All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A Swiss billboard is making the rounds on social media depicting a young woman on the telephone. The caption reads, “Does the neighbor heat the apartment to over 19 degrees (66F)? Please inform us.” While the Swiss government has dismissed the poster as a fake, the penalties Swiss citizens face for daring to warm their homes are very real. According to the Swiss newspaper Blick, those who violate the 66 degree heating limit could face as many as three years in prison!
Prison time for heating your home? In the “free” world? How is it possible in 2022, when Switzerland and the rest of the political west have achieved the greatest economic success in history, that the European continent faces a winter like something out of the dark ages?
Sanctions.
While long promoted – often by those opposed to war – as a less destructive alternative to war, sanctions are in reality acts of war. And as we know with interventionism and war, the result is often unintended consequences and even blowback.
European sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine earlier this year will likely go down in history as a prime example of how sanctions can result in unintended consequences. While seeking to punish Russia by cutting off gas and oil imports, European Union politicians forgot that Europe is completely dependent on Russian energy supplies and that the only people to suffer if those imports are shut down are the Europeans themselves.
The Russians simply pivoted to the south and east and found plenty of new buyers in China, India, and elsewhere. In fact, Russia’s state-run Gazprom energy company has reported that its profits have increased by 100 percent in the first half of this year.
Russia is getting rich while Europeans are facing a freezing winter and economic collapse. All because of the false belief that sanctions are a cost-free way to force other countries to do what you want them to do.
What happens when the people see dumb government policies making energy bills skyrocket as the economy grounds to a halt? They become desperate and take to the streets in protest.
This weekend thousands of Austrians took to the streets in a “Freedom Rally” to demand an end to sanctions and the opening of Nord Stream II, the gas pipeline on the verge of opening earlier this year. Last week an estimated 100,000 Czechs took to the streets of Prague to protest NATO and EU policy. In France, the “Yellow Vests” are back in the streets protesting the destruction of their economy in the name of “defeating” Russia in Ukraine. In Germany, Serbia, and elsewhere, protests are gearing up.
Even the Washington Post was forced to admit that sanctions on Russia are not having the intended effect. In an article yesterday, the paper worries that sanctions are inflicting “collateral damage in Russia and beyond, potentially even hurting the very countries that impose them. Some even worried that the sanctions intended to deter and weaken Putin could end up emboldening and strengthening him.”
This is all predictable. Sanctions kill. Sometimes they kill innocents in the country targeted for destruction and sometimes they kill innocents in the country imposing them. The solution, as always, is non-intervention. No sanctions, no “color revolutions,” no meddling. It’s really that simple.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
It is astonishing how many observers of war in Ukraine who should know better have been inclined to take at face value the assertions of “sources” that clearly originate among the various governments that are involved in the conflict. Those leaders who are engaged in the inexorable march by the US and its allies to turn the Ukraine crisis into World War 3 surely have learned the lesson that managing the narrative of what is taking place is the greatest weapon that the war hawks have in their possession. One recalls how post-9/11 and leading up to the Iraq War the George W. Bush White House and the neocons in the Pentagon lied about nearly everything to convince the public that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist supporting megalomaniac armed with weapons of mass destruction, inevitably describing him as a man in some ways comparable to Adolf Hitler. Nevertheless, many observers of what was occurring were not fooled and there were large scale demonstrations in a number of cities prior to the invasion in March 2003, which, of course, were rarely reported in the mainstream media in order to control the message.
Iraq in some ways was a learning experience for those in government and also for those in the media who did the heavy lifting by propagating the deception to a largely unsuspecting public. What we are seeing now relating to Ukraine and Russia, however, makes the Iraq experience look like child’s play in terms of the sheer audacity of the alleged information that makes it, or does not make it, into the news. I note particularly the recent terrorist car bombing of Russian activist journalist Dalya Dugina by a Ukrainian assassin made the news for roughly forty-eight hours before disappearing, but not before the lie that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was responsible was firmly planted in a number of places in the mainstream media.
Now that Joe Biden is about to designate a two or three star general to head the Ukraine campaign and has pledged billions of dollars more in aid, Ukraine will be all the news all the time. The US involvement will also feature a catchy name. I would suggest Operation Empty Wallets, which is what Americans will soon be experiencing due to government bailouts and other profligate spending, or maybe Operation Give Me a Break. And it will also create a new dimension to the narrative-shaping in that Ukraine reporting’s domination of what comes out of the newsrooms already is effectively killing much of what else might otherwise be appearing on TV or in the newspapers. That selective management of information provides cover for neglecting stories that might prove embarrassing for those in power. It in effect means that there has been plenty of room for the usual players to engage in business as usual with hardly any scrutiny by the public over what is going on outside Ukraine in secondary theaters like the Middle East and Africa.
All of which leads one to examine what the two countries that have unilaterally declared themselves to be rules makers and enforcers have been up to. Those two countries are perhaps not surprisingly the United States and Israel. The US is, in fact, increasing its combat role in Africa featuring airstrikes in Somalia, all of which have taken place since US President Joe Biden approved the redeployment of hundreds of special forces troops to that country in May, reversing a decision by former President Donald Trump to reduce troop levels in AFRICOM. The two latest attacks killed at least twenty Somalis, all of whom were of course described as “terrorists” by the US command. Independent sources state that US forces have bombed Somalia at least 16 times under Biden, killing between 465 and 545 alleged al-Shabaab militants, including no less than 200 individuals in a single drone plus ground forces strike on March 13th.
Describing the paucity of reporting on the issue, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a senior adviser at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, observed “If you were unaware that we were bombing Somalia, don’t feel bad, this is a completely under-the-radar news story, one that was curiously absent from the headlines in all of the major newspapers…”
And then there is Syria, where a paucity of information in the media reflects White House policy. The United States, which has possibly as many as a dozen illegal bases in Syria, has a major airbase located in the al-Omar oil field in Syria’s northeastern Deir Ezzor province. Several weeks ago, three US soldiers were reportedly slightly wounded in rocket attacks directed at the base by alleged “Iranian-backed militants.” The US responded to the claimed attacks by launching strikes from Apache helicopters against three vehicles belonging to an Afghan Shia militia, killing between six and ten “militants,” and there are reports that more tit-for-tat exchanges of fire are likely. CENTCOM afterwards claimed that President Joe Biden personally ordered the strikes in “self-defense” and justified them by citing Article II of the US Constitution. But the Constitution was never intended to cover illegal activity in a foreign land where US forces are occupying a country with which it is not at war and which has a functioning government that opposes the American presence. The US reportedly has its illegal bases mostly located in the oil producing and agricultural bread basket of the country. Both the grain and oil are routinely stolen by the US and much of the oil winds up in Israel.
So, one inevitably comes to Israel, which has used the cover provided by Ukraine not only to bomb Syria frequently but also to kill Palestinians both in Gaza and on the occupied West Bank. Recently the pace has accelerated with the Israeli Army and police killing on average several Palestinians every day, very little of which is reported in the US media, a fatality rate five times higher than that which prevailed in 2021. It is clearly a deliberate policy to step up the pressure on the Palestinians and a vital part of the process is to let it happen with minimal scrutiny by the media and public, so Israel is widely publicizing the support it is giving to Ukraine to draw attention away from what it does locally.
In short, Israel is increasing efforts to make the historic Palestine Palestinian-free by rendering life so miserable that many Arabs will decide to leave. The use of selective violence and constant harassment is all part of that effort and Palestinians have found that describing Israel as an “apartheid” state does not accurately describe the intensity of the indiscriminate punishments and killings by soldiers which have become all too common.
Israel meanwhile is also doing its best to delegitimize Palestinian national identity by labeling Arab human rights groups as “terrorists.” Israeli police recently raided the offices of seven such groups, confiscated their office equipment and communications, and ordered the premises to be shut down completely. Ironically, a CIA assessment of the groups determined that they were not in any way terrorist linked. The Joe Biden administration characteristically responded to the development by indicating that it was “concerned” but did not condemn the Israeli action.
So, if you open a newspaper or turn on the television and watch or read the international news, you will be told what to think about what is going on in Ukraine. And it will be from the Ukrainian/US government point of view. If you are interested in what the US and Israel are up to in the Middle East, you will most often be out of luck as “defending democracy” in Ukraine while also demonizing Russia is providing cover for Washington and Jerusalem to get into all kinds of mischief. It is a reality derived from how the media and government work collectively to shape policies that in no way benefit the American public. Instead, powerful interest groups with plenty of cash drive the process and are the ones who gain still more power and money through it. It is the sad reality of what has happened to our “land of the free and home of the brave.”
*
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 The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The EU has weaponized the supply of European energy on behalf of a financial racket, against the interests of European industry and consumers.
When Green fanatic Robert Habeck, posing as Germany’s Economy Minister, said earlier this week “we should expect the worst” in terms of energy security, he conveniently forgot to spell out how the whole farce is a Made in Germany cum Made in Brussels crisis.
Flickers of intelligence at least still glow in rare Western latitudes, as indispensable strategic analyst William Engdahl, author of A Century of Oil, released a sharp, concise summary revealing the skeletons in the glamour closet.
Everyone with a brain following the ghastly Eurocrat machinations in Brussels was aware of the main plot – yet hardly anyone among average EU citizens. Habeck, Chancellor “Liver Sausage” Scholz, the European Commission (EC) Green Energy VP Timmermans, EC dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen, they are all involved.
In a nutshell: as Engdahl describes it, this is about “the EU plan to de-industrialize one of the most energy-efficient industrial concentrations on the planet.”
That’s a practical translation of the UN Green Agenda 2030 – which happens to be metastasized into crypto Bond villain Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset – now renamed “Great Narrative”.
The whole scam started way back in the early 2000s: I remember it vividly, as Brussels used to be my European base in the early “war on terror” years.
