesn’t jump to conclusions, but does a terrific job of collating and analyzing the evidence.

Judging by the Afterword by Gavin de Becker—founder of Gavin de Becker Associates—Dowd was assisted by one of the world’s most capable investigators. Mr. de Becker’s 1997 book, Gift of Fear, is widely considered the most insightful ever written on the subject of identifying and assessing mortal dangers.

I won’t spoil the ending by revealing Mr. Dowd’s thesis of what is causing the epidemic of sudden deaths among young people. Regular readers of this Substack won’t be surprised, but they will still be stunned by the book’s meticulous documentation of the global catastrophe, and saddened by its page after page of smiling children and youths who are no longer with their parents, siblings, and friends.

I especially recommend the book to all of the coroners and medical examiners of the world who—for whatever reasons—seem to remain clueless.

Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, (Skyhorse Publishing/Children’s Health Defense) Hardcover – December 13, 2022, by Ed Dowd (Author), Gavin de Becker (Afterword), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Foreword).

*

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.

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

Resistance to Enslavement and the Arming of Black Union Troops

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Russia wouldn’t have promoted this former ambassador’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

Newly re-elected and now three-time Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, suggested during a recent press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that a G20-like structure be assembled for reviving the Russian-Ukrainian peace process. His most passionate supporters on social media spun this as supposed proof that his multipolar vision remains perfectly aligned with Russia’s despite evidence to the contrary, but Moscow just indirectly contradicted this.

Publicly financed TASS published the reaction of the Lugansk People’s Republic’s (LPR) former Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik, who threw cold water on Lula’s proposal. Before quoting that diplomat, whose region is now formally a part of Russia, it’s important to draw attention to the fact Moscow wouldn’t have promoted his critical reaction via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

With that in mind, here’s what Miroshnik said: “Prospects for ‘Brazilian format’ talks the way Brazilian President [Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] sees them look slim to me. The Brazilian leader can only be praised for striving to make a contribution to ending the bloodshed, but the quality of opponents in proposed talks raises questions…It is really prestigious to be a peacemaker, for the role can give you extra clout internationally, especially when there is nothing to it.”

Reading between the lines, which admittedly isn’t difficult to do since Miroshnik didn’t exactly mince his words, it’s evident that Russia believes that Lula is just trying to promote himself internationally. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of the Ukrainian Conflict would know that a G20-like peace proposal is fated for failure since there’s no way that some of the implied parties would ever agree to anything other than Russia’s complete strategic capitulation.

Brazil’s world-class diplomats are obviously aware of this, as is Lula, especially considering the keen observer of International Relations that he is. This in turn leads to the conclusion that his intentions in proposing this doomed-to-fail G20-like structure aren’t sincere but rather completely driven by his political self-interests in promoting his return to the world stage, especially in the eyes of the US-led West’s Golden Billion that would benefit from manipulating his proposed peace process.

There’s no point in Russia wasting value diplomatic time entertaining this possibility, yet it also can’t officially dismiss it out of hand either lest it inadvertently offend its fellow BRICS partner. For that reason, Moscow arguably responded indirectly by having publicly financed TASS amplify the former LPR Ambassador to Russia’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal, which should be interpreted as having been done with a wink and a nod from the Kremlin due to the two players involved, TASS and that diplomat.

Looking forward, Lula will probably continue pushing this proposal despite the practical impossibility of any tangible progress ever being made on it since his political interests are served by doing so exactly as Miroshnik very strongly suggested. Russia might officially pay lip service to his superficially well-intended attempt to broker peace between it and Ukraine, but its policymakers know that he’s only making a spectacle out of this in order to give himself extra clout internationally.

“This is warrior policing on steroids.”—Paul Butler, law professor

That the police officers charged with the beating death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols are Black is a distraction.

Don’t be distracted.

This latest instance of police brutality is not about racism in policing or black-on-black violence.

The entire institution is corrupt.

The old guard—made up of fine, decent, lawful police officers who took seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace—has given way to a new guard hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Memphis’ now-disbanded Scorpion unit provides a glimpse into the looming crisis in policing that has gone beyond mere militarization.

Unfortunately, while much has been said about the dangers of police militarization, a warrior mindset that has police viewing the rest of the citizenry as enemy combatants, and law enforcement training that teaches cops to shoot first and ask questions later, little attention has been paid to the role that “roid rage,” triggered by anabolic steroid use and abuse by police, may contribute to the mounting numbers of cases involving police brutality.

Given how prevalent steroid use is within the U.S. military (it remains a barely concealed fixture of military life) and the rate of military veterans migrating into law enforcement (one out of every five police officers is a military veteran), this could shed some light on the physical evolution of domestic police physiques.

A far cry from Mayberry’s benevolent, khaki-clad neighborhood cops, police today are stormtroopers on steroids, both literally and figuratively: raging bulls in blue.

“Steroid use,” as researcher Philip J. Sweitzer warns, “is the not-so-quiet little secret of state and city police departments.”

John Hoberman, the author of Dopers in Uniform: The Hidden World of Police on Steroids, estimates that there may be tens of thousands of officers on steroids.

Illegal without a prescription and legitimized by a burgeoning industry of doctors known to law enforcement personnel who will prescribe steroids and other growth hormones based on bogus diagnoses, these testosterone-enhancing drugs have become hush-hush tools of the trade for police seeking to increase the size and strength of their muscles and their physical endurance, as well as gain an “edge” on criminals.

Having gained traction within the bodybuilding and sports communities, steroid use has fueled the dramatic transformation of police from Sheriff Andy Taylor’s lean form to the massive menace of the Hulk. As retired cop Phil Dees explains, “Anabolic steroid use among law enforcement officers is prevalent among the subset of cops who are heavily into weight training. They usually stand out from the crowd, and anyone who cares to look can pick out the most likely suspects.”

Broad-shouldered. Slim-waisted. Veiny. Tree-trunk necks. Rippling physiques. And as big as action heroes. That’s how Men’s Health describes these “juicers in blue”: cops using a cocktail of steroid drugs to transform themselves into “a flesh-and-blood Justice League.”

“Because juicing cops are a secretive subculture within a secretive subculture,” exact numbers are hard to come by, but if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, it’s more widespread than ever, with 25% of police using these drugs to bulk up and supercharge their aggression.

Indeed, while steroids are physically transformative, building muscle mass, they are also psychologically affective, upping resistance to physical and emotional stress during periods of prolonged or heavy conflict, to the delight of the military, which was involved in their early development and experimentation.

Cue the rise of muscular authoritarianism.

As Philip Sweitzer documents, “Cops on steroids are simply the natural evolution of a conscious decision by the federal government to promote military authoritarianism in drug enforcement, and the implementation of military technologies.”

Roid rage is yet another example of blowback from a militaristic culture.

There are few police forces at every level of government that are not implicated in steroid use and, consequently, impacted by “roid rage,” which manifests itself as extreme mood swings, irritability, nervousness, delusions, aggressive outbursts, excessive use of force, a sense of invincibility, and poor judgment.

“For officers who work daily in high stress, high adrenaline environments and carry guns, the ‘rage’ can be even more extreme,” concludes journalist Bianca Cain Johnson, eliciting “a Hulk-esque response by those using steroids to normal situations.”

When that roid rage is combined with the trappings of a militarized cop armed to the teeth and empowered to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, the danger of any encounter with a cop grows exponentially more deadly.

Given the growing numbers of excessive force incidents by police, especially against unarmed individuals, we cannot afford to ignore the role that doping by police plays in this escalating violence.

For instance, in one of the largest busts nationwide involving law enforcement, 248 New Jersey police officers and firefighters were found to have been getting fraudulent prescriptions of anabolic steroids, human growth hormones and other muscle-building drugs from a doctor. A subsequent investigation of those officers found that many had previously been sued for excessive force or civil rights violations, or had been arrested, fired or suspended for off-duty.

As David Meinert reports, “Steroid use has been anecdotally associated with several brutality cases and racially motivated violence by police officers, including the 1997 sodomizing of an Haitian immigrant in  New York.”

Not surprisingly, police have consistently managed to sidestep a steady volley of lawsuits alleging a correlation between police doping and excessive force, insulated by a thin blue wall of silence, solidarity and coverups, powerful police unions, and the misapplied doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is how the police state stays in power.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

At its most basic level, what this really translates to is an utter lack of accountability, whether over police brutality or doping.

Despite concerns about roid rage by police, few agencies carry out random tests for steroid use among officers, not even when an officer employs excessive force. Objections to such testing range from concerns about availability and cost to officer privacy.

As Hoberman points out, “The police establishment has reacted to the steroid culture by equivocating: announcing zero-tolerance policies while doing the absolute minimum to detect and control steroid use.”

Thus, any serious discussion about police reform needs to address the use of steroids by police, along with a national call for mandatory testing.

For starters, as journalist David Meinert suggests, police should be subjected to random drug tests for use of steroids, testosterone and HCG (an artificial form of testosterone), and testing should be mandatory and immediate any time an officer is involved in a shooting or accused of unnecessary force.

This is no longer a debate over good cops and bad cops.

It’s a power struggle between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect; between police trained to shoot to kill and police trained to resolve situations peacefully; most of all, it’s between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.

Unfortunately, more and more police are being trained to view themselves as distinct from the citizenry, to view their authority as superior to the citizenry, and to view their lives as more precious than those of their citizen counterparts. Instead of being taught to see themselves as mediators and peacemakers whose lethal weapons are to be used as a last resort, they are being drilled into acting like gunmen with killer instincts who shoot to kill rather than merely incapacitate.

We’ve allowed the government to create an alternate reality in which freedom is secondary to security, and the rights and lives of the citizenry are less important than the authority and might of the government.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the longer we wait to burst the bubble on this false chimera, the greater the risks to both police officers and the rest of the citizenry.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The German Foreign Minister, Ms. Annalena Baerbock, recently announced in the Council of Europe, “We are fighting a War against Russia”. With ”We”, she meant all of Europe and, of course, Germany.

This young lady-novice (42), a scholar of Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) is out of her mind.

Some 80 years after a German invasion of Russia ended horrendously in a killing streak against Germany with millions of deaths on both sides, Ms. Baerbock has the distorted brain to tell the world “We are fighting a War against Russia”.

Germany, so far, largely media-tolerated the “Baerbockization” which was intended to influence European Council members to think likewise – “We are at War with Russia.” Baerbock went on pressing the point by saying – “We all, all of Europe, are in this War” – intending to speak for Europe.

Germany’s FM, Annalena Baerbock: “We are fighting a war against Russia,”

They are openly saying it. They are literally saying US/NATO are at war with Russia. pic.twitter.com/80cERnKHHK

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 25, 2023

How come Baerbock wasn’t fired? At least that would have sent a signal to the world, that Germany has not fallen into the craze of wanting war with Russia.

Unless self-assured by a strong power of support behind, for example Klaus Schwab, from whose school of YGL’s she is a graduate, she might not have dared to be so bold. That she was not sacked by now, is probably also due to the same nefarious unelected and undesired world power.

German Chancellor Scholz did say this to an applauding German Parliament, “Germany will always be at the forefront when it comes to supporting Ukraine…. because there really is a war in Europe – not far from here in Berlin, it is taking place against a big country like Ukraine”…”but at the same time we must prevent the war from escalating into a war between Russia and NATO,” he cationed. See this https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-approves-sending-heavy-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-25/ .

Was this a tacit encouragement for Baerbock?

—

How much longer will the People of the World tolerate Schwab / WEF and Co., as well as the informal, unregistered associations, like G7 and G20 / B20? How much longer are they allowed to prevail and decide over the destiny of humankind?

Does the majority of the world population even realize to what kind of self-styled and unelected powers we are exposed and by whom our future is decided?

—–

Baerbock was dead serious, thinking she was doing the planet a favor by bringing forward what most people wanted. Wrongly so. She couldn’t have been more wrong. People of this world want Peace not conflict.

Those comparatively minuscule minorities who want war, conflict, population reduction, overall control of the world’s resources and of the globe’s population, are the few power-hungry inhuman psychopaths, whose illegally begotten riches, they believe, give them the right to decide over humanity and humanity’s destiny.

The vast majority of the people of the world want Peace with Russia, want an integrated harmonious world. They do not care for Klaus Schwab, the megalomaniac and his “his brothers in crime´ and of his Death Cult, his absolute madness of a self-nominated elitist, leading the world into transhumanism, into an all digitized environment – that can and will – if not stopped now – blow up one day worse than a thousand Hiroshimas.

The Third Reich will have been a benign precursor, a trial balloon, if you will, to a no-escape worldwide empire – that too will collapse – as all empires in history collapsed. But the result would be DEVASTATING, for lack of a stronger term.

See this speech by Carlos A. Gebauer, famous actor of the German RTL TV show “Das Strafgericht” (the Criminal Court). In the summer of 2022, he spoke about the “Reset” in both historic and philosophical terms (in German) at a Conference of the Atlas Initiative for Justice and Freedom, headquartered in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mk8QSZInE.

The vast majority of the world does not care for BlackRock, and Larry Fink, BR’s CEO and his ilk, attempting to control the world with tens of trillions of assets accumulated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), controlling every economic and productive sector of the worldly universe, from food, to services, to war-machines. BlackRock is the main sponsor of the Schwab-WEF-madness.
—-

Amazingly, the German media have dealt with the Baerbock idiocy quite benignly. This, compared to what the same media on the other hand promoted – the unconditional supply of German Jaguar tanks to the most corrupt government of Europe and arguably the world, Ukraine – to fight Russia.

The German media went berserk – including some of other German speaking media, like Swiss and Austrian – who have collectively sold their soul to green neofascism – urging Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, to finally make the decision to supply the Leopards to Kiev.

The war-soul-journalists were like kids under the Christmas tree when finally, Scholz, of course, on orders of the US of A – decided, yes – we deliver, but the tanks will get there (to Kiev or wherever in the wasteland Ukraine) earliest by May 2023. – See this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.

By then Russia may have totally “neutralized” Ukraine and the unused Leopards will rot away.

The international media condemned Baerbock’s statement vehemently, including even European Council member States. They wanted to disassociate themselves from such crude language.Even the US doesn’t seem to want a direct confrontation with Russia, if you believe the not-so-trustworthy Biden Regime.

Why then has Germany succumbed to the EU / NATO pressure on the delivery of Leopards?

Because – what many may not realize – Germany is as of this day not a free, sovereign nation. Germany has no Peace Agreement with the “conquerors” of WWII, especially not with the US. Germany functions under an Armistice Agreement since the end of WWII in 1945.

A key condition of this AA is that Germany would NEVER do anything that goes against the interests of the United States – or else – see again this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.
——–

We, the People of this world, want this madness to stop. Now.

After the January 16-20, 2023 WEF meeting in Davos, the World media have unequivocally shown that they have seen enough, of this unelected WEF, of this unelected self-styled emperor of the world, named Klaus Schwab, who, by the way, is coming from a Third Reich background.

We, the People of the World, want to get back to a human way of life. All the elitist oligarchs, self-styled commanders – and eugenists – of the universe, like Gates, Rockefeller, Soros et al, should stand trial à la Nuremberg 2.0.

If not, they may want to disappear, dig themselves into a deep hole, perhaps in New Zealand, which Jacinda Ardern, NZ’s ex-PM (already gone, thanks God) – has neatly prepared as a rescue paradise for the world’s most sought-after criminals.

Madame Annalena Baerbock, please go away! By doing so, you may safe just a tiny bit of your dignity!
—

In addition to the nonsense talk, what also came to the fore from the WEF 2023 – that it is one of the world’s most exclusive escort and prostitution services event. Apparently, that’s what the sick-rich sociopaths need – unlimited sex, at (almost) unlimited cost. And they come to the WEF’s host in Switzerland, Davos, a ski resort – to the detriment of the local population.

Under the glory and shine of the WEF’s luster, and the Swiss police- and military defense, they are not asked, and have no choice but to accept. Money rules. Law and ethics are overruled. Dystopia, again, George Orwell’s 1984 at its best.

And remember, when the duped world chose “Green”, we the People, had no idea, that again we were misled, by an environmental dystopia, a climate-change craze, gradually turning fascist.  Just look at John Kerry and Al Gore at the 2023 WEF – their words and gesticulations speak volumes – of distortion.
See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ZaDxNUrAQ  and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAYLSQIxTI .

That’s what Green has become today. It’s the new fascist party. Unfortunately, often in close alliance with the Socialists, which once upon a time, had the well-being of the working class in mind, created the worlds social services, decent work-conditions, unemployment insurance, social health insurance coverage, paid vacation, weekly work hours limitations – and much more.

During the past few of decades – ravaged by uncontrolled globalism, and globalization, many of them, including so-called socialist world leaders, have sold out to the fascist globalist trend. Many of the lower echelons’ SPs – Socialist Party members – were drawn into this diabolical fascist machinery without even noticing it.

Fortunately, 2023 is a year of Transition. The world is waking up. Signals to that effect keep emerging. The US Supreme Court just ruled against Global (covid) Vaccination. This is a step they wouldn’t have dared taking just a year ago.

People! Let us stay awake and alert!

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

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

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

What makes the RAND Corporation’s latest report on Ukraine so significant, is not the quality of the analysis, but the fact that the nation’s most prestigious national security think-tank has taken an opposite position on the war than the Washington political class and their globalist allies. This is a very big deal.Keep in mind, wars don’t end because the public opposes them. That is a myth. Wars end when a critical split emerges between elites that eventually leads to a change in policy. The RAND Corporation’s new report, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, represents just such a split. It indicates that powerful elites have broken with the majority opinion because they think the current policy is hurting the United States. We believe this shift in perspective is going to gain momentum until it triggers a more-assertive demand for negotiations. In other words, the RAND report is the first step towards ending the war.

Consider, for a minute, this excerpt from the preamble of the report:

“The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.”

This quote effectively sumarizes the entire document. Think about it: For the last 11 months we have been told repeatedly that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” The above quote assures us that that’s not going to happen. The United States is not going to undermine its own interests to pursue the unachievable dream of expelling Russia from Ukraine. (Even the hawks no longer believe that is possible.) Rational members of the foreign policy establishment are going to evaluate Ukraine’s prospects for success and weigh them against the growing likelihood that the conflict could unexpectedly spiral out-of-control. That, of course, would serve no one’s interest and could ignite a direct clash between Russia and the United States. Also, US policymakers will decide whether the ballooning collateral damage is worth the expense. In other words, are the ruptured supplylines, the rising inflation, the increasing energy and food shortages, and the declining weapons stockpiles a fair trade-off for “weakening Russia”. Many would say, “No.”

In some respects, the RAND report is just the first in a long line of falling dominoes. As Ukraine’s battlefield losses mount –and it becomes more evident that Russia will control all the territory east of the Dnieper River– the flaws in Washington’s strategy will become more apparent and will be more sharply criticized. People will question the wisdom of economic sanctions that hurt our closest allies while helping Russia. They will ask why the United States is following a policy that has precipitated a strong move away from the dollar and US debt? And, they will wonder why the US deliberately sabotaged a peace deal in March when the probability of a Ukrainian victory is near zero. The Rand report seems to anticipate all these questions as well as the ‘shift in mood’ they will generate. This is why the authors are pushing for negotiations and a swift end to the conflict. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine…

(The report) starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.” (“Rand calls for swift end to war“, RT)

While the report does not explicitly state that ‘US interests (are) being harmed’, it certainly infers that that is the case. Not surprisingly, the report doesn’t mention any of the collateral damage from Washington’s war on Russia, but, surely, that must have been foremost on the minds of the authors. After all, it is not the $100 billion or the provision of lethal weapons that is costing the US so dearly. It is the accelerating emergence of international coalitions and alternate institutions that has put the US empire on the fasttrack to ruin. We assume that the analysts at RAND see the same things that every other sentient being sees, that Washington’s misguided conflagration with Moscow is a ‘bridge-too-far’ and that the blowback is going to be immense and excruciating. Hence, the urgency to end the war quickly. Here’s a excerpt from the report that was posted in bold print halfway through the text:

“Since avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks, the United States should take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely.”

Interestingly, while the report details the main escalation risks, (The main risks include a broader war with NATO, a spillover of the conflict into other EU countries, and a nuclear war.) it fails to explain why exactly a ‘long war’ would be so damaging to the United States. We believe that this omission is intentional and that the authors do not want to concede that the backfiring of sanctions and the forming of anti-American foreign coalitions is clearly undermining US plans to maintain its grip on global power. Among elites, such talk is verboten. Here’s how Chris Hedges summed it up in an article at Consortium News:

The plan to reshape Europe and the global balance of power by degrading Russia is turning out to resemble the failed plan to reshape the Middle East. It is fueling a global food crisis and devastating Europe with near double-digit inflation. It is exposing the impotency, once again, of the United States, and the bankruptcy of its ruling oligarchs. As a counterweight to the United States, nations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran are severing themselves from the tyranny of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a move that will trigger economic and social catastrophe in the United States. Washington is giving Ukraine ever more sophisticated weapons systems and billions upon billions in aid in a futile bid to save Ukraine but, more importantly, to save itself. (“Ukraine — The War That Went Wrong”, Chris Hedges, Consortium News)

Hedges sums it up perfectly. Washington’s foolish intervention is clearing the way for the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history. And yet, even now, the vast majority of corporate and banking elites resolutely back the existing policy while shrugging off the obvious signs of failure. Case in point: The World Economic Forum posted a blanket statement of support for Ukraine on its website. Here it is:

The essence of our organization is its belief in respect, dialogue, and collaborative and cooperative efforts. We therefore deeply condemn the aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the attacks and atrocities.

Our full solidarity is with Ukraine’s people and all those who are suffering innocently from this totally unacceptable war.We will do whatever is possible to help and actively support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.
We only hope that – in the longer-term – reason will prevail and that the space for bridge-building and reconciliation once more emerges.” (Klaus Schwab and Børge Brende, World Economic Forum)

No one should be surprised by this. Naturally, the globalists are going to come-down on the side of their expansionist wrecking-crew (NATO) instead of the world’s biggest proponent of traditional values, borders and national sovereignty. That goes without saying. Even so, the Rand report suggests that support for the war is no longer unanimous among elites. And, since elites ultimately set the policy, there is now an increasing probability that the policy will change. We see this ‘splintering of elite consensus’ as the most positive development in the last 11 months. The only way the United States is going to change its approach in Ukraine is if a growing number of elites come to their senses and pull us back from the brink. We are hopeful that that will happen, but we’re not sure that it will.

The least persuasive section of the entire report falls under the heading of: “US and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s Security”.

The problem is easy to understand. The authors want to settle on a plan for providing security to Ukraine in order to incentivize negotiations with Russia. Unfortunately,Russia is not going to allow Ukraine to be a part of any western-backed security alliance, in fact, that is why Russia launched its invasion in the first place, to preempt Ukraine’s membership in a hostile military alliance (NATO) linked to the United States. This is a touchy subject that will undoubtedly be an obstacle in any future negotiations. But it is a matter on which there can be no ‘wiggle room’. Ukraine –or whatever is left of Ukraine– will be required to be permanently neutral and all the far-right extremists will have to be removed from the government, the military and the security services. Moscow will not pick Ukraine’s leaders, but it will make sure that those leaders are neither Nazis nor linked to any far-right nationalist organization.

Will the USG Split into Warring Camps?

As we said earlier, we think the RAND report indicates that elites are now divided on the issue of Ukraine. We think that is a positive development that could lead to negotiations and an end to the war. However, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that even the most impartial analysis can tilt favorably in the direction of the group that provides the funding. And that could be true here, as well. Keep in mind, the RAND Corporation is a nonpartisan think tank that, according to retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:

“works for the defense establishment, and were money to dry up there, the thinktank would not exist in it current form. It serves US government interests entirely, and is dependent upon them.” (Lew Rockwell)

What this suggests is that the RAND report may represent the views of the Pentagon and the US Military establishment who believe the United States is racing headlong towards a direct conflagration with Russia. In other words, the report may be the first ideological broadsides against the neocons who run the State Department and the White House. We suspect this split between the War Department and ‘State’ will become more visible in the days ahead. We can only hope that the more judicious faction at the Pentagon prevails.

The Covid-skeptic world has been claiming the World Health Organization (WHO) plans to become some sort of global autocratic government, removing national sovereignty and replacing it with a totalitarian health state. The near-complete absence of interest by mainstream media would suggest, to the rational observer, that this is yet another ‘conspiracy theory’ from a disaffected fringe.

The imposition of authoritarian rules on a global scale would normally attract attention. The WHO is fairly transparent in its machinations. It should therefore be straightforward to determine whether this is all misplaced hysteria, or an attempt to implement an existential change in sovereign rights and international relations. We would just need to read the document. Firstly, it is useful to put the amendments in context.

The changing role of WHO

Who’s WHO?

The WHO was set up after the Second World War as the health arm of the United Nations, to support efforts to improve population health globally. Based on the concept that health went beyond the physical (encompassing “physical, mental and social well-being”), its constitution was premised on the concept that all people were equal and born with basic inviolable rights. The world in 1946 was emerging from the brutality of colonialism and international fascism; the results of overly centralized authority and of regarding people to be fundamentally unequal. The WHO constitution was intended to put populations in charge of health.

In recent decades the WHO has evolved as its support base of core funding allocated by countries, based on GDP, evolved to a model where most funding is directed to specified uses, and much is provided by private and corporate interests. The priorities of the WHO have evolved accordingly, moving away from community-centered care to a more vertical, commodity-based approach. This inevitably follows the interests and self-interests of these funders. More detail can be found on this evolution elsewhere; these changes are important to putting the proposed IHR amendments in context.

Of equal importance, the WHO is not alone in the international health sphere. While certain organizations such as UNICEF (originally intended to prioritize child health and welfare), private foundations and non-government organizations have long partnered with the WHO, the past two decades have seen a burgeoning of the global health industry, with multiple organizations, particularly ‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) growing in influence; in some respects rivals and in some respects partners of the WHO.

Notable among PPPs are the Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance (focused specifically on vaccines) and CEPI, an organization set up at the World Economic Forum meeting in 2017 specifically to manage pandemics, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the Norwegian Government. Gavi and CEPI, along with others such as Unitaid and the Global Fund, include corporate and private interests directly on their boards. The World Bank and G20 have also increased involvement in global health, and especially pandemic preparedness. The WHO has stated that pandemics occurred just once per generation over the past century and killed a fraction of those who died from endemic infectious diseases, but they nonetheless attract much of this corporate and financial interest.

The WHO is primarily a bureaucracy, not a body of experts. Recruitment is based on various factors, including technical competency but also country and other equity-related quotas. These quotas serve a purpose of reducing the power of specific countries to dominate the organization with their own staff, but in doing so require the recruitment of staff who may have far lower experience or expertise. Recruitment is also heavily influenced by internal WHO personnel, and the usual personal influences that come with working and needing favors within countries.

Once recruited, the payment structure strongly favors those who stay for long periods, mitigating against rotation to new expertise as roles change. A WHO staffer must work 15 years to receive their full pension, with earlier resignation resulting in removal of all or part of the WHO’s contribution to their pension. Coupled with large rental subsidies, health insurance, generous education subsidies, cost-of-living adjustments and tax-free salaries, this creates a structure within which protecting the institution (and thus one’s benefits) can far outlive initial altruistic intent.

The DG and Regional Directors (RDs – of which there are six) are elected by member states in a process subject to heavy political and diplomatic maneuvering. The current DG is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian politician with a checkered past during the Ethiopian civil war. The amendments proposed would allow Tedros to independently make all the decisions required within the IHR, consulting a committee at will but not bound by it. Indeed, he can do this now, having declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) against his emergency committee’s advice, after just five deaths globally.

Like many WHO employees, I personally witnessed, and am aware of, examples of seeming corruption within the organization, from Regional Director elections to building renovations and importation of goods. Such practices can occur within any large human organization that has lived a generation or two beyond its founding. This is, of course, why the principle of the separation of powers commonly exists in national governance; those making rules must answer to an independent judiciary according to a system of laws to which all are subject. As this cannot apply to UN agencies, they should automatically be excluded from direct rulemaking over populations. The WHO, like other UN bodies, is essentially a law unto itself.

WHO’s new pandemic preparedness and health emergency instruments.

The WHO is currently working on two agreements that will expand its powers and role in declared health emergencies and pandemics. These also involve widening the definition of ‘health emergencies’ within which such powers may be used. The first agreement involves proposed amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR), an instrument with force under international law that has been in existence in some form for decades, significantly amended in 2005 after the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The second is a new ‘treaty’ that has similar intent to the IHR amendments. Both are following a path through WHO committees, public hearings and revision meetings, to be put to the World Health Assembly (WHA – the annual meeting of all country members [‘States parties’] of the WHO), probably in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

The discussion here concentrates on the IHR amendments as they are the most advanced. Being amendments of an existing treaty mechanism, they only require approval of 50 percent of countries to come into force (subject to ratification processes specific to each member State). The new ‘treaty’ will require a two-thirds vote of the WHA to be accepted. The WHA’s one country – one vote system gives countries like Niue, with less than two thousand residents, equal voice to countries with hundreds of millions (e.g. India, China, the US), though diplomatic pressure tends to corral countries around their beneficiaries.

The IHR amendments process within the WHO is relatively transparent. There is no conspiracy to be seen. The amendments are ostensibly proposed by national bureaucracies, collated on the WHO website. The WHO has gone to unusual lengths to open hearings to public submissions. The intent of the IHR amendments to change the nature of the relationship between countries and the WHO (i.e. a supra-national body ostensibly controlled by them), and fundamentally change the relationship between people and central supranational authority – is open for all to see.

Major amendments proposed for the IHR

The amendments to the IHR are intended to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, their country’s governments, and the WHO. They place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War Two regarding human rights and the sovereignty of States. In doing so, they signal a return to a colonialist and feudalist approach fundamentally different to that to which people in relatively democratic countries have become accustomed. The lack of major pushback by politicians and the lack of concern in the media and consequent ignorance of the general public is therefore both strange and alarming.

Aspects of the amendments involving the largest changes to the workings of society and international relations are discussed below. Following this are annotated extracts from the WHO document (REF). Provided on the WHO website, it is currently under a process of revision to address obvious grammatical errors and improve clarity.