At the time, the talk of the town was the “European energy policy”. The dirty secret of such policy is that the EC, “ advised” by JP MorganChase as well as the usual mega speculative hedge funds, went all out into what Engdahl describes as “a complete deregulation of the European market for natural gas.”
That was sold to the Lugenpresse (“lying media”) as “liberalization”. In practice, that’s savage, unregulated casino capitalism, with the “free” market fixing prices while dumping long-term contracts – such as the ones struck with Gazprom.
How to decarbonize and destabilize
The process was turbo-charged in 2016, when the last gasp of the Obama administration encouraged massive export of LNG out of the U.S.’s huge shale gas production.
For that one needs to build LNG terminals. Each terminal takes as much as 5 years to build. Within the EU, Poland and Holland went for it from the start.
As much as Wall Street in the past invented a “ paper oil” speculative market, this time they went for a speculative “paper gas” market.
Engdahl details how “the EU Commission and their Green Deal agenda to ‘decarbonize’ the economy by 2050, eliminating oil, gas and coal fuels, provided the ideal trap that has led to the explosive spike in EU gas prices since 2021.”
The creation of this “single” market control implied forcing illegal rule changes on Gazprom. In practice, Big Finance and Big Energy – which totally control anything that passes for “EU policy” in Brussels – invented a new pricing system parallel to the long-term, stable prices of Russian pipeline gas.
By 2019, an avalanche of Eurocrat energy “ directives” by the EC – the only thing these people do – had established a totally deregulated gas market trading, setting the prices for natural gas in the EU even as Gazprom remained the largest supplier.
As lots of virtual trading hubs in gas futures contracts started popping up across the EU, enter the Dutch TTF (Title Transfer Facility). By 2020 the TTF was established as the real EU gas benchmark.
As Engdahl points out, “TTF is a virtual platform of trades in futures gas contracts between banks and other financial investors. Outside, of course, of any regulated exchange.
So LNG prices soon started to be set by futures trades in the TTF hub, which crucially happens to be owned by the Dutch government – “the same government destroying its farms for a fraudulent nitrogen pollution claim.”
By any means necessary Big Finance had to get rid of Gazprom as a reliable source to allow powerful financial interests behind the Green Deal racket to dominate the LNG market.
Engdahl evokes a case very few know about across Europe: “On May 12, 2022 although Gazprom deliveries to the Soyuz gas pipeline through Ukraine were uninterrupted for almost three months of conflict, despite Russia’s military operations in Ukraine, the NATO-controlled Zelensky regime in Kiev closed a major Russian pipeline through Lugansk, that was bringing Russian gas both to his Ukraine as well as EU states, declaring it would remain closed until Kiev gets full control of its pipeline system that runs through the two Donbass republics. That section of the Ukraine Soyuz line cut one-third of gas via Soyuz to the EU. It certainly did not help the EU economy at a time Kiev was begging for more weapons from those same NATO countries. Soyuz opened in 1980 under the Soviet Union bringing gas from the Orenburg gas field.”
Hybrid War, the energy chapter
On the interminable soap opera involving the Nord Stream 1 turbine, the crucial fact is that Canada deliberately refused to deliver the repaired turbine to Gazprom – its owner – but instead sent it to Siemens Germany, where it is now. Siemens Germany is essentially under American control. Both the German and Canadian governments refuse to grant a legally binding sanction exemption for the transfer to Russia.
That was the straw that broke the (Gazprom) camel’s back. Gazprom and the Kremlin concluded that if sabotage was the name of the game, they couldn’t care less whether Germany received zero gas via Nord Stream 1 (with brand new Nord Stream 2, ready to go, blocked by strictly political reasons).
Kremlin spokesman Dmity Peskov took pains to stress “problems in [gas] deliveries arose due to sanctions that have been imposed on our country and a number of companies by Western countries (…) There are no other reasons behind supply issues.”
Peskov had to remind anyone with a brain that it’s not Gazprom’s fault if “the Europeans (…) make a decision to refuse to service their equipment” which they are contractually obligated to do. The fact is the whole Nord Stream 1 operation hinges on “one piece of equipment that needs serious maintenance.”
Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, who knows one or two things about the energy business, cleared up the technicalities:
“The entire problem lies precisely on [the EU’s] side, because all the conditions of the repair contract have been completely violated, along with the terms of shipping of the equipment.”
All that is inscribed into what Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov describes as “a total war declared against us”, which is “being waged in hybrid forms, in all areas”, with “the degree of animosity of our opponents – of our enemies” being “enormous, extraordinary.”
So none of this has anything to do with “Putin weaponizing energy”. It was Berlin and Brussels – mere messengers of Big Finance – which weaponized the supply of European energy on behalf of a financial racket, and against the interests of European industry and consumers.
Beware of the toxic trio
Engdahl has summarized how, “by systematically sanctioning or closing gas deliveries from long-term, low cost pipelines to the EU, gas speculators via the Dutch TTP have been able to use every hiccup or energy shock in the world, whether a record drought in China or the conflict in Ukraine, to export restrictions in the USA, to bid the EU wholesale gas prices through all bounds.”
Translation: casino capitalism at its finest.
And it gets worse, when it comes to electricity. There is a so-called EU Electricity Market Reform in progress. According to it, producers of electricity – from solar or wind – automatically receive “the same price for their ‘renewable’ electricity they sell to the power companies for the grid as the highest cost, i.e. natural gas.” No wonder the cost of electricity in Germany for 2022 increased by 860% – and rising.
Baerbock incessantly parrots that German energy independence cannot be secured until the country is “liberated from fossil fuels.”
According to Green fanaticism, to build the Green Agenda it’s imperative to completely eliminate gas, oil and nuclear power, which happen to be the only reliable energy sources as it stands.
And it’s here that we see the toxic trio Habeck/Baerbock/von der Leyen ready for their close up. They pose as saviors of Europe preaching that the only way out is to invest fortunes in – unreliable – wind and solar power: the “answer” from Providence to a gas price debacle manufactured by none other than Big Finance, Green fanaticism and Eurocrat “leadership”.
Now tell that to struggling pan-European households whose bills will surge to a whopping, collective $2 trillion as General Winter knocks on the door.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
An Indian national authority was instructed by a state-level high court to “expeditiously” establish a policy framework for COVID-19 vaccine-injured compensation, including dependents of the injured or deceased. Specifically the Kerala High Court, the highest legal forum in Kerala state, a small coastal southwest state with approximately 35 million people, instructed the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to set up the framework, which includes policies for compensation due to injuries associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. The situation appears to worsen to the point that, at least, one state has declared it a disaster or meriting action from the national agency in charge of disaster response.
The language of the High Court was cautious, as reported by local media. Vaccine injuries associated with COVID-19 vaccines are deemed “rare,” but this can become relative, given the mass vaccination effort around the world. With so many vaccinated, the numbers of injured can accumulate substantially.
Lots of Reported Problems & Benefits
TrialSite recently reported that the Indian Supreme Court put the national government on notice about vaccine injuries. This media reported that while the Indian government offered no vaccine injury fund during emergencies such as COVID-19, their national government, what’s known as “the Center,” does allow for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855. Yet this antiquated law needs modernization in light of the COVID-19 unfolding events, from mass COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the world’s second most populated nation to mounting reports, albeit rare” of vaccine injury reports. TrialSite reported that during COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, the Serum Institute of India (SII), the world’s largest vaccine producer by volume, lobbied the national government to provide vaccine injury immunity to them and other vendors in the vaccine value chain, much like is the case under the PREP Act in America.
Also, TrialSite reported on a severe neurological injury involving the AstraZeneca vaccine, which SII licensed and produced for use throughout India. The injured man volunteered for a clinical trial and had debilitating issues as a result. After taking action, SII countersued, threatening to economically destroy the man. The case went silent.
With about 1.4 billion people, approximately 945 million persons in India are classified as fully vaccinated, mostly with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine developed and distributed in India by SII, again the world’s biggest vaccine producer by volume, or Covaxin produced by Bharat Biotech, the first indigenous COVID-19 vaccine developed in India. Other vaccines used, although less frequently, include Sputnik V (the Russian vaccine produced by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in India with production support by SII), ZyCoV-D produced by Zydus Cadila, as well as other vaccines via clinical trials.
Even if a tenth-of-one percent of 945 million Indian citizens of residents fully vaccinated experienced some form of injury, the number would total 945,000 which isn’t minimal. The AstraZeneca vaccine, used extensively in India, was shut down in the U.S. due to clinical trial injuries. Earlier during the pandemic, The New York Times covered issues, including safety associated with AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine—see the link.
Selective Reporting
According to a piece in The Lancet earlier in the summer, an additional 4.2 million deaths were prevented via vaccination from the period December 8, 2020, to December 8, 2021. This modeling exercise, however, made many assumptions. TrialSite followed very carefully the Uttar Pradesh public health outreach campaign in 2021, which included pairs of public health workers scouring villages and towns, educating, testing, and handing out home medicine kits that included ivermectin. See a detailed piece from contributor Juan Chamie. While World Health Organization (WHO) touted the effort, it censured the use of ivermectin, as did most media, except this one, of course. An enormous turnaround occurred during the Delta variant-based surge.
High Court Position
This particular case came to the Kerala High Court via a widow’s plea for help. Her husband died, apparently, because of the COVID-19 vaccination scheme. Yet the central government here has done little to formulate rigorous policy to care for the rare cases where injury and/or death does occur.
“Given the ubiquitous COVID-19 vaccine mandates promulgated all over the world, it’s only right, fair, and just that a reasonable vaccine compensation policy fair is put in place,” shared TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor.
According to the Kerala High Court:
“Even if numbers are very few, there are instances where people are suspected to have succumbed to the after-effects of immunization.”
Led by V. G. Arun, one of the Kerala High Court justices, the legal body ordered the national governments, the National Disaster Management Authority, to move on this matter, doing the “needful within three months,” reported India media such as HealthWorld and New Delhi Television Ltd. (NDTV).