Resetting international human rights to a former, authoritarian model

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, agreed by the UN in the aftermath of World War Two and in the context of much of the world emerging from a colonialist yoke, is predicated on the concept that all humans are born with equal and inalienable rights, gained by the simple fact that they are born. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was intended to codify these, to prevent a return to inequality and totalitarian rule. The equality of all individuals is expressed in Article 7:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

This understanding underpins the WHO constitution, and forms a basis for the modern international human rights movement and international human rights law.

The concept of States being representative of their people, and having sovereignty over territory and the laws by which their people were governed, was closely allied with this. As peoples emerged from colonialism, they would assert their authority as independent entities within boundaries that they would control. International agreements, including the existing IHR, reflected this. The WHO and other international agencies would play a supportive role and give advice, not instructions.

The proposed IHR amendments reverse these understandings. The WHO proposes that the term ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ be deleted from the text, replacing them with ‘equity, coherence, inclusivity,’ vague terms the applications of which are then specifically differentiated in the text according to levels of social and economic development. The underlying equality of individuals is removed, and rights become subject to a status determined by others based on a set of criteria that they define. This entirely upends the prior understanding of the relationship of all individuals with authority, at least in non-totalitarian states.

It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution. It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition.

Giving WHO authority over member States.

This authority is seen as being above states (i.e. elected or other national governments), with the specific definition of ‘recommendations’ being changed from ‘non-binding’ (by deletion) to ‘binding’ by a specific statement that States will undertake to follow (rather than ‘consider’) recommendations of the WHO. States will accept the WHO as the ‘authority’ in international public health emergencies, elevating it above their own ministries of health. Much hinges on what a Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is, and who defines it. As explained below, these amendments will widen the PHEIC definition to include any health event that a particular individual in Geneva (the Director General of the WHO) personally deems to be of actual or potential concern.

Powers to be ceded by national governments to the DG include quite specific examples that may require changes within national legal systems. These include detention of individuals, restriction of travel, the forcing of health interventions (testing, inoculation) and requirement to undergo medical examinations.

Unsurprising to observers of the COVID-19 response, these proposed restrictions on individual rights under the DG’s discretion include freedom of speech. The WHO will have power to designate opinions or information as ‘mis-information or disinformation, and require country governments to intervene and stop such expression and dissemination. This will likely run up against some national constitutions (e.g. the US) but will be a boon to many dictators and one-party regimes. It is, of course, incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but these seem no longer to be guiding principles for the WHO.

After self-declaring an emergency, the DG will have power to instruct governments to provide WHO and other countries with resources – funds and commodities. This will include direct intervention in manufacturing, increasing production of certain commodities manufactured within their borders.

Countries will cede power to the WHO over patent law and intellectual property (IP), including control of manufacturing know-how, of commodities deemed by the DG to be relevant to the potential or actual health problem that he /she has deemed of interest. This IP and manufacturing know-how may be then passed to commercial rivals at the DG’s discretion. These provisions seem to reflect a degree of stupidity, and unlike the basic removal of fundamental human rights, vested interests here may well insist on their removal from the IHR draft. Rights of people should of course be paramount, but with most media absent from the fray, it is difficult to see a level of advocacy being equal.

Providing the WHO DG with unfettered power, and ensuring it will be used.

The WHO has previously developed processes that ensure at least a semblance of consensus and an evidence-base in decision-making. Their process for developing guidelines requires, at least on paper, a range of expertise to be sought and documented, and a range of evidence weighed for reliability. The 2019 guidelines on management of pandemic influenza are an example, laying out recommendations for countries in the event of such a respiratory virus outbreak. Weighing this evidence resulted in the WHO strongly recommending against contact tracing, quarantine of healthy people and border closures, as the evidence had shown that these are expected to cause more overall harm to health in the long term than the benefit gained, if any, from slowing spread of a virus. These guidelines were ignored when an emergency was declared for COVID-19 and authority switched to an individual, the director general.

The IHR amendments further strengthen the ability of the DG to ignore any such evidence-based procedures. Working on several levels, they provide the DG, and those delegated by the DG, with exceptional and arbitrary power, and put in place measures that make the wielding of such power inevitable.

Firstly, the requirement for an actual health emergency, in which people are undergoing measurable harm or risk of harm, is removed. The wording of the amendments specifically removes the requirement of harm to trigger the DG assuming power over countries and people. The need for a demonstrable ‘public health risk’ is removed, and replaced with a ‘potential’ for public health risk.

Secondly, a surveillance mechanism set up in every country under these amendments, and discussed also in the pandemic preparedness documents of the G20 and World bank, will identify new variants of viruses which constantly arise in nature, all of which, in theory, could be presumed to pose a potential risk of outbreak until proven not to. The workforce running this surveillance network, which will be considerable and global, will have no reason for existence except to identify yet more viruses and variants. Much of their funding will originate from private and corporate interests that stand to gain financially from the vaccine-based responses they envision for infectious disease outbreaks.

Thirdly, the DG has sole authority to declare any event rated (or potentially related) to health an ‘emergency.’ (The six WHO Regional Directors (RDs) will also have this power at a Regional level). As seen with the monkeypox outbreak, the DG can already ignore the committee set up to advise on emergencies. The proposed amendments will remove the need for the DG to gain consent from the country in which a potential or perceived threat is identified. In a declared emergency, the DG can vary the FENSA rules on dealing with private (e.g. for-profit) entities, allowing him/her to share a State’s information not only with other States but with private companies.

The surveillance mechanisms being required of countries and expanded within the WHO will ensure that the DG and RDs will have a constant stream of potential public health risks crossing their desks. In each case, they will have power to declare such events a health emergency of international (or Regional) concern, issuing orders supposedly binding under international law to restrict movement, detain, inject on mass scales, yield intellectual property and know-how, and provide resources to the WHO and to other countries the DG deems to require them. Even a DG uninterested in wielding such power will face the reality that they put themselves at risk of being the one who did not ‘try to ‘stop’ the next pandemic, pressured by corporate interests with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and huge media sway. This is why sane societies never create such situations.

What happens next?

If these amendments are accepted, the people taking control over the lives of others will have no real legal oversight. They have diplomatic immunity (from all national jurisdictions). The salaries of many will be dependent on sponsorship from private individuals and corporations with direct financial interest in the decision they will make. These decisions by unaccountable committees will create mass markets for commodities or provide know-how to commercial rivals. The COVID-19 response illustrated the corporate profits that such decisions will enable. This is a situation obviously unacceptable in any democratic society.

While the WHA has overall oversight on WHO policy with an executive board comprised of WHA members, these operate in an orchestrated way; many delegates having little depth in the proceedings whilst bureaucrats draft and negotiate. Countries not sharing the values enshrined in the constitutions of more democratic nations have equal vote on policy. Whilst it is right that sovereign States have equal rights, the human rights and freedom of one nation’s citizens cannot be ceded to the governments of others, nor to a non-State entity placing itself above them.

Many nations have developed checks and balances over centuries, based on an understanding of fundamental values, designed specifically to avoid the sort of situation we now see arising, where one group is law unto itself can arbitrarily remove and control the freedom of others. Free media developed as a further safeguard, based around principles of freedom of expression and an equal right to be heard. These values are necessary for democracy and equality to exist, just as it is necessary to remove them in order to introduce totalitarianism and a structure based on inequality. The proposed amendments to the IHR set out explicitly to do this.

The proposed new powers sought by the WHO, and the pandemic preparedness industry being built around it, are not hidden. The only subterfuge is the farcical approach of media and politicians in many nations who seem to pretend they are not proposed, or do not, if implemented, fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between people and centralized non-State powers. The people who will become subject to these powers, and the politicians who are on track to cede them, should start paying attention. We must all decide whether we wish to cede so easily what it has taken centuries to gain, to assuage the greed of others.

Annotated summary of significant clauses in the IHR amendments.

Notes. (Within qualities from the IHR draft, italics are added for emphasis here.

DG: Director General (Of the WHO)
FENSA: (WHO) Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors
IHR: International Health Regulations
PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
WHA: World Health Assembly
WHO: World Health Organization
“States Parties’ in UN parlance (i.e. self-governing countries) is simplified below to ‘State(s)’ or ‘country’.

See full document at the WHO IHR portal.

1. Setting the scene: Establishing WHO authority over individuals and national governments in health-related decision-making.

Article 1: Definitions

‘Health technologies and knowhow’;: Includes ‘other health technologies’, [any of these that solve a health problem and improve ‘quality of life’ and includes technologies and knowhow involved in the] ‘development and manufacturing process’, and their ‘application and usage’.

Note relevance to requirement for countries to give these up to other entities on WHO demand. This must be unacceptable to most existing legal systems and corporations.

“standing recommendation’ means non-binding advice issued by WHO

“temporary recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO

‘standing recommendations’ and ‘temporary recommendations:’ The removal of the ‘non-binding’ is consistent with the requirement later for States to consider the ‘recommendations’ of the DG as obligatory.

Article 2: Scope and purpose (of the IHR)

“The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which …”

Wording changed from “restricted to public health risk” to “restricted to all risks with a potential to impact public health.” Public health is an extremely broad term, and potential risks can be any virus, toxin, human behavioral change, article or other information source that could affect anything in this vast field. This is an open slather that would in operation provide the WHO with a jurisdiction over anything potentially vaguely pertaining to some change in health or well-being, as perceived by the DG or delegated staff. Such broad rights to interfere and take control would not normally be allowed to a government department. In this case, there is no direct oversight from a parliament representing people, and no specific legal jurisdiction to comply with. It allows the WHO director general to insert himself and give recommendations (no longer ‘non-binding’ to almost anything pertaining to societal life (health, in the WHO’s definition, is physical, mental and social well-being).

Article 3: Principles

“The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of personsbased on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development”

This signals a fundamental change in the human rights approach of the UN, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) that all US countries have signed up to. The concept of broad, fundamental rights (equal in all) is removed, and replaced with vacuous wording ‘equity, inclusivity, coherence.’ Human rights (of the individual) are seen as based on economic and ‘social’ development. This implies that the wealthy and poor have different rights, and there is a hierarchy of ‘development’ that defines one’s rights. This is a return to a feudalist or colonialist view of human rights (in many respects the excuses used to justify slavery), that the post-War WHO and UDHR had sought to move away from.

“shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease. When implementing these Regulations, Parties and WHO should exercise precaution, in particular when dealing with unknown pathogens.“

Again, addition of a clause that enables the WHO to override human rights previously stated, including for speculative (unknown) threats.

Article 4: Responsible authorities

Each country is required to appoint an ‘authorized responsible authority’ for WHO to liaise with. Seemingly innocuous, but reflects the mindset change in status within these regulations, with the WHO becoming a body requiring compliance, no longer ‘suggesting’ or ‘supporting.’

2. Establishing the international pandemic preparedness bureaucracy with WHO at the center

Article 5: Surveillance.

These amendments establish /expand a periodic review mechanism, similar to the UN human rights office. This seems in itself innocuous, but is a very large resource drain, especially for smaller countries, and requires (as in the human rights compliance case) a dedicated large international (WHO) bureaucracy and consultant base. WHO will require regular detailed reports, send assessors, and require changes. This raises questions both on (1) sovereignty in health and (2) rational and appropriate use of resources. WHO is not assessing the country’s health needs here, it is assessing one small aspect and dictating the resources spent on it, irrespective of other health burdens. This is a fundamentally poor and dangerous way to manage public health and means resources are unlikely to be spent for maximum benefit overall.

Article 6: Notification.

Countries (States Parties) to make information available to WHO at WHO request, and WHO can make this available to other parties (see later clauses) in a manner yet to be determined by the WHA. This may seem innocuous but in reality, removes State sovereignty over data (which had been significant prior to 2005 IHA amendments). It is unlikely that powerful States will comply, but smaller ones will be left with little choice (China has significantly inhibited information and will likely do so. It can be argued this is appropriate – such information can have significant economic and social implications).

Article 10: Verification

“If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours , WHO may shall , when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.”

The WHO gains power to share information from a State or pertaining to a State with other States, without consent. This is remarkable: It is important to understand who the WHO is (essentially unaccountable beyond the WHA).

Article 11: Exchange of Information (Formerly provision of information by WHO). 

This article enables WHO to share information obtained as discussed above, to both UN and non-governmental bodies (allowed recipients changed from (formerly) relevant intergovernmental to (now) relevant international and regional organizations (i.e. now including organizations not related to national governments).

WHO can therefore share State information with ‘relevant international organizations’ – this presumably includes such as CEPI, Gavi, Unitaid – organizations that have private and corporate representation on their boards with direct financial conflicts of interest.

Further:

“Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when: (a) the event is determined to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, a public health emergency of regional concern, or warrants an intermediate public health alert, in accordance with Article 12; or …”

Widens the criteria determining when the WHO can disseminate information from sovereign States, from PHEIC to ‘health alert’ (which in practice the DG or subordinates could apply to almost anything). This could occur, as specified later in the Article, when WHO staff decide a sovereign State does not have ‘capacity’ to handle a problem, or when the WHO staff decide (with unspecified criteria) that it is necessary to share information with others to make ‘timely’ risk assessments. This allows unelected WHO staff, on salaries supported from external conflicted entities, to disseminate information from States directly relevant to those entities, based on their own assessment of risk and response, against undefined criteria.

3. Widening ‘public health emergency’ definition to include any health or pathogen-related event at DG’s discretion, and requiring States compliance.

Article 12: Determination of a public health emergency of international concern public health emergency of regional concern, or intermediate health alert

This Article both reduces the threshold for the DG to declare an emergency (it can just be a concern of a potential outbreak) and greatly increases the power of the WHO (removes requirement for State agreement) to then act.

“If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring ….. determines that the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination, the Director-General shall notify all the States Parties, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49, seek the views of the Committee established under Article 48 (but is not required to follow them)

Removes requirement for State to agree to release of information pertaining to that State. DG can declare a PHEIC against States wishes and instructions. The WHO becomes the dominant party, not the servant of the sovereign State.

Emergency committee review is optional for DG, who can act completely alone in determining PHEIC – a decision that can have vast health, social and economic implications and is allowed above to abrogate basic human rights norms.

If, following the consultation in paragraph 2 above, the Director-General and the State Party in whose territory the event arises do not come to a consensus within 48 hours on whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, a determination shall be made in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49.

Removes requirement of DG to seek agreement of State before acting.

“Regional Director may determine that an event constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern and provide related guidance to States Parties in the region either before or after notification of an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern is made to the Director-General, who shall inform all States Parties”

Regional directors appear to be granted similar powers, though full implications are unclear.

“In case of any engagement with non-State actors in WHO’s public health response to PHEIC situation, WHO shall follow the provisions of Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA). Any departure from FENSA provisions shall be consistent with paragraph 73 of FENSA.”

The WHO Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA) allows the DG to “exercise flexibility in the application of the procedures of FENSA” in the case of a health emergency (which here in the IHR is widened, as above, to any concern the FG has of potential harm, irrespective of State agreement.

“Developed State Parties and WHO shall offer assistance to developing State Parties depending on the availability of finance, technology and know how…”.

A line fascinating mainly for its anachronistic (but telling) use of the colonialist-like terms developing and developed in this formerly egalitarian WHO context.

“The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rationale for the rejection, which WHO shall share with other States Parties. Regarding on-site assessments, in compliance with its national law, a State Party shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate short-term access to relevant sites; in the event of a denial, it shall provide its rationale for the denial of access”

WHO set as the dominant partner. The State must comply or provide excuses for not agreeing with WHO’s dictates.

“When requested by WHO, States Parties should shall provide, to the extent possible, support to WHO-coordinated response activities,including supply of health products and technologies, especially diagnostics and other devices, personal protective equipment, therapeutics, and vaccines, for effective response to PHEIC occurring in another State Party’s jurisdiction and/or territory, capacity building for the incident management systems as well as for rapid response teams”.

‘Should’ changed to ‘Shall,’ requiring States to provide resources at the WHO’s request for a PHEIC (e.g. monkeypox of an event the DG considers may pose a potential threat.) This begins a theme of the WHO acquiring the ability to order States to provide resources, and (later) know-how and intellectual property when ordered by the DG to do so.

NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response

This new article explicitly lays out the new international public health order, with the WHO in charge at the center, rather than national sovereignty being paramount.

“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

This requires States to follow WHO recommendations in a PHEIC – declared by an individual (DG) whose position is determined by non-democratic states and who is open to wide influence by private and corporate money. The criteria for PHEIC are deliberately vague, and at the DG’s discretion. This is an amazing reversal of roles of the WHO versus States, and clearly abrogates sovereignty.

The wild failure of Covid response, and the WHO’s abrogation of its own guidelines, should give pause for thought here. The WHO could mandate abrogation of bodily autonomy on states regarding medication or vaccination, or testing.

“Upon request of WHO, States Parties with the production capacities shall undertake measures to scale up production of health products, including through diversification of production, technology transfer and capacity building especially in the developing countries.”

The WHO can require (tell) countries to scale-up production of certain products – to interfere with markets and commerce, at the WHO’s (DG’s) discretion.

NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response

“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

This requires States to follow WHO recommendations in a PHEIC – declared by an individual (DG) whose position is determined by non-democratic states and who is open to wide influence by private and corporate money. The criteria for PHEIC are deliberately vague, and at the DG’s discretion. This is an amazing reversal of roles of WHO versus States, and clearly abrogates sovereignty. It is requiring sovereign states to submit themselves to an external authority, whenever that authority desires it (as the WHO DG can through previous amendments above, declare a PHEIC on the basis of just perceiving the potential form an infectious disease event).

The Covid response, including the WHO’s abrogation of its own guidelines and policies, should give pause for thought here. The WHO could mandate abrogation of bodily autonomy on states regarding medication or vaccination, or testing.

“Upon request of WHO, States Parties with the production capacities shall undertake measures to scale up production of health products, including through diversification of production, technology transfer and capacity building especially in the developing countries.”

The WHO can require (tell) countries to scale-up production of certain products – to interfere with markets and commerce, at WHO’s (DG’s) discretion.

“ [WHO] shall collaborate with other international organizations, and other stakeholders consistent with the provisions of FENSA, for responding to public health emergency of international concern.”

This enables the WHO to collaborate with non-State actors (private individuals, Foundations, private corporations (Pharma, its sponsors etc.). FENSA, which restricts such contacts, can be varied by the DG in a ‘health emergency’ that the DG declares.

4. WHO requiring countries to provide resources, intellectual property and knowhow at WHO’s discretion.

New Article 13A: Access to Health Products, Technologies and Know-How for Public Health Response

“States Parties shall co-operate with each other and WHO to comply with such recommendations pursuant to paragraph 1 and shall take measures to ensure timely availability and affordability of required health products such as diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other medical devices required for the effective response to a public health emergency of international concern.”

The WHO determines response within States’ borders, and requires States to provide aid to other countries. At the WHO’s behest.

“States Parties shall provide, in their intellectual property laws and related laws and regulations, exemptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of intellectual property holders to facilitate the manufacture, export and import of the required health products, including their materials and components.”

States shall change their intellectual property (IP) laws, to allow sharing of IP on the DG’s determination of a PHEIC, at his/her discretion, to whom they determine. It is difficult to imagine a sane State would do this, but it is clearly required here.

“States Parties shall use or assign to potential manufacturers, especially from developing countries, on a non-exclusive basis, the rights over health product(s) or technology(ies)”

The WHO can require IP to be shared with other States (and thereby IP is passed to private corporations within those States.

“Upon request of a State Party, other States Parties or WHO shall rapidly cooperate and share relevant regulatory dossiers submitted by manufacturers concerning safety and efficacy, and manufacturing and quality control processes, within 30 days”

Requirement to release confidential regulatory dossiers to other States, including to WHO qualification programme, and to sovereign state regulatory agencies.

“[WHO shal]… establish a database of raw materials and their potential suppliers, e) establish a repository for cell-lines to accelerate the production and regulatory of similar biotherapeutics products and vaccines”,

WHO holding such materials is unprecedented. Under whose laws and regulatory requirements would this be done? Who is responsible for damage and harm?

“States Parties shall take measures to ensure that the activities of non-state actors, especially the manufacturers and those claiming associated intellectual property rights, do not conflict with the right to the highest attainable standard of health and these Regulations and are in compliance with measures taken by the WHO and the States Parties under this provision, which includes:

a) to comply with WHO recommended measures including allocation mechanism made pursuant to paragraph 1. 

b) to donate a certain percentage of their production at the request of WHO.

c) to publish the pricing policy transparently.

d) to share the technologies, know-how for the diversification of production.

e) to deposit cell-lines or share other details required by WHO repositories or database established pursuant to paragraph 5.

f) to submit regulatory dossiers concerning safety and efficacy, and manufacturing and quality

control processes, when called for by the States Parties or WHO.”

The ‘highest attainable standard of health is beyond what any State has now. This effectively means, as worded, that the WHO can require any state to release almost any confidential product and intellectual property on any product related to the health sector.

This is an amazing list. The DG (WHO) on their own criteria can declare an event, then require a State to contribute resources and give up sole rights to intellectual property of its citizens, and share information to allow others to manufacture their citizen’s products in direct competition. The WHO also requires States to donate products to the WHO /other States on DG’s demand.

To understand the scope of the intellectual property rights to be forfeited to the DG, the definitions (Article 1) describe them as:

“health technologies and know-how” includes organized set or combination of knowledge, skills, health products, procedures, databases and systems developed to solve a health problem and improve quality of life, including those relating to development or manufacture of health products or their combination, its application or usage …”.

5. WHO claiming control of individuals and their rights within States

Article 18 Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels.

“Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:…..

–      review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

• require medical examinations;
• review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
• require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
• place suspect persons under public health observation;
• implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
• implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
• implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
• refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
• refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
• implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

This (article 18) was already in existence. New Article 13A, however, now requires States to follow WHO recommendations. The WHO will thus now be able to, based on the sole determination of an individual (DG) under influence of non-democratic states and private entities, order states to incarcerate their citizens, inject them, require identification of medical status, medically examine, isolate and restrict travel.

This is clearly insane.

“[Recommendations issued by WHO shall]…ensure mechanisms to develop and apply a traveller’s health declaration in international public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) to provide better information about travel itinerary, possible symptoms that could be manifested or any prevention measures that have been complied with such as facilitation of contact tracing, if necessary.”

The WHO can require the availability of private travel (itinerary) information, and require the provision of medical travel documents. This is requiring the disclosure of private medical information to the WHO.

Article 23 Health measures on arrival and departure

“Documents containing information concerning traveller’s destination (hereinafter Passenger Locator Forms, PLFs) should preferably be produced in digital form, with paper form as a residual option. Such information should not duplicate the information the traveller already submitted in relation to the same journey, provided the competence authority can have access to it for the purpose of contact tracing.”

Text (which clearly needs further work) aimed at future requirements for vaccine passports for travel.

6. WHO setting the scene for digital health passports

Article 35 General rule

“Digital health documents must incorporate means to verify their authenticity via retrieval from an official web site, such as a QR code.”

Further presaging digital IDs containing health information, that must be available to enable travel (i.e. not at individual’s discretion).

Article 36 Certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis

“Such proofs may include test certificates and recovery certificates. These certificates may be designed and approved by the Health Assembly according to the provisions set out for digital vaccination or prophylaxis certificates, and should be deemed as substitutes for, or be complementary to, the digital or paper certificates of vaccination or prophylaxis.”

As above. Setting up the WHO/WHA to set international travel requirements (the UDHR says there is a basic right to travel). While not new here, this is expanded by the expansion of PHEIC provisions, and focused more on the DG’s determination. It is moving from national sovereignty to a transnational travel control beyond national sovereignty – not directly answerable to populations, but heavily funded and influenced by private interests.

“Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties”

Requirement for all countries to comply with these recommendations (they only take 50 percent of the WHA to implement).

“State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

Also requires private entities and citizens within the state to comply (which likely requires changes of many national laws, and the relationship between government and people).

This requires a totalitarian approach from the State, subject to a totalitarian approach from a supra-state (but clearly not meritocratic) entity. Following these IHR revisions, the DG of WHO, at his discretion, has the capacity to order private entities and citizens in any country to comply with his/her directives.

7. WHO being empowered to order changes within States, including restrictions on freedom of speech.

Article 43 Additional health measures

“[Measures implemented by States shall not be more restrictive than.]… would achieve attain the appropriate highest achievablelevel of health protection.”

These changes are very significant. Appropriate’ meant taking into account the costs and balancing these against potential gains. It is a sensible approach that takes the whole of society and population needs into account (good public health).

‘highest achievable level of protection’ means elevating this problem (an infectious disease or potential disease) above all other health and human/societal concerns. This is stupid, and probably reflects lack of thought and poor understanding of public health.

“WHO may request that shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned reconsider to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures …”

On removing health interventions, the WHO DG now can require such actions (States have agreed to ‘recommendations’ being binding above). As elsewhere, the WHO is not the instructing party, not the suggesting party. The WHO takes sovereignty over formerly State matters. The following paragraph requires a response in 2 weeks rather than formerly 3 months.

Article 44 Collaboration and assistance

“States Parties shall undertake to collaborate with and assist each other, in particular developing countries States Parties, upon request, to the extent possible, in:…”

Changes move the relationship from the WHO suggesting/requesting, to the WHO requiring.

“in countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information.”

States undertake to work with the WHO to control information and limit free speech.

“the formulation of proposed laws and other legal and administrative provisions for the implementation of these Regulations.”

States agree to pass laws to implement restrictions on free speech and sharing of information.

“countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information;…”

The WHO shall work with countries to control free speech and flow of information (based on their own criteria of what is right and wrong).

8. Nuts and Bolts of the verification bureaucracy to ensure countries follow WHO requirements.

NEW Chapter IV (Article 53 bis-quater): The Compliance Committee 

53 bis Terms of reference and composition

“The State Parties shall establish a Compliance Committee that shall be responsible for:

(a) Considering information submitted to it by WHO and States Parties relating to compliance with obligations under these Regulations;

(b) Monitoring, advising on, and/or facilitating assistance on matters relating to compliance with a view to assisting States Parties to comply with obligations under these Regulations;

(c) Promoting compliance by addressing concerns raised by States Parties regarding implementation of, and compliance with, obligations under these Regulations; and

(d) Submitting an annual report to each Health Assembly describing:

(i) The work of the Compliance Committee during the reporting period;

(ii) The concerns regarding non-compliance during the reporting period; and (iii) Any conclusions and recommendations of the Committee.

2. The Compliance Committee shall be authorized to:

(a) Request further information on matters under its consideration;

(b) Undertake, with the consent of any State Party concerned, information gathering in the territory of that State Party; (c) Consider any relevant information submitted to it; (d) Seek the services of experts and advisers, including representatives of NGOs or members of the public, as appropriate; and (e) Make recommendations to a State Party concerned and/or WHO regarding how the State Sarty may improve compliance and any recommended technical assistance and financial support.”

This sets up the permanent review mechanism to monitor the compliance of States with the WHO’s dictates on public health. This is a huge new bureaucracy, both centrally (WHO) and with a significant resource drain on each State. It reflects the review mechanism of the UN human rights office.

9. More on WHO requiring states to provide taxpayer money to WHO’s work, and restricting freedom of populations to question this work.

ANNEX 1

A. CORE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISEASE DETECTION, SURVEILLANCE

AND HEALTH EMERGENCY RESPONSE

“Developed Countries States parties shall provide financial and technological assistance to the Developing Countries States Parties in order to ensure state-of-the-art facilities in developing countries States Parties, including through international financial mechanism…”

States shall provide (i.e. divert from other priorities) aid funding to help other States develop capacity. This has a clear opportunity cost in other disease/societal programs where funding must accordingly be reduced. However, this will no longer be in the budgetary control of States, but required by an external entity (WHO).

“At a global level, WHO shall… Counter misinformation and disinformation”.

As above, the WHO takes the role of policing / countering free speech and exchange of information (funded by the taxes of those whose speech they are suppressing).

Useful links

The WHO documents regarding the IHR amendments
A summary of the amendments and their implications

A Panicked Empire Tries to Make Russia an “Offer It Can’t Refuse”

By Pepe Escobar, February 01, 2023

Realizing NATO’s war with Russia will likely end unfavorably, the US is test-driving an exit offer. But why should Moscow take indirect proposals seriously, especially on the eve of its new military advance and while it is in the winning seat?

Violence Will Not End in Israel Until the Occupation Ends

By Steven Sahiounie, February 01, 2023

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the top two goals of his new administration are to establish more settlements in the Occupied Territories and to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

The Hypocrisy of NATO Behind Ukraine and the Middle East

By Ahmad Al Khaled, February 01, 2023

Within one year of the Ukrainian conflict it has been evident that the West is quick to scrutinize Russia without taking a better look at their own actions in the past. NATO has been involved in numerous conflicts since its establishment including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc.

Seventh Latin America Caribbean CELAC Summit – Between Evasion and Reality

By Stephen Sefton, February 01, 2023

The Declaration confirms the commitment of the member States to integration, unity and political, economic, social and cultural diversity as a community of sovereign nations and it also reaffirms the proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

Pentagon’s Prediction of ‘Inevitable’ Conflict with China in 2025 Shows War Is America’s Primary ‘Export Commodity’

By Drago Bosnic, February 01, 2023

For a country constantly chest-thumping about the size of its economy, the United States is remarkably over-reliant on one form of “export” – war. For decades, the American-led political West used proxy wars to hurt its geopolitical adversaries. While most of these weren’t a direct existential threat to US rivals and were relatively limited in scope, recent years brought a major shift to this strategic approach.

Lithuanian President Demands Russia’s Red Lines be Violated

By Kurt Nimmo, February 01, 2023

Nauseda demands all red lines be crossed, behavior that will ultimately end in a nuclear conflagration. He characterizes the negotiation of differences as “diplomatic pleasantries” and argues that due to the fact his country is on the border with Russia, “we can see the true danger, the true risk,” while Europeans further West cannot.

Video: Hunt on Leopards Declared on Ukrainian Front Lines

By South Front, February 01, 2023

US President Joe Biden once again claimed that the US will not supply Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets. Despite the fact that the discussion on this issue intensified after the decision to transfer tanks to Ukraine.

The Battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943: Historical Context and Importance

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, February 01, 2023

A war against the Soviet Union was wanted by the industrialists, bankers, large landowners and other members of Germany’s upper class, the “elite” of the land. That was one of the reasons, and arguably the paramount reason, why they had enabled the coming to power of Hitler, a politician of whom it was widely known that he considered the destruction of the Soviet Union as the great task entrusted to him by providence.

Understanding the Pentagon’s Provocation of Russia

By Jacob G. Hornberger, February 01, 2023

President Kennedy had a unique ability that Pentagon generals did not have. He was able to analyze an international crisis by placing himself in the shoes of his adversary in an attempt to understand his adversary’s motives. Doing that enabled him to figure a way out of the crisis that did not involve war. The response of the generals and the Pentagon was always the same: invade, bomb, kill, and destroy.

The Biggest, Most Ignored Demographic in US Electoral Politics

By Ben Bartee, February 01, 2023

The two parties that, in reality, constitute a uniparty duopoly bend over backward to cater to their respective pet voting blocs (racial minorities for Democrats and Evangelicals for Republicans, for instance).  But those demographics pale in comparison to the volume of non-voters.

Black/African American History observances this month will acknowledge people and events deserving to be remembered in the past and supported in the present in the quest for justice, and peace for all African Americans.

Observances should include how corporations and those of immense wealth have amassed political power and economic wealth by exploiting racism toward people of color, especially African Americans, in this country over several centuries.

Examples:

• The Royal African Company and other British “crown corporations” transported slaves to the American colonies
• The “Fugitive Slave Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) mandated that escaped slaves (the property of slaveholders) when caught had to be returned to their owners.
• The “Three-Fifths “Compromise” in the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)  defined slaves (which had no political rights) as 3/5ths of a person in determining a state’s population – to ensure that southern states would have more votes in the Electoral College to perpetuate slavery.
• JP Morgan bank used slaves as collateral for loans to slave owners in the 19th century.
• The 13th Amendment contained an “exceptions clause” – prisoners could be used as forced labor. “Convict leasing” or  “slavery by another name” involved African American forced to to work for railroads, U.S. Steel and other corporations to rebuild the south after the Civil War.
• African-American strikebreakers were used widely in the meat packing, steel, coal mining, automobile, and railroad industries between the end of Civil War and New Deal to stoke racism between white and black workers to prevent the rise of unions.
• Housing, automobile, and construction corporations profited by laws (including discriminatory FHA mortgage underwriting) that promoted redlining of neighborhoods to maintain high housing values, especially in suburbia.
• The disproportionate mass imprisonment of African Americans, due to racist drug and other laws, has given rise to highly profitable and powerful private prison corporations, namely CoreCivic and Geo Group. The Prison Industries Act (promoted by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council) has expanded prison labor and financially benefited many companies, among them Victoria’s Secret, Whole Foods Market, Walmart, Microsoft, Starbucks, BP, Nintendo, AT&T, Target, Dell, Eddie Bauer, and Boeing.
• Racial predatory loans by Wall Street financial entities, which profited in the billions, fueled the 2007-9 financial crisis.
• Toxic industries tend to be placed or to expand in African American poor communities.
• The explosion of police violence against innocent African Americans in cities and subsequent financial settlements in amounts that communities can not afford has given rise to a new profitable financial instrument for corporate and individual investors: “police brutality bonds.”

Not to be overlooked is the corporate hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment, intended to provide legal due process and equal protection to African Americans when it was ratified in 1868. Two decades later, the Supreme Court hijacked the decision, ruling that a corporation is a “person” with the same due process and equal protection rights intended exclusively for African Americans.

The Court invalidated approximately 200 economic regulations of businesses from 1905 until the mid-1930’s passed by legislators under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Governments could no longer pass laws to protect or favor local businesses over chain stores or family farms over agribusinesses. Large corporations have perverted the Fourteenth Amendment as both a shield to protect themselves and a sword to successfully challenge public laws that they claim are “discriminatory” that were intended to protect people and communities.

Move to Amend’s We the People Amendment will end all corporate constitutional rights, including the corporate due process and equal protection “rights” of the Fourteenth Amendment. It goes beyond simply reducing corporate money in elections, as this comparison chart describes.

Much attention will be appropriately devoted this month to the history of the movements to abolish slavery and the movement for fundamental civil rights – as a stepping stone to fundamental human rights.

The institution of slavery, which for millennia was deemed as an inevitable reality of human existence, was (minus the exceptions clause) abolished in this country due to a massive, dedicated and diverse people’s movement – including people of color and others risking their lives.

It’s past time to abolish all corporate constitutional rights. A dedicated and diverse people’s movement is needed – with inspiration and learnings taken from the anti-slavery, civil rights and all movements – enshrining the rights of people over property, including corporations.

A corporation is not a person. Period.

Solidarity,

Jason, Tara, Alfonso, Pattie, Jennie, Shelly, George, Leila, Daniel, Saleem, Jessica Joni, Keyan, Michael, Margaret, Dolores & Greg

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.

***

German Leopards are sent to Kiev – so “Der Spiegel” (24.1.2023) – Chancellor Scholz has decided for more killing against all odds. Against the vast majority of the German people. Against the will of the vast majority of the people of the west. Against the vast majority of the people of the world.

Nobody wants war, only the war profiteers. And the mega-rich, megalo-psychopaths. The WEF-people, so to speak. The “controlleurs” par excellence. The elites chosen few, maybe extraterrestrials, who are privileged wanting to safe our planet, à la John Kerry – see his speech at the WEF Davos 2023:

And why do we, the People, allow the war profiteers and those megalo-psychopaths who want to control the world and its resources with the ill-begotten riches, anyway debt-based riches, money worth anything, only because we, The People, accept it – tolerate these megalos, warmongers, war maker and outright murderers?

In order to tyrannize us, the dark cult — the Death Cult, you may as well call them — has to cull us people down to an easily manageable size, do away with the useless eaters, so to speak (Harari-Schwab-speak), so the ever-diminishing non-renewable resources will last longer for their, the Death Cult’s, ever more luxury-vaganza.

That’s why they need war, have been living off wars – big wars, for more than the last century.

Those are the ones who call War Peace and Peace War.

Why?

Because for them war is peace of mind. They are never touched by war, yet war brings them ever and always more riches, ill-begotten resources. We know that. But they don’t care.

They are killers. They are oblivious to guilt and blood.

*

But by far the vast majority wants Peace – real Peace. Harmonious cohabitation among us neighbors, communes, societies, countries, continents – within the world population. Sovereignty for all individuals, groups; and interchange of goods and ideas, of culture, of science, as we please and as we feel is to our all-mutual benefit.

Economically speaking: Win-win, in harmony and peace. Sounds crazy – so farfetched, not possible?

How can it be crazy, if most of us would like it and would want to strive for it, if only we had a system that would allow it?

Well, we thought the Ancient Greeks gave us such a system: “Democracy”.

Also, a lie. Democracy, as we believe it was conceived, never really existed. Even in Greece 2500 years ago, only the “educated” were allowed to vote. And who were the educated? What was the criteria? You guessed it. They were pretty much what they are today – wealthy, prestigious and, yes, of course “educated”.

In conclusion, “Democracy” is a joke.

*

So, where does that leave us with the German Leopards?

Germany has “decided” to deliver in a first go, a Leopard battalion, of 14 Leopard II tanks.

That’s reported, among others, by the Swiss NZZ mainstream (25.1.2023 – in German).

The editors and journalists who write about it, they are so elated about delivering killing machines to the most corrupt country in Europe, they hardly can suppress their tears of joy. They are literally like children discovering their most desired and precious present under the Christmas tree. I kid you not.

That’s the state of Orwell’s 1984 dystopia we have reached. Reality has actually outdone Orwell’s brilliant foresight.

The pressure of the mainstream media may have played a role in Scholz’s decision. Or was it really Scholz’s decision – or rather a US- / NATO-coerced / suggested decision?

And why are the US / NATO – and the generally vassal-west, Europe and worldwide Anglo-saxons plus Japan, so adamant to destroy Russia? Certainly, one of the reasons is that Russia is by far the world’s largest country surface-wise, and by far the globe’s richest country in terms of natural resources.

Russia has everything – and more – the elite covets for to maintain and expand its luxurious lifestyle.

Another reason most certainly is that modern Russia under President Putin is not bending to the dictate of the west. Russia is not willing to submit to a western-dominated Globalist world, fast becoming a tyranny if not stopped in its tracks. China is not willing either to submit to a western-directed One World Order (OWO).

So, Russia and China have made a pact, under which a multipolar world would flourish, a much more natural, multi-cultural approach to a “new” world, a more peaceful and more prosperous world.

Most of Asia, and many of the hitherto so-called western countries, are also aiming at integrating into the new “realm” of peaceful coexistence, promoted by Russia and China, much to the detriment of the “old” belligerent west.

It may become an amalgam of countries, fused into socioeconomic associations, which are sick and tired of the centuries of western hegemonic exploitation. First, by the most abject exploitative and mass killing European colonies, in Africa and around the world, then – about in the 1950s and 1960s – when these colonies were set “free” to become neo-colonies – a new type of serfdom – economic usurpation emerged — and is thriving to this day.

What these still colonialized countries are aiming at is the recreation of the natural Continent of Eurasia, which was destroyed by Anglosaxony and its small brother, the French colonizers.

For those who remember the history of Eurasia, where trade was peaceful and befitting to the term “win-win”, where trading among countries, nations or simple communities was according to comparative advantages – leading to “win-win”- these people, politicians and honest thinkers will want Eurasia back.

And guess who has already thought about this idea? China’s President Xi Jinping, when he initiated already in 2013 the New Silk Road – patterned according to the original Silk Road of 2100 years ago. The New Silk Road is also called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It attempts to connect Eurasia in trade, infrastructure, joint business ventures, science, cultural exchanges and much more. The dynamics of BRI pursue an open-ended peaceful objective of worldwide cooperation – ironing out potential conflicts with negotiations, not with war.

Yes, the “The Times they are A-Changing” (Bob Dylan, 1964).

*

Back to Chancellor Scholz. Maybe more than the media pressure, the pressure from Washington and NATO became too much for Scholz to bear. Yet, the world is waiting for a leader who does not follow orders from “above”, from outside, from hell, but who has his own conscience and a spine of steel, not prone to bend over for fear and coercion. One who says NO to war, despite all the interests in this dystopian Orwell-1984 world. Even if it means he has to quit over his decision. Scholz doesn’t seem to fit that profile.

Can you imagine Scholz resigning over the decision of the Leopards? Hardly. Actually, yesterday and today, we have seen he didn’t resign, but rather acquiesced with the decision from “above”, meaning Washington and Brussels.

But wouldn’t his resignation or simple refusal to deliver German Leopards to Ukraine, a country that has from the beginning fought an already lost war – wouldn’t this have been a formidable shock signal to the rest of the ultra-dystopian world?

Yes, it would have been. And it’s never too late. Is there an EU leader (sic) with the guts to say NO to war, who will not enter as a war-party into a conflict that will pull Europe apart, that could even end in a nuclear holocaust, where the survivors may not be the elite?

*

Germany is enmeshed in a conflict which is, indeed, against Germany’s “Constitution”.

That’s it. Germany doesn’t have their own Constitution. Germany is still under an Armistice Agreement after WWII. One of the provisions under this one-sided “Pact” among the WWII-Allies, but led by the US, says that Germany may never take a decision which is against the interests of the United States. Or else.

As we know, in today’s civilization, where murder is just another word for dominance, the “else” can mean many things. Unpleasant, indeed. Bloody. Several more venerable German leaders had attempted to break that slave-bond. They were “whiplashed” back to order.

References to this effect, the German Armistice instead of a Constitution, used to be on internet. They are all gone, cleansed and fact-checked – censured out.

The world is not to know that Germany, the economic and intellectual leader of Europe, is a mere puppet of Washington. And that whatever crazy appearing decision she takes is just toeing the line Washington has designed for her.

And the war goes on, and on, and on. Killing, maiming and killing.

More weapons into the cesspool of Kiev, creating billions of debts – Washington / Brussels create debt-money out of thin air, no backing, no chance of ever being paid back – helping creating “artificial” hyper-inflation, energy and food shortages, ruining the western economy, or rather – preparing it for being ransacked by the western oligarchy, the Death Cult, the Deep State – and the shadow monsters, Big-huge Corporate Finance. We know who they are.

Yet, from day One, from 24 February 2022, everyone who had a brain knew this war could never be won by Ukraine. Not even with endless weapon-deliveries from the west. Not even with direct interference by NATO, not even with the US sending their troops on the grounds of Ukraine. Not even with US troops marching into Russia.

Never. They are faced with a modern, tremendously efficient Russian Army – a terrific and terrifying nuclear force.

Though President Putin has often said, Russia was not a “first-strike” nuclear force, while Biden countered, the US would be a ”preventive first-strike” nation, the US / NATO would stand no chance against a Russian nuclear counter attack.

Do they realize that? Some American clear-thinking strategist-generals probably do. But the political megalos above them, who may call the final shot – the Red-Bottom trigger – they may have no clue in their narcissistic no-brain view.

*

At the outset, since WWI and before, it was the Anglosaxon hegemon’s idea to use Germany to wipe out the Soviet Union, then Russia. First with WWI and then with WWII – and now, with what you may already call WWIII.

It is no longer a secret that the US while fighting the Third Reich along with the so-called Allied Forces (UK, France and the Soviet Union), the US quietly – or not so quietly – financed Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union – an Ally.

Dancing on two or more weddings simultaneously has always been a rotten US strategy and is practiced as of this day.

*

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), set up in Basle, Switzerland in 1930, basically to settle Germany’s debt form WWI, was hardly ever used for German debt settlement because Germany was forgiven most of her debt for WWI and WWII. Probably, because they defended the Anglosaxon interests as best they could.

Instead, the BIS, largely a Rothschild-controlled private institution, close to the Swiss-German border, served to channel money directly from the US Fed to Hitler’s Reichsbank. Other collaborators with the Third Reich, included Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, IBM, Dow Chemicals, Hollywood (Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer), General Motors, Ford Motos – and more.

In both WWI and WWII, the Anglosaxon hegemon lost their quest and German-proxy wars to conquer Russia, alias, the Soviet Union.

Now their third attempt at conquering Russia is under way? Again, through Germany. A lost cause from the beginning.

Especially with President Putin at the helm of the Kremlin.

*

In 1991, when the Berlin Wall fell, Washington was in ectasis of joy. They invited Russians from everywhere to participate in everything, from their most reputed think-tanks to the banking system, even into Pentagon advisory posts. The “strategists” from the Washington Swamp were convinced they finally won the Cold War and Russia was theirs.

Then suddenly, some ten years later, unexpectedly came along a little-known KGB agent by the name of Vladimir Putin who was elected President of Russia, head of the Kremlin. The rest is history.

Things changed. Drastically.

Again: “Times Are A-Changing” to this day. President Putin is a nationalist who defends his country, the interests of Russia’s population and theirs, the Peoples of Russia’s resources.

Contrary to the slander of the west, President Putin has no ambitions to expand the borders of Russia. In fact, Russia throughout known history NEVER was expansionist. No need. Russia with her 17.1 million square kilometers of surface (US – 9.8 sq.km, just a bit over half of Russia’s) and all the natural resources riches in and above the ground, has no need to expand.

Think about it: Whoever could be naïve enough or dystopian-thinker enough to believe that Ukraine had even the tiniest chance of winning this war against Russia, not with billions and billions of weaponries from the west, not even in a dream world, must have been brainwashed into oblivion.

This does, however, not rule out the insane Death Cult wanting to wipe out most of the planet’s inhabitants, triggering a nuclear war or by other means.

German “Nachdenkseiten” reports that in one of the most recent Ukraine support packages from the US, indications are that they may contain nuclear-spiked ammunition. The article talks about the risks for Russia, but also for the Ukrainian civil society and even for the Ukrainian own soldiers. See this in German.

Remember, this would be their third futile attempt to use Germany for conquering Russia.

So, stay alert and be aware!

*

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.

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

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

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

Opposition demonstrations of more than 100,000 people have taken place in Israeli cities since the new extreme right-wing government, including undisguised fascist ministers, took office on Dec. 30.

The protests, in the name of democracy, have been organized by multiple organizations and politicians focusing particularly on the new government’s attempt to weaken the judicial system and thereby grant itself unfettered power to enact its reactionary agenda.

Another major point of contention is a bill introduced by the new minister of communications aimed at shutting down the public broadcasting system, setting up a committee to supervise commercial media, severely restricting investigative reporting and making it illegal to publish most information obtained through recordings.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately sought to return to office to avoid prosecution on corruption charges against him and his family. The new government he put together is so dominated by unabashed bigots that Minister of Finance Belazel Smotrich had no compunction about recently stating in an interview, “I am a fascist homophobe.” Smotrich is also deputy speaker of the Knesset (parliament) and holds a second position in the ministry of defense giving him and his settler-based party control over much of the West Bank.

The glaring omission in the demonstrations has been any mention of those who are the primary targets of the new regime — and all preceding Israeli regimes — the Palestinian people. Even participation by Palestinians living inside the 1948 borders with the Palestinian flag has been discouraged or, in some cases, prevented. Instead, the protests have been seas of blue and white Israeli flags.

The fascist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir threatened that anyone carrying a Palestinian flag in the Jerusalem protests would be arrested and jailed. He was saved the trouble of carrying out his threat by the protest organizers who made it clear that they didn’t want to “confuse” the message that
this is a family dispute among Israel-loyal Zionists.

Leaders of the Israeli protests say that they are fighting for democracy. But it is not possible to speak of democracy in any real sense inside an apartheid system. Under the defunct South African apartheid system only whites could vote, go to court, print newspapers, etc., but no one could credibly call apartheid South Africa a “democracy,” and no one today can credibly claim that Israel does not have an apartheid system. Apartheid is an international crime.

Fascists in office — greenlight to settler mobs

Netanyahu’s granting Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s key positions in the repressive state apparatus promises stepped-up aggression against the Palestinians. But it should not be forgotten that in 2022 under the outgoing “centrist” government, 220 Palestinians were killed, including 56 children, and thousands wounded and imprisoned. Settler gangs backed by the police and army carry out non-stop attacks on Palestinian farmers, villagers and supporters. In just 10 days in October 2002, over 100 settler attacks were recorded in the West Bank and 39 Palestinians killed in that month alone.

Given the green light by the new government, settlers and the military have stepped up their. aggression. On Jan. 27, an Israeli army attack on Jenin refugee camp left 11 Palestinians dead and more than 20 wounded. The next day saw massive protests across the West Bank and Gaza and an armed attack by a Palestinian on the illegal Israeli settlement of Neve Yaacov in Jerusalem, leaving seven dead and three wounded. The same night settlers carried out 144 reported attacks in the Nablus district of the West Bank alone.

Statements of sympathy and condemnation by President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other U.S. officials have exclusively focused on Israeli casualties. Blinken, visiting the region and clearly worried that the policies of the recently installed government could lead to a new mass upheaval destabilizing the region, issued the familiar appeals for “both sides” to reduce tensions. This seemingly even-handed appeal is nothing but a fraud.

The U.S. sends $4 billion annually in military aid to Israel while proclaiming, in Blinken’s words, an “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s “security.” No such aid or commitment is promised to the Palestinians. And though U.S. officials and other supporters never tire of promoting the idea that Israel
is “the only democracy in the Middle East,” most of the world is well aware that Israel is in fact an apartheid state.

Israel, despite its relatively small size, has one of the most powerful militaries in the world thanks to hundreds of billions in U.S. military aid over the decades. The Palestinians have no air force, navy or other elements of a modern military. When Israel bombs Gaza, the pilots don’t have to worry about air defenses — the Palestinians have none.

Last year, 29 Israeli’s were killed in conflict as compared to more than 220 Palestinians, but that is just part of story. While thousands of Palestinians were arrested by Israeli police, no Israelis were arrested by Palestinian police. No Israelis had their homes or farms destroyed as did thousands of Palestinians.

While more than 4,700 Palestinians are held illegally in Israeli prisons, exactly zero Israelis are held in Palestinian jails. Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to Israeli military code, while Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law. Numerous moderate human rights organizations, including some inside. Israel itself, have presented irrefutable evidence of the apartheid system.

Drawing an equal sign between “both sides,” as Blinke n did in his Jan. 30 speech is to draw an equal sign between the colonized and the colonizer, between the oppressed and the oppressor. The aim is to perpetuate the Big Lie that dominates both the U.S. and Israeli mainstream as the justification for the crucially important military aid and diplomatic protection the U.S. ruling establishment extends to Israel.

Why? No one should believe that this is due to sympathy or friendship for Jewish people. Friendship and imperialist foreign policy are mutually exclusive categories. Israel is an integral force in the U.S. plans for global domination, situated in a particularly strategic region, the crossroads of Europe, Africa and Asia.

The mask has been ripped off

That is what is so worrying to Israel’s backers. It is impossible to paint a government dominated by right-wing religious zealots and outright fascists as a “liberal democracy.” From day one of this administration, its leaders — starting with the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — have made clear their intention to annex as much territory as possible. The day before taking over Netanyahu issued a statement saying that the new government’s top priority is to “advance and develop settlement in all parts of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev Desert, the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria [West Bank-ed].” The Negev and Galilee are areas inside the 1948 borders of the Israeli state that have large Palestinian populations.

Netanyahu’s statement, underlined by the references to Negev and Galilee, is an open admission that the new government plans to accelerate the ethnic cleansing that began with the expulsion by means of terror of more than 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and 1949. Another 300,000 Palestinians were driven out during the 1967 war when the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were conquered.

While there was the pretext for a half-century of a “two-state solution” where the Palestinians would be granted a West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem state, this is hardly mentioned anymore except to placate the benefactors in Washington.

Today, the Israeli and Palestinian populations in what was the British Mandate (colony) of Palestine from 1920 to 1948 are almost the same, a little over seven million each. But that is where the similarity ends. The Israelis live in a highly modernized and highly militarized state. The Palestinians exist on broken up pieces of land under various forms of law, economy and governance, constantly under threat of military attack from the air, sea and land. Hundreds of thousands still live in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and inside occupied Palestine.

Despite all the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people over the past century and more, they have never given up their movement for self-determination and liberation. Nor will they do so today. While there is no predicting in advance how the struggle will unfold, it is clear that the situation is highly volatile now. The antiwar and all progressive movements must be on alert and continue to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their just struggle.

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.

***

For at least three decades Germany enjoyed an unprecedented period of energy security, one which made it possible for the Central European country to flourish, further dominating the old continent. It didn’t take long for this economic power to translate into political influence and help Berlin expand even further, particularly in Eastern Europe.

And yet, by late February 2022, Germany’s “dream economy” came to an abrupt end thanks to its suicidal sanctions against Russia, which haven’t only proven futile, but also quite self-harming. Berlin severely underestimated the importance of access to cheap Russian energy, particularly natural gas which helped power much (if not most) of its export-oriented economic strategy.

Perhaps the best summary of just how immensely profitable it was for Germany to do business with Russia was an analysis published back in August last year, authored by Zoltan Pozsar, a renowned economic and financial expert. In his thought-provoking report, Pozsar also presented a chart showing how “$2 trillion of German value depends on $20 billion of Russian gas”. The wording was carefully chosen and it isn’t there just to be amusing. Essentially, Germany was making approximately a hundred times greater profit thanks to cheap commodities, particularly Russian natural gas, to run its export-driven economy at bargain prices.

With this now gone for years or even decades to come, Germany’s “economic miracle” has effectively become yet another footnote in history books. According to a Reuters report, published on January 30, Allianz Trade presented a study that cited contract expiries and delayed wholesale pricing effects and found that German industry is set to pay approximately 40% more for energy in 2023 than in 2021, before the energy crisis triggered by the political West’s failed economic siege of Russia.

“The large energy-price shock still lies ahead for European corporates,” Allianz Trade (better known as Euler Hermes until last year) claims.

The report states that higher corporate utility bills last year were contained as long pass-through times from wholesale markets and government interventions mitigated the immediate hit from surging prices as Russia’s energy exports to the West were disrupted due to the imposition of self-defeating sanctions by the European Union.

The European Central Bank (ECB) stepped in to fund the resulting budget deficits, which effectively means that, despite the official stance and Russophobic posturing, it was directly funding Moscow’s massive financial build-up. However, Allianz Trade estimates that as the pass-throughs are ending, meaning the price increases will soon hit EU corporate profits by 1-1.5% and lead to lower investment, in Germany’s case this would amount to €25 billion (approximately $27 billion).

And while the report claims that German corporate finances are robust and that a state-imposed natural gas price cap allegedly might help, it’s extremely likely to make things much worse. This doesn’t only include the fact that it’s exceedingly difficult to physically replace Russian natural gas with a readily available (much less affordable) alternative, but is also simply impossible for certain EU members such as Hungary, which is landlocked and couldn’t rely on port terminals for seaborne LNG shipments.

To make matters worse, such alternatives are also at least five times more expensive than Russian natural gas, which is effectively destroying the EU’s already dwindling industrial competitiveness on the global markets. Many EU officials have already expressed their frustration with the US due to this, with some high-ranking leaders in Brussels accusing Washington DC of profiteering at the expense of the increasingly troubled bloc.

Although the report insists that fears of crisis leading to deindustrialization and loss of competitiveness against the United States were overdone due to labor costs and exchange rates having a higher impact on manufacturing than energy prices, the same is not true in regard to other countries around the world. The exporters are losing market shares in areas such as agriculture, machinery, electrical equipment, metals, transport, etc. and the main beneficiaries tend to be Asian, Middle Eastern and African companies, not American ones, the report admits.

This effectively means that EU corporations will not only lose their global market share, but could also eventually start losing it in Europe itself, as the already high manufacturing costs in the EU will be even higher due to surging energy costs, which are affecting both citizens and companies.

On Saturday, the economy ministry stated that the German government’s one-time subsidy to help private households and small businesses with gas prices – the first stage of a package that will be complemented with retroactive price caps kicking in in March – has cost €4.3 billion so far. Germany has earmarked €12 billion for this purpose, but the government states that the €4.3 billion is not the final cost as many eligible companies are yet to apply. With the end of February being the deadline, they have exactly a month to do so.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence

Between 50% and 86% of COVID patients placed on life support ended up dying

By May 2020, doctors had also found that high-flow nasal cannulas and proning led to better outcomes than ventilators

The World Health Organization promoted the use of ventilators as a way to purportedly curtail the spread of virus-laden aerosols, thereby protecting other patients and hospital staff. In other words, suspected COVID patients were sacrificed to “protect” others

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID and put them on a vent

*

By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.¹ As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported² that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.

The Associated Press³ also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.⁴

The lowest figure I’ve seen is 50%.⁵ So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died. Compare that to historical prepandemic ratios, where 30% to 40% of ventilated patients died.

High-Flow Cannulas and Proning Were Always More Effective

Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported⁶ getting “truly remarkable” results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in a press release:⁷

“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.

A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …

‘Avoiding intubation is key,’ [UChicago Medicine’s Emergency Department’s medical director Dr. Thomas] Spiegel said. ‘Most of our colleagues around the city are not doing this, but I sure wish other ERs would take a look at this technique closely.'”

The UChicago team also endorsed proning, meaning lying in the face-down position, which automatically improves oxygenation and helps alleviate shortness of breath.

Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be?

How China and the WHO Created Ventilator Hysteria

In a September 30, 2020, Substack article,⁸ journalist Jordan Schachtel described how China and the World Health Organization came up with and nurtured the idea that mechanical ventilation was the correct and necessary first-line response to COVID:

“In early March, when COVID-19 was ravaging western Europe and sounding alarm bells in the United States, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance⁹ documents to healthcare workers.

Citing experience ‘based on current knowledge of the situation in China,’ the WHO recommended mechanical ventilators as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. The guidance recommended¹⁰ escalating quickly, if not immediately, to mechanical ventilation.

In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese medical journals, which published papers in January and February claiming that ‘Chinese expert consensus’ called for ‘invasive mechanical ventilation’ as the ‘first choice’ for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress.

The WHO further justified this approach by claiming that the less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of aerosols, potentially infecting health care workers with the virus.”

That last paragraph is perhaps the most shocking reason for why millions of COVID patients were sacrificed. They wanted to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine rather than risk aerosol transmission.

In other words, they put patients to death in order to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. If you missed this news back in 2020, you’re not alone. In the flurry of daily reporting, it escaped many of us. Here’s the description given in the WHO’s guidance document.

Strangely enough, while the U.S. quickly began clamoring for ventilators, China started relying on them less, and instead exported them in huge quantities. As noted by Schachtel, “China was making a fortune off of manufacturing and exporting ventilators (many of which did not work correctly and even killed patients¹¹) around the world.”

COVID Patients Effectively Euthanized

That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was also highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,¹² which noted:

“Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19 …

Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.

Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said ‘That felt awful.'”

As noted in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,¹³ in which James Lyons-Weiler revisits the ventilator issue and the shocking reason behind it, “euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.”

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing.

They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they actually had it or not — and to put them on a vent.

Frontline Nurse Blew the Whistle on Vent Misuse

Some of you may remember Erin Olszewski, a retired Army sergeant and frontline nurse who blew the whistle on the horrific mistreatment of COVID patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York, which was “the epicenter of the epicenter” of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

She described¹⁴ a number of problems at Elmhurst, including the disproportionate mortality rate among people of color, the controversial rule surrounding Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, lax personal protective equipment (PPE) standards, and the failure to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among noninfected patients coming in with other health problems.

Olszewski also highlighted the fact that COVID-negative patients were being listed as confirmed positive and placed on mechanical ventilation, thus artificially inflating the numbers while more or less condemning the patient to death from lung injury.

Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients were not trained in critical care. One of the “doctors” on the COVID floor was a dentist. Residents (medical students) were also relied on, even though they were not properly trained in how to safely ventilate, and were unfamiliar with the potent drugs used.

At the time, Olszewski blamed financial incentives for turning the hospital into a killing field. Elmhurst, a public hospital, received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments, she said.