Justice Arun, as it turns out, knows personally of three vaccine injury cases, declaring:
“Therefore, even if the numbers are very few, there are instances where people are suspected to have succumbed to the after-effects of immunization. In such circumstances, respondents 2 (NDMA) and 8 (Ministry of Health) are bound to formulate a policy for identifying such cases and compensating the dependents of the victim.”
In India, the respondents mentioned include the National Disaster Management Authority and the Ministry of Health, both with mandates to support the Indian people at the national level. Yet that doesn’t appear to be happening, as national/federal entities appear under the sway of a different set of policy directives.
Like in the U.S., where Attorney Generals at the state level now look into censorship collusion by the federal government in partnership with media and tech companies, the policy imperatives at the federal government level in the United States have been far less focused on patient rights and more on mandates and other directives, seemingly as part of a series of countermeasures against a pandemic.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky opened the New York Stock Exchange telling Wall Street his country is “open” for foreign corporations to exploit it with $400 billion in state selloffs.
Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky virtually opened the New York Stock Exchange on the morning of September 6, symbolically ringing the bell via video stream.
Zelensky announced that his country is “open for business” – that is to say, that foreign corporations are free to come and exploit its plentiful resources and low-paid labor.
In a speech launching the neoliberal selloff program Advantage Ukraine, Zelensky offered Wall Street “a chance for you to invest now in projects worth of hundreds of billions of dollars.”
The financial news service Business Wire published a press release from the Ukrainian government in which Zelensky boasted:
The $400+ [billion] in investment options featured on AdvantageUkraine.com span public private partnerships, privatization and private ventures. A USAID-supported project team of investment bankers and researchers appointed by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy will work with businesses interested in investing.
It also quoted the president of NYSE Group, Lynn Martin, who said:
As the largest exchange globally, we stand for freedom, investor protection and unfettered access to capital. We are pleased to welcome President Zelenskyy virtually to the NYSE bell podium, a symbol of the freedom and opportunity our U.S. capital markets have enabled around the globe. We are honored the President has chosen the NYSE to mark the kickoff of Advantage Ukraine and engage with the world’s business community.
The press release cited executives of US corporate giants Google, Alphabet, and Microsoft, who salivated over the economic possibilities offered by Ukraine.
Reuters noted that the Ukrainian government hired British public relations firm WPP to run the marketing operation for Advantage Ukraine.
Zelensky coordinated his New York Stock Exchange publicity stunt with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal imploring US capitalists to “Invest in the Future of Ukraine.”
“I committed my administration to creating a favorable environment for investment that would make Ukraine the greatest growth opportunity in Europe since the end of World War II,” Zelensky wrote.
He continued:
To create a safe, transparent environment for business engagement, Ukraine is pursuing investment guarantees from both the Group of Seven and the European Union, reforming the country’s tax system, and establishing a strong new legal framework. Our country has already adopted rules and laws to allow companies to build transparent corporate structures, attract foreign investment more easily, and use additional mechanisms to protect intangible assets. Favorable conditions will allow us to establish Ukraine as a powerful IT hub and implement innovative business ideas quickly and effectively.
Ukraine is a land of surprising opportunity. I personally invite you to be surprised by our potential and to invest in the future of Ukraine, writes @ZelenskyyUahttps://t.co/sWGpAyQhKq
The Western participants published documents calling to cut labor laws, “open markets,” drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.”
Western governments and corporations met in Switzerland to plan harsh neoliberal economic policies to impose on post-war Ukraine, calling to cut labor laws, “open markets,” deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.”https://t.co/J0n8db8ZLr
In an interview with Multipolarista, economist Michael Hudson compared the new emergency anti-labor laws imposed by the Ukrainian government to the brutal neoliberal policies implemented by Chile’s far-right Pinochet dictatorship after a CIA-backed coup in 1973.
“It’s jaw dropping,” Hudson said of Zelensky’s Wall Street Journal op-ed. “It’s like a parody of what a socialist would have written about how the class war would be put in into action by a fascist government.”
“So of course he was welcomed on the stock exchange for abolishing labor’s rights,” Hudson added. “You could not have a more black-and-white example” of class war.
“This is exactly what [French President] Macron said when he said the ‘end of abundance.’ The Ukrainian labor force has just experienced the end of affluence, neoliberal style.
“And as Mr. Zelensky said, it may be the end of affluence for the labor force, but it’s going to be a bonanza for you investors in the New York Stock Exchange. Come on in and join the party!”
“Somebody’s loss is turned into somebody else’s game. And that’s what happens in a class war. It’s a zero-sum game. There is no attempt at all to raise living standards.”
“Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe – but Zelensky said it’s not poor enough. He said, you think this is something, wait until our new law takes effect. That’ll really show you what it means to be the poorest country in Europe.”
“But it’ll also be the richest country in Europe for the 1%,” Hudson concluded.
*
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.
Featured image is a screenshot from one of the videos above
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
China and Russia warned that US weapons bound for Ukraine could fall into the hands of terrorists in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This claim cannot be discounted since NATO has a consistent policy of shifting Western-made weapons from battlefront to battlefront, just as previously seen with weapons used to fight Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya ending up in the hands of terrorist forces in Syria.
In Kiev on September 8, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken received from the President of Ukraine the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise “for services to Ukraine”. During the visit to Kiev, the US Secretary of State said that the US would provide military assistance worth $2.8 billion to Ukraine and 18 neighbouring countries affected by Russia’s special military operation. The budget includes $675 million for Ukraine to receive arms, ammunition and equipment, with the remainder being long-term investments to strengthen the security of Ukraine and neighbouring countries.
Along with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise was also awarded by Ukraine to the head of the Pentagon, the head of the European Commission and the European diplomatic mission, i.e. those who initiated and made the decision to supply weapons to Ukraine.
On the same day as Blinken’s visit to Kiev, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Geng Shuang, expressed at a United Nations Security Council meeting serious concerns regarding the supply of weapons to Kiev. Such actions will not lead to peace, he said, but only complicate matters. The diplomat reaffirmed China’s consistent stance on security issues, stressing that Europe and the whole world can only be stable and secure in the long term if they work to create a reliable, indivisible and sustainable security system.
The Chinese are also interested in another issue – the transfer of more weapons to Ukraine, which only address Washington’s narrow and selfish geopolitical goals with Kiev’s help: the attempted weakening of Russia.
At the UN Security Council meeting, Geng Shuang also stated that China is seriously concerned about a large number of weapons and ammunition supplied to Ukraine falling into the “wrong hands”.
“Since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, China has consistently emphasised that the supply of weapons will not bring peace, and that adding fuel to fire will only complicate the problem,” Shuang said. “The harsh reality and humanitarian consequences of the past six months have fully demonstrated this. Equally worrying is the scenario that a large number of weapons and ammunition falling into the wrong hands, causing endless trouble, and creating security risks in Ukraine and in the wider region. We have noticed that relevant negative impact already began to emerge.”
Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya shared the view of the Chinese diplomat and highlighted that Ukraine sells weapons supplied by the West to the world market. According to the Russian diplomat, the leaders of Western countries are turning Ukraine into a global hub for illegal weapons, which could soon be used by terrorists in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
China is concerned that American weapons supplied to Ukraine could fall into the hands of terrorists and pose a real threat to China’s economic interests in various parts of the world. With China growing at a high rate of 5% per year, achieved thanks to a sustained peace as the East Asian country has not been at war since 1974, new threats to international security from terrorism may impede its accelerated development.
Beijing is concerned that US weapons for Ukraine could fall into the hands of militant groups in countries with unstable regimes and state structures, especially as many of these countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America are strategic sources of raw materials and oil. Beijing is concerned about stability in the countries it has economic and political interests in, especially as it affects its goal of maintaining high economic growth.
On August 8, in Moscow, Chairman of the State Duma of Russia Vyacheslav Volodin and Chairman of China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Li Zhanshu discussed the situation in Ukraine. After the meeting, the Russian politician thanked his Chinese counterpart for his understanding and objective assessment of the US role in the development of the situation in Ukraine. According to Volodin, the US is pushing the world to a new round of tensions, and this threatens global security.
With China facing its own pressure because Washington is ramping up tensions in the Taiwan Strait, Beijing and Moscow will continue working closely to denounce and strategically respond to US aggression. None-the-less, having thousands of US weapons unaccounted for and spread across the world poses a major threat to China as they can be easily turned against its economic 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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The offensive operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and NATO in the Kharkov region was planned by the US military command. About 200 units of heavy military vehicles and up to 9 thousand soldiers were involved in the offensive. Reportedly, every third soldier operating under the Ukrainian chevron was a citizen of a NATO member state. These forces were 4-5 times superior to the units of the DPR, LPR and Russia defending their positions in the region.
The main goal of the Ukrainian offensive was a flank attack, encirclement and subsequent destruction of the Russian grouping in the area of Balakleya, Kupyansk and Izyum.
The Russian command predicted the attack by large forces of Ukraine and NATO in this direction. It was aware that it would be extremely difficult to contain the enemy’s offensive with the forces that it had. It was also almost impossible to transfer timely sufficient reinforcement without weakening other areas on other front lines.
Assessing the risks, the Russian military decided to leave weakly fortified positions and withdraw troops to new lines and straighten communication lines.
Before the start of the Ukrainian offensive, civilians who agreed to move to the territory of the Russian Federation were evacuated from the threatened settlements.
From September 6 to 11, Russian units were withdrawing in an organized manner under the cover of specially organized units. Using mobile defense tactics, the Russian military destroyed the plan of Kiev and NATO to encircle the Russian grouping.
At the same time, there were obvious mistakes made by the Russian military. The area in front of the forward positions was not mined. Units on the front line de facto had no more than 30 percent of the listed military personnel. The soldiers were not properly provided with anti-tank weapons. There were also failures of the front-line intelligence. As a result, the artillery cover of the withdrawal was ineffective in the first days of the Ukrainian offensive.