If Elmhurst had infection control in mind when ventilating patients, they certainly didn’t follow through, as COVID-positive and negative patients were comingled — a strategy Olszewski suspected was intended to drive up the COVID case and mortality numbers.

Killing for Profit

Others have also highlighted the role of financial incentives. In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:¹⁵

“Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.”

Former CDC director Robert Redfield also admitted that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported August 1, 2020, by the Washington Examiner:¹⁶

“… Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths … ‘I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too.

Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement,’ Redfield said¹⁷ during a House panel hearing … when asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer about potential ‘perverse incentives.’ Redfield continued: ‘So, I do think there’s some reality to that …”

In addition to receiving exorbitant payments for COVID admissions and putting patients on a ventilator, hospitals are also paid extra for:¹⁸

• COVID testing for all patients
• COVID diagnoses
• Use of remdesivir
• COVID deaths

When everything is said and done, a COVID patient can be “worth” as much as $250,000, but for the maximum payment, they have to leave in a body bag. If we know anything, it’s that profit motives can make people commit atrocious acts, and that certainly appears true when it comes to COVID treatment.

In the U.S., hospitals also LOST federal funding if they failed or refused to administer remdesivir and/or ventilation, which further incentivized them to go along with what amounts to malpractice at best, and murder at worst.

Patient Rights Have Evaporated

There’s also evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. As noted by Citizens Journal in December 2021:¹⁹

“We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.

Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.

Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”

There Must Be a Reckoning

There’s no telling how many COVID patients have already lost their lives to this medical malpractice, and it must stop. Patient rights must be reestablished and be irrevocable, we need to hold decision-makers to account, and lastly, we have to somehow ensure that our hospitals cannot be turned into killing fields for profit ever again. As noted by Lyons-Weiler in his January 2023 article:²⁰

“We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences — and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another — under threat of a murder charge.

We need legislation for ‘on-demand’ scripts for off-label medicines that patients want for potentially deadly infections — regardless of ‘FDA Approval’ (FDA does not, by definition, have to ‘approve’ off-label scripts.”

COVID Treatment Guidance

While SARS-CoV-2 has become milder with each iteration, I still believe it’s a good idea to treat suspected COVID at first signs of symptoms — especially if you’ve gotten the COVID jab. COVID hospitalization and death are now “pandemics of the vaccinated,” to reuse and rephrase one of the globalist cabal’s favorite mantras.

Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the latest COVID variant. Either way, since they’re now virtually indistinguishable, at least in the early stages of infection, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID. Treatment for long-COVID also overlaps with the protocols for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:

• The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC’s) prevention and early at-home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can find a listing of doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website.
• The AAPS protocol
• Dr. Tess Lawrie’s World Council for Health protocol
• America’s Frontline Doctors

Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

*

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.

Notes

¹ Medscape April 6, 2020

² Business Insider April 9, 2020

³ The Associated Press April 8, 2020

^4, 18, 19 Citizens Journal December 20, 2021

^5, 12 Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020

^6, 7 Newswise April 23, 2020

⁸ The Dossier Substack September 30, 2020

⁹ WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19

¹⁰ WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID

¹¹ NBC News April 30, 2020

^13, 20 Substack Popular Rationalism January 23, 2023

¹⁴ YouTube Perspectives on the Pandemic 2020

¹⁵ Fox News April 9, 2020

¹⁶ Washington Examiner August 1, 2020

¹⁷ Breitbart July 31, 2020

Featured image is from Mercola

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

Apparently, being in favor of peace in Europe is reason enough for the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime to threaten someone’s life. After criticizing the German Foreign Minister’s irresponsible pro-war remarks and emphasizing the importance of peace with Russia for European stability, Croatian President Zoran Milanovich has been added to Myrotvorets, the Ukrainian government’s public kill-list. The case shows how the Ukrainian regime deals with its own international “allies” – since Croatia is a member of NATO and the EU.

Croatian President Milanovich “disappointed” Ukrainian and Western leaders with his realistic statements. He has long asserted that Moscow is an important point for European stability and supported talks that take Russian interests into account. Recently, he criticized Annalena Baerbock’s pro-war statements, saying:

“The German foreign minister says we must be united, because I quote, we are at war with Russia. I didn’t know that, Maybe Germany is at war with Russia, but then, good luck. Maybe this time it turns out better than 70-odd years ago. If we are at war with Russia, then let’s see what we need to do. But we won’t ask Germany for its opinion”.

In the last week of January, Milanovich’s name appeared on the website of the “Myrotvorets” group, in the “list” section, which is intended to expose the data of the people the Kiev regime wants to kill. The site also informs the groups that helped it to obtain the data of the listed. The information is provided by various intelligence agencies, both Ukrainian and Western ones, including American institutions such as the CIA and FBI. In the case of Milanovich, this was provided by Ukraine’s GRU.

“Myrotvorets” (ironically, the word “peacemaker” in Ukrainian) is formally a Ukrainian NGO, but which, in practice, acts as a state department. The group collects data from people considered enemies by the government and indexes it on a large online platform. On its website which is hosted on a NATO’s server, Myrotvorets defines itself as a “Center for Research of Signs of Crimes against the National Security of Ukraine, Peace, Humanity, and the International Law”, which provides “information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists, separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers”.

What makes the site extremely dangerous is not merely listing people who supposedly “should die”, but the fact that the Kiev regime actually uses the information given by the organization to persecute and kill those listed. Murders such as that of Daria Dugina, who was included on the site, show that Kiev is really trying to fulfill the objective of eliminating all those who are identified by Myrotvorets as “criminals”. Also, when a listed person dies, the site updates its section by putting the word “liquidated” in the victim’s name.

It is also necessary to emphasize that, in addition to politicians, diplomats, military and journalists, according to research recently made by Russian officials, more than 300 children from Donbass are included in the list. Many formal requests have already been made by Russians and foreigners for the site to be disabled, but no action has been taken so far.

In justifying Milanovich’s inclusion on the death list, Myrotvorets exposes: “2.02.2022. ‘There is no European or EU stability without Russia’, said Croatian President Zoran Milanović, adding that ‘Russia is a factor in that equation, and we should have an agreement with Russia’. Milanović accused the UK of ‘inciting’ and believes that pushing Ukraine towards the confrontation with Russia is ‘irresponsible’. Asked why he did not meet the UK’s Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, who was in Zagreb, the Croatian president, told journalists he does not meet with defense ministers”.

As we can see, the statement to justify the addition is old. In fact, this is not the first time the President appears on the list. He had already been included in early 2022, when he criticized UK’s anti-Russian provocations. But apparently his name was hidden in recent months, having now reappeared due to his criticism of Baerbock.

The site constantly updates its kill-list, deactivating and reactivating files, according to the frequency of “pro-Russian” statements made by those listed. For example, the head of Twitter Elon Musk was even included in the list after defending peace negotiations with Russia, and was subsequently hidden. In this sense, Milanovich’s defense criticism against Baerbock seems to be the reason for his “re-addition”.

Indeed, it remains to be seen what the position of the EU and NATO will be in the face of the fact that the leader of a member country of both organizations is being threatened with death by a non-member state. In theory, the West should protect Milanovich and even engage in preventive intelligence operation to stop Kiev from trying anything. But, in reality, both organizations are more likely to ignore the topic and continue to support the neo-Nazi regime, despite all its crimes.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

The War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project Post-Marketing Group (Team 1) – Barbara Gehrett, MD; Joseph Gehrett, MD; Chris Flowers, MD; and Loree Britt – produced a shocking review of the paediatric data found in

[Confidential[Pfizer document [released under FOI in October 2021] entitled: 

5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021 (a.k.a., “5.3.6“).

It is important to note

1) that the adverse events (AEs) in the 5.3.6 document were reported to Pfizer for only a 90-day period starting on December 1, 2020, the date of the United Kingdom’s public rollout of Pfizer’s COVID-19 experimental mRNA “vaccine” product and

2) no pediatric dose of the Pfizer product was approved for use during that time frame.

What dose(s) of Pfizer’s mRNA “vaccine” was given to these children since no approved dose existed?

Important points from this report include:

• A seven-year-old experienced a stroke.
• One child and one infant suffered facial paralysis.
• One infant had a kidney adverse event, either kidney injury or failure.
• Of the 34 cases, 24 (71%) were classified as serious.
• Predominantly female patients were affected — at least 25 of 34 (73.5%) patients.
• Table 6 reports 34 cases of use in pediatric individuals. However, 28 additional cases were excluded because details such as height and weight were “not consistent with pediatric subjects.”
• Ages ranged from two months to nine years, with median 4.0 years, which means half the children were under four years of age.
• 132 adverse events were reported in the 34 children – i.e., an average of 3.88 AEs per child.

Shockingly, Pfizer concluded:

“No new significant safety information was identified based on a review of these cases compared with the non-paediatric population.”

Please read the disturbing, two-page report by the Post-Marketing Group (Team 1) here.

*

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.

Featured image is from The Expose

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

Bill Gates has warned that the next pandemic will be worse than COVID-19 and it’ll also be “man-made.” The Microsoft co-founder said that the next one will be “much more brutal” than the mild cold symptoms experienced with the coronavirus.

Gates told the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney on Monday that the ruling class needs to set aside their “differences “and work together to control the public to prepare for the next virus. He called for greater global cooperation using the Covid-19 pandemic as an example of how countries could improve their stranglehold on humanity and the slave class.

According to The Daily Mail UK, Gates wants the world to model Australia’s totalitarian control and psyop that had people willingly bowing to masters and voluntarily giving up their inalienable rights. “Compare the economic cost of being prepared for the next one to the cost of this one, over $US10 trillion economic loss,” he said.  “With the pandemic, we were foolish not to have the tools, the practice, and global capacity to be on standby like we do with fire or earthquakes.”

Gates praised Australia’s policies in helping to keep infection rates low before vaccines were rolled out. “Some of the things that stand out are that Australia and about seven other countries did population scale diagnostics early on and had quarantine policies,” he said.

Total control over the population means that COVID doesn’t spread, apparently. “That meant you kept the level of infection low in that first year when there were no vaccines.”

“The one thing that still hangs in the balance is will we have the global capacity and at the regional and country levels that would mean that when an (infectious disease) threat comes up we act in such a way that it doesn’t go global,” Gates said. “We need to be doing every five years a comprehensive exercise at both country and regional levels of pandemic preparedness and you need a global group that’s scoring everybody.”

Gates added that he thinks China’s obvious slave system is good. “I see China’s rise as a huge win for the world … the current mentality of the US to China, and which is reciprocated, is kind of a lose-lose mentality.” That means he thinks total control, and worse slavery than we are living under now will be a “win”. But for whom? Certainly to those in slave class.

*

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.

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

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.

***

President Biden’s green new world of more electric vehicles on US highways might result in increasing lithium fires — if that’s because of a crash or perhaps a ‘spontaneous’ battery fire.

The latest incident occurred on Saturday when a Model S “spontaneously” burst into flames on a California freeway.

On Saturday, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District tweeted footage of a Tesla Model S engulfed in flames.

Crews arrived to a Tesla Model S engulfed in flames, nothing unusual prior. 2 Fire Engines, a water tender, and a ladder truck were requested to assist. Crews used jacks to access the underside to extinguish and cool the battery. Thousands of gallons were used in extinguishment. pic.twitter.com/5dIXxo9hP5

— Metro Fire of Sacramento (@metrofirepio) January 29, 2023

“The fire was extinguished with approx 6,000 gallons of water, as the battery cells continued to combust,” the fire department said.

The vehicle battery compartment spontaneously caught fire while it was traveling freeway speeds on EB Hwy 50. The fire was extinguished with approx 6,000 gallons of water, as the battery cells continued to combust. Thankfully no injuries were reported. pic.twitter.com/PRmlWzQdXS

— Metro Fire of Sacramento (@metrofirepio) January 29, 2023

Several years ago, we pointed out one Tesla fire took at least 20 tons of water to extinguish. For some context, it only takes 3 tons of water to put out a gasoline car fire.

Traditional fire extinguishers, such as foam and water, are ineffective at extinguishing lithium fires. A class-D dry powder extinguisher is certified for combating battery fires, though many fire departments across the country are not prepared to fight battery fires.

Tesla states in a firefighting manual that “large amounts of water” are needed to extinguish a car battery fire. It even said these fires could last as long as 24 hours.

Someone might need to explain to Biden and his administration that the shift to EVs isn’t as ‘ESG-friendly’ as it’s perceived to be.

*

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.

Featured image is from Metro Fire of Sacramento

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.

***

Lawyers representing anti-arms campaigners told the High Court on Tuesday it was “absurd” that former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss resumed arms sales to Saudi Arabia amid concerns that Riyadh had committed war crimes in Yemen.  

The comments came as a judicial review brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and Mwatana for Human Rights, challenging the UK’s continued licensing of arms sales to Riyadh despite those concerns, opened in the court.

Ben Jaffey, who represents CAAT, said emails obtained by his legal team showed that civil servants working at the Export Control Joint Unit had raised concerns with the Ministry of Defence over the sale, despite Truss stating that there was no pattern of Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

He added that Truss had made her decision despite the MoD actively tracking at least 528 alleged breaches of International Humanitarian Law in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition.

“[The emails] are quite revealing and lay bare a logical flaw in how Britain resumed arms sales to Riyadh,” said Jaffey.

“No attempt was made even to make an assessment of some of the most grave allegations [by Saudi Arabia] as an entire category of attacks [by helicopters] was excluded from the UK government’s analysis.”

Jaffey also said that the pattern of attacks perpetrated by the Saudi-led coalition showed it was “unwilling to follow their own rules of engagement” in Yemen.

According to Oxfam, the UK has licensed at least £7.9bn ($9.6bn) in arms to Saudi Arabia across 547 licences since 2015, including Tornado and Typhoon aircraft and bombs.

CAAT says the true value of arms sales could be more than £23bn (around $28bn) when additional “open licensees” are taken into account.

A previous court challenge by CAAT in 2019 forced the UK government to suspend arms sales. But after an internal review, sales resumed in 2021 on the basis that the breaches of humanitarian law were “isolated incidents”.

The UK government has recently refused to release information in response to FOIs filed by Middle East Eye about arms sales to Saudi Arabia, following the coalition’s 2016 bombing of a crowded funeral hall in Sanaa, one of the deadliest of the war.

The Department of International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office both cited a section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which exempts the release of documents when more than 24 hours of staff time – valued at £600 ($742) – would be required to retrieve them.

MEE has filed a new, narrowed FOI request with DIT based on suggestions it provided when rejecting the original request. A response is expected by the end of February.

*

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.

Featured image: Anti-arms campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice as a judicial review into arms sales to Saudi Arabia begins (Source: MEE)

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.

***

President Kennedy had a unique ability that Pentagon generals did not have. He was able to analyze an international crisis by placing himself in the shoes of his adversary in an attempt to understand his adversary’s motives. Doing that enabled him to figure a way out of the crisis that did not involve war. The response of the generals and the Pentagon was always the same: invade, bomb, kill, and destroy.

Today’s generals are no different from their counterparts back in the early 1960s. They are unable to step into the shoes of Russian officials and try to figure out a resolution of the crisis in Ukraine. Instead, their answer is bombs, missiles, death, destruction and, now, tanks. They are simply not mentally equipped to do what Kennedy did. 

Understanding how Kennedy resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis goes a long way toward understanding what motivated the Russians to invade Ukraine. 

In 1962, Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. With the full support of the Pentagon, Kennedy decided that he could not let that happen. There was no way that U.S. officials were going to permit the Russians to install nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from only 90 miles away.

And yet, the Soviets had every right in the world to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, so long as it was done with the consent of the Cuban regime. After all, even though the Pentagon and the CIA considered Cuba to be a de facto U.S. colony, Cuba was, in fact, an independent and sovereign country. If it wanted Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, it had the right to invite the Soviets to install them there.

Nonetheless, both Kennedy and the Pentagon decided that they would not permit Russia’s nuclear missiles to remain in Cuba. Why? Because they simply did not want nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. from only 90 miles away. They considered such missiles to a grave threat to U.S. “national security.”

Reflecting how important this principle was to Kennedy, he was even willing to go to nuclear war against Russia to prevent those Russian missiles from being stationed in Cuba. In fact, what is not widely recognized is that Kennedy actually did initiate war against the Soviets. That was when he ordered a military blockade against Soviet ships carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Fortunately, the Soviets did not respond with retaliatory war measures.

Yet, Kennedy’s blockade was met with severe disapproval from the generals. It was considered to be too weak. One member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared Kennedy’s blockade to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. With their one-track mind, the generals were pressuring Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba. Their insistence on pressuring Kennedy to take an action that would almost certainly result in nuclear war reflected how strongly they felt about not having Russian missiles so close to America’s border.

Thus, if Kennedy were president today, he wouldn’t need to ask why the Russians felt the same way about having U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in Ukraine, which shares a border with Russia. He would understand that their sentiments would be no different from the sentiments of Kennedy and the Pentagon with respect to Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba.

But there was another factor that Kennedy considered when he stepped into the shoes of the Russians in an attempt to understand the crisis and arrive at a mutually agreeable peaceful resolution of it. Ever since Kennedy became president, both the CIA and the Pentagon were hell-bent on achieving regime change in Cuba. That’s what the CIA’s invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs in 1961 was all about. After it failed, the Pentagon began incessantly pressuring Kennedy to initiate a full-scale military invasion of the island. The Pentagon even came up with a fraudulent false-flag operation named Operation Northwoods to provide Kennedy with an excuse to invade Cuba. To his everlasting credit, Kennedy rejected it.

Kennedy figured out that the reason the Cubans wanted those nuclear weapons was to deter the Pentagon and the CIA from invading Cuba again. If the deterrence failed, Cuban officials wanted the nuclear weapons as a way to fight back against a vastly more powerful army.

What mainstream journalists and commentators fail to realize is that in the long state of hostilities between the United States and Cuba, it has always been the United States  — specifically the Pentagon and the CIA — that has been the aggressor. Given such, Cuba had every right in the world to defend itself from what Martin Luther King described as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

When Kennedy came to the realization that it was the obsessive quest of the Pentagon and the CIA to invade Cuba that had provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, he figured a way out of the crisis. He simply promised Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that he would never permit the Pentagon and the CIA to bomb or invade Cuba again. His promise worked. The Soviets removed their nuclear missiles from Cuba and took them home.

Except for one thing. At the last minute, Khrushchev asked Kennedy to remove U.S. nuclear missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviet Union. Yes, you read that right. While it was opposing Soviet missiles in Cuba that were pointed at the United States, the Pentagon had its nuclear missiles in Turkey that were pointed at Russia.

Kennedy understood Khrushchev’s point, and he agreed with it. He promised the Russian leader that he would remove the nuclear missiles in Turkey within six months.

Needless to say, most Americans were relieved and pleased with Kennedy’s resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not so, however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were livid. Kennedy had effectively left Cuba permanently in communist control, something that the Pentagon considered to be a grave threat to “national security.” As I point out in my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the JCS considered Kennedy’s resolution of the crisis to be the biggest defeat in U.S. history. They considered Kennedy to be a “weak sister” when it came to confronting the communists. They considered him to be a coward and, even worse, a traitor for making nice with Russia.

What would Kennedy have done with Ukraine if he had been president? He would never have allowed the Pentagon to use NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact. He would have also recognized that Russia’s reaction to U.S. nuclear missiles in Ukraine would have been the same as the U.S. reaction to Russian missiles in Cuba. He would have understood that their reaction to having U.S. nuclear missiles in Ukraine would be no different from their reaction to having those U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. In fact, there is no doubt that Kennedy would have recognized that NATO was a Cold War dinosaur that needed to be put down, especially given the end of the Cold War.

Where is President Biden in all this? Needless to say, Biden, unfortunately, is no John Kennedy.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

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.

***

The US-led West’s Mainstream Media is predictably silent and appears to be deliberately ignoring this “politically inconvenient” report. Drawing attention to it would erode the public’s confidence in their perception managers who told them over the past year that all war crimes accusations against Kiev are supposedly just so-called “Russian propaganda”.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is widely regarded in the US-led West’s Golden Billion as among the world’s most reliable authorities for documenting alleged violations of people’s human rights. It doesn’t matter that their reports are usually weaponized by that same de facto New Cold War bloc for Hybrid War ends since most of their population remains unaware of this reality. Instead, they believe everything that HRW says, which now places the Golden Billion in a narrative dilemma after that group’s latest report.

Titled “Ukraine: Banned Landmines Harm Civilians”, HRW extensively documented the widespread use of so-called “butterfly mines” around Izium during the that Russia controlled that city from April to September. This NGO also quoted an unnamed Ukrainian deminer who told them that “They are everywhere”, which is why such professionals assessed that “it could take decades to clear the area of landmines” after Kiev recklessly scattered countless numbers of them all across Northeastern Ukraine.

The US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) is predictably silent and appears to be deliberately ignoring this “politically inconvenient” report. Drawing attention to it would erode the public’s confidence in their perception managers who told them over the past year that all war crimes accusations against Kiev are supposedly just so-called “Russian propaganda”. HRW’s reputation in the public psyche is so deeply ingrained that they also can’t smear them as “Russian propagandists” either.

Nevertheless, the SBU’s fascist troll network will still likely attack them as such on social media exactly as they did Amnesty International after it proved last August that Kiev was illegally militarizing residential areas and thus exploiting civilians there as de facto human shields to deter Russian strikes. Cynically speaking, it would actually be beneficial for Russia’s soft power interests if they do so since this network’s aggressive attacks inadvertently discredit their side in the eyes of the general public.

Regardless of whether or not those trolls ridiculously claim that HRW is supposedly a “Russian propaganda front” or whatever, the average Westerner who becomes aware of their latest report will likely begin to reconsider a lot of what they’ve previously been told about the Ukrainian Conflict. After all, this latest development coincides with the “official narrative” about NATO’s proxy war on Russia through that former Soviet Republic decisively shifting in recent weeks.

American and Polish officials led the way in flipping everything upside-down by nowadays warning that Kiev might likely lose after 11 months of falsely claiming that its victory was supposedly “inevitable”. On the same day that HRW’s report dropped, the New York Times informed their audience that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure after citing experts and the IMF who both agree that this targeted multipolar Great Power’s economy has recovered to its pre-special operation level.

Considering this newfound narrative context, those Westerners who come across the HRW’s latest report will thus likely wonder what’s going on after unexpectedly being barraged with claims that Kiev will likely lose, the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed, and Ukraine is committing war crimes against its own people. It’s unrealistic to expect an average person not to react in that aforementioned way since their intuition will naturally tell them that something is very wrong.

Most of them might not put everything together and realize that the Western narrative about the Ukrainian Conflict is built on nothing but lies, but the majority might finally begin countenancing that possibility. The three narrative bases upon which Western support for Kiev is built have just been discredited since it’s no longer “inevitable” that Ukraine will win, Russia’s economy hasn’t collapsed, and the side that their de facto New Cold War bloc backs is committing war crimes against its own people.

In hindsight, the West’s perception managers should never have spun everything the way they did by falsely presenting Kiev’s victory as “inevitable”, assuring everyone that Russia’s economy had supposedly already collapsed, and framing Ukraine as an innocent lamb that can do no wrong. This combination of narratives could never be indefinitely maintained since the facts were always going to discredit it with time, hence why the decision was just made to decisively shift the “official narrative”.

This selfsame shift, however, is narratively dangerous for the Golden Billion since it’s so abrupt and literally the complete opposite of everything that the average Westerner was hitherto told. An uncertain number of their targeted audience will thus certainly realize that everything that their perception managers told them up until this point was a lie while the majority will become much more susceptible to that thought. HRW’s report will thus aid in their awakening, and more such related reports will follow.

*

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

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

Qatar has been into the spotlight largely due to it having hosted the Fifa Football Cup in 2022. Western notions regarding LGBT and gender rights motivated a lot of media and activism criticism against the nation. Now, Qatar is once again a hot topic in Europe because of the so-called Qatargate. It is, in short, about European authorities having received gifts from Qatari authorities in what has been denounced as a kind of bribery. In December Eva Kaili, a European Parliament vice president was arrested over such charges, and three others are being investigated.

Much has been talked about the scandal, and Ursula von der Leyen herself, European Commission President, has even stated that it undermines trust in European institutions. Similarly, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has talked about European credibility being on the line. Such a statement, Caroline de Gruyter (a Foreign Policy correspondent) argues, could be premature.

One should keep in mind that, so far, there is not enough evidence linking any European institution – other than the European Parliament – to the so-called Qatargate. There are however, according to some media stories, in Germany, for example, suspicions about the problem that goes beyond European Union institutions and beyond Qatar itself, as the supposed role of Morocco is also being investigated.

In 2021, Qatar played an important role in trying to mediate between Saudi Arabia and its rival Iran. The same year, a landmark “solidarity and stability” agreement was signed between Qatar on one hand, and the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain on the other, thus re-establishing full diplomatic relations with Doha and ending a three-year-old Gulf crisis and blockade on Qatar. Ever since, its diplomatic soft power has been increasing in the region and beyond.

The small Gulf nation has one of the world’s largest sovereign funds and it seeks to use its wealth to secure geopolitical influence and protection. In doing so, the Qatari authorities in Doha are not alone: other Gulf states employ similar policies.

Washington’s Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft lobby expert Ben Freeman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not part of the 10 largest spenders at lobbying firms in Washington DC.

In 2017, de Gruyter reminds us, both the UAE and Saudi Arabia heavily boycotted Qatar. In response, the country, in the US alone, quadrupled its lobbying budget and, similarly, also has been sponsoring media companies, think thanks and so on in Europe. Doha has also invested heavily in paying 440,000 pounds’ worth of trips to UK law-makers over the last decade.

Bilateral relations between Doha and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) have improved, but those between the former and the UAE are still far from good.

Belgian authorities have so far charged four people linked to the European Parliament over corruption accusations regarding Qatari gifts supposedly aimed at influencing decision-making. Pertaining to this investigation, Qatari authorities deny having done anything illegal – the cultural institution of wasta (involving favors and gifts) clashes with Western notions of corruption. While there must be mechanisms to avoid decision-makers being seduced by expensive gifts or “bought off”, a very strict Western understanding of corruption in such matters can potentially hamper intercultural dialogue and diplomatic understanding with such Arab nations, thus also hampering trade.

In December 2022, the European Parliament suspended all work on legislation pertaining to Qatar. The country’s representatives have been barred from accessing the Parliament’s premises. A statement from Doha’s mission to the EU said “preconceived prejudices” were behind this suspension, which affects an EU-Qatar aviation agreement and legislation related to visa liberalization, among other things. The diplomatic statement described it as “discriminatory restriction” and added that no effort had been made to engage with Qatar’s government in order to establish the facts.

The timing is not so good: the Gulf nation, which is a major liquified natural gas (LNG) exporter, was a vital piece in the European plans for coping with its energy crisis. In October 2022, Qatari energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned that by 2023 Europe is to face a tougher crisis, with the depletion of its gas reserves – a situation which can extend itself even up to 2025.

So far, the overall imports of LNG from Qatar are just about 5 percent of the European bloc gas imports, according to European Commission data. However, Doha has two ongoing megaprojects, due to be completed by 2027, which are expected to make its LNG production capacity grow tremendously. In November 2022, Berlin signed a 15-year gas contract with US company ConocoPhillips plus QatarEnergy, which is state-owned, to ensure at least 2 million metric tons of LNG annually, starting from 2026. Italy and several other European countries are eyeing Qatar too, according to  Cinzia Bianco, a European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) research fellow on the Gulf.

Pragmatically speaking, energy security is usually considered to be more important than Western discourses on human rights and such a corruption scandal. This is why Belgian MEP Marc Tarabella’s  lawyer claimed his client’s change of discourse on Qatar could be explained by “realpolitik” – not corruption

In post-Nord Stream Europe, amid an economic, financial and energy crisis, Europeans today suffer the consequences of anti-Russian sanctions which have backfired and also of an American subsidy and trade war waged against their companies. In this context, Europe has sought to further enhance its trade and energy ties with countries such as Qatar and Morocco (which competes with Algeria).

Much has been talked about the need for stricter European anti-corruption pieces of legislation. The exact role and the acceptable boundaries of lobbying must also be discussed. The problem however is much deeper, and even Qatar itself and other countries cannot provide an easy alternative to Europe’s woes, as shown, for example, by this latest scandal, and by Algerian-Moroccan problems.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

A higher percentage of eligible voters regularly show up to the polls in Mexico, Brazil, and Slovakia than in the world’s pre-eminent and oldest democracy.

The two parties that, in reality, constitute a uniparty duopoly bend over backward to cater to their respective pet voting blocs (racial minorities for Democrats and Evangelicals for Republicans, for instance).  But those demographics pale in comparison to the volume of non-voters.

The 2020 presidential election was a banner year for participatory democracy.  It turned out a record number of voters (most of them presumably legal, eligible ones), amounting to 62% of the electorate.  That’s the best it gets participation-wise in the US.  The 2022 midterms produced about a 47% turnout.

George Carlin, whom I revere, did a whole hilarious bit in which he blamed the slovenly public for producing terrible politicians, citing the ignorant American population as the reason electoral politics is pointless.

Some percentage of the non-voting population is certainly apathetic or disinterested in politics.  And they deserve a share of the blame for the sorry state of affairs, for sure.

Yes, some contingent of the population will always be checked out of participatory politics because they simply can’t be bothered to engage in civic pursuits.  But a minimum of 38% — on the best of years — of the entire eligible voting public each election cycle?  Are they all useless, ignorant slobs who don’t appreciate the precious, hard earned right to self-government?

Or is there something more intrinsic to the U.S. political system that dissuades them?

The majority of non-voters are independents who do not identify with either party.  Most have no higher than a high school education and also make less than $40K/year.  In other words, they’re people don’t belong to the permanent D.C. political class and don’t see their interests represented there.

Less than 30% of Americans approve of the American two-party system.  Lots of non-voters, like one interviewed by NPR, don’t feel like voting matters at all: “I feel like my voice doesn’t matter[.]  People who suck still are in office, so it doesn’t make a difference.”