Now on September 12, Russian troops have been withdrawn to new positions along the eastern bank of the Oskol River with minimal losses. Meanwhile, both sides confirm that the Ukrainian and NATO units suffered significant losses in manpower.
Almost the entire territory of the Kharkov region came under the control of Kiev with minimal damage to the cities’ infrastructure. Immediately after taking control of the settlements, the Ukrainian military began repressions against the pro-Russian population, violating the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The first cases of the executions were already reported.
Large Russian reserves are being transferred to the battlefields. The strategically important settlement of Krasny Liman has not yet been taken by the Ukrainian military. The fighting continues.
Last night, missile strikes hit the largest electricity facilities in eastern Ukraine. The collapse of the power system affected networks in the Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Odessa, Donetsk and Kiev regions. Until now, the power supply has not yet been fully restored.
The armed conflict in eastern Ukraine has finally turned into a state of war between Russia and NATO with unpredictable results for all parties in the conflict.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Der deutsch-französische Friedensnobelpreisträger, Pazifist und „Urwaldarzt“ Albert Schweitzer war einer der bedeutendsten Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts. Sein philosophisches Denken ging davon aus, dass sich Menschen beim Nachdenken über sich selbst und ihre Grenzen wechselseitig als Brüder erkennen, die über sich selbst und ihre Grenzen nachdenken. Im Zuge des Zivilisationsprozesses würde die Solidarität, die ursprünglich nur auf den eigenen Stamm bezogen war, nach und nach auf alle, auch unbekannte Menschen übertragen. In den 1950er-Jahren war Schweitzers Lehre der „Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben“ eine moralische Instanz, ein Leitbild im Kampf gegen die atomare Bewaffnung der Völker.
Doch das allgemeine Bewusstsein des einzelnen und der Völker fand bis heute keine Antwort auf die „Kain-Frage“ aus der biblischen Urgeschichte: „Bin ich der Hüter meines Bruders? Wieder bedroht uns die Katastrophe eines Atomkriegs wie zu Albert Schweitzers Zeiten vor nahezu 70 Jahren. Deshalb hat sein „Appell an die Menschheit“ – nachzulesen in der Schriftensammlung „Friede oder Atomkrieg“ (1) – nichts von seiner Aktualität eingebüßt.
Image: Albert Schweitzer (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
Bertha von Suttner: „Die Waffen nieder!“
Noch nie konnten Probleme der Völker durch die Methode der Gewalt, den Krieg gelöst werden. Das ist heute nicht anders als in der bisherigen Menschheitsgeschichte. Der Rückfall in den Krieg ist ein Rückfall in die Barbarei, der sich auf allen Gebieten des gesellschaftlichen Lebens bemerkbar macht: er verursacht im Leben des Einzelnen wie der Völker unsägliches Leiden. Die täglichen TV-Bilder über den Krieg in der Ukraine gewähren uns einen nachhaltigen Eindruck dieses Leidens.
Die heutigen Kriege sind nicht mehr verantwortbar, sie sind obsolet geworden. Schon der Erste Weltkrieg war kein konventioneller Krieg mehr, er war Genozid, Völkermord, Volksmord. Und seither sind die illegalen Angriffskriege noch mörderischer, hinterhältiger, flächendeckender, genozidaler geworden.
Für den österreichischen Kultur-Historiker Friedrich Heer sind diese Kriege Vorbereitungen zur „Endlösung der Menschheitsfrage“ oder wie Bertha von Suttner in ihrem Roman „Die Waffen nieder!“ prophezeit: „Der Untergang für alle“ (2). Dies trifft für einen allseits befürchteten Krieg mit Atomwaffen ganz sicher zu.
Mahatma Gandhi schrieb nach dem Erscheinen des Romans in einem Brief an Bertha von Suttner: „Gott möge es so fügen, dass die Abschaffung des Krieges Ihrem Werke folge.“ (3) Alfred Nobel ließ sich durch Bertha von Suttner in seinem Testament zur Stiftung des Friedensnobelpreises anregen (4).
Die Geschichte – ein Werk des Menschen
Wir wissen heute, dass der Krieg ein Verhängnis ist. Auch wissen wir, dass seine Ursache nicht in der „menschlichen Natur“, sondern in der Ungerechtigkeit und Unmenschlichkeit unserer Sozialordnung begründet ist. Dieser Umstand darf uns nicht vergessen lassen, dass die Geschichte ein Werk des Menschen ist und dass man den Menschen ändern muss, wenn man die Welt ändern will. Demgemäß sind Aufklärung und Erziehung die wichtigsten Maßnahmen, die gegen den Krieg ergriffen werden können.
Noch können wir nicht sagen, wann sich das Menschheitsgewissen, dessen Mahnruf durch die Jahrhunderte geht, endgültig Gehör verschaffen wird. Aber wir zweifeln nicht daran, dass an der Frage, ob sich die Menschen in weit höherem Maße als bis heute zur allmenschlichen Solidarität bekennen werden, der Bestand des Menschengeschlechtes hängt.
*
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.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, Jahrgang 1944, ist Rektor i.R., promovierter Erziehungswissenschaftler, ehemaliger Lehrer und Schulberater sowie Diplom-Psychologe mit den Schwerpunkten Klinische Psychologie, Pädagogische Psychologie und Medienpsychologie. Er ist Buchautor sowie Autor von Fachartikeln zu den Themen Jugendgewalt (beispielsw. über Gewaltprävention in der Schule als Beitrag zur Friedenserziehung), Mediengewalt (z.B. „Unterhaltungsgewalt“ in Fernsehen, Video- und Computerspielen) und bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung. Er schreibt regelmäßig Beiträge für Global Research.
Noten
(1) Schweitzer, A. (1984). Friede oder Atomkrieg. München
(2) Heer, F. In: Von Suttner, B. (1977). Die Waffen nieder! Einführung, S. VII
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
It’s like rolling the dice for what you get in your vial. Both the FDA and EMA knew this but kept this out of the public view because if it were known, nobody would take the vaccines.
He recently posted this substack article documenting his attempts to get visibility on what the EMA document leak revealed.
The gem in the article is this video which was posted 18 months ago that few people have seen. The video is just 14 minutes long and is very well done. The findings are all consistent with what I and others have long suspected: the vials are all different.
The key finding is the reason they won’t let anyone analyze the vials: mRNA is not intact. The BMJ wrote about this on March 10, 2021 [my comments are in brackets]:
On Nov 23, 2020, EMA knew about the quality control issues with severely compromised mRNA integrity (ranging from 78% to 55%). [It’s supposed to be 100% if you want an effective vaccine.]
Just two days later, a source in the US said the lots were now “back at around 70-75%, which leaves us cautiously optimistic that additional data could address the issue.”
“The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year.”
The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, and CureVac, as well as several regulators, what percentage mRNA integrity they consider acceptable for vaccines against covid-19. None offered any specifics. [“Wow, that’s really comforting. <sarcasm off>”]
The EMA told The BMJ that the levels of truncated mRNA “and the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.” [uh… how does the EMA know that exactly?]
Health Canada told The BMJ that Pfizer had conducted investigations into the root cause of reduced integrity in the commercial vaccine batches, and “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” Health Canada said the three agencies subsequently determined that “there was no concern with the RNA integrity or any other product specifications.” [Whew! Now I’m relieved! No data on the new levels produced. If you can’t trust Pfizer, who can you trust?]
In general, the BMJ wasn’t happy about anything they heard from the regulators. They were basically stonewalled in their requests.
The fact that it’s illegal for anyone to analyze the vials (they are government property) doesn’t help inspire confidence at all.
Even if you are getting 100% intact mRNA which would be really rare, you’re still not getting anything that resembles the virus. So the efficacy as far as PROTECTING you will be next to nothing. However, what it will do very effectively, if you got reasonably intact mRNA, is to cause you significant harm. You are playing a game of chance with your immune system and what is in the bottle.
The video highlights some of the things we learned from the EMA data breach:
The EMA claims the documents were manipulated to make them look bad, but won’t say how they were manipulated. I’m not buying the EMA story at all.
The Members of the European Parliament (MEP) weren’t allowed to read the contracts with the vaccine makers (only heavily redacted versions). Again, if you can’t trust Pfizer and the EMA, who can you trust?
The mRNA is unstable, even at the required temperatures because light, movement (like shipping it to a destination), and any temperature variation disrupts it.
Unstable mRNA means the spike protein (which was artificially propped up) could collapse making the whole process useless to support immunity, but still dangerous in terms of damage to cells. So you get all the risk and no benefit.
The mRNA integrity was better in the clinical trial than commercial batches.But don’t assume that the vaccine worked in the trials since the trials were heavily gamed to produce favorable outcomes, mostly by excluding people with weak immune systems from the vaccine group (this is why there were 5X the number of exclusions in the vax group). So you’re looking at a vaccine which likely does absolutely nothing except make people believe they are protected. This mind control works quite well. People bought the story for over a year before they realized they were getting infected at the same rate as people who didn’t get the vaccine.
The mRNA integrity varied between countries.
Pfizer never told anyone that the commercial vaccines had lower mRNA integrity than the vaccines used in the trials. This is unethical, bordering on fraud.
The EMA tried to cover it up. Instead of protecting the public and making Pfizer look bad, the EMA basically covered up the problem.
Pfizer never told the public or governments about the risks associated with mRNA integrity. If it wasn’t for the leak, we’d never have known. But it’s all OK because the drug companies are exempt from any liability. The patient takes all the risk here, not the drug companies.
EMA was concerned about visible particles in the vials. The BMJ never investigated that. Is it still a problem? I don’t think anyone cares to know the answer to that.
The deaths in the trials are all dismissed as “unrelated to the vaccine” without doing the proper analysis.
There should be an investigation into these issues, but the governments are not going to expose their own fraud since it would be too embarrassing so nothing will happen.
Summary
This video summarizing the leaked EMA documents constitutes yet more evidence that the vaccines confer no benefits, only risk.
However, like everything else, it will be ignored by the authorities.
However, this is important information for the public to know about how they are being manipulated into taking a useless vaccine.
NOBODY is calling for any quality control here.
Have you ever seen a study where the authors collect vials randomly and sequence them? It’s not going to happen. Not in my lifetime.
*
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.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Turn on the television. Move to the screen. Switch on the device – if you ever left it off. Queen Elizabeth II may have passed, but she is everywhere in very lively fashion, a spectral manifestation that has utterly controlled large chunks of a transfixed global media system.
It helps that she has captured the media mecca that is the United States, where anything outside its coverage is either, in self-described terms, irrelevant or non-existent. In the centre of the imperium, without a shade of irony, she and the British royal family have exercised a spiritual and celluloid existence almost abnormal in spread. Dramas of aristocratic themes such as Downton Abbey and The Crown captivate. Royal weddings prove to be absorbing spectacles, as do funerals. “I was here [in Washington] in 1997 when Princess Diana died,” retired British diplomat, Roy Forey, told the Financial Times. “At the time you couldn’t even walk on this street, it was so full of flowers.”
States of class, inequality and hereditary systems of rule are almost titillating, a reminder that the American Revolution was less radical than a revolt begun reluctantly by aristocratic, plantation owning slavers. Indeed, Britain’s royal institutions, in many ways, were reconstituted and applied to the rough timber of US expansion in the form of a Republic. The batons of empire were changed, but the purpose remained the same.
The Queen’s death stopped, briefly, trading on Wall Street, with the New York Stock Exchange in solemn observance after 3pm. In sporting terms, the US Open women’s semi-final between Ons Jabeur and Caroline Garcia was similarly delayed in respect, though one sports reporter promised tennis fans that the rest of the tournament would continue being broadcast on UK television.
More understandable, if barely, was to see coverage block and stifle all else before in Commonwealth countries such as Australia, itself still subject to British constitutional rule. The Australian constitution, in the wisdom of its drafters, lacks any mention of an independent prime minister or cabinet; the Governor-General remains the British sovereign’s representative down under. Reference is made, almost cursorily, to an amorphous Federal Executive Council.
In Australia, Pakistan’s catastrophic floods, the dangers of radiation spread from the Zaporizhzhia plant, and Ukrainian offensives against Russian forces were filed away in the less relevant news item file. The world, because Britain is, for those in Britain and its historically subject entities, The World, took centre stage, blocking the sun and replacing it with ticker tape announcements about ceremony and prevailing banality.
In the darkest of shades, Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, delivered a pointed reminder that the memorialisation of the Queen’s passing was itself a misdirection among many, be they about soft power tourism, industrious royals or a firm constitutional defender. “Platitude, myth, and sentimentality get in the way of a desperately needed challenge to inherited power and wealth, the significant failings of the royal household and the detrimental impact of monarchy on our nation’s political life.”
Expert commentary, or a tinny impression of it, was offered in such prosaic outlets as The Conversation to explain the phenomenon of grief for a person unrelated, unknown and unmet. This all served to further saturate the coverage, offering splashings and coatings for the phenomenon. “So this 24-hour news cycle, and being updated every single step of the queen’s illness and now death,” wrote a solemn academic from the University of New England, “can trigger our own lived experiences of loss. We need to be gentle with those varied reactions.”
Twitter, despite its screechy quality, at least offered a platform for puzzled individuals wondering if the Australian public broadcaster had been kidnapped by zealous monarchists. The veteran ABC broadcaster and former media advisor Barrie Cassidy sensed that something might have gone a bit awry in the adoration binge. “I suspect the ABC has misread its audience. If you want wall to wall royalty you can get it elsewhere in spades. The ABC is better when it offers an alternative to populism.”
The Australian satirical news site, The Shovel, summarised things fairly well when it noted how the minutiae of scant encounters with royalty and memory served to make one an authority. “An Australian man who briefly chatted to Queen Elizabeth at a function 58 years ago has been asked to reflect on the life and times of the monarch, as part of the ABC’s rolling coverage of the royal’s death.” It did not matter that the man’s memory was empty of what was said; what mattered was that he “was labelled a ‘royal expert’, given his intimate relationship with the royal family.”
A degree of this is forgivable. Queen Elizabeth was Madame Continuity, Mother Stability, the one who reigned rather than ruled. And the media adulation circuit is filled with its selected images, its consecrated saints and its pedestal-placed figures. For the moment, it’s a Queen as protagonist, and for many, The Queen.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from Joel Rouse/ Ministry of Defence, licensed under OGL 3
The American military government left Japan in 1952 leaving behind the 1948 peace constitutions intended to prevent Japan from ever rising again as imperial military power. But, the irony of the political fate was such that the U.S. had to ask its hated former mega-enemy to give hand to fight communism.
From the outset, the objective was to use 9/11 as a pretext for launching the first phase of the Middle East Central Asian War, which consisted in the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan. This was achieved by sustaining the myth that Muslim terrorists supported by the Afghan government had attacked the WTC on September 11, 2001.
Global, personal, individual. The reactions to the death of Queen Elizabeth II seemed to catch even unsuspecting republicans off guard. In Australia, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who had led the Australian Republic Movement, was a mess of reflection on the passing. The old enemy France glowed with a distant familial warmth. In the United States, monarchical fetishism reasserted itself.
As should be more than obvious, the “riot” at the nation’s Capitol was blown severely out of proportion for propaganda purposes. Most Americans are not aware (being largely political imbeciles) that the FBI and Capitol Police played a major role instigating violence and property damage during the mischaracterized riot.
In this episode, Mike is joined by scientist and social theorist, Denis Rancourt, to debunk climate change hysteria and the myths forwarded by its cult leaders and adherents.
According to The Canadian Press, Health Canada says the decision came after a “thorough and independent scientific review of the evidence,” and concluded that the benefits of giving young children, who face extremely low risk from COVID-19, the novel Pfizer-BioNTech’s shot outweigh the risks.
The EU asked its members earlier this summer to reduce gas consumption by 15% starting this fall and running through the winter. While initially a request, it left the door open for it to become mandatory should the need arise. The 15% gas cut framework could also be applied to today’s plan to cut electricity usage by 10%, the ministers said on Friday.
Declassified files show how British oil giant Shell hatched a secret plan in the 1960s to defend the West’s share of the global energy market, with help from UK propaganda and intelligence agencies.
The latest empty cliché that one hears out of the mouth of Christians is “Pray for Ukraine.” But do Christians who utter this pious platitude even know what they mean when they say it?
At the top of the list are JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and BlackRock, each with US$ 1 billion invested in the network of livestock financiers. The list of implicated companies includes Suzano, JBS, Marfrig, Cargill and ADM — agribusiness giants that wield their corporate might to sway Brazilian politics against the interests of the environment, peasants, Indigenous groups, and working people everywhere.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Despite tens of thousands of reported injuries and deaths, Health Canada has approved administering Pfizer’s experimental mRNA COVID injection to children six months old and up.
According to The Canadian Press, Health Canada says the decision came after a “thorough and independent scientific review of the evidence,” and concluded that the benefits of giving young children, who face extremely low risk from COVID-19, the novel Pfizer-BioNTech’s shot outweigh the risks.
This is the second COVID injection that Health Canada has approved for babies, with the federal agency already having allowed Moderna’s Spikevax COVID jab for the same age group in July.
Regardless of the so-called approval given by various health authorities across the world, the truth remains that the official clinical trial completion date for the shots is February 8, 2024, meaning until then the jabs are experimental.
The push to vaccinate young children comes despite the fact that researchers with Johns Hopkins School of Medicine found a “mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia” when they “analyze[d] approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.”
This, combined with the thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths following the shots, has led numerous experts to criticize the push to inject children with the experimental vaccines.
In fact, recent autopsy data shows a close association between the COVID mRNA shots and heart inflammation, and two additional medical studies from Europe have recently reported a link between the jabs and blood damage.
Despite these risks, Health Canada advisers are now recommending Canadians take a “booster” injection every three months, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently threatening a return of “restrictions and rules” if the public fails to do so.
*
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.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A meeting of EU energy ministers on Friday has suggested that each EU country implement strategies to reduce overall electricity consumption by a minimum of 10 percent, the Wall Street Journal has reported.
The EU should also reduce electricity by at least 5% during peak price hours, according to a draft document seen by the WSJ.
The EU asked its members earlier this summer to reduce gas consumption by 15% starting this fall and running through the winter. While initially a request, it left the door open for it to become mandatory should the need arise. The 15% gas cut framework could also be applied to today’s plan to cut electricity usage by 10%, the ministers said on Friday.
According to the WSJ, the electricity rationing plan appears to have support from many member states.
The emergency EU energy minister meeting was held on Friday to discuss skyrocketing consumer energy bills and a price cap on Russian natural gas. The meeting concluded without a concrete plan, with the group stating that more work needed to be done. Proposals for potentially capping the price of Russian gas—a controversial measure that critics claim will be ineffective—are due mid-September.
Russia, for its part, has vowed to withhold gas exports to countries engaged in price capping, threatening to let Europe freeze if it runs contrary to Russia’s interests. Nevertheless, the EU seems determined to show its resolve on the matter to find a solution to restricting Russia’s oil and gas revenues.
Today’s emergency meeting is just the latest of many efforts the EU has made to quash economic upheaval due to industry shutdowns, and to prevent protests due to skyrocketing energy prices.
*
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.
Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for Oilprice.com, and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
According to media reports on 8 September, the newly appointed Russian ambassador to Algeria, Valeryan Shuvayev, announced that the North African country’s president, Abdelmajid Tebboune, will likely visit Moscow before the end of the year to discuss mutual cooperation between the two countries.
Tebboune’s potential visit will center around Algeria’s desire to join the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) group of emerging economies.