Can the political system be reformed to counteract this widespread perception that participation is pointless?  Here are potential remedies to the real or imagined disincentives for non-voters to participate in the Great American Experiment:

• Break the two-party duopoly.  The American Conservative published a thorough article on how to accomplish this.
• Term limits.  The McCarthy refuseniks actually pushed for a vote on this issue as a precondition to elect the new House speaker.
• Spotlight the corruption.  Require politicians to wear an insignia on their $1,000 suits for every corporation that has funneled money into their campaign, directly or indirectly, like NASCAR drivers.  Voters should know whether they’re supporting a human being or a mindless corporate robot.
• Transparency. Declassify all the documents currently hidden from the public that do not have a legitimate national security justification to remain classified, as determined by some truly independent panel empowered to make such judgment calls.  By the government’s own admission, up to 90% of these documents would not adversely affect national security if they were released. Their status as classified does not serve “national security”; it keeps the Deep State’s dirty secrets hidden from those of us who pay for their dirty deeds to be performed in our name.  JFK expressed the essence of this wild notion, and he was rewarded with a bullet in the head.

Of course, reform might a pipe dream.  The swamp is so deep at this point that the only true remedy may be to drain it all and start over.

*

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

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.  Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter.  Bitcoin public address:bc1qvq4hgnx3eu09e0m2kk5uanxnm8ljfmpefwhawv.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Tom Arthur via Wikimedia Commons, 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.

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.

***

Slowly, against their will, and against their natural inclination to watch football and eat pizza, Americans are awaking to the reality of a totalitarian system with its tentacles wrapped around every aspect of their existence. Sadly, the true nature of this tyranny still eludes the understanding of most citizens, in part because the process by which America was transformed utterly has been slow, in part because the commercial media points us away from the true causes of this slippage and pins all blame on easily identifiable bad guys.

Those seeped in the progressive political tradition sensed a radical loss of justice and transparency under the George W. Bush administration, a trend that only accelerated under the Trump administration—with a perceived reprieve under Obama and the possibility of a positive turn under Biden.

Those marinated in the juices of conservative politics observed an end of freedom and the spread of socialist, or “leftist,” ideology that oppresses the citizen under Clinton and Obama.

Both interpretive communities refer to the same social and political trends, to the war on freedom that renders us up as sacrificial lambs to the cruel gods of global capital. The rhetoric employed by the two groups is so radically different, however, and the histories of the United States that they embrace are so divergent, that they are lost in intense ideological conflicts even as they describe the same creeping totalitarianism.

That conflict is no accident. That ideological battle over the insignificant is just what the doctor ordered for the interests of high finance. Or as J. P. Morgan put it,

“By dividing the people, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

The super-rich already had their consultants come up with detailed studies on how to divide up citizens by religion, by ethnic identity, by cultural signifiers, and by class so that they are incapable of unity even in the face of the complete takeover of the economy, the media, education and the political process.

Progressives refer to the supporters of Trump in rural areas as “stupid” and fundamentalist Christians refer to the followers of the Democratic Party as “evil.”

This profound misunderstanding is probably reinforced by numerous classified operations in which individuals promoting divisive left-wing, or right-wing, positions are encouraged, and paid, to do so as render those who should have common cause as foes.

There is another reason why we have such a difficult time understanding the transformation of our society. The nature of this totalitarianism runs against the assumptions we were taught by movies, novels, and news reports. Our minds are cluttered with archetypes for dictatorship and evil that are at odds with the reality.

The greatest crime of Hollywood was convincing us that evil takes the form of a monster with fangs and claws, of an evil leader with a sinister smile. Corrupt journalists extend this fiction to the public sphere, explaining how evil is embodied in foreign leaders like Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, or Vladimir Putin, or in domestic ill-doers like Hillary Clinton (for the right) or Donald Trump (for the left).

As a result, we are unable to detect, or to understand, the takeover of our society that has taken place.

That is to say that we are confronted by “inverted totalitarianism,” to borrow the term of the philosopher Sheldon Wolin, a cultural and political state in which all aspects of our daily lives are controlled by multinational corporations without our knowing and we lose all freedom.

As a result, our actions are profoundly limited; we are constantly beaten down by an iron fist covered in the soft glove of interest charges, student loans, and constant surveillance.

The totalitarianism that we face is “inverted” in the sense that we expect some dictator standing on top and playing the bad buy, oppressing us out of personal greed, vanity or cruelty. But the true source of our misery is rather the manner in which multinational corporations use supercomputers to calculate profits and then extract as much money as possible from us by making it impossible for us to grow our own food, to heal our own illnesses, to teach ourselves, or to entertain ourselves. Instead, we must buy products, online, or in supermarkets, in transactions from which multinational corporations and banks will invariably take a major cut. The only learning that is recognized and accredited is expensive and is controlled by corporations.

We are offered only false choices between Pepsi or Coke, between Taco Bell or Wendy’s, between action films or romantic comedies, and between the Democratic or Republican Parties.

The process by which citizens lost their self-reliance, their self-sufficiency in food production and in energy production, and the basic skills of sewing, knitting and carpentry, growing dependent on products supplied by corporations, began 100 years ago. We can trace the current crisis back to the campaigns of John D. Rockefeller to force citizens to be dependent on petroleum through the promotion of automobiles and trade, the slashing of budgets for public transportation and the massive funding for highways, the push for the mechanization of farming and the popularization of plastics.

Rockefeller also paid off experts so as to marginalize homeopathic medicine and traditional treatments and create dependency on overpriced hospitals that are tied to corporations, while rendering universities and research institutes dependent on the benevolence of the rich, thus making systematic critiques of the sources of wealth a taboo topic.

To be more specific, the invisible inverted totalitarianism that has taken control of our daily experiences can be traced back to the launch of Windows as an operating system in 1985. Microsoft Word, under the rule of Bill Gates (an ardent student of John D. Rockefeller), set out to control the means by which citizens utilize their computers and later, to control how they interacted with each other over the internet.

Sure, presidential elections were held every four years, and the public was given a chance express itself. Secret secret police did not cart off those who criticized the government—in fact criticism of government was encouraged as way to distract from the impact of bank deregulation.

Most citizens were hardly aware that having one corporation control the system software for all computers that they supposedly “owed” meant that they had lost their freedom.

Yet the shift was profound. Whereas the individual previously could decide for himself where to place files in his office, how to organize documents and layout his papers around his typewriter, the manner in which information is organized within Windows is extremely limited, determined in advance by unaccountable forces and the format and layout cannot be modified by the user.

Needless to say, this first step down the road to tyranny, this fatal loss of basic autonomy, was carefully covered up in the rhetoric of convenience and efficiency, exciting innovation and technological advancement, so that few recognized the loss.

Myths about the importance of convenience, of connectivity and of globalization were swallowed by the entire population. Critical topics like the scientific method, the control of the means of production and the decision-making process in government, and in other institutions, were forgotten.

The next step in this hidden tyranny over our daily lives came in the form of search engines like Google, social networks like Facebook, and other massive, interconnected, corporations that mediated the interactions of the individual with the community, often taking over critical functions that previously belonged to the community or to non-profit institutions like schools or research centers.

Under the guise of greater convenience for the individual, businessmen with unlimited funding from investment banks were able to buy up rivals, block out alternatives that offered search engines as cooperatives, and thereby created search engines that pose as transparent institutions but derive money through the sophisticated manipulation of human interactions using algorithms.

Because Google and Facebook had such resources that they could lose money for years, the manner in which they whittled away at the autonomy of the citizen was almost undetectable. Equally important was the strategy of using short-term stimulation of the brain by postings, instant messages and gaudy news reports, to remap the connections between synapses so as to render most incapable of complex, three-dimensional, thinking. That service, the creation of a dumbed down, passive, population, was true product that internet giants offer to their real clients.

Google controls what information we access to, in what order we have access to it, and it lays out a hierarchy of significance in search results that has some basis in fact, but is primarily a political act for sale to the highest bidder.

Results of Google searches are altered, on a case-by-case basis, in response to the needs of corporations to promote their views to extremely specific audiences.

Although we are trained to think of Google as a public service, its falsehoods, increasingly given authority by the parallel Wikipedia entries created by public relations firms, are not subject to external review. Google users are never permitted to participate in the process of the formulation of policy, or in the review of content. That is to say, the United States calls itself a democracy, but the primary tool that citizens rely on for information is run as a dictatorship.

Another popular cloak for the slip into tyranny is the framing of “opinion” as content in the news. Scientific fact ceased to be central in reporting from 1990s. In its stead, opinion polls of groups selected by polling companies are held up as a confirmation of what is true.

Public opinion polls are the propaganda equivalent of stock buybacks. The billionaires, having radically deregulated the economy and dumbed down the population, merely force-feed their opinions to the public through the media that they control and then claim that the policies they want are demanded by the public.

Facebook gives the appearance that the citizen can express himself freely, and can make friends with anyone. Yet, since Facebook Inc. controls whom a citizen can easily find through its network, and who sees what, and it does not permit users to use their own software, or design their own page, or own the networks they create on Facebook, or to have any say in how Facebook is administered, the freedom is fiction.

Legal concepts like the contract have been twisted beyond recognition in the totalitarian cyberspace that surrounds us.

A contract is a negotiated agreement between two parties. On-line, however, whether it is the decision to accept cookies, or to comply with the rules for a commercial application, the user has no right to make demands of the corporation. He or she is given the false choice of either agreeing with all conditions offered, or not having access to the service. The contract is an empty ritual.

We are accustomed to permitting Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat or Instagram to determine what becomes of information that we share, and we are unaware of the billions in profits those corporations make by selling off the information, the content, and the creative ideas that we supply without giving us any compensation. In a sense, these social networks are a form of virtual slavery.

Click here to watch the video

COVID-19 Totalitarianism

Because the thinking of citizens has been degraded for decades, and citizens rely on corporate-sponsored sources for basic information, it became possible, for the first time, to create a virtual pandemic, planned by the super-rich, promoted by the news sources that they own, authorized by experts at the institutes and universities that they fund, and legitimated by government agencies (and international institutions like the World Health Organization) that have been radically privatized.

Previously, a significant number of citizens were capable of assessing the accuracy of information on their own. Research institutes like Harvard University still had an ethical commitment to the scientific method and to academic integrity.

All that is over now. The façades of the NIH and Harvard remain the same, maybe they are even better maintained, but the intellectual innards have rotted away. Distinguished professors are easily assembled to give testimony to ridiculous theories about COVID19.

The dangers of the COVID19 vaccines are not the primary threat. The danger lies rather in the shift of the decision-making process for policy away from science, and away from a transparent policy debate. COVID19 serves a successful precedent for invisible forces at private equity funds to decide medical policy in secret and then feed it to us through authority figures.

Those invisible forces now feel they are free to require of us, without any accountability to science, that we have any substance that they offer injected into our bodies as a condition for the right to attend school, to find employment or to receive medical treatment.

The process was made possible by the interaction of social networks, search engines, commercial media, and other critical components of daily experience that determine opinions concerning reliable and authoritative voices. That process is run as an invisible dictatorship that controls a distracted, confused and unfocused population, drowning in connectivity.

Nothing will get better until citizens recognize the cause of this nightmare was not the legacy of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas or the Trumps, although they all played their role, but rather the end of the self-reliant and informed citizen with access to the writings of experts with a deep commitment to the scientific method and to ethical principles.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Medical Tyranny

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

Realizing NATO’s war with Russia will likely end unfavorably, the US is test-driving an exit offer. But why should Moscow take indirect proposals seriously, especially on the eve of its new military advance and while it is in the winning seat?

Those behind the Throne are never more dangerous than when they have their backs against the wall.

Their power is slipping away, fast: Militarily, via NATO’s progressive humiliation in Ukraine; Financially, sooner rather than later, most of the Global South will want nothing to do with the currency of a bankrupt rogue giant; Politically, the global majority is taking decisive steps to stop obeying a rapacious, discredited, de facto minority.

So now those behind the Throne are plotting to at least try to stall the incoming disaster on the military front.

As confirmed by a high-level US establishment source, a new directive on NATO vs. Russia in Ukraine was relayed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Blinken, in terms of actual power, is nothing but a messenger boy for the Straussian neocons and neoliberals who actually run US foreign policy.

The secretary of state was instructed to relay the new directive – a sort of message to the Kremlin – via mainstream print media, which was promptly published by the Washington Post.

In the elite US mainstream media division of labor, the New York Times is very close to the State Department, and the Washington Post to the CIA. In this case though the directive was too important, and needed to be relayed by the paper of record in the imperial capital. It was published as an Op-Ed (behind paywall).

The novelty here is that for the first time since the start of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the Americans are actually proposing a variation of the “offer you can’t refuse” classic, including some concessions which may satisfy Russia’s security imperatives.

Crucially, the US offer totally bypasses Kiev, once again certifying that this is a war against Russia conducted by Empire and its NATO minions – with the Ukrainians as mere expandable proxies.

‘Please don’t go on the offensive’

The Washington Post’s old school Moscow-based correspondent John Helmer has provided an important service, offering the full text of Blinken’s offer, of course extensively edited to include fantasist notions such as “US weapons help pulverize Putin’s invasion force” and a cringe-worthy explanation: “In other words, Russia should not be ready to rest, regroup and attack.”

The message from Washington may, at first glance, give the impression that the US would admit Russian control over Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson – “the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia” – as a fait accompli.

Ukraine would have a demilitarized status, and the deployment of HIMARS missiles and Leopard and Abrams tanks would be confined to western Ukraine, kept as a “deterrent against further Russian attacks.”

What may have been offered, in quite hazy terms, is in fact a partition of Ukraine, demilitarized zone included, in exchange for the Russian General Staff cancelling its yet-unknown 2023 offensive, which may be as devastating as cutting off Kiev’s access to the Black Sea and/or cutting off the supply of NATO weapons across the Polish border.

The US offer defines itself as the path towards a “just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Well, not really. It just won’t be a rump Ukraine, and Kiev might even retain those western lands that Poland is dying to gobble up.

The possibility of a direct Washington-Moscow deal on “an eventual postwar military balance” is also evoked, including no Ukraine membership of NATO. As for Ukraine itself, the Americans seem to believe it will be a “strong, non-corrupt economy with membership in the European Union.”

Whatever remains of value in Ukraine has already been swallowed not only by its monumentally corrupt oligarchy, but most of all, investors and speculators of the BlackRock variety. Assorted corporate vultures simply cannot afford to lose Ukraine’s grain export ports, as well as the trade deal terms agreed with the EU before the war. And they’re terrified that the Russian offensive may capture Odessa, the major seaport and transportation hub on the Black Sea – which would leave Ukraine landlocked.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the entire Russian Security Council – including its Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev – have reason to believe anything coming from the US establishment, especially via mere minions such as Blinken and the Washington Post. After all the stavka – a moniker for the high command of the Russian armed forces – regard the Americans as “non-agreement capable,” even when an offer is in writing.

This walks and talks like a desperate US gambit to stall and present some carrots to Moscow in the hope of delaying or even cancelling the planned offensive of the next few months.

Even old school, dissident Washington operatives – not beholden to the Straussian neocon galaxy – bet that the gambit will be a nothing burger: in classic “strategic ambiguity” mode, the Russians will continue on their stated drive of demilitarization, denazification and de-electrification, and will “stop” anytime and anywhere they see fit east of the Dnieper. Or beyond.

What the Deep State really wants

Washington’s ambitions in this essentially NATO vs. Russia war go well beyond Ukraine. And we’re not even talking about preventing a Russia-China-Germany Eurasian union or a peer competitor nightmare; let’s stick with prosaic issues on the Ukrainian battleground.

The key “recommendations” – military, economic, political, diplomatic – were detailed in an Atlantic Council strategy paper late last year.

And in another one, under “War scenario 1: The war continues in its current tempo,” we find the Straussian neocon policy fully spelled out.

It’s all here: from “marshaling support and military-assistance transfers to Kyiv sufficient to enable it to win” to “increase the lethality of military assistance transferred to include fighter aircraft that would enable Ukraine to control its airspace and attack Russian forces therein; and missile technology with range sufficient to reach into Russian territory.”

From training the Ukrainian military “to use Western weapons, electronic warfare, and offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, and to seamlessly integrate new recruits in the service” to buttressing “defenses on the front lines, near the Donbass region,” including “combat training focusing on irregular warfare.”

Added to “imposing secondary sanctions on all entities doing business with the Kremlin,” we reach of course the Mother of All Plunders: “Confiscate the $300 billion that the Russian state holds in overseas accounts in the United States and EU and use seized monies to fund reconstruction.”

The reorganization of the SMO, with Putin, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, and General Armageddon in their new, enhanced roles is derailing all these elaborate plans.

The Straussians are now in deep panic. Even Blinken’s number two, Russophobic warmonger Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, has admitted to the US Senate there will be no Abrams tanks on the battlefield before Spring (realistically, only in 2024). She also promised to “ease sanctions” if Moscow “returns to negotiations.” Those negotiations were scotched by the Americans themselves in Istanbul in the Spring of 2022.

Nuland also called the Russians to “withdraw their troops.” Well, that at least offers some comic relief compared with the panic oozing from Blinken’s “offer you can’t refuse.” Stay tuned for Russia’s non-response response.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Cradle.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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

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

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

***

Commentators are busy speculating how the American president’s promise – endorsed by the country as enthusiastically as Zelensky himself– of M1 Abram tanks to Ukraine will affect the war that grinds on in Ukraine. Many assume that gifts of fighter jets will follow shortly. 

What disturbs me is the semantics of Biden’s announcement of the gift, rationalized and neatly summed up by, “We all want an end to this war.”

I wonder if Joe Biden is aware that his statement comes in the very week that marks 50 years since the inglorious end of the U.S. war in Vietnam, (noted more widely in the foreign press than in the U.S.) How many times and for how many years did Americans and perhaps their Vietnamese quislings hear that kind of heroic talk about victory there? Similar assurances from military leaders and politicians were offered in subsequent wars. Remember Afghanistan where American military forces likewise abandoned the noble cause, although that took two decades to prove unworkable, and humiliating as well.

How can one answer Biden’s noble declaration—”We want to end this war”? So clean, so unambiguous, he talks to us as if we are children; “Yes, my little ones; daddy will take care of everything. I’ll finish off that coyote in no time and you’ll all be safe.”

And who are Biden’s “We”? Do they include you and me? All Europe? Pentagon strategists? Profiteering weapons suppliers and busy intelligence agencies?

Does his “We” include the crowds of pundits—we have an abundance of conflict specialists newly available after their Iraq and Afghanistan tenures? Is Biden speaking for America’s faithful war-partner Britain and its reluctant ally Germany? If any skeptical Europeans remain hesitant about increased military buildups, it could be directed at them. Who doesn’t want to end this war? I expect Russia too would agree to this.

Biden’s language is cunningly comforting, reassuring. It could even be read as an appeal for peace; couldn’t it? “….end this war.”

For me, and likely some others as well, that invocation is actually discomforting. It’s too close to the pleading slogans of anti-war protestors of past generations. Some may recall that cry back in early 2003 when the wholesale bombing of Iraq was imminent. “Hm. Really? A bit late”, sighed my Iraqi companions that bleek day when we sat on a grassy Mosel knoll and heard news from across the world that millions of dissident marchers spoke against an invasion of their land. (Didn’t those anti war liberals know that a 13-year-long embargo war had already battered and impoverished the nation?) Once the bombing of Iraq was well under way and the drama of the American land assault filled the news reports, occasionally one might hear a feeble “end the war’ on the margins of American life.

No one is guessing how long the NATO/Ukraine-Russia battles will last. Speculation is that this war can only intensify. What few voices who suggest that some negotiations should begin are being stilled. No one is objecting to the billions of dollars Washington has already committed to this madness. You saw what happened three months ago when a feeble suggestion by the Democratic Progressive Caucus to initiate negotiations between Ukraine and Russia was presented to the White House. They slunk away in embarrassment.

Meanwhile Mr. Biden assures a lot of people that “We all want an end to this war.” They can count on America.

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon. 

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

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.

***

About a year ago I chanced to speak with a teenager, the daughter of a friend, at a gathering of the ‘resistance’. Like her mother she is a musician, and she attends a private girls’ high school here in Wellington. I asked about school and, in particular, about the novels she was reading in her English class during her senior year. I was surprised to hear that no novels were currently assigned … so I inquired further. “We get excerpts,” she informed me, “but over the course of last year we read one entire book.”

So during her junior and senior years at a prestigious girls’ school in an ostensibly first-world Western educational system, the curriculum was nearly devoid of literature.

I shuddered to ask about her history classes, but I did take the liberty of promising her a copy of Orwell’s 1984. To my delight but not my surprise, because she is a curious person avid to learn, she devoured the extracurricular novel within two weeks. Perhaps too, because she was unjabbed and was one of the very few who refused to wear a mask at her school, surrounded as she was by a sea of unthinking submissive fellow students, she was all the more motivated.

I recall that this earnest young kid was denied the opportunity to participate in a summertime music camp because of her jab status thanks to then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s imposed apartheid system. The music faculty who ran the summer school didn’t have the guts or the wisdom to allow a healthy young talented player, who had been an eager participant in the past, to join their ‘vaccinated’ ensemble.

I myself, having donated Orwell, decided to revisit a work I hadn’t read in years, and I was struck by how poignant and delicate the great author’s love scenes were rendered. Most of the final third of the book, devoted as it was to a meticulous delineation of psychological and physical torture, seemed didactic and less appealing, though agonizingly true.

I wondered how a young mind would engage with, interpret and understand such a challenging book, a book that ended with the lover-protagonists’ immensely sad betrayal of each other, having been broken.

I wondered how a young mind would understand the oppressive force of a State that turned the meanings of words into their opposites and altered history to suit its prevailing political needs.

I wondered whether this teenager understood the concepts of free expression and open debate, mired as she was in a corona culture of cancellation, suppression, ignorance and ostracism.

I wondered what and how she was being taught.

Teaching itself, like most forms of human interaction, may be coercive. Everywhere we are surrounded by attempts to persuade, cajole, entice, allure or, as we have seen so clearly these past three years, simply force us to a particular end. Advertisers use the lighter arts of seduction to bring our monies to their products; governments, when their own light touches fall short of their goals, resort to mandates. Free choice, like free thinking, is under constant assault. Is teaching yet another one of these assaults? Can one teach without resorting to shaping, molding, coercion?

The Socratic method is generally understood as a method of questioning, of inquiry in the pursuit of truths. The Socrates depicted by Plato claimed to know virtually nothing but inquired indefatigably of his auditors. It is best shown in the dialogue Theaetetus – shown in its ideal form, as far as I’m concerned, since I have had the general impression from many of the other dialogues that the modest unknowing Socrates quite purposefully led his students to his own preordained convictions about philosophical matters. In the Theaetetus, however, our Socrates – or, at least, Plato’s Socrates – defines his role as that of a midwife. It is a striking and magnificent analogy, for the teacher – Socrates, who happens incidentally to be the son of a midwife – is one who merely helps to bring forth that which is immanent within his student. He facilitates the birth of knowledge residing within. As he says:

“I am so far like the midwife that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom … though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me … Those who frequent my company … have never learnt anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven’s work and mine” (Cornford, p. 26)[1].

Centuries later, the much-misunderstood and often maligned Sigmund Freud introduced the technique of free association after having been frustrated with attempts at hypnosis – a form of suggestion – for the treatment of neurosis. Free association was one of Freud’s most magnificent achievements, and one of the pillars upon which psychoanalysis is founded. One can hardly overestimate the uniqueness of a setting in which a person is encouraged simply to say anythingand everything that comes to mind, without self-censorship, interference or judgment, no matter how bizarre, perverse, repulsive or frightening. Freud in essence developed a method of midwifery akin to Socrates – facilitating the birth of hidden knowledge within.

Without diverging into the complexities and intricacies of free association within the treatment paradigm of psychoanalysis, necessitating as it does the patient’s unquestioning trust in the analyst, which is hardly ever complete, and involving the inevitable self-suppressions of shameful, dubious or delicate material, the introduction of this technique, its astonishing potential, and the inherent assumptions of liberty and autonomy within its very fabric are scarcely imaginable.

Free association represents a culmination of the Socratic method and a blazing example of the antithesis to force and censure. Freud himself devoted a half-hour daily to self-analysis via free association throughout his life, an example, wryly enough, far more honored in the breach by his psychoanalytic followers than in the observance.

Socrates and Freud were creatures of their times and mores and culture. Yet the method they devised provided the very tool to transcend the cultural, moral and political restrictions of their respective societies. This is a point I cannot emphasize enough, and the same may be said for the American Founders who, trammeled as they were by their own societal prejudices, nonetheless produced a document whose basic principles provided the means to overcome such limitations.

Virtually everything about these past three years of blight under the shadow of the Corona War has ventured to stifle and eliminate liberty. The ‘science’ was invoked to silence debate: it became something that would tolerate no doubt, discussion or criticism — no real science, in fact. People who attempted to offer differing opinions were eliminated from social media. Doctors who asked for evidence behind oppressive restrictions and public health dictates were persecuted. Those who dared to champion bodily autonomy by refusing the jab were set apart.

In fact, it has all grown stale and boring, as befits the gray suffocating miasma of enslaving control.

I’m sick of it.

If we have learned nothing else from these past three dystopian years, it is that our once-trusted authorities — in government, media, ‘science’, business and even sport — have shown themselves to be wholly corrupt and cowardly. Their suppression of debate, their outright refusal to participate in open exchanges, to allow questioning and inquiry, and the relentless insistence on their ‘one way’ — this would all be laughable were it not so poisonous.

But what of today’s youth? They seem to have little awareness of history, and even less understanding of the immensity of the struggles to realize our unalienable right to freedom of expression – not from any fault of their own, but from the fault of the institutions that are betraying them.

My friend’s daughter, who had the courage to withstand the pressure of peers and school and the curiosity to search for books – whole books, not smatterings – is an exception. I have had the pleasure of meeting several other brave and exceptional youths who have withstood an immensity of pressure to mask up, conform, relinquish bodily autonomy, who have endured ostracism and ridicule, but who have maintained their dignity and independence.

These wonderful exceptions give me great hope that we can indeed establish a future graced by vitality, autonomy and choice, one that nourishes the single most genuine and unassailable contribution of the West towards human progress: liberty.

And perhaps in this beckoning future I may gently inquire of these young forming souls what they think of Socrates, Freud, and the fate of Julia and Winston in 1984 …

*

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.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

1 “Plato’s Theory of Knowledge: the Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato,” translated and with a running commentary by Francis Macdonald Cornford, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd. 1915.

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.

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.

***

On January 27, the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a gunman shot ultra-Orthodox Jewish worshippers as they came out of the Ateret Avraham synagogue in the Neve Yaakov Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem.

The gunman was 21-year-old Khairi Alkam a resident of East Jerusalem. He was later shot dead by Israeli police. The dead were five men, aged 20 to 60, and two women, aged 60 and 70. Three others were wounded.

The Neve Yaakov Jewish settlement’s population is about 23,300. The Jews there have citizenship, civil rights, and human rights. They can travel and return home at any time. Their children can study abroad and return home to Israel for jobs. This settlement, like countless others in the Occupied Territories, is illegal under international law.  A synagogue is out of place in East Jerusalem, as West Jerusalem is where the Jews live.  East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians.

The Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have no citizenship, they cannot leave, they cannot go abroad for education and return, and their residency permit can be revoked at any time. They are prevented from building a new home or making necessary repairs to their existing home or business.  They have no civil rights, or human rights. Many of their homes and business have been demolished or confiscated for decades.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the top two goals of his new administration are to establish more settlements in the Occupied Territories and to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu announced new measures to strengthen Jewish settlements, preparations to demolish the attacker’s family home, plans to get more guns into the hands of the Israeli citizens and taking away social security and health benefits from the family of any Palestinian attacker.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, a far-right extremist, who has been called a terrorist in the past, has called for an increase in settlements. He called for demolishing dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, granting more gun licenses to Jews, and applying the death penalty to Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis.

Three extra battalions have been deployed in the Occupied West Bank to strengthen defenses on the numerous Jewish settlements there.

Tensions have escalated since Israel ramped up raids in the West Bank last spring, with nearly 190 Palestinians killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2022, making it the deadliest year in those Occupied Territories since 2004.  About 30 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of 2023.

Over 30 people were killed in Palestinian attacks against Israelis last year, according to Israeli figures.

Three Palestinians were hospitalized after being shot by a Jewish settler near Nablus in the north of the West Bank, in a separate incident on Friday.

Why is a synagogue in East Jerusalem?

Neve Yaakov is a religious Jewish settlement that Israel considers to be a neighborhood of its capital. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians seek East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of their future state. In a long-standing custom, recognized by the international community, the East section of Jerusalem is for Palestinians, and the West section is for the Jews. However, over recent years, the Israeli government has allowed Jewish zealots to confiscate homes and businesses and encroach illegally into East Jerusalem.  The Palestinians are suffering from ethnic cleansing on a massive scale condoned by the Jewish government.

Why are settlers in East Jerusalem?

According to B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, two parallel regimes are operating in Israel. In the West is a democracy, and in the East is a military occupation.

“The entire area that Israel controls is ruled by a single apartheid regime, governing the lives of all people living in it and operating according to one organizing principle: establishing and perpetuating the control of one group of people – Jews – over another – Palestinians – through laws, practices and state violence.”

B’Tselem advocates for a future where the Israeli occupation and apartheid will end.

In June, plans to build nearly 500 homes in a new Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem were announced. Critics say this further undermines any hope for a two-state solution. Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and has built illegal settlements across both territories that are now home to some 700,000 Jewish settlers.

Are the settlements legal?

The international community considers the establishment of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-Occupied Territories illegal.

They violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and they are in breach of international declarations.  The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-Occupied Territories.

Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980, and 2016. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its population into the territories or changing its demographic makeup.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed 14-0 with the United States abstaining, declared that Israel’s settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”, and demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities”.

The legal status of Jerusalem

The 1967 war resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories.  Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980; however, this is not recognized by the international community, a community that rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid.

36 structures belonging to Palestinians were demolished throughout December 2022 in East Jerusalem and adjacent areas lying within the al-Quds District of the Palestinian Authority, on orders from the Jewish government. Parts of another structure were demolished on January 4, 2023. 26 non-residential buildings were demolished by the authorities and an agricultural terrace and three fences surrounding plots of land were also demolished.