The BRICS group of nations represents the world’s most prominent economies outside of the western hemisphere.
In his first media appearance outside of the Russian embassy in Algeria, Shuvayev stated that President Tebboune sent a letter to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin regarding his country’s desire to join BRICS.
In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Algeria and met with President Tebboune, as well as his Algerian counterpart, Ramtane Lamamra, where they discussed a boost in relations between both countries, and the intention to sign a number of agreements in the near future that will further enhance the relationship between Moscow and Algiers.
Two months later, in late July, Tebboune referred to the BRICS group as a significant “economic and political power” which is of interest to the North African state and added that his country holds the necessary criteria to be included into the organization.
In mid-August, former Algerian Industry Minister, Ferhat Ait Ali, said during an interview:
“This bloc seeks to attract countries that are neither poor nor very rich, but rather countries that [can serve as an] alternative to Western hegemony.”
The BRICS group “includes two historical allies and partners for Algeria to trust in… namely China and Russia, and other partners who have no problem in the progress of our economic system in parallel with theirs,” the former Algerian minister added.
Algeria and Russia have historically enjoyed a smooth relationship. The Soviet Union was the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Algeria following its independence from French colonial occupation in 1962.
The BRICS group of emerging economies represents a beneficial alternative to the dominant US and western-led economic system, especially for countries negatively affected by western sanctions.
In June, the Islamic Republic of Iran submitted an application to become a member of the BRICS group. Tehran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Saeed Khatibzadeh, said at the time that the bloc’s member countries represent 30 percent of the world’s GDP and 40 percent of the global population.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Declassified files show how British oil giant Shell hatched a secret plan in the 1960s to defend the West’s share of the global energy market, with help from UK propaganda and intelligence agencies.
British oil corporation Shell hatched plans for a secret Cold War propaganda unit, recently declassified documents reveal.
In 1960, Shell commissioned a report into “communist efforts to disrupt the operations of major oil companies” across the developing world, and what private industry should do about it.
The report was authored by Sir George Sinclair, a staunch anti-communist who had spent decades in Britain’s colonial services, and whose brother was the general manager of Shell in Burma.
Between 1960 and 1962, Sinclair used his long-standing links with the Foreign Office to produce the report, receiving “the greatest help from Her Majesty’s Government and from Shell, not only in London but also…in many countries overseas”.
Sinclair drew particularly on the resources and advice of the Information Research Department (IRD), Britain’s covert Cold War propaganda arm. He also collaborated with Britain’s intelligence services.
In his final report, Sinclair warned that communist activities across Asia, Africa, and Latin America had serious “implications for Western oil interests”.
To this end, Sinclair attached a secret appendix to his final report, detailing plans for a private industry-funded propaganda unit designed to defend the West’s share of the global energy market.
The unit would be funded by Britain’s leading oil, banking and pharmaceutical companies, and engage in covert information operations across the developing world in the service of Western private enterprise. Its annual budget would run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The degree to which the proposal for the unit was implemented, and whether the campaign was successful, remains unclear. But the plan throws new light on the Foreign Office’s relationship with big oil during the Cold War, and how covert propaganda operations were seen as a device to maintain Western control over global oil supplies.
Recommendation X was discussed in secret. (Photo: John McEvoy)
Recommendation X
The secret plan was codenamed “Recommendation X”, and was drawn up “in close association” with IRD chief Donald Hopson, his predecessor Ralph Murray, and Foreign Office official Leslie Glass.
Britain’s intelligence services were also aware of Sinclair’s activities. In October 1960, Sinclair met MI5 chief Roger Hollis for “a discussion about his new job and the extent to which we [MI5] may be able to help him in it”. Details of the meeting were then passed on to “C”, MI6 chief Sir Dick White.
After numerous drafts and redrafts, Recommendation X was finalised on 5 February 1962. The document ran to 52 pages, specifying the requirement for a big business-funded propaganda unit, as well as its functions, structure, staffing, and costs.
There was a “gap to be filled” in the information field, wrote Sinclair, given that “Western free enterprise…has been declared by the Russians as a target to be weakened and destroyed”.
Sinclair thus recommended the unit have “two interdependent divisions”: one “for assessment” of the risks to Western industry, and the other “for projection” of a “favourable image” of Western private enterprise across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
To this end, Sinclair proposed that the unit use “unattributable material indirectly commissioned through some third party” to project “the basic case for… private enterprise”.
Sinclair also suggested that funds be provided “confidentially” for “non-attributable anti-Communist work in areas of particular financial interest” to Shell and other major Western companies.
This included “visits of influential people to the UK and visits of suitable Western personalities to the key areas overseas”.
In making the case for private enterprise across the developing world by covert means, the unit would mirror tactics used by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the IRD during the same period.
Indeed, Sinclair recommended using British and US intelligence-linked organisations to use and distribute the unit’s material, such as the Economic League, Interdoc, and the Latin America Information Committee.
The ‘Unit’
Sinclair could not decide on a name for the organisation, and referred to it simply as the “Unit”.
However, he insisted that the “choice of a title for an organisation that has some overt and some covert activities is important”. It was, he said, “often best to select a title that describes the overt activities as accurately as possible and thus provides a convincing cover story for the other work of the organisation and its staff”.
As such, he preferred something along the lines of the “Overseas Industrial Research Unit”.
It would require one director, one deputy director, one chief research economist, three research officers (one for each Latin America, Africa and Asia), one statistics officer, two production officers, an accountant, a registry officer, a librarian, two secretaries, and a messenger. Such staff needed to be “of high calibre” to make “a real impact in the war of ideas”, he wrote.
In the unit’s first year of operation, costs of staff, offices, consultants, and production were estimated to be £134,350, roughly £2m today. By the unit’s third year, costs were projected to rise to £410,170, over £6m today.
Shell would be the primary, but not the sole sponsor of the unit.
To get the organisation off the ground, Sinclair proposed approaching a number of Britain’s leading oil, pharmaceutical, chemical and banking companies such as BP, Unilever, ICI, British-American Tobacco, Barclays, and the Bank of London and South America.
“Once discussion of this project between Shell and HMG had reached a stage which would… justify an approach to other industries”, Sinclair wrote, the managing directors of Shell should approach Unilever and, with Unilever, approach ICI and, with Unilever and ICI, approach the banks, and so on.
“If the free enterprises of the West wish to foster, in the developing countries, a climate of ideas favourable to the survival and expansion of the free enterprise system, they should, in my view, tackle this problem now”, Sinclair emphasised in an earlier draft.
Such a project would be “bound to” meet “nationalist resistance”, he lamented, and therefore the unit should “get local leaders and organisations” to contribute as much as possible.
“This is a pump priming exercise: so is outside aid and technical assistance: both are liable to run up against nationalist feelings, but both are necessary. What is important is that both operations should be carried out as sensitively as possible”, he concluded.
No question of going back
After Sinclair submitted his report, the Foreign Office held a series of internal discussions on how to respond to it.
On 9 March 1962, Foreign Office deputy under-secretary Humphrey Trevelyan noted that “I think we should have a very clear idea” on “the degree of our interest [in the Unit] ranging from benevolent neutrality to active encouragement”.
He added: “There is of course no question of going back on the decision reached so far that we should take a positive and encouraging attitude towards this scheme”.
On 28 March, IRD chief Donald Hopson responded more positively to the initiative. “IRD have for years been looking for ways to tap big business’s reserves of good will and money and use them to plug the gap between secret and open vote expenditure on the Cold War”, he wrote.
As Declassifiedrevealed, Shell and BP had been providing secret subsidies to the IRD to fund covert propaganda operations around the companies’ areas of operation, such as the Middle East and Africa.
In Hopson’s view, a big business-funded unit would be less likely to “create suspicion”, and would be able to reach targets often “inaccessible to the guns of the official machine” such as opposition parties, as well as hostile trade union and student organisations.
It would also solve the problem of a “shortage of public money” for covert British propaganda activities. As such, Hopson concluded, “Recommendation X of the Sinclair report might be the answer” to the IRD’s difficulties.
The next month, Assistant Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs Leslie Glass similarly noted that the British government had a “wider interest” in supporting Recommendation X. “We are endeavouring to fight the Cold War largely with our public sector only, whereas our rivals have centralised direction of all sectors of their economy. It is to HMG’s interest to get Big Business more directly involved in the Cold War”, he noted.
By December 1962, Shell had held “tentative discussions” with Unilever and ICI, but “had found little enthusiasm for the project – particularly for something which was a new organisation altogether, and which appeared to be ‘hush-hush’”.
Despite this, Shell director Harold Wilkinson was “not likely yet to drop the idea”. In fact, Wilkinson felt that the objectives in Recommendation X were defined too narrowly.
“It appeared to Shell that in fact the danger to them came not only from Russian or Chinese Communism but from any sort of nationalist Marxism which could lead to expropriation, nationalisation and anti-capitalism generally”, one IRD official noted.
Whether Shell thus expanded its terms of reference for Recommendation X, or abandoned the project altogether, remains unclear.
Shell did not respond to requests for comment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
John McEvoy is an independent journalist who has written for International History Review, The Canary, Tribune Magazine, Jacobin and Brasil Wire.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The latest empty cliché that one hears out of the mouth of Christians is “Pray for Ukraine.” But do Christians who utter this pious platitude even know what they mean when they say it?
I suppose that it is supposed to mean that we should pray for the people of Ukraine who are suffering because of the unjustified Russian invasion of their country. If only things were that simple.
Some observations are in order.
This appeal is based on the overly simplistic yet false and evil notion of Ukraine, good; Russia, bad.
This trite expression in the form of a prayer request is virtue signaling at its worst.
I think we are at the point now where someone saying “Pray for Ukraine” is the verbal equivalent of someone wearing a face mask.
If U.S. soldiers are heroes for following their government’s orders, then why aren’t Russian soldiers heroes for doing the same?
The Ukrainian nationalists (and the Christians who hang on their every word) who compare Putin to Hitler are gravely insulting Jews.
How come I have never heard any Christians say that we should pray for the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who were shelled for the past eight years by the Ukrainian military?
Where were these Christians when the U.S. military was killing Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians by the millions during the Vietnam War?
Why are these Christians silent about Cubans suffering because of the U.S. embargo against Cuba?
Would Christians be saying “Pray for Yemen” if the United States was not supporting Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen.?
And what about the people of Saudi Arabia suffering under the brutal rule of the Mohammed bin Salman regime? Shouldn’t we pray for them? Oh, I forgot, they are Muslims.
How many of these Christians expressed any concern about all the widows and orphans that the U.S. military made over a twenty-year period in Afghanistan?
How many of these Christians offered up prayers for the people of Iraq—a country that never attacked the United States—when hundreds of thousands of them were injured, maimed, or killed during the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and, before this, as a consequence of the brutal sanctions that the United States imposed on the Iraqi people?
Why should we take any of these Christians seriously when they say “Pray for Ukraine”?
What Ron Paul said back in 2014 about the Russian annexation of Crimea is still just as true today: “Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?”
So, yes, pray for Ukraine. But pray for the civilians of the world who are on the receiving end of bombs and bullets from any army. And pray especially for the civilians of the world who are on the receiving end of weapons made in the good ole USA by merchants of death like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Amir Khan Muttaqi expressed criticism over reports of US drones that are flying above Afghanistan and called on Washington to stop the violation of Afghan air space.
Muttaqi called on the international community to put pressure on the US to stop violating Afghan airspace.
“This is against international norms and also against the Doha agreement. We have talked with the delegation of the US many times and we emphasized that the Afghan airspace must not be violated from now on,” he said.
Referring to the US announcement of killing the al-Qaeda leader in Kabul, Muttaqi said that the US has yet to provide details or proof of Zawahiri’s killing.
“The US did not give us proof nor has our investigation been completed. I can assure you that the appointed delegation, they have yet to reach a final result on it,” he said.
Speaking at a press conference to provide details of the ministry’s annual activities, officials said the Islamic Emirate is pursuing a moderate policy toward all countries.
“We had exports of more than $1 billion over the past year, which is unprecedented in the last 20 years,” said Mohammad Shafiq Khateeb, head of the consulate department of the Foreign Ministry.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Global, personal, individual. The reactions to the death of Queen Elizabeth II seemed to catch even unsuspecting republicans off guard. In Australia, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who had led the Australian Republic Movement, was a mess of reflection on the passing. The old enemy France glowed with a distant familial warmth. In the United States, monarchical fetishism reasserted itself.
Not all the reflections were rosy. In South Africa, the Economic Freedom Fighters party admitted no mourning for the passing of the monarch of seven decades,
“because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history. Britain, under the leadership of the royal family, took over control of this territory that would become South Africa in 1795 from Batavian control, and took permanent control of the territory in 1806.” From then, the native populace knew no peace, nor “enjoyed the fruits of the riches of this land, riches were and still are utilized for the enrichment of the British royal family and those who look like them.”
Negative commentary, notably of the brisk too-soon mould, caused sparks and retributive anger. When news of Elizabeth II’s deteriorating condition reached critical race theorist and Carnegie Mellon academic Uju Anya on September 8, she jumped on Twitter with menacing enthusiasm. “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.” In the room next door, grant applications for future funding were probably being written.
The comment, even if academically toothless, was enough to stir empire building types such as the amoral Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. In confounded fashion, he asked whether this was “someone supposedly working to make the world better […] I don’t think so.” Anya, unrepented, suggested that the Queen had “supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family”. As for Bezos, the bilious academic hoped that those who had suffered harm from his “merciless greed” would “remember you as fondly as I remember my colonizers.” On that score, many would agree.
In India, the historical site of controversial debates about the British monarchy, responses varied between lukewarm recognition to tangy irritation. The government of Narendra Modi declared a day of mourning on Sunday, with flags to fly at half-staff. But on closer inspection of social media chatter, Sucheta Mahajan of Jawaharlal Nehru University could detect little by way of effusive tear-filled adoration. There was “a lot of discussion but not much concern”. The passing was not treated as one of “an important world leader. After all, she did not call the shots.”
In 1997, when the late Queen made her third and last visit to India, much debate was provoked by the visit to Jallianwala Bagh. In April 1919, this site in the northern city of Amritsar was bloodied by the actions of the British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, who ordered troops to fire upon a gathering of thousands of Indians that resulted in the deaths of, according to an official report, 379 men, women and children.
Did such a visit amount to an apology for the past sins of empire? Hardly, if we are going by the remarks she made at a New Delhi state banquet held just prior to the visit. “It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our pasts – Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example. But history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise. It has its moments of sadness, as well as gladness. We must learn from the sadness and build on the gladness.”
The statement is strikingly bereft of sorrow and filled with understatement. Build on gladness; forget the sadness. British rule over India offered more than just “distressing” examples. And “sadness” is certainly one numbing way of looking at an atrocity, not to mention various decisions made with telling consequences.
Indian historian and politician Shashi Tharoor is one who has elaborated an extensive laundry list of British sins, noting how the empire imposed a system of rule and economy on a pre-existing, rich society of agrarian sophistication largely for self-enriching goals. Far from civilising native subjects, British rule was marked by impoverishment, its trains decidedly governed by military self-interest, its governing policy one of constipated, selective inclusion.
Distinctions, however, are drawn between the occupant of a constitutional monarchy, and the government that used her name to prosecute a policy. Specific to Elizabeth II, Tharoor noted a “largely ceremonial” reign executed with “uncommon grace, her conduct on the throne marked by a selfless serenity, a total self-abnegation and devotion to the public trappings of her position.” In her rule, she seemed to be a consummate expression of Walter Bagehot’s formulation of a constitutional monarch’s three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.
Indians had tried to learn and forgive, for the most part, the “cruelties of colonialism”, with some even valuing the British connection. But the Queen could be faulted for never once acknowledging, let alone apologising, for “those centuries of colonial plunder and cruelty that made her position and wealth possible.”
Where, then, did she figure in the Bagehot scheme of consulting, encouragement and warning regarding British actions in Kenya in the use of concentration camps to break the Mau Mau rebellion, or the suppression of Communists in the Malaysian Emergency? The Westminster shroud, in this regard, is thick indeed, a layer of forced exculpation.
In that curious sense, the constitutional monarch could derive the profits of plunder yet disclaim responsibility. Monarchs, Tharoor noted, “did not actually order any of these things”. It followed that the Queen did not have to apologise for them, though a sovereign’s good sense might have demanded it.
As to what’s left of any republican sentiment, the Irish politician Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, put it well in expressing her “deepest sympathies and solidarity with republicans living under British rule.” The forthcoming weeks would prove hard, “but it will pass.” Maybe a bit wistfully, she suggested that the “day will come.” Those days always do, but Queen Liz has made it that much more difficult.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Much will be said, remembered and commemorated on this day, the 21st anniversary of the tragedies on September 11, 2001.
While there are many lessons from what happened prior to, during and following that day, there’s one take-a-way that should never be forgotten: the political and economic power elite never lets a tragedy, catastrophe or crisis go to waste to further attempt to increase their political and/or economic dominance.
In the case of September 11, a major success in this vein was the Patriot Act, passed soon afterwards to supposedly enhance “national security” to catch “terrorists,” specifically Middle Eastern Muslims inside the United States. While some of its provisions were intended to address problems that predated 9/11, most of the others allowed the government to more easily and effectively violate the privacy rights of innocent citizens and residents. These included tracking the activities of people on the Internet, compiling credit and bank records and expanding the monitoring of phone and email communications. September 11 was just a pretext by the government to enact unprecedented violations of civil rights and surveillance expansion that were labeled as “un-American” prior to 9/11.
It’s not just the government. Corporations have taken full advantage of emergencies, urgencies and crises to expand their power, wealth and rights – which by definition diminishes the democratic power of people and safeguards communities and the natural world.
The 2007-2009 financial crisis, caused by the reckless and criminal activities of the largest financial institutions, was the rationale for providing $16 trillion in bailout funds to major U.S. and foreign banking corporations that were asserted by banking lobbyists as “too big to fail.”
The pandemic was the pretext for many corporations to make obscene profits, which continues in many instances. Pfizer Corporation, for example, has engaged in “aggressive corporate practices and ruthless profiteering that has led to an obscene inequality in access to COVID-19 vaccines”
The war in Ukraine has been incredibly profitable for weapons contractors as the military budget soars to $813 billion for next fiscal year.“The proposed increase of $31 billion is shielded by support for Ukraine, “but make no mistake, most of this bloated budget was in the pipeline years back, prior Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Public calls to reduce the military budget in this environment are deemed far less “credible.”
Recent flooding in Jackson, MS that caused the widespread lack of safe water prompted calls to explore privatization/corporatization of the city’s water system by the state’s Governor, which would fundamentally reduce the political power of citizens to decide the future direction of the system.
There are many other examples of what author Naomi Klein calls The Shock Doctrine. Emergencies, crises, and urgencies become the justifications to “fast track” proposals with little or no public transparency, hearings, or input.
Corporations use the cover of crises to privatize/corporatize public assets, to demand millions or billions of public tax dollars, to call for greater secrecy, to amass greater political power and/or to support laws making it more difficult to vote, protest, and organize for real democracy.
But “never letting a tragedy, catastrophe or crisis go to waste” has a flip side.
It provides opportunities for people of conscience to show our humanity by tangibly supporting individuals and communities harmed by crisis.
It provide teachable and organizing moments to expose and resist the structures, institutions and systems that when crises arise, the responses disproportionately benefit the political and economically rich and powerful, and
It provides openings for alternative visions of what a bottom-up, democratic, people- and nature-centered society can look like. Of course, part of these fundamental alternatives is ensuring that only human beings, not corporations, have inalienable constitutional rights and that the voices of people should be heard and responded to over the “voices” of money (i.e. money is not free speech) – both core components of the We the People Amendment (HJR48)
However you observe September 11, if at all, always remember this lesson.