Saturday shooting in East Jerusalem

A 13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and wounded two Israelis on Saturday in the neighborhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem, less than 24 hours after the deadly attack outside the synagogue. The wounded were taken to hospital and the boy was arrested after he was injured. Security footage showed the victims to be observant Jews by their religious dress.

Both Palestinian attackers behind the shootings on Friday and Saturday came from East Jerusalem.

Silwan is home to more than 60,000 Palestinians and is located strategically to the south of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The area has been the target of Israeli settler expansion for years, with hundreds of Palestinian families facing the threat of expulsion, either through lawsuits by powerful settler groups or administrative eviction orders by the Israeli-run Jerusalem municipality.

Netanyahu will do everything to stay out of prison

Former Prime Minister, Yair Lapid, said Netanyahu would do everything to avoid going to prison. Taking on allies who are ultra-right extremists is what he was forced to do to form a government after the November election.  Everyone agrees that this is the most far-right and religious government in Israel’s history. Netanyahu has been facing charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust since 2020. His hands are tied: he must bow down to the radical demands and threats issued by his extremist partners. Should he stand up to them and refuse, they have the power to withdraw their support of him, and his government will fall, and he will go to prison.

Ben-Gvir became Israel’s security minister after a far-right bloc of parties led by Netanyahu won elections in November.  The leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit political party has a history of racist and inflammatory remarks against Palestinians and Arabs, praising previous attacks on Palestinians as “heroic.” He has advocated for the deportation of all Palestinians.

What happened in Jenin and Gaza?

Thursday’s attack on Jenin, the deadliest single incursion in the West Bank since 2002, followed a particularly bloody month that saw at least 30 Palestinians killed by Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli commandos killed nine Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp.

Gaza fired rockets at Israel on Thursday night in response to the Jenin attack. Israel then targeted Gaza with airstrikes. Gaza has been blockaded by Israel since 2007.

The Palestinian Authority said on Thursday night that it was canceling security cooperation with Israel in response to the raid on Jenin, prompting US officials to urge them to reverse the decision.

Friday, Scuffles between Israeli forces and Palestinian mourners erupted after the funeral for a 22-year-old Palestinian north of Jerusalem in the Occupied West Bank.

Is resistance legal?

International law recognizes the legitimate right of a people to fight for its freedom, and for “liberation from colonial control, apartheid, and foreign occupation by all the means at its disposal, including armed struggle”, as confirmed, for example, by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1990.

The use of force to achieve liberation is legitimate. How force is used is governed by the laws of war, the main purpose of which is to protect uninvolved civilians on both sides.

The fighters in Jenin were not terrorists; they were in an act of armed resistance against an occupying power, on occupied land, and they were not targeting civilians.

UN calls Israel an Apartheid state

In March 2022, the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory, Michael Lynk, issued a report in which he identified Israel as an Apartheid state.

“There is today in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 a deeply discriminatory dual legal and political system, that privileges the 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers living in the 300 illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” said Lynk.

Israel, he said, conforms to the definition as a “political regime which so intentionally and prioritizes fundamental political, legal and social rights to one group over another, within the same geographic unit based on one’s racial-national-ethnic identity”.

The US defends Israel and allows them impunity

The US strongly condemned the attack in East Jerusalem, and was “shocked and saddened by the loss of life.”

President Joe Biden spoke with Netanyahu to offer US support to the government and people of Israel, calling the shootings “an attack against the civilized world.” “The President stressed the iron-clad US commitment to Israel’s security,” according to a Biden spokesperson.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has arrived in Egypt and will visit Israel and the West Bank.

Blinken’s trip was planned before the recent violence.  The Biden administration and the US State Department have no peace plans for Palestinians. Blinken will support Netanyahu and his extremist allies, but will not offer any lasting solution to either side. The US and other Western countries have pressed Israel to rein in settlements, but without any success.

The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank upheld its decision to halt security coordination with Israel to protest the deadly raid in Jenin. After a meeting headed by President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority called on the international community and the US administration to demand Israel stop its raids and operations in the West Bank.

Blinken should make a stop at the offices of B’Tselem.  They could give him a road map.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

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

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

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

***

Within one year of the Ukrainian conflict it has been evident that the West is quick to scrutinize Russia without taking a better look at their own actions in the past. NATO has been involved in numerous conflicts since its establishment including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. Numerous violations have surfaced to the public however these atrocious acts have not received even remotely close criticism.

Since September 2022 Armed Forced of Russian Federation has carried out series of strikes in energy sector of Ukraine and received a whole lot of outraged comments from various global leaders and heads of international organizations. However in 2001 US Army allied with NATO members made a devastating rocket attack on critical energy, telecommunications, and government facilities of Baghdad leaving the whole capital without electricity, heating, water and reception. At the time Western community saw these actions as necessary means to end the regime of Saddam Hussein, considering he allegedly has weapons of mass destruction. In the end Iraq wasn’t anywhere near these weapons but nobody paid for blood and destruction of the Iraqi people.

It’s not the only occasion US Armed Forces has been caught inflicting damage to human life. The creator of WikiLeaks Julian Assange was the first person to effectively question US methods used in wrongly waged wars in the Middle East. On his website he published a leaked video of American soldiers opening fire from helicopters at the group of unarmed, innocent civilians. All of the targets were shot down to the ground leaving a bloody mess in a result of an unprovoked attack. Obviously no charges or accusation have been made against NATO or Ukraine.

North Africa has suffered the same unfair approach of the West. Once upon a time rich and prosperous Libya is now struggling to gain stability and form a unified government in order to break away from chaos and destruction. NATO’s action at the beginning of Libyan’s revolution was clearly illegal. The Western states had no right bombing the military academy. Besides malicious attacks NATO has failed to provide aid to the people of the North African country. Alliance failed to establish a new government. After all it even failed to provide refugees with a home in Europe, which they have destroyed. However during the Ukrainian conflict NATO was more than generous to provide homes, aid and financial help to the Ukrainian government and people.

One of the most infamous failures of NATO happened just last year, when the US forces withdrew from Afghanistan. The alliance has spent $978 billion over the period of 19 years without any evident success. During the same period over 2 million people have died, most of them were civilians. Countless homes and life have been ruined however NATO countries didn’t face any scrutiny for their actions. Moreover NATO didn’t provide refuge for most of these people or any sufficient help and at the same time over 6 million people have left Ukraine to live in Europe with over $100 billion provided in aid. Why does Ukraine deserve such help and the Middle Eastern states deserve destroyed homes and their resources stolen by World’s powerhouses.

*

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.

Ahmad al-Khaled is a Syrian journalist with four years of experience in covering the Syrian conflict and ME politics in general. His articles are published in leading regional and global media (Youm7, Ahl Masr, Rai Al Youm, Al Masdar, Ahval, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Featured image: NATO heads of state at the alliance’s summit in Brussels (Source: Liberation News)

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

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

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

***

Another doozy from the Canadian government.

Following along several other bills winding their way along the Road to Serfdom…

• Bill C-11 regulates the internet under the CRTC and paves the way toward institutionalized content moderation, the requirement for licenses to publish online, and regulation of user generated content (in Senate)
• Bill C-36 the Online Harms Bill sought to designate political dissent as “hate speech” and invoked penalties for criticizing politicians (not sure where this one is at the moment).
• Bill C-18 throws a funding lifeline to Canada’s flailing agitprop industry (a.k.a the mainsteam media), in that it will require tech platforms to pay licensing fees for content the media outlets post there (passed third reading in November). This bill will reward big media conglomerates like Bell, while freezing out small and independent organizations.

Here comes another one, Bill C-36: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, which passed first reading last June.

It’s been largely flying under everybody’s radar so far. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been actively raising awareness and Michael Geist had Brenda McPhail, their Director of the Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program on his podcast last October.

We mentioned C-26 in AxisOfEasy #273 citing Gowling WLG’s coverage of it by Brent Arnold (Brent Arnold sits on the Internet Society Canada Chapter board, as do I, but I am writing this post from my role as easyDNS CEO, and not ISCC.)

The Government Hereby Grants Itself The Following Powers:

The new bill is ostensibly a cyber-security and critical infrastructure bill, but it is riddled with nebulous, open-ended terms, Kafka-esque secrecy provisions, onerous penalties and conspicuously absent of any semblance due process:

It effectively subjects Canada’s telecom and internet sectors to the whim of unelected bureaucrats and political functionaries.

Am I being bombastic? You tell me: given that the legislation that grants them the power to order a telecommunications service provider “to do or stop doing anything“. 

“Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.”

I guess it all comes down to what you mean by “anything”.

Speaking of anything, the government can deem “any” service or system a vital service or system – which then makes that entity subject to requirements, that…

Last year, around this time, the same government that is introducing this bill arbitrarily enacted bank account seizures, not only against protestors, but also targeting crowdfunded contributions to their fundraisers.

This was done under the aegis of the Emergencies Act, however the seizures started before the EA was even ratified in Parliament, and the list of fundraising contributors was largely sourced from a third-party spreadsheet that was hacked from a foreign crowdfunding platform.

Nevermind that the entire thing went away within a week – rationalized as “mission accomplished” (the reality was the measure sparked a run on banks and nearly blew up the Canadian financial system)

Not much mention of this in the MSM, oddly…

The 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act  made it clear that our government is perfectly willing to act unilaterally, without due process, in contravention of basic human rights to unbank people at whim.

Bill C-26 will give them a veneer of Soviet-era legislation to unperson you in the online realm.

What Can You Do?

While I said I’m not speaking with my ISCC hat on today, the Internet Society Canada Chapter is one of the civil society bodies that does its level best to bring informed, rational commentary and input to the policy making process. Membership includes a couple ex-CRTC commissioners and even a recent appointee to the Order of Canada.

Consider signing up as a member today and help us bring a clue to the process, or alternatively, get behind the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

You can also make your views known to your MP. They don’t care if they get your vote or not, so don’t even bother telling them you won’t vote for them. You have speak their language, e.g

“I know you don’t care about my vote – but I feel strongly enough about this issue to make the maximum allowable personal contribution to your opponent, and fund raise for them wherever I can”.

In my case they at least started replying to my emails after that.

*

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.

Featured image: Technocracy – a 1933 cartoon by Winsor McCay.

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.

***

Perhaps it was inevitable that the main achievement of the seventh summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in Argentina is to have been able to happen at all, thus keeping alive the vision of a Greater Nation for all the peoples of the region. Compared to the tremendous dynamism and forthrightness of CELAC’s founders, the summit’s Final Statement exhibits a bland, mediocre agenda of evasion and hollow aspirations. On a positive note, the Declaration confirms the commitment of the member States to integration, unity and political, economic, social and cultural diversity as a community of sovereign nations and it also reaffirms the proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

But the experiences of the last ten years show that in many respects the region’s reality runs contrary to most of the statements in the Declaration’s 111 points of the Declaration. Examples of this are the extensive presence of US military bases throughout the continent, the constant interventions of Western powers and interests in the region, the harassment and contempt towards indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, the application of “lawfare” against prominent political figures in several countries and the routine political manipulation of human rights institutions. More than anything, it has been electoral fortunes that have allowed the region to overcome initiatives aimed at sabotaging Latin American and Caribbean unity, such as the nefarious Lima Group.

Still, the underlying interventionist threat persists and the CELAC summit gave space to lamentable elements of what remains of the cruel interventions to damage Venezuela. The presidents of Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay attacked the government of Venezuela with the usual false accusations of lack of democracy and it is worth recalling that the Lima Group was supported or endorsed at one time or another by the following countries: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia under the coup regime, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Saint Lucia. Self-evidently, the power of manipulation and coercion in the region of the United States, and its allies among the NATO countries, persists and they simply wait for favorable conditions to be able to use it.

In the end, President Nicolás Maduro Moros decided not to participate in the summit because the Argentine authorities could not guarantee his protection against possible legal provocations based on the illegal coercive measures of the US government against Venezuela. The Final Declaration of the summit calls for the lifting of the illegal blockade of Cuba but not of the illegal unilateral measures against Venezuela, which now even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has had to condemn as an abuse of the human rights of the Venezuelan people. Nor does the Final Declaration mention the theft in broad daylight of the patrimony of the Venezuelan people, the company CITGO, the gold stored in London and billions of dollars in the European financial system, by the United States and the governments of the European Union.

The ambivalence inherent in the Final Declaration is also reflected in its support for decolonization and human rights without calling for the closure and withdrawal of the US military base at Guantanamo or condemning the permanent abuse of human rights the base represents as a center for illegal detention and torture. That omission indicates the level of the capture by the United States and its Western allies of the consciences of many leaders in the region. This was also seen unexpectedly in an outburst by President Lula da Silva at the margins of the summit. Lula made an absurd comparison between the illegal US aggression against Venezuela and the legitimate military operation of the Russian Federation in defense of Russian-speaking populations attacked by the government of Ukraine in alliance with NATO countries for eight years and counting.

Lula’s grossly foolish remark could be simply an attempt on his part to signal his ideological virtue to the elites controlling the US Democratic Party and its allies in the Brazilian elite who supported Lula in the presidential elections last October. On the other hand, the just recently announced decision of leaders such as Lula, Gustavo Petro and Alberto Fernández not to send weapons in support of Ukraine does honor the declaration of the region as a zone of Peace. Although it undoubtedly also has to do with the aspirations of Brazil and, especially, Argentina in relation to a future expansion of the BRICS group of countries.

In this global context, the eagerness of the ruling classes of the most powerful countries in Latin America to appease the US and European elites conflicts with the imperative of taking advantage of the economic benefits offered by the People’s Republic of China and the development of a multipolar world. In fact, President Xi Jinping greeted the summit via an online link and stressed that China is working to push relations between China and Latin America and the Caribbean towards a new era based on respect, equality, mutual benefit, innovation, openness and well-being for all peoples.

While China demonstrates good faith with its extensive investment, cooperation and trade with the region, the regional policy of the United States has not changed since President Monroe’s declaration of December 2nd 1823. The recent frank comments of the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, confirm that the United States continues to regard Latin America and the Caribbean as a subaltern zone, a source and supplier of fabulous natural resources. In addition, General Richardson said in her remarks to the Atlantic Council, a NATO-funded think tank, that Latin America and the Caribbean “has a lot to do with our national security and we have to start our play”, as if the peoples of the region will not remember the brutal history of intervention and destabilization by the United States over two centuries.

In relation to the tension between the encouraging message of President Xi Jinping and the permanent interventionist position of the United States, the presidents of Brazil and Argentina announced the day before the summit in Buenos Aires a project for a common currency between the two countries. They claim the initiative will boost regional trade and reduce dependence on the US dollar, perhaps in the style of the European Currency Unit (ECU), introduced in 1979 as an accounting unit for cross-border financial transactions. The ECU was associated with the European Exchange Rate Mechanism that sought to stabilize sharp variations between the different currencies of European countries. In 1999 the ECU was replaced by the single European currency, the Euro.

One has only to look at the economic history of Europe of the last 20 years to understand the futility of the idea that such a common currency will reduce regional dependence on the US dollar. Quite simply, all the corresponding independent financial architecture is lacking, for example a robust payments system, independent insurance institutions and other key financial services, a regional system of rating agencies or a banking system capable of resisting aggressive speculation in international financial and commodity markets. The idea looks like another example of the superficiality and ideological dependence on the West of the region’s social democratic political classes. They seem to hope they can evade facing the implications of the fundamental truth they themselves recognize in relation to environmental issues and other issues, for example, volatile commodity prices or foreign debt, that Western capitalism harms the peoples of the region and the whole world.

The capitalist model of the mythical invisible hand of the free market and its neoliberal fictional corollaries is collapsing. Even so, most governments of the CELAC countries seem to want to apply that same economic model to promote their countries’development. This reality makes especially unconvincing point six of the Final Declaration, which affirms “the importance of prioritizing sustainable economic recovery with a cooperative, inclusive, equitable and solidarity-based approach.” But that economic model already exists in a well advanced form, thanks to the same revolutionary countries of the Bolivarian Alliance of our Americas (ALBA) that so many of the region’s governments attack and disparage without justification. This is the fundamental contradiction of CELAC and the biggest challenge facing Ralph Gonsalves, who now holds the pro tempore presidency of CELAC on behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a member country of ALBA.

As President Comandante Daniel and our Vice President Compañera Rosario said in Nicaragua’s message to the summit:

“The world urgently needs justice and peace… Respectful and Supportive Cooperation. The world needs understanding, empathy and affection. The Better World that we all want to create, urgently needs Respect, Peace, Solidarity and the Ability to Live Together, sharing the Scientific and Technological Development that has cost us all so much…We sing and move in Life and Hope, striving, We Go Forward… Always Further On!”

*

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

This article was originally published on Tortilla con Sal, translated from Spanish.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TCS

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.

***

For a country constantly chest-thumping about the size of its economy, the United States is remarkably over-reliant on one form of “export” – war. For decades, the American-led political West used proxy wars to hurt its geopolitical adversaries. While most of these weren’t a direct existential threat to US rivals and were relatively limited in scope, recent years brought a major shift to this strategic approach.

Washington DC has become more bellicose than at any point in its history, aggressively attacking the very heartlands of its opponents. In the case of Russia and China, the only reason America isn’t directly attacking either of the superpowers is their ability to immediately “return the favor“. And yet, the US keeps fanning up conflicts that are pushing the world ever closer toward another global conflict.

Ukraine and Taiwan are the two most prominent examples of America’s strategy of “accelerated escalation”, obviously designed to cause “irrational decision-making” in both Moscow and Beijing, according to the Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation. With Ukraine reaching a boiling point and Russia forced to intervene, Washington DC is determined to do the same with China in Taiwan. In recent years, top American officials, including several military commanders, have been warning about the “inevitability of war with China”.

However, the latest statement is quite concerning, issued in the form of a memo by an active four-star general and circulated with an official order. This is particularly dangerous, especially when taking into account the fact that the general took the step of conveying it through the official chain of command. According to NBC News, General Mike Minihan sent it to his subordinate officers:

“A four-star Air Force general sent a memo on Friday to the officers he commands that predicts the U.S. will be at war with China in two years and tells them to get ready to prep by firing ‘a clip’ at a target, and ‘aim for the head’. In the memo sent Friday and obtained by NBC News, Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, said, ‘I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me will fight in 2025.'”

According to various sources, the US Air Force general commands approximately 50,000 US servicemen and nearly 500 planes, making his comments all the more concerning. This is particularly true when taking into account that USAF is in direct control of two arms of America’s thermonuclear triad – its land-based ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and nuclear-armed strategic bombers.

Perhaps the most alarming part of the grisly prediction is that it instructed commanders under him to “consider their personal affairs and whether a visit should be scheduled with their servicing base legal office to ensure they are legally ready and prepared.” Minihan claims this is because China is allegedly “determined to make a move” against its breakaway island province of Taiwan within the next two years and that this would trigger a direct US military response.

He further called for “a fortified, ready, integrated, and agile Joint Force Maneuver Team ready to fight and win inside the first island chain.” Minihan also issued an order that all steps in preparation for war with China were to be reported to him directly by February 28. As to why he thinks this is “inevitable” by 2025, NBC claims he stated the following:

“Minihan said in the memo that because both Taiwan and the U.S. will have presidential elections in 2024, the U.S. will be ‘distracted,’ and Chinese President Xi Jinping will have an opportunity to move on Taiwan.”

The wording is quite concerning, especially when coming from a high-level military commander. General Minihan directed all Air Mobility Command personnel to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most. Aim for the head.” Using such phrases when talking about the “coming war” with a nuclear-armed China is unwise, to say the least, not to mention the complete disregard for the most basic diplomatic etiquette. Additionally, China’s conventional capabilities are very different in comparison to just a decade ago. Beijing has invested heavily in technological advances that rival or even surpass America’s, particularly hypersonic weapons, in which Washington DC significantly lags behind.

Still, China has spent decades trying to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully, especially through close economic ties with the island, but the US has been undermining these efforts, particularly in recent years. Beijing’s attempts to achieve nonviolent political reunification with Taiwan have been severely compromised by American arms deliveries, with Taipei spending dozens of billions on weapons, most of which haven’t even been delivered due to the current US focus on Ukraine. China has been warning Washington DC against fomenting the independence ambitions of its breakaway island province. However, the US hasn’t only ignored this, but it seems it’s already planning yet another war with another superpower.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Gitanas Nauseda, the president of Lithuania, has potentially signed a death warrant for 2.6 million of his fellow citizens.

The Lithuanian President, Gitanas
Nauseda called on Western countries to "cross the red line" and send fighter jets and long-range missiles to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/yPf62HGvtn

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 31, 2023

According to the CIA’s main European propaganda conduit, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (sic),

Nauseda said in an interview with Lithuanian television on January 31 that fighter aircraft and long-range missiles were “essential military aid” and “at this crucial stage in the war, where the turning point is about to happen.” “These red lines must be crossed,” he added. The United States and Germany have so far ruled out such demands from Kyiv, though France says it is not against it in principle.

Nauseda is a neocon wannabe. In August 2019, before Russia’s SMO, he refused to talk or enter negotiations with Vladimir Putin over the growing tension in the neighborhood. “What could I be talking about with Mr President Putin at this point?” he said, according to the Baltic News Network.

“As long as we have the situation in Ukraine, as long as escalation of tensions continue in the entire region, I see no point in exchanging diplomatic pleasantries and, importantly, I haven’t got the moral right to do so – there is nothing to celebrate, tensions are felt throughout the region.”

Nauseda demands all red lines be crossed, behavior that will ultimately end in a nuclear conflagration. He characterizes the negotiation of differences as “diplomatic pleasantries” and argues that due to the fact his country is on the border with Russia, “we can see the true danger, the true risk,” while Europeans further West cannot.

However, last June, Berlin, and Vilnius agreed to “take preparations to expand the multinational NATO combat unit in Lithuania to the size of a brigade eventually,” Reuters reported.

The plan to increase the “multinational” effort to push additional troops and missiles up against a border shared with Russia was agreed to after consultations with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the PMs of Latvia and Estonia.

In 2004, Lithuania became a full member of NATO. As such, it was permitted to join the effort to kill Afghans and occupy their country. “Since joining the Alliance in 2004,” Lithuania’s Ministry of National Defense proclaimed, “we have been actively involved in international NATO-led missions and operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, where we have led the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Ghowr, Iraq and elsewhere. Lithuania continues to contribute to NATO’s missions and operations.”

Last February, as Russia prepared for its SMO to disarm, neutralize, and denazify Ukraine, a delegation of Lithuanian lawmakers begged the USG to permanently station foreign troops on its soil. In addition to “defending” itself from Russia, the Lithuanians argued neighboring Belarus is also a threat.

Belarus, according to the war propaganda media in the West, is “embattled, authoritarian,” and its decision to match the buildup of NATO troops in Eastern Europe with Russian Federation troops “is a major victory in Putin’s war with the West,” according to The Atlantic, a publication adopted by the Emerson Collective, “a left-of-center private grantmaking enterprise [established by Steve Jobs’ widow] that advocates for a wide variety of left-progressive causes,” according to Influence Watch.

As we now know, so-called “progressives” became warmongering neocons, or rather neolibs, after Obama basically destroyed the antiwar movement, a fact celebrated by The Washington Post.

This neutralization allowed Obama and his  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to invade Libya, arm jihadis in Syria, continue the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and sign off on the CIA kidnapping, torture at secret “black sites,” and executing alleged terror suspects (no evidence or trial required), in addition to dispatching Hellfire missile drones across the Middle East, killing hundreds, including American citizens.

Gitanas Nauseda and bureaucrats from across the Baltic states are clamoring for USG troops, and weapons systems, including Patriot and Avenger missiles.

In 2018, Lithuania “asked Washington to install the systems more regularly for exercises,” Reuters reported. “Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, once ruled from Moscow but now part of NATO and the European Union, need Western help despite growing defence budgets due to their small economies.”

Russia has no intention of invading the Baltics short of a possible threat, something that is a growing possibility now that the USG is in the neighborhood, working to arm these small European countries to the teeth, and urging them to engage in Russia bashing.

Last July, Vilnius increased restrictions on trade through its territory to Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad. The effort to isolate and persecute Russians in Kaliningrad is a NATO and EU objective.

“Lithuania said that its decision was taken after consultation with the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm,” the CNBC division of the USG war propaganda media reported.

After Russia told Lithuania “that Moscow would respond to its ban on the transit of goods sanctioned by the EU to Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad in such a way that citizens of the Baltic state would feel the pain,” the Baltic country backed off.

NATO had hoped the embargo of Russian goods along the Suwalki corridor to the Kaliningrad Oblast would open a new flash point in Eastern Europe. However, this did not pan out the way they expected.

“On the Polish-Lithuanian border, the West must respond to Russia’s actual capabilities rather than making assumptions about its intent,” declared Foreign Affairs, an adjunct of the Council on Foreign Relations, funded by the David Rockefeller Studies Program.

In other words, NATO must confront Russia no matter what it does, as Putin is the New Satan, a step-up from the New Hitler.

Lithuania, like Ukraine, is wholly expendable. Both are pawns, the weakest pieces on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard” of “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.”

The “imperative” is not “democracy” for neo-nazis in Ukraine or their collaborators in Poland and Lithuania. It is a concerted effort to take down “competitors,” that is to say nations and leaders resistant to the neoliberal agenda of imposed poverty and theft of natural resources.

Russia will not allow this to happen. It has warned on numerous occasions that any existential threat imposed on the country will result in a nuclear conflict.

Biden’s war secretary, Lloyd Austin, has specifically come and said the objective is to weaken Russia and depose Vladimir Putin.

Insanity rules. Jennifer Rubin, a neocon who fled “conservatives” to support Biden, and is accused of writing “political pornography” for the CIA’s Washington Post, believes “Lloyd Austin is right,” Russia must be weakened.

Rubin’s hubris and arrogance, along with that of her fellow conspirators, both in and out of the state, will result in turning this loathsome warmongering woman, and practically every other American, into radioactive dust.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

One year after he was deported for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine — precluding him from playing in the 2022 Australian Open — tennis star Novak Djokovic on Sunday made history when he returned to Australia to win his 10th Australian Open and 22nd Grand Slam title.

With Bill Gates in attendance, Djokovic defeated Greece’s Stefanos Tsitsipas, becoming only the second player to win a men’s Grand Slam competition 10 or more times. He also tied the record, held by Rafael Nadal, for Grand Slam wins.

Following his victory, Djokovic visibly teared up, hiding his face in a towel while sitting on the sidelines awaiting the trophy presentation. Afterward, he told reporters:

“Of course, when I went into my box, I just think emotionally collapsed there and teared up, with especially my mother and my brother, when I gave them a hug, because up to that moment, I was not allowing myself to, I guess, be distracted with things off the court or whatever was happening in dealing with an injury, things happening off the court, as well, that could easily have been a big disturbance to my focus, to my game.

“It required an enormous mental energy really to stay present, to stay focused, to take things day by day, and really see how far I can go.”

Djokovic had to overcome a hamstring injury, requiring him to receive “77 therapies a day,” according to his coach, Goran Ivanisevic.

He also faced a media backlash involving his father, who earlier during the tournament was photographed with a group of fans holding the Russian flag and the “Z” symbol — understood as a sign of support for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine. His father did not attend Sunday’s final.

But Gates — one of the world’s foremost proponents of the COVID-19 vaccine — did attend, however, watching the semifinal and the final matches of the men’s tournament.

Gates was in Australia to speak to the country’s Lowy Institute. His remarks raised some eyebrows, when he appeared to be critical of the same COVID-19 vaccines he previously and enthusiastically promoted — and heavily invested in.

Bill Gates just admitted mRNA jabs don’t stop infection, don’t block transmission, don’t block mutants, don’t last, don’t work at all — after he sold stock in his vaccine ventures 😂😂😂. Thanks, Suckers!https://t.co/a5ROLmha1O

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 27, 2023

Djokovic, an outspoken proponent of bodily autonomy, was willing to risk his career to remain unvaccinated

Djokovic, known for his success on the tennis court, gained even wider fame for his outspoken stance against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and for bodily autonomy.

In a February 2022 interview, a BBC reporter asked Djokovic if he was “prepared to forgo the chance to be the greatest player that ever picked up a racket, statistically, because you feel so strongly about the jab?”

“Yes, I do,” Djokovic responded. When prodded about why he felt that way, Djokovic stated, “Because the principles of decision-making on my body are more important than any title.”

Throughout 2022, Djokovic said he was willing to forego other Grand Slam tournaments, such as Wimbledon and the French Open, rather than get vaccinated for COVID-19.

The issue resurfaced following Djokovic’s victory on Sunday, when tennis legend John McEnroe and sports broadcaster Chris Fowler engaged in a debate, live on ESPN, over Djokovic’s vaccination status and the tournaments he missed as a result.

Fowler said Djokovic missed tournaments such as the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2022 as “a part of his choices, to be fair,” adding, “He made choices that led to that for some of those things.”

McEnroe, in response, said, “I think he should have been permitted to play.”

According to Fox News, McEnroe previously spoke out in support of Djokovic’s stance, describing the Biden administration’s vaccination mandates that kept Djokovic out of the US Open as “BS.”

In August 2022, just prior to the US Open, Children’s Health Defense organized an “End All Travel Mandates” protest in support of Djokovic, attracting mainstream media coverage.

Djokovic, who won the 2021 Australian Open, initially was issued a visa to enter Australia for the 2022 competition. However, authorities subsequently canceled the 35-year-old’s visa, then restored it and then canceled it again — leading to his expulsion.

At the time, Australia’s Immigration Minister Alex Hawke unilaterally revoked Djokovic’s visa on “health and good order” grounds, “on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.” Djokovic argued that he had secured a medical exemption allowing him to enter the country.

Djokovic subsequently missed the US Open, another Grand Slam tournament, in September 2022, because the Biden administration wouldn’t lift its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for foreigners entering the country — even though unvaccinated spectators could attend US Open matches.

*

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.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image: Novak Djokovic image credit: Manan Vatsyayana

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

The Wuhan lab story is largely a red herring, meant to distract and divert our attention. The great crime consists of the bioweapons disguised as vaccines, coupled with totalitarian anti-constitutional misgovernance flourishing beneath the pretext of “health”.

The virus stories, medical mandates, and fraudulent testing protocols are all intended to lead us to accept and demand that they (our governments) inject us with experimental, proven dangerous,injections. There was no “pandemic”.

In the following video, Sasha Latypova and Wolfgang Wodard deconstruct the “Fifth Generation Warfare”/on-going Psychological Operation, designed to instill unreasonable fear as a foundation for further assaults on our health and freedoms. — Mark Taliano

*

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

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 Children’s Health Defense

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

Discussions on the transfer of Western fighter jets to Ukraine continue, but none of the NATO countries are ready to take the initiative.

US President Joe Biden once again claimed that the US will not supply Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets. Despite the fact that the discussion on this issue intensified after the decision to transfer tanks to Ukraine.

Some NATO member countries already know the mood swing of their American patrons and avoid any forceful language in their speeches.

Poland is ready to transfer its F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine only in “full coordination” with NATO countries, the Polish Prime Minister claimed.

In his turn, French President Macron warned that Paris “initially excludes nothing.” Thus, the transfer of combat aircraft to Ukraine is also possible. Macron also voiced in advance some conditions for Kiev. In particular, weapons should not be used for strikes on the territory of Russia, and the supplies should not reduce the defense capability to France.

Meanwhile, US representatives are already preparing the public opinion for any possible supplies. Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael Mcfaul suggested that Zelensky could sign a commitment to not use F-16 fighters for strikes on targets inside Russian territory. It is not clear what an effect such a piece of paper would have during the confrontation between Russia and NATO.

In fact, any discussions on the supply of fighter jets to Ukraine are still nothing but talks. After all, the “European partners” are just waiting for an order from the United States.

Washington is apparently in no hurry to escalate the situation further. They still need to deliver the promised Leopard and Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

The notorious tanks are only a small part of all the military supplies that are continuously moving to Ukraine; but they became an important political reason for NATO to demonstrate its alleged cohesion and generosity.

In Russia, they respectively responded to the upcoming arrival of German and American tanks on the Donbass front lines with their own media campaign. Many public and private figures announced generous rewards for captured and destroyed tanks.

On January 29, a famous Russian actor, on behalf of “some representatives of a large Russian business”, announced a prize of 10 million rubles for each Abrams destroyed.

A couple of days ago, the Russian company FORES announced a reward of 5 million rubles for the first destroyed or captured American M1 Abrams or German Leopard 2.

The initiative was also supported by government agencies. The governor of the Trans-Baikal Territory will pay to fellow countrymen 3 million rubles for the seizure and 1 million rubles for the destruction of the German Leopard tank of any modification. US Abrams tanks are cheaper — 1.5 million for the capture and 500 thousand rubles for the destruction.

These are just some of the announced prizes. The hunt begins, and the stakes are rising.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK :

MONERO (XMR):
86yfEHs6pkoDEKCxc6MAnQX8cVHmzhYxMVrNuwKgNmqpWK8dDxjgGnK8PtUNJMACbn6xEGxmRauNTHJhUJpg9Mwz8htBBND

BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qgu58lfszcpqu6fd8l98m378wgzugyg9y93lcym

BITCOIN CASH (BCH): qr28d80s5juzv2793k5jrq59xrl5fxd8qg9h3zlkk2

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.

***

A war against the Soviet Union was wanted by the industrialists, bankers, large landowners and other members of Germany’s upper class, the “elite” of the land. That was one of the reasons, and arguably the paramount reason, why they had enabled the coming to power of Hitler, a politician of whom it was widely known that he considered the destruction of the Soviet Union as the great task entrusted to him by providence. Hitler’s so-called “seizure of power” (Machtergreifung) was in reality a “transfer of power,” and this transfer was orchestrated, logically enough, by those who, behind the democratic façade of Weimer Germany, ensconced in the army, judiciary, state bureaucracy, diplomacy, and so forth, wielded power, namely the upper class. However, to win the great war planned by Hitler, Germany, a highly industrialized country but lacking colonies and therefore woefully short of strategic raw materials, had to win it fast, before the depletion of the stockpiles of imported rubber and above all petroleum that Germany could establish before the start of the conflict. These reserves, much of which consisted of imports from the US, could not be adequately replenished by synthetic fuel and rubber produced at home (on the basis of coal) and/or oil supplied by friendly or neutral countries such as Romania and – after the Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939 – the Soviet Union.

It is in this context that the Nazis had developed the strategy of Blitzkrieg, “lightning warfare”: synchronized attacks by massive numbers of tanks, airplanes, and trucks (for transporting infantry), piercing the defensive lines behind which the bulk of the enemy’s forces were typically ensconced in the style of World War I, then encircling these forces, leaving them to face either annihilation or capitulation.

In 1939 and 1940, this strategy worked perfectly: Blitzkrieg produced Blitzsieg, “lightning victory,” against Poland, Holland, Belgium, and – spectacularly so – against France, supposedly a great military power. When, in the spring of 1941, Nazi Germany was poised to attack the Soviet Union, everyone–not only Hitler and his generals but also the army commanders in London and Washington – expected a similar scenario to unfold: the Red Army would be finished off by the Wehrmacht within a maximum of two months. Hitler and his generals despised the Soviet Union as a ‘giant with feet of clay”, whose army, presumably “decapitated” by Stalin’s purges during the thirties, was nothing more than “a joke,” as the Führer himself put it on one occasion. On the eve of the attack, Hitler felt supremely confident: he reportedly “fancied himself to be on the verge of the greatest triumph of his life.”

Image: German infantry and a supporting StuG III assault gun during the battle (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

From the Ostkrieg, their Blitzkrieg in the east, on what would later be called the “eastern front,” Hitler and his generals expected much more than from their previous lightning campaigns. Their stockpiles of fuel and rubber had already dwindled after their gas-guzzling planes and panzers had embarked on a conquest of Europe from Poland to France via Norway; by the spring of 1941, the remaining supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts, etc. sufficed to wage motorized war for no more than a couple of months. The shortfall could not be compensated by imports from the Soviet Union as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, as is claimed by some historians. According to a meticulous study by the Canadian history professor Brock Millman, published in the The Journal of Contemporary History, merely four percent of Germany’s fuel came from Soviet sources. In 1940 and 1941, Germany depended mostly on petroleum imported from two countries : first, Romania, initially a neutral country but an ally of Nazi Germany  as of November 1940; second, the United States, whose “oil barons” supplied the Hitler regime with enormous quantities of “liquid gold” via neutral countries such as Franco’s Spain and occupied France; these exports were to continue until the United States entered the war in December 1941. As for the relatively modest imports of Soviet petroleum, they actually troubled Hitler deeply because according to the terms of the 1939 Pact, Germany had to deliver high-quality industrial products and state-of-the-art military technology, used by the Soviets to strengthen their defenses in preparation for a German attack that they expected sooner or later.

Hitler believed this dilemma could be resolved by attacking the Soviet Union, and by attacking as soon as possible, even though stubborn Britain had not yet been vanquished: the “lightning victory” that was confidently expected to materialize quickly in the east would deliver to Germany the rich oil fields of the Caucasus, where the gas-guzzling Panzers and Stukas would in future be able to fill their tanks to the brim at any time. Germany would then be a truly invincible über-Reich, capable of winning even long, drawn-out wars against any antagonist. This was the plan, code-named “Barbarossa,” and its implementation got underway on June 22, 1941; but things would not work out as its architects in Berlin had expected.

While the Red Army took a terrible beating at first, it had not massed its forces at the border but opted for a defense in depth; withdrawing in relatively good order, it managed to elude destruction in one or more of the kind of huge encirclement battles that Hitler and his generals had dreamed of. It is this “defense in depth” that prevented the Wehrmacht from destroying the Red Army, as Marshal Zhukov has emphasized in his memoirs. The Germans advanced, but increasingly slowly and at the price of great losses. By late September, that is, two months after the start of Barbarossa, when victory should have been a fait accompli and the German soldiers ought to have been heading home to be welcomed there as conquering heroes, they were still a very long way from Moscow and even farther from the Caucasian oil fields, a major object of Hitler’s desires in his Ostkrieg. And soon the mud, snow and cold of fall and early winter were to create new difficulties for troops that had never been expected to fight in such conditions.

In the meantime, the Red Army had recuperated from the blows it had received initially, and on December 5, 1941, it launched a devastating counter-offensive in front of Moscow. The Nazi forces were thrown back and had to adopt defensive positions. With great difficulty, they would manage to arrest the Red Army’s offensive and survive the winter of 1941-1942.  In any event, on the evening of that fateful fifth of December, 1941, the generals of the Wehrmacht’s high command reported to Hitler that, on account of the failure of the Blitzkrieg-strategy, Germany could no longer hope to win the war.

The Battle of Moscow heralded the failure of the lightning-war strategy against the Soviet Union. From a Blitzsieg, a “lightning-like victory,” on the eastern front, in 1941, Nazi Germany’s political and military authorities had expected that it would have made a German defeat in the entire war impossible, and that would almost certainly have been the case. It is probably fair to say that if Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany would today still be the hegemon of Europe, and possibly of the Middle East and North Africa as well. However, in front of Moscow, in December 1941, Nazi Germany suffered the defeat that made an overall German victory impossible, not only victory against the Soviet Union itself, but also victory against Great Britain and victory in the war in general. In other words, December 5, 1941, was the real turning point of the Second World War. It ought to be noted that at that point – a few days before Pearl Harbor – the United States was not yet involved in the war against Germany. In fact, the US only became involved in that war because of the Battle of Moscow.

Image: German infantry in position for an attack. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

Shortly after Germany’s Führer received the bad news from Russia, he learned that the Japanese had attacked Pearly Harbor on December 7 and that the Americans had reacted with a declaration of war against Japan, but not against Germany, which had nothing to do with this attack.  However, Hitler himself declared war on the United States, namely on December 11. His alliance with Japan did not require him to do so, as some historians have claimed, because it required to come to the aid of a partner that was attacked by a third country; however, the land of the rising sun was not attacked but had itself initiated the hostilities. With this dramatic gesture of solidarity vis-a-vis his Japanese partner, Hitler undoubtedly hoped that would cause Tokyo to reciprocate and declare war on his own mortal enemy, the Soviet Union. In this case, the Red Army would have to fight a war on two fronts, and this might have revived Germans prospects for victory in the titanic Ostkrieg. But Japan did not take the bait, and Nazi Germany was thus saddled with another formidable enemy, though it would take a long time before American forces would engage in actual combat against Nazi troops.

The Battle of Moscow was definitely the turning point of World War II, but other than Hitler and his generals, hardly anyone knew that Germany was henceforth doomed to lose the war. The general public certainly was not aware of this, not in Germany, not in the occupied countries, not in Britain and certainly not in the US. It looked as if the Wehrmacht had suffered a temporary setback, presumably – according to Nazi propaganda – due to the unexpectedly early onset of winter; but it was still ensconced deep in Soviet territory and continued to occupy a huge part of the country. It was therefore expected that the Germans would resume the offensive in 1942, as indeed they would.

In the spring of 1942, Hitler scraped together all available forces for an offensive — code-named “Operation Blue” (Unternehmen Blau) – in the direction of the oil fields of the Caucasus. He had convinced himself that he still had a chance of winning the war, but certainly not “if he did not get the petroleum of Maikop and Grozny.” The element of surprise had been lost, however, and the Soviets still disposed of huge masses of men, oil, and other resources. The Wehrmacht, on the other hand, could not compensate for the huge losses it had suffered in 1941 in its “crusade” in the Soviet Union: 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles; and more than 900,000 men had been killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to almost one third of the average strength of the German armed forces.

The forces available for a push toward the oil fields of the Caucasus were therefore extremely limited and, as it turned out, insufficient to achieve the offensive’s objective. Under those circumstances, it is quite remarkable that in 1942 the Germans managed to make it as far as they did. But when their offensive inevitably petered out, in September of that year, their weakly held lines were stretched along many hundreds of kilometres, presenting a perfect target for a Soviet counterattack. This is the context in which an entire German army was bottled up, and ultimately destroyed, in Stalingrad, in a titanic battle that started in the fall of 1942 and ended in early February 1943, precisely eighty years ago. After this sensational victory of the Red Army, the ineluctability of German defeat in World War II was obvious for all to see. It is for this reason – but also because of the long duration of the battle, the huge numbers of troops involved, and the unprecedented losses suffered by both sides – that most historians consider this battle, rather than the Battle of Moscow, as the turning point of the worldwide conflict of 1939-1945.

It must be recognized that, from a strictly military point of view, the Battle of Moscow of September 1941 had already ensured that the bulk of the German armed forces would be tied down on the eastern front, with a length of approximately 4,000 kilometers, and that it was there that the Germans would have to use the bulk of their what remained of their meager resources in petroleum and rubber. This situation had eliminated the possibility of any new German military initiatives against the British and made it impossible to supply Rommel in North Africa with sufficient men, equipment, and fuel to prevent his defeat at El Alamein in the fall of 1942. However, it is obvious that the fiasco at Stalingrad made the lamentable military situation of the Reich infinitely worse and made it impossible to station a sufficient number of troops on the Atlantic coast of Europe to deal with an Anglo-American invasion that was certain to materialize sooner or later. In June 1944, at the time of the landings in Normandy, the Western Allies experienced considerable difficulties, even though they only confronted a small fraction of the Wehrmacht, while the once fearsome Luftwaffe was virtually absent from the skies over the beaches because of a debilitating shortage of fuel. Without the successes of the Red Army, first in front of Moscow and then around Stalingrad, the entire Wehrmacht would have been available to fight on the western front, and the Luftwaffe would have disposed of inexhaustible quantities of Caucasian petroleum. An Anglo-American landing in Normandy would have been “mission impossible.”

Image: Soviet soldiers running through trenches in the ruins of Stalingrad (Licensed under the Public Domain)

In any event, the impact of the Battle of Stalingrad was enormous. In Germany, the public was henceforth painfully aware that their country was heading towards an ignominious defeat, and countless people who had previously supported the Nazi regime now turned against it, Many if not most of the military and civilian leaders who were involved in the attempt on Hitler’s life in July 1944, for example, lionized today as heroes and martyrs of the German “anti-Nazi resistance,” such as Stauffenberg and Goerdeler, may have been brave individuals, but they had enthusiastically supported Hitler at the time of his triumphs, that is, before the defeat at Stalingrad. If, after the Battle of Stalingrad, they wanted to get rid of Hitler, it was because they feared that he would drag them with him into ruin. Awareness of the significance of the German defeat on the banks of the Volga similarly demoralized the allies of Nazi Germany and caused them to start looking for ways to exit the war. As for the neutral countries, many of which had hitherto sympathized with Nazi Germany, mostly because their rulers shared Hitler’s anti-Sovietism, they became considerably more benevolent towards the members of the “anti-Hitler coalition,” and above all towards the “Anglo-Americans.” Franco, for example, pretended not to notice the allied airmen whose planes had been shot down over occupied countries and who, assisted by resistance fighters, crossed the Pyrenees from France into Spain to return that way to England.

In France and in other occupied countries, the leading political, military, but also economic collaborators, that is, bankers and industrialists, started to discreetly distance themselves from the Germans. Relying on the benevolent services of the Vatican and the Franco regime, they sought contact with the Americans and the British, from whom they received sympathy and assistance as both sides were eager to preserve the established capitalist social-economic order. (The French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz has focused on this little-known aspect of the war in a couple of her thoroughly researched and documented books.)

Conversely, the news from Stalingrad boosted the morale of Germany’s enemies everywhere. After many long years of darkness, when it had seemed that Nazi Germany would dominate all of Europe forever, resistance fighters in France and elsewhere finally perceived the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. And their ranks were now increasingly reinforced by many who had been too lethargic before they received the happy tidings from Stalingrad. In France, in particular, the name of Stalingrad became a battle cry of the resistance. After the great victory of the Red Army on the banks of the Volga, the specter of an inevitable defeat haunted Germany, while in the occupied countries everybody knew that the hour of liberation approached – slowly, perhaps, but surely.

Let us know consider the post-Stalingrad situation from the viewpoint of Uncle Sam and his British (junior) partner. There is no doubt about it: the prospect of Germany being defeated and of France and the rest of Europe being liberated by the Red Army caused alarm bells to ring in the halls of power in London and Washington. The Western Allies had been happy to remain on the sidelines, minimizing their losses and maximizing their military strength, while the Nazis and Soviets were locked in mortal combat on the Eastern Front. While the Red Army provided the cannon fodder needed to vanquish Germany, they would be able to intervene decisively, like a deus ex machina, whenever the Nazi enemy as well as the unloved Soviet ally would be exhausted. With Britain on its side as a junior partner, the USA would then be able to play the leading role in the camp of the victors and dictate the terms of the peace to the Soviets as well as the Germans. It is for this reason that, in 1942, Washington and London had refused to open a “second front” by landing troops in France. Instead, they had implemented a “southern” strategy by sending an army to North Africa in November 1942 to occupy the French colonies located there.

Image: Soviets defend a position. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

Because of the outcome of the Battle of Stalingrad, the situation had changed dramatically. Of course, from a purely military perspective, Stalingrad proved to be a boon to the Western Allies, because this defeat had impaired the Nazi enemy’s war machine to their advantage as well. But Roosevelt and Churchill were far from happy with the fact that the Red Army was now grinding its way towards Berlin and possibly even farther westward, and that the Soviet Union – and its socialist social-economic system – now enjoyed enormous popularity among patriots in all the occupied countries and encouraged the resistance movements in France and elsewhere to make plans to introduce far-reaching, virtually revolutionary changes after the liberation of their countries. Conversely, the “Anglo-Saxons” were far from popular in countries such as France, partly because of their hitherto meagre contribution in the fight against Nazism, and partly because their air raids on cities in France and other occupied countries caused considerable civilian casualties; it was also unhelpful that Washington had long maintained diplomatic relations with the collaborator government of Marshal Pétain in Vichy and was known to look unfavourably on the plans for radical changes after liberation. In view of all this, it “became imperative for American and English strategy to land troops in France,” as two American historians, Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble, have written and thus to prevent Western Europe and most of Germany to fall “in Soviet hands” or at least under Soviet influence. However, when the news of the Soviet triumph at Stalingrad became known and its implications started to sink in, which was in early 1943, it was too late to plan a landing in France for that same year, so things had to wait until the spring of 1944.

The landings in Normandy in June 1944 did not constitute the turning point of World War II. Militarily, Nazi Germany had already received fatal blows at the Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, and again, in the summer of 1943, at the Battle of Kursk. And while the landings officially purported to liberate France and the rest of Europe, their “latent,” that is, unspoken but real function was to prevent the Soviet Union from singlehandedly liberating Europe, possibly including Western Europe all the way to the English Channel– a prospect that was first raised by the Red Army’s victory on the banks of the Volga. Liberating France – or occupying it, much as the Germans had occupied the country, as General de Gaulle described the outcome of the Normandy landings on one occasion! – also purported to prevent the leaders of the French resistance leaders, of whom the majority had great sympathy and admiration for the Soviets, as did the rank-and-file, from playing a major role in the reconstruction of their country. Washington and London detested this “philosovietism,” which was actually shared at the time by the majority of the French population.  But it was feared, above all, that these patriots might come to power and proceed to implement radical social-economic reforms, including nationalization of corporations and banks that had collaborated with the Nazis. (Dire warnings to that effect were emanating regularly from the leading American spy based in Switzerland, Allen Dulles, later to become head of the CIA.)

To sabotage the radical projects of the Resistance, which were incompatible with the American plans for France and all of Europe, namely the introduction of a capitalism as unbridled as possible, Washington and London decided, after much hesitation, to rely on General Charles de Gaulle, a rare bird in the sense that he was a popular resistance leader who was conservative. The Americans considered him to be an annoying megalomanic, but eventually realized his usefulness and made it possible for him to come to power in liberated France. That strategy involved orchestrating a kind of triumphant entry into Paris for de Gaulle, featuring a rather theatrical stroll down the Champs Elysées, during which other, arguably equally or even more important resistance leaders were forced to follow behind him. Even so, working with de Gaulle would prove to be far from easy for the Americans. It proved impossible, for example, to prevent him, once he had been anointed as head of the government, from adopting some radical reforms wanted by the resistance and by a majority of the French people. Without him, however, the Left might have come to power and many more far-reaching, quasi-revolutionary changes might have been introduced. And in that case the Americans would not have been able to integrate France in the anti-Soviet alliance they were to set up in Europe after the defeat of Nazi Germany and in the context of the Cold War. In fact, membership in this so-called alliance equated vassalage to Uncle Sam, and the alliance’s objective proved to be the same as that of Operation Barbarossa, namely, the destruction of the Soviet Union.

As the Second World War came to an end, and for quite a few years afterwards, most denizens of Western European countries victimized by Nazi Germany, but France in particular, were keenly aware that the libération of their homeland was above all due to the efforts and sacrifices of the Soviet Union, a fact that had become evident a the time of the Red Army’s glorious victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. It was a period of time when these same people, in stark contrast to the present situation, harboured enormous gratitude and goodwill vis-à-vis the Russians and other ethnic groups – Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Uzbeks, etc. – of the Soviet Union. The name given in June 1945 to one of the largest squares in Paris still recalls that distant and brief moment in time: Place de la Bataille-de-Stalingrad, ‘Square of the Battle of Stalingrad’.

*

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.

Jacques R. Pauwels, author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, Big business and Hitler, The Great Class War 1914-1918, and Myths of Modern History.

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

Featured image is licensed under CC0

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.

***

On 8 January 2023, several thousand supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro stormed Brazil’s three main democratic institutions. The Congress, the Federal Supreme Court and the Presidential Palace in the capital’s Three Power Square were ransacked for several hours in an attempted coup. The meticulously planned attack sparked worldwide outrage.

On 30 October 2022, in the second round of the presidential election, Brazilians cast their votes for the Workers’ Party candidate Lula da Silva, giving him a narrow lead over the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro. With a total of 50.9%, Lula obtained two million more votes than his opponent out of a total of 124 million voters. After two consecutive successful terms in office between 2003 and 2010 and 80% favourable opinion, the former workers’ leader returns to power for a new four-year term of office, until 2027.[1]

President Lula should have returned to the Presidential Palace in January 2019, as the favourite candidate in the 2018 elections. But following a conspiracy orchestrated by prosecutor Sergio Moro in the Lava Jato corruption case to prevent him from running, Lula was arbitrarily sentenced in 2017 to nine years and six months in prison – increased to 12 years on appeal – for passive corruption and money laundering, without any material evidence being presented to the court. The UN Human Rights Commission condemned the trial against Lula, saying it “violated his right to be tried by an impartial tribunal, his right to privacy and his political rights”.[2] Lula spent 580 days in prison, from April 2018 to November 2019, which allowed Bolsonaro to seize power without difficulty. The far-right leader did not even try to keep up appearances, rushing to thank Prosecutor Moro by appointing him Minister of Justice.[3] In 2019, the Supreme Court overturned Lula’s conviction, denouncing the political instrumentalization of the trial against him.[4]

Bolsonaro is an openly fascist leader. “Let’s go straight to dictatorship”, he has said in the past.[5] Nostalgic for the Brazilian military regime that scarred the country between 1964 and 1985, and an enemy of democratic principles, the former president thus described in 2019 as a “national hero” Colonel Carlo Alberto Ustra, condemned for acts of torture and barbarity by the Brazilian justice system. Dilma Roussef, President of Brazil from 2011 to 2016, was tortured by Ustra’s services when she was a young revolutionary activist opposed to the generals’ autocracy.[6]

After four years of governance, Bolsonaro’s record is singularly negative, marked by ultraconservatism, the strengthening of the power of the evangelical church, hate speech against people of colour, women, sexual diversity and the left.[7] His catastrophic management of the Covid-19 pandemic has made Brazil one of the countries with the highest lethality rate in the world. His anti-social policies have caused the poverty rate to soar, with 33 million people going hungry. Under his tenure, deforestation in the Amazon reached unprecedented levels, with a 60% increase, destroying indigenous lands and raising the concern of the world community. At the international level, his policies have led to the weakening of ties with many countries.[8]

Despite the transparency of the 2022 elections, Bolsonaro has always refused to recognise his opponent’s victory, spreading rumours of fraud and heating up his electorate, which has multiplied violent actions since October 2022, notably blocking roads. Moreover, since then, hundreds of people have been camping in front of the army headquarters in Brasilia, chanting the slogan “S.O.S Armed Forces”, explicitly demanding a military intervention in order to break the constitutional legality and prevent Lula’s accession to power on 1 January 2023, all this with Bolsonaro’s tacit agreement.[9] Moreover, Bolsonaro did not hesitate to put strong pressure on the Superior Electoral Tribunal to cancel the elections. But the SET refused to give in to the threats and validated the election, denouncing Bolsonaro’s action and calling his allegations “ludicrous and illicit”, saying they were “ostensibly conspiratorial toward the democratic rule of law”.[10]

On 30 December 2022, two days before Lula’s inauguration ceremony, Bolsonaro left the country for the United States, refusing to comply with the republican tradition of handing over the sash to his successor as a symbol of a peaceful transition. It was the first time since the advent of democracy in 1985 that an outgoing president refused to greet the new leader. That year, General Joao Figueredo, the last head of the military junta, refused to attend the inauguration ceremony of President-elect José Sarney.[11] Bolsonaro’s attitude was even publicly criticised by his outgoing vice-president, General Hamilton Mourao: “Leaders who should reassure and unite the nation around a project for the country have allowed their silence or their inappropriate and harmful protagonism to create a climate of chaos and social disintegration”.[12]

On 1 January 2023, the inauguration ceremony brought together many official delegations from all over the world to witness Lula’s inauguration as President of the Republic, illustrating the international support for the new power. Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians travelled to the capital to welcome the advent of a different era for Brazil, marked by four difficult years. To symbolise the new stage for the Brazilian people, especially for the poorest categories, Lula chose a 33-year-old woman garbage collector, Aline Sousa, to present the presidential sash.[13]

In his inaugural speech, Lula recalled the long and difficult battle that led to his victory. He denounced the use of public funds for electoral purposes by his rival. He made an indictment of the outgoing government for “destroying public policies that promoted citizenship, essential rights, health and education”. He promised Brazilians a “dignified life, without hunger, with access to employment, health and education”.[14]

A week later, on 8 January 2023, thousands of far-right activists gathered in the capital Brasilia in what was clearly a carefully planned operation. They launched an assault lasting several hours on the country’s three main democratic institutions, the Congress, the Presidential Palace and the Supreme Court, three jewels of the Square of the Three Powers built by the architect Oscar Niemeyer, ransacking the premises and destroying priceless works of art, with the aim of breaking constitutional legality. Two years almost to the day after the attack on the Capitol in Washington by Donald Trump’s supporters who refused to recognise the results of the elections, Brazil experienced the same dramatic episode. The international community unanimously condemned the attack on the rule of law.[15]

President Lula signed a decree delegating the security of the capital to the federal authorities until the end of January 2023.[16] No less than 1,200 people were arrested and the Supreme Court ordered the dismantling of the coup plotters’ camps within 24 hours.[17]

The responsibilities

Despite his denials, the main intellectual author of this coup attempt is the incumbent himself.[18] Indeed, Bolsonaro has repeatedly questioned the unanimously recognised election results, fanning the flames of resentment among his supporters and galvanising the more radical sectors tempted by illegal action. As the New York Times points out, the assault was “the violent culmination of incessant rhetorical attacks on the nation’s electoral systems by Mr. Bolsonaro”.[19] For its part, CNN pointed out that “Bolsonaro repeatedly sowed doubt about the legitimacy of the vote, without citing any evidence for his various claims”.[20] The former head of state has thus opened the way to a violent action unprecedented in the history of democratic Brazil. Through his lawyer, he persisted in describing the events as “spontaneous social movements carried out by the population”. The Supreme Court announced the opening of an investigation against him. According to the US press, “there is little question he inspired the roughly 5,000 people who were at the protest that turned violent”.[21] In addition to Bolsonaro’s responsibility, there is the responsibility of the groups that provided material and financial support for the organisation of such an operation.

The domestic intelligence services had, without any doubt, all the necessary information on the violent plans of the Bolsonarist militants. For example, numerous messages circulating on Telegram and WhatsApp called “to organize attacks against critical infrastructure, such as oil refineries and roadblocks”. There is no doubt that the groups of protesters were infiltrated by general intelligence agents, as is the case in any country in the world. For example, according to a note from the military police in Brasilia, no less than 100 buses carrying more than 4,000 people arrived in the capital between Friday 6 January and Sunday 8 January 2023.[22] Yet no action was taken to arrest the organisers and prevent the assault.

Moreover, the army is clearly responsible, having accepted the presence of the coup camp, calling for the disruption of the constitutional order, for more than ten weeks in a national security zone. Moreover, on the day of the riots, the battalion of the presidential guard permanently stationed at the Palace of the Head of State did not see fit to intervene to prevent the invasion. These soldiers “even prevented, on several occasions, the police from arresting the rioters”, according to Le Monde.[23]

Similarly, there is no doubt about the responsibility of the security forces that were supposed to protect the capital. The contingent of police officers present at the scene was much smaller than that required to guard the various institutions of Brazilian democracy. Yet the risk of incidents was very high given the massive and belligerent presence of Bolsonaro’s extremists. A meeting had taken place on 6 January between Flavio Dino, the new Minister of Justice, and local authorities including the governor of Brasilia, Ibaneis Rocha, and the head of Brasilia’s security, Anderson Torres, and an agreement had been reached on the number of agents to be deployed to protect the institutions in anticipation of the Sunday demonstration. However, against all expectations, the contingent present was much smaller than agreed. Minister Dino denounced a last-minute change, without any explanation from the authorities in Brasilia.[24] Thus, while the esplanade was supposed to be closed to the demonstrators, Governor Rocha decided at the last moment to open it. The Minister of Justice only found out about this through the press.[25] Instead of fulfilling their mission to protect the premises, the police distinguished themselves by their inaction and even complicity with the coup plotters. The New York Times expressed its astonishment: “Videos circulated online of the officers who were present appearing to escort protestors on their way to the federal buildings, and pausing to snap selfies with them”.[26] President Lula denounced “an explicit connivance of the police with the demonstrators”. The Brazilian justice system has already begun to act by arresting the head of security in the capital.[27]

Initially, the Supreme Court suspended Governor Torres of Brasilia, a strong supporter of Bolsonaro and former Justice Minister, for 90 days.[28] But investigators discovered at his home a draft presidential decree designed to annul Lula’s election by taking control of the Superior Electoral Tribunal by the federal government, causing an unprecedented scandal in Brazil. The undated document bore Bolsonaro’s name at the end with a space reserved for his signature. Torres, in a clumsy attempt to defend himself, called for the document not to be judged “out of context”, thus acknowledging the authorship of the project and the authenticity of the document intended to prepare a coup. He was immediately arrested by the authorities, pending trial.[29]

The French Penal Code

In any Western democracy, the events of 8 January would be punished by heavy prison sentences. For example, according to Article 412-1 of the French Penal Code, “committing one or more acts of violence likely to endanger the institutions of the Republic” is “punishable by thirty years of criminal detention and a fine of 450,000 euros”. In addition, the penalties are increased to life imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 euros when the acts are “committed by a person in authority”. Article 412-4 imposes a penalty of “fifteen years’ imprisonment and a fine of 225,000 euros for participating in an insurrectionary movement”. The latter is clearly defined: “by occupying by open force or by deception or by destroying any building or installation; by ensuring the transport, subsistence or communications of the insurgents; by provoking gatherings of insurgents by any means whatsoever”.[30]

The attempted coup orchestrated by Bolsonaro’s supporters illustrates the true face of the far right extremists, who are incapable of respecting democratic principles when the popular vote is against them. In a country that still bears the painful scars of two decades of military dictatorship, fractured and polarised by the outgoing administration, President Lula’s mission is to regain the necessary national cohesion and to remind all Brazilians, regardless of their political leanings, that the nation belongs to all and that it has a moral duty to look after the most fragile categories. “Order and Progress” is the republican motto of Brazil.

*

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.

Ph.D in Iberian and Latin American Studies at the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, Salim Lamrani is a lecturer at the University of La Réunion, and a journalist specializing in relations between Cuba and the United States.

Notes

[1] Agence France-Presse, « Congratulations Pour In for Brazil President-Elect Lula », 31 October 2022.

[2] United Nations Human Right Office of the Hight Commissionner, « Brazil : Criminal proceedings against former President Lula da Silva violated due process guarantees, UN Human Rights Committee finds », United Nations, 28 April 2022. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/04/brazil-criminal-proceedings-against-former-president-lula-da-silva-violated (Accessed 18 January 2023).

[3] Glenn Greenwald & Victor Poury, « Hidden Plot. Exclusive: Brazil’s Top Prosecutors Who Indicted Lula Schemed in Secret Messages to Prevent His Party From Winning 2018 Election », The Intercept, 9 January 2019. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-car-wash-prosecutors-workers-party-lula/ (Accessed 16 January 2023).

[4] Reuters, « Brazil judge orders ex-president Lula released from prison », 8 November 2019.

[5] Jack Nicas & Carly Olson, « Who is Jair Bolsonaro », The New York Times, 8 January 2023.

[6] Reuters, « Brazil’s Bolsonaro extols convicted torturer as a ‘national hero’ », 8 August 2019.

[7] Jack Nicas & Carly Olson, « Who is Jair Bolsonaro », The New York Times, 8 January 2023.

[8] Heriberto Araujo, « For Lula and the World, the Tough Job of Saving the Amazon Begins », The New York Times, 31 December 2022 ; Ecole de Politique Appliquée, « Election présidentielle au Brésil : le retour historique de Lula », Faculté de Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Sherbrook, 8 November 2022. https://perspective.usherbrooke.ca/bilan/servlet/BMAnalyse/3324 (Accessed 16 January 2023).

[9] Vanessa Barbara, « The ‘Trump of the Tropics’ Goes Bust », The New York Times, 9 January 2023.

[10] Rob Picheta, « The violent attack on Brazil’s government was months in the making. Here’s what you need to know », CNN, 9 January 2023.

[11] AFP/Le Point, « Brésil : Bolsonaro s’envole pour les Etats-Unis avant la fin de son mandat », 31 December 2022.

[12] Jack Nicas & André Spigariol, « Lula Becomes Brazil’s President, With Bolsonaro in Florida », The New York Times, 1 January 2023.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Lula da Silva, « Discurso de posse do presidente Lula no Congresso Nacional », 1 January 2023. https://lula.com.br/discurso-de-posse-lula-2023/(Accessed 16 January 2023).

[15] The New York Times, « Governments Condemn Brazil Protests », 8 January 2023 ; Jack Nicas & André Spigariol, « Bolsonaro Supporters Lay Siege to Brazil’s Capital », The New York Times, 8 January 2023.

[16] David Biller, « Authorities probe who was behind uprising in Brazil capital », Associated Press, 9 January 2023.

[17] Ana Ionova & Jack Nicas, « Here’s the latest on the riot in the Brazilian capital », The New York Times, 9 January 2023.

[18] Jack Nicas, « Bolsonaro has been holed up thousands of miles away in Florida », The New York Times, 8 January 2023.

[19] Jack Nicas & André Spigariol, « Her’s what to know about the protest fueled by false claims of electoral fraud », The New York Times, 8 January 2023.

[20] Rob Picheta, « The violent attack on Brazil’s government was months in the making. Here’s what you need to know », CNN, 9 January 2023.

[21] Jack Nicas & André Spigariol, « Bolsonaro Faces Investigation for Inspiring Brazil’s Capital Riot », The New York Times, 13 January 2023.

[22] Alan Yuhas, « What We Know About the Investigations Into the Brazil Protests », The New York Times, 9 January 2023.

[23] Bruno Meyerfeld, « Au Brésil, les limites de la purge de Lula dans l’armée, après les émeutes du 8 janvier », Le Monde, 21 January 2023.

[24] Jack Nicas, « What Drove a Mass Attack on Brazil’s Capital ? Mass Delusion », The New York Times, 9 January 2023.

[25] Jack Nicas & Simon Romero, « ‘We Wille Die for Brazil’ : How a Far-Right Mob Tried to Oust Lula », The New York Times, 13 January 2023.

[26] Amanda Taud, « A Vital Question for Brazil’s Democracy : Where Were the Police ? », The New York Times, 11 January 2023.

[27] Tara John Rodrigo Pedroso & Kareem El Damanhoury, « Brazilian President Lula criticizes police for protesters’ breach of government buildings », CNN, 10 January 2023.

[28] Reuters, « Brazil’s Top Court Removes Brasilia Governor Over pro-Bolsonaro Riots », 8 January 2023.

[29] Agence France-Presse, « Election au Brésil : révelations compromettantes dans l’entourage de Bolsonaro », 13 January 2023 ; Le Monde, « Au Brésil, Anderson Torres, ancien ministre de la justice de Jair Bolsonaro, a été arrêté », 14 January 2023.

[30] Code pénal français, « Article 412-1 & 412-4 ». https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000006136044/#LEGISCTA000006136044 (Accessed 18 January 2023).

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

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

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 GR on January 9, 2023.

COVID-19 is the largest, most sophisticated propaganda operation in history. Psychological techniques were extensively used during 2020 to incite fear and panic in the population

Propaganda strategies were also used to get people to support and defend irrational COVID measures such as masking, isolation, social distancing, lockdowns and jab mandates

What made the COVID propaganda so much more effective than any previous propaganda operation is the fact that a virus is the perfect enemy. It’s invisible, could be carried by anyone, including those you love the most, and could “get” you anywhere

Classical rhetoric is about persuasion through argument. It appeals to logic. Propaganda, on the other hand, is a kind of subrational manipulation that appeals to our most basic instincts, such as fear. An informal definition of propaganda is “an organized attempt to get people to think or do something — or not think or do something”

The Great Lie is possible because the more divorced a lie is from reality, the more likely it is to succeed, as most people are reluctant to think that authority figures would lie and completely ignore reality

*

In the video above,^1,2 initially published in August 2021, professor Piers Robinson, Ph.D. — co-director of the Organization for Propaganda Studies, whose research specialty is organized persuasive communication and contemporary propaganda — speaks to Asia Pacific Today about propaganda in the age of COVID.

As noted by Robinson, COVID-19 is unquestionably the largest, most sophisticated propaganda operation in history. Psychological techniques were extensively used during 2020 to incite fear and panic in the population, while other persuasion strategies were used to get people to support and defend COVID measures such as masking, isolation, social distancing, lockdowns and jab mandates.

The Propaganda War

Indeed, propaganda is what allowed for draconian and unscientific COVID measures to be implemented in the first place. Without propaganda and simultaneous censorship of opposing views, little of what we’ve been through would have been possible.

As noted by Robinson, while the use of state propaganda could initially be justified as a necessary means to achieve a public health objective — protecting people from COVID-related illness and death — it quickly became apparent that this was not the case, and likely never was.

Today, three years in, it’s quite evident that COVID is a psychological operation. For example, since 2022 at the latest, COVID has been nothing more than another endemic respiratory infection, much like the common cold, yet the pandemic has not been declared “over.”

We now also have clear evidence that the COVID jabs don’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, which negates the entire premise for vaccine passports, yet they’re being pushed anyway. In short, COVID-19 was (and still is) a means to an end; to suspend and strip us of Constitutional rights and civil liberties, and to further social, political and financial restructuring objectives outside democratic processes.

A Propaganda Masterpiece

Another propaganda expert who has spoken about the overt use of propaganda to create and maintain the pandemic is professor Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., whom I interviewed in June 2021 about the academic censorship he experienced at New York University.

Ironically, it was his teaching students how to question and resist propaganda that brought on the curtailment of his academic freedom, after teaching this important subject for over 20 years. Like Robinson, Miller believes that what we’ve experienced over the past three years is a propaganda “masterpiece” of unequaled scale and sophistication.

It began with the outbreak of an unknown pathogen in China. Media showed images of people allegedly dropping dead in the streets. This has never happened anywhere else since then, which strongly suggests those images were misappropriated for one purpose — to spread fear.

According to Miller, the type of fearmongering used to propagate the belief that COVID-19 was a lethal threat was the most devastating ever used in propaganda history. What made the COVID propaganda so much more effective than any previous propaganda operation was the fact that a virus is the perfect enemy.

It’s invisible, could be carried by anyone, including those you love the most, and could “get” you anywhere. As explained by Miller, in previous propaganda operations, the enemy was typically portrayed as having the ability to “infect” the people and the nation with its evil.

This was the case both with anti-communist propaganda and the “war on terror.” Communism was likened to an infectious disease set to ravage the nation, and terrorists were likened to a pandemic that had to be controlled and combated. With COVID, the propaganda shifted to the thing of fear itself — an actual virus.

Despite a long-held understanding that asymptomatic infection doesn’t exist, the propagandists even managed to convince the public that perfectly healthy people could spread the virus. It was a complete fiction, a scientific falsehood, which is how we know that the pandemic narrative was a psychological operation, yet people were so fearful, they didn’t question it.

What Is Propaganda?

As noted by blogger and propaganda analyst Klark Barnes,³ if we want to be free, we must know what propaganda is and how it works. Classical rhetoric is about persuasion through argument. It appeals to logic. Propaganda, on the other hand, is a kind of subrational manipulation that appeal to our most basic instincts.

An informal definition of propaganda is “an organized attempt to get people to think or do something — or not think or do something.” Propaganda can be true or false, or somewhere in between, and can be used for both good and ill. Public service ads encouraging you not to smoke, for example, are a form of benevolent propaganda.

The problem with propaganda is that it’s inherently biased and one-sided, which can become outright dangerous if the other side is censored.

This is particularly true when it comes to medicine and health, and the censoring of COVID-19 treatment information and the potential hazards of the COVID shots is a perfect example of this. State propaganda and war propaganda also rely heavily on the incitement of fear and anger, which makes people behave in ways they normally wouldn’t.

They Must Constantly Stir the Pot to Keep Fear Simmering

As noted by Barnes, media forecasts of other “imminent ordeals” are also a way “to keep widespread fear and anger simmering:”⁴

“The possible next acts include a cyber-attack (‘by Russia’); a breakdown of the world supply chain, and consequent food shortages, or famine (likely to be blamed on Russia); a heightened ‘climate crisis,’ necessitating further lockdowns …

‘[T]terrorist’ attacks, by ‘white supremacists’ and angry blacks (portending war between the races); an ‘alien attack’ on Planet Earth, as in The War of the Worlds or Independence Day; and — of course — another plague or two, or three, caused by some further COVID ‘variant,’ smallpox … the Marburg virus, and/or whatever other pathogen, real or imaginary, might serve the same old purpose …

Such looming sequels to the COVID propaganda … would also each inflict a vast amount of further suffering on humanity — and so those of us who study propaganda critically, as public intellectuals, must speak out loud and clear, to set things right.”

According to Barnes, setting things right involves, first and foremost, sharing the truth. Propaganda narratives that must be countered with careful and thorough analysis include but are not limited to:

Over the past three years, I’ve written many articles detailing all of these. But setting the record straight on individual propaganda topics is not enough. If we are to retain our freedoms, Barnes believes the public also needs to get much savvier about propaganda overall.

The Free Press Has Became a Propaganda Juggernaut

For decades, we had a free press that helped keep pro-industry advertising lies in check. Professional investigative journalists working for magazines, newspapers and broadcast outlets would write in-depth exposés, outing the truth behind deceptive advertising and countering industry propaganda with science, statistics and other documented facts.

As a result of the free press doing its job, ineffective or toxic products were often driven off the market. The answer that industry came up with for this problem was to control the press with advertising dollars. By becoming a major revenue stream, advertisers more or less automatically ended up controlling the content.

Even though media management and editors will deny it, if advertisers don’t want you to speak about certain issues that might adversely impact their business, all they have to do is threaten to pull their ads.

At that point, you have to make a decision: Ditch the truth or ditch your income. Most news organizations will ditch the truth for payment, and simply will not run reports that might harm the bottom line of its advertisers. As explained by Barnes:⁵

“That real-life Ministry of Truth was not set up ex nihilo by some iron faction of totalitarian oligarchs but gradually took shape out of a corporate media cartel with interlocking boards, heavily dependent on the advertising revenues of Amazon, Big Pharma … and the media’s own parent companies … with its assets closely managed by BlackRock, Vanguard and UBS …

[As] that vast commercial system has become more unified, it also has maintained, or even tightened, its covert relations with the military and ‘intelligence community’ …

And while the commercial media system has been thus corrupted top to bottom … the ‘public’ media and ‘alternative’ press — from NPR, PBS, the BBC and CBC … to nearly every single outlet on ‘the left’ — have also been absorbed into the juggernaut primarily by their funding through such sturdy CIA pass-throughs as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Open Society Institute …

[The] ‘free press’ … has been turned into a bio-fascist fear machine, its propaganda services assured by Bill Gates’ ‘strategic media partnerships,’ and the concomitant ‘fact-checking’ operation that he also largely funds.

The propaganda gushing daily, hourly, from that system also has depended on the wisdom of such global PR firms as Weber Shandwick, Edelman and Hill+Knowlton Strategies … and, within the Fourth Estate, the rise … of ‘journalists’ prepared, in university, to be far less concerned with honest journalism than with … serving ‘social justice.'”

The Web of Players Silencing Truth

Indeed, as Barnes notes, advertising companies have likely played an important organizational role in the COVID propaganda. Another major one, which I suspect may have had a central role, is the Publicis Groupe. I detailed some of its many connections in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth.”

In summary, Publicis represents a long list of major companies within the technology, pharmaceutical and banking industries in more than 100 countries.⁶ These companies, in turn, have various partnerships with the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Publicis has ties to NewsGuard/HealthGuard, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Bing, the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense, global technocratic institutions like the World Health Organization, national and global NGOs like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. And, it dominates health websites like WebMD and Medscape.

Taken together, this explains how certain views can be so effectively erased. Publicis itself is also a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and our way of life. As such, Publicis appears to be coordinating the suppression of information that runs counter to the technocratic narrative.

The Art of the Great Lie

Marshall McLuhan once said,⁷ “Little lies don’t need to be protected. But the great lies are protected by public incredulity.” Basically, people will deny really big lies by saying “Come on, you’re crazy, they wouldn’t do that.” It’s far easier to call people “conspiracy theorists” than it is to face the possibility that what they’re saying is true.

Little lies don’t need to be protected. The big lies are protected by public incredulity. ~ Marshall McLuhan

In a November 4, 2022, article,⁸ clinical and public health physician Dr. David Bell noted that the more divorced a lie is from reality, the more likely it is to succeed, thanks to the quirks of human nature and normal psychology:

“In a former role I had a boss who lied a lot. The lies were pure fantasy, but massive in scope and delivered with sincerity. They were very successful.

This success was based on the reluctance of most people to consider that someone in a position of authority in a humanitarian organization would completely ignore all semblance of reality. People assumed the claims must be true as fabricating information to that extent in those circumstances seemed to defy logic.

The principle of Really Big Lies is based on the lies being so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception must be flawed, rather than doubt the claims of the person telling the lies. Only an insane or ridiculous person would make such outlandish claims, and a credible institution would not employ such a person.

Therefore, given that the institution is apparently credible, the statements must also be credible, and the listener’s prior perception of reality was therefore flawed. Lesser lies, by contrast, are likely to be perceived as sufficiently close to known reality to be demonstrably wrong. Inventing truth can be more effective than bending it.”

I believe this is precisely the strategy employed by Big Pharma, health agencies, government officials and the deep state propaganda arm over the past three years. Their claims have been so far from any semblance of reality, anyone aware of the facts has been left feeling more than a little crazy.

Unfortunately, while most humans have a moral and ethical compass, few end up following it when confronted by psychopaths in authority and the peer pressure to conform. As noted by Bell, good team players almost always end up supporting false narratives, and those who refuse to go along with what are clearly lies tend to be but a tiny minority.

Refusing False Narratives Has Real Consequences

As Bell correctly points out, over the past three years, health care workers, patients, researchers, academics and public health employees have been forced to embrace a long list of fantasy-based dogmas that are contradicted by prior public health orthodoxy.

But it’s the sharp break from factual reality that makes it impossible to question them because, if you do, you’re now questioning “the entire current hierarchy of public health,” Bell says. To quote Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re not attacking him when you question his irrational flip-flopping, you’re questioning science itself.

If you question these fantasy-based beliefs, you’re a science-denier, and you’re putting your employment and reputation at risk. And, unfortunately, those risks are not imaginary. Many doctors and scientists whose reputations and contributions to public health have been beyond reproach for decades have been stripped of their medical licenses and lost their jobs for speaking out against the reigning COVID narratives.

Transparency and Truth Are the Remedy

So, where do we go from here? How do we end the madness and return to reality-based public health? Bell believes that public health professionals who have misled the public will inevitably pay a heavy price for their betrayal. He writes:⁹

“Whilst growing their industry’s finances, public health professionals are degrading themselves and betraying society. The betrayal, based on incessant lying, is something for which they will inevitably face consequences …

Eventually, even the most dedicated followers will begin to question the sense of putting on a mask at a restaurant door only to remove it 10 steps later, or vaccinating vast populations against a disease to which they are already immune whilst they die of other readily preventable diseases.

The way out of this is simply to refuse to lie, or cover for the lies of others … [The] truth will catch up, one day, with those who don’t … It is far better to leave early and live with dignity.”

*

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.

Notes

¹ Asia Pacific Today August 4, 2022

² Twitter Robert Malone August 7, 2022

^3, 4, 5 Earlking56.family.blog November 19, 2022

⁶ Publicis Top Global Clients

⁷ Samim.io McLuhan Quote

^8, 9 Propaganda in Focus November 4, 2022

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

Alexander Mercouris: “Something Big Is on the Way”

Mike Whitney, January 4, 2023

Ukraine: Is the Hammer About to Fall?

Mike Whitney, January 19, 2023

The WEF and WHO – Are They Running a Death Cult? A WHO / Pharma controlled Worldwide Tyrannical “health system”

Peter Koenig, January 10, 2023

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 7, 2023

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 31, 2023

WEF Davos – The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

Peter Koenig, January 19, 2023

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, January 12, 2023

All Quiet (Panic) on the Western Front. The Davos Freak Show.

Pepe Escobar, January 17, 2023

Seeing Is Believing: What the Data Reveal About Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts Around the World

Gavin de Becker, January 21, 2023

Davos 2023: Fragmenting the World

Rick Thomas, January 21, 2023

Is Biden Being Blackmailed to Send US Combat Troops to Ukraine?

Mike Whitney, January 15, 2023

Top Japanese Physician-Scientist Gives Dire Warning About COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: ‘Scientifically Misconceived’

TrialSite, January 4, 2023

The Whole of Europe Turned Into a Battlefield

Manlio Dinucci, January 28, 2023

Ukraine Had Lost the War Before It Even Started

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 25, 2023

Ten Inconvenient Truths About Ukraine Largely Ignored by the Media

Dan Fournier, January 17, 2023

Video: Bombshell Docs Reveal COVID-19 Cover-Up Goes Straight to the Top. Redacted with Clayton Morris

Clayton Morris, January 9, 2023

Prelude to the 2023 WEF Davos Meetings. “Cooperation” in Triggering “Depopulation” and a “Fractured World”

Peter Koenig, January 21, 2023

Video: US Military Oversaw Secret Contents of COVID Jabs

Sasha Latypova, January 10, 2023

PfizerGate: Tragic Truth Behind COVID Vaccines in the U.K.: 47,379 Excess Deaths in 8 Months Due to Vaccination

The Expose, January 2, 2023

Bomb Cyclones and Atmospheric Rivers: Is Someone Messing with the Weather?

F. William Engdahl, January 17, 2023

The Other America. Or the Three Missed Chances to Avoid World War III

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, January 31, 2023

It feels like today’s world is spinning quickly out of control. Fear of nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO has increased to a fever pitch and something worse than anything seen even amidst the dark years of the Cold War has awoken.

Counting the Dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Prof. Alex Wellerstein, February 01, 2023

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

Air Force General Demands Preparation for War with China

By Kurt Nimmo, January 31, 2023

If the conflict in Ukraine does not end in nuclear madness, Taiwan just might. That very well may be the unintended result if Gen. Mike Minihan, the head of the USG Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, has his way.

U.S. Routinely Violates International Law, with Impunity — And Seeks to Replace U.N.

By Eric Zuesse, January 31, 2023

Increasingly, ever since the U.S. Government, without authorization from the U.N, invaded and destroyed Iraq on 20 March 2003, on the basis of lies that America’s ‘news’-media stenographically reported to the public even though knowing them to be false — and while those media were hiding from the public the proof that they were false —  the U.S. Government has been increasingly brazen in ignoring international law entirely, so as to attain its short-term goals for achieving additional conquests.

Why Is Victoria Nuland Coming to Sri Lanka, Second Time in a Year? At the Forefront of US Incursions

By Shenali D Waduge, January 31, 2023

While UK held position of might during colonial rule, the western world have had to move over to allow US to dictate world affairs. US bullying tactics was seen in the leaked call between Nuland & US envoy to Ukraine in 2014, berating the EU. This got her a thumbs up from both Republicans & Democrats.

Bolton’s Big Error on China and North Korea

By Daniel Larison, January 31, 2023

No other U.S. officials have done more to encourage North Korea’s nuclear weapons program than John Bolton. He has been called the “father” of their weapons program for good reason.

How I Tried to Prevent the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq, and Why I Failed. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, January 31, 2023

Regime change had been the cornerstone policy of the United States toward Iraq ever since Bush 43’s father, Bush 41 (George H. W. Bush) compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and demanded Nuremberg-like justice for the crime of invading Kuwait. “Hitler revisited,” the elder Bush told a crowd at a Republican fundraiser in Dallas, Texas.

Why Are the Electrocardiogram Requirements (EKG) of Pilots No Longer Normal?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 31, 2023

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires first-class airline pilots to receive an electrocardiogram (EKG) starting at age 35, and continuing annually after age 40. EKGs record the heart’s electrical activity to provide a measure of heart health and certain parameters must be met in order for pilots to be deemed fit to fly.

U.K. Police Investigation: They Knew of the Harms COVID Vaccines Were Causing in June and September 2021. Mark Sexton

By Mark Sexton, January 31, 2023

In June 2021 evidence was provided to Nadhim Zahawi MP – ‘vaccine minister’ at his constituency office in Stratford Upon Avon and acknowledged by him. The evidence was referencing Dr Bryam Bridle a consultant working on the COVID vaccines. Dr Bridle sent out a worldwide public warning demanding the vaccines are stopped immediately because the spike protein is not staying at the injection site.

‘War Is Clearly Back on the Agenda’: US Says Israel Was Behind the Drone Attack on Iran

By Jake Johnson, January 31, 2023

Unnamed U.S. officials on Sunday confirmed suspicions that Israel was behind the weekend drone attack on a purported military facility in the Iranian city of Isfahan, heightening concerns that the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is gearing up for a broader assault on Iran as international nuclear talks remain at a standstill.

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.

***

If the conflict in Ukraine does not end in nuclear madness, Taiwan just might.

That very well may be the unintended result if Gen. Mike Minihan, the head of the USG Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, has his way.

China could be at war with the U.S. two years from now, according to Gen. Michael A. Minihan, who oversees the Air Force’s fleet of transport and refueling aircraft. He cited the 2024 presidential elections in Taiwan and the U.S. as part of his rationale. https://t.co/HTUm8vdMkP

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 28, 2023

Minihan “has issued an ominous warning about a looming future high-end conflict against China, likely over Taiwan,” writes Joseph Trevithick for The War Zone. Minihan wants to get the USG war machine ready for what he describes as an inevitable conflict.

Minihan’s remarks are part of a two-page internal memo posted on Twitter on January 27.

New window just dropped pic.twitter.com/b8eLOrCY9U

— Mike Black (@MikeBlack114) January 27, 2023

Zachary Boyer, a spokesperson for Air Mobility Command (AMC), confirmed to The War Zone that this document, which is future-dated February 1, is indeed authentic. AMC oversees the bulk of the Air Force’s aerial refueling tankers and cargo aircraft, among other responsibilities.

Minihan said he hopes “I am wrong” about China and Taiwan.

“My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022,” Minihan wrote in the memo. “Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. [The] United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”

According to the General, there is no time to dilly-dally. The USG and its war machine must get up to speed if it is going to stop a PLA amphibious assault on Taiwan. “Drive readiness, integration, and agility for ourselves and the Joint Force to deter, and if required, defeat China.” (Emphasis in the original).

In 2022, the corporate war propaganda media posted warnings about an imminent invasion of Taiwan.

Foreign Affairs, a publication of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, ran a disturbing headline last August, “America Must Prepare for a War Over Taiwan.” Around the same time, as if on cue, The Wall Street Journal posted “The Coming War Over Taiwan.” In April of the same year, The Economist ran “How to deter China from attacking Taiwan,” and suggested Taiwan could learn a lesson or two from Ukraine as if the corrupt and nazified Zelenskyy regime is winning the war.

All of this is vicious nonsense. China is not actively planning to invade Taiwan.

“The U.S. is running out of time to prevent a cataclysmic war in the Western Pacific,” write Hal Brands and Michael Beckley of The War Street Journal. “While the world has been focused on Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, Xi Jinping appears to be preparing for an even more consequential onslaught against Taiwan.”

All of this chatter is designed to get you prepared for yet another conflict with a thermonuclear dimension.

Biden, his neocons, neolib advisers, generals, pundits, and a warmongering Congress—where there are less than a handful of senators and representatives opposing this metastasic insanity—are wrong about a Chinese invasion.

China realizes an amphibious assault on Taiwan is a recipe for disaster. First, Taiwan possesses weapons systems and technology to effectively defeat an amphibious assault.

“But, second, a determined attack preceded by missile and bomber attacks could destroy Taiwan’s social and physical infrastructure, along with the world’s largest chip production facilities at TSMC. Who would pay for reconstruction? And would it be worth the price?” Harlan Ullman pondered at The Hill last August. The author is a senior adviser at the globalist Atlantic Council.

Ullman wonders why the Taiwanese have not pursued a defensive “porcupine strategy.”

“This strategy relies on heavy investment in defensive capabilities such as anti-air, anti-ship and anti-tank munitions in order to inflict maximum damage on the attacking force,” Daniel Bloom explains.

The Taiwanese have not resorted to such a defense because they do not believe China will invade. The leadership realizes a Normandy-style invasion is all but impossible and would result in catastrophe for China. It would require over 200,000 troops, and they would need to traverse a hundred miles of open ocean to reach the beachheads.

“Unlike Ukraine’s steppe-like fertile plains and plateaus, Taiwan consists of over 100 islands. Taiwan’s outer islands are dotted with missiles, rockets, and artillery guns. In addition, Taiwan’s granite hills are home to tunnels and bunker systems,” notes Hemant Adlakha, a professor of Chinese at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The European Union is China’s major trading partner. Running afoul of it, as well as the United States and Japan, would be dangerous for a leader who knows he must raise living standards at home.

A military effort to grab Taiwan would deal a death blow to the Chinese economy. China is in the middle of a real estate crisis. Its export markets are disappearing in America and Europe. General Secretary Xi Jinping understands war is a stupid move now that China’s economic growth has slowed. It would be a stupid move even if the economy was in good shape.

Finally, according to Professor Deng Yuwen, a council member of China’s Reform and Development Institute, China is not interested in a costly invasion.

“China will choose to put pressure on Taiwan using a combination of methods to promote unification… It may launch more preferential policies and try to initiate discussion on a ‘one country, two systems’ framework with Taiwan’s ruling and opposition parties.”

The USG, however, is not interested in reality.

It has but one objective—destroying competitors and retaining the crown of world leader, no matter the death toll. If this requires the mass murder of millions of people, so be it. The USG death machine is responsible for killing four million Muslims since 1990. Combine that total to an estimated 20-30 million people killed in the years after WWII.

“U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars,” writes James A. Lucas.

The United States was also responsible for 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan… The United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

The USG—and its ignorant, propagandized, and entertainment-distracted public—are driving the world toward a thermonuclear disaster. I believe we have turned a corner in world history.

It very well may be the final chapter.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author