It’s up to us to apply it in ways that promote justice, peace, a livable world and authentic democracy.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
At the top of the list are JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and BlackRock, each with US$ 1 billion invested in the network of livestock financiers. The list of implicated companies includes Suzano, JBS, Marfrig, Cargill and ADM — agribusiness giants that wield their corporate might to sway Brazilian politics against the interests of the environment, peasants, Indigenous groups, and working people everywhere.
Between 2019 and 2021, transnational banks and investment funds contributed more than US$ 27 billion to companies that are part of the funding chain of Instituto Pensar Agro (Pensar Agro Institute – IPA). IPA is the think tank behind the Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária (Agricultural Parliamentary Front – FPA) which is responsible for a package of anti-environmental measures being considered in the Brazilian Congress. The amount invested corresponds to Lebanon’s GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimate for 2020.
The billion-dollar figure corresponds to share purchases by sovereign wealth funds, loan concessions, debt renegotiations, and bond issues executed between January 2019 and April 2021 (date of the last data collection). In the case of multinational groups, such as soybean processors Cargill, ADM and Bunge, and meat processing companies JBS, Marfrig and Minerva, only investments for operations in Brazil were considered.
The results show six global financial groups at the head of investments in companies linked to the IPA. Together, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and the BlackRock, Vanguard, and Dimensional funds transferred US$ 4.12 billion to companies involved in financing the agribusiness lobby in Brasília. The amount corresponds to 15% of the total value of US$ 27.06 billion in transactions analyzed in the period.
Suzano Concentrates 51.9% of Investments Among IPA Funders
The report compiled by De Olho shows that Suzano was foreign capital’s favorite over the last three years. Between 2019 and 2021, the group led by the Feffer family received US$14.03 billion from global banks and investment funds, the equivalent of 51.9% of the total invested in IPA-associated companies in the period. The company’s main supporters were Bank of America ($791.3 million), JP Morgan Chase ($774.8 million), and BlackRock ($525.5 million).
Investor attention was mainly focussed on the merger with Fibria (formerly Veracel), announced in 2018 and completed the following year. This process has created a virtual monopoly: Suzano S.A., because of the merger, is the largest producer of pulp and eucalyptus in the world and the fifth largest company in Brazil, across all economic sectors.
Women from the MST occupying a Suzano unit in 2015
The CEO, Walter Schalka, is vice president of Ibá, an association that brings together the largest pulp producers in Brazil and one of the main supporters of the Instituto Pensar Agro. Apart from the timber sector, Suzano also operates in the pesticide and transgenic seed sectors through its subsidiary FuturaGene, which participates in CropLife Brasil.
In addition to these conflicts, the company is known for the participation of its directors, brothers David and Daniel Feffer, in financing movements of the so-called “new right” in Brazil. Daniel is one of the founders of the Millenium Institute, alongside the Minister of Economy, Paulo Guedes. His brother David was involved, in 2007, in the creation of the Institute for Leadership Formation, one of the organizers of the Liberty and Democracy Forum, alongside José Salim Mattar Junior, owner of the car rental company Localiza Hertz and former Secretary General for Privatization in Mr. Bolsonaro’s government.
The family also has close ties to the former Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles. In 2018, De Olho nos Ruralistas showed that Suzano was the main beneficiary of Salles’ attempt to irregularly modify the Management Plan of the Environmental Protection Area (APA) Várzea do Rio Tietê when he was Environment Secretary in São Paulo. Indicted by the Federal Public Prosecution Office, he was acquitted in March 2021.
United States and Europe Lead International Funding
The analysis of financial transactions based on data from the Florestas & Finanças platform shows a large concentration of resources directed to Brazilian agribusiness companies come from investors in the global North. The United States is the biggest provider of funds, with US$ 7.44 billion coming mostly from banks such as American International Group (AIG), Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Vanguard.
JBS is one of the leaders in international investments
Large European financial groups, such as the German Allianz and Deutsche Bank; the British Barclays and Standard Chartered; the Spanish BBVA and Santander; the French BNP Paribas; the Dutch ABN-Amro and Rabobank, among others; have invested $4.5 billion in IPA companies.
As the sole remaining survivor among the financial players that were behind the 2008 global crisis, JP Morgan Chase tops the list, having invested more than US$1.1 billion in transactions during the period. In addition to the aforementioned Suzano, the Wall Street bank invested in 15 other companies, especially the meat processing company Marfrig, which received US$ 103.29 million in 2019 and another US$ 4.7 million between January and April 2021.
Bank of America and BlackRock have also invested $1 billion each. The latter is famous for being the main investor in Brazil’s JBS, totaling $139.34 million in transfers since 2019. The world’s largest producer of animal protein, the company owned by brothers Wesley and Joesley Batista has also received money from stockbrokers registered in offshore tax havens.
According to the report, the meat processing company received US$ 60 million for the purchase of shares and bonds by two private brokerage firms in Bermuda, Fidelity International and Lazard, both cited in the Offshore Leaks, an investigation into tax evasion and capital flight led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ). To a lesser extent, both also traded Bunge shares in 2021.
The Brazilian Financial Sector Also Joins the Party
Despite leading the investments, international groups are not the only ones to support the activities of the companies that make up the IPA. Banks and players in the Brazilian financial market such as BTG Pactual, Safra, Verde Asset Management, Vinci Partners, and XP Investimentos – whether through credit, holding shares and bonds, or loans, direct or via the Plano Safra – maintain bonds estimated at US$ 9.3 billion.
In addition to the private sector, the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) – which has an investment policy partly focused on agribusiness – has lent more than US$ 3 billion to companies linked to the IPA between January 2019 and April 2021. Standing out is the bank’s equity stake in Ourofino Saúde Animal, part of the Ourofino group, second in the ranking of companies that operate within the structure of agribusiness associations, with participation in six entities.
In addition to the development bank, Brazilian institutional investment funds, such as Petros, of Petrobras, and Valia, of mining company Vale’s employees, also have a share.
*
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.
Caio de Freitas Paes is a journalist. He writes for De Olho nos Ruralistas and The Intercept Brasil, among other media outlets.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
It is declared, fallaciously, that America is a “democracy,” and that supposed democracy is now in danger from aggressive and vile challengers, that is to say the former president and his staff.
“A grand jury has subpoenaed several associates of former President Donald Trump in connection with the Department of Justice’s investigation into the origins of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, [indicate] multiple people familiar with the case,” reports the corporate media.
As should be more than obvious, the “riot” at the nation’s Capitol was blown severely out of proportion for propaganda purposes. Most Americans are not aware (being largely political imbeciles) that the FBI and Capitol Police played a major role instigating violence and property damage during the mischaracterized riot. The New York Times admitted as much, but threw in the typical spin, making excuses for Stasi-like tactics.
Last September, The Hill reported the “FBI had an informant in the crowd during the Jan. 6 attack,” an unlikely prospect, as I have researched the state’s political police force for a number of years. There were undoubtedly numerous FBI informants and agents provocateurs embeded in the demonstration against what is perceived to be an illegitimate and rigged election.
There was an event more than a decade ago that did not result in FBI subversion and the Democrat push to hobble Republicans, tar and feathering them all as Trump loyalists and dangerous extremists, even “fascists” (the politically illiterate “representatives” in Congress know virtually nothing about real fascism).
The event occurred on December, 2011. On that date Congress was occupied by labor activists. “Our Occupy Congress actions on the steps of Congress were unsanctioned by Democratic Party leadership,” said Nick Brana, National Chair of the People’s Party.
“I was there when the Squad occupied Congress and the police treated the group with velvet gloves. When dozens of us with the People’s Party took the steps on Labor Day, the police were so determined to stop us from occupying Congress that they arrested Paula Jean Swearengin, Jackson Hinkle, Martin Gugino and I and kicked everyone else, protesters and tourists, off the Capitol grounds and closed it entirely,” he wrote.
Unlike the January 6 “protest,” nobody was shot to death or beaten by police during the aborted occupation. Nobody was sent to solitary confinement.
More than a decade ago, at the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, a mob of Democrats occupied the state house.
“Most conservatives have condemned the right-wing mob that assaulted the U.S. Capitol. But 10 years ago, Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison,” writes Marc A. Thiessen for The Washington Post. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an ‘impressive show of democracy in action’ and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued ‘to stand in solidarity’ with the union activists. In other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, if the cause reflects the agenda of the elite that own the Democrat-Republican one party system, the authorities will respond in a more mild mannered fashion.
Obviously, Trump is an outsider, an outlier, and his surprise victory of the electoral vote was considered completely unacceptable by the one-party pretending to be two separate and (according to the corporate media) divided parties.
Trump was, of course, a disaster. I do not want to see him re-elected, but if that’s what the American people want, the ideologically radical Democrat party must step aside. Of course, they will not, as the legal and propaganda shenanigans went on nonstop during his tenure and continue until this very day. The Democrats are determined to get Trump indicted and put behind bars, thus revealing their endless venality for any opposition to their corporate-dominated rule.
This is normal behavior for a ruling party. For them, only the opposition is capable of criminality and extremism, no matter the political platform or popular support. Democracy in America, for a very long time, has served as window dressing for authoritarianism. That showy window dressing is now beginning to fray and the people, those with any political sense (or, for that matter, can tell the difference between right and wrong), are either outraged or keep their mouths shut, as most people do during the reign of authoritarians, lest they become victims.
Case in point: Hillary Clinton’s email server, loaded up with classified documents, was easily hacked by a number of intelligence agencies in other countries. She will never be prosecuted. She is nothing short of sacrosanct to large numbers of Democrats, a top figure representing the corporate-banker dominated elite. If Democrats have their way, she may be the next president, never mind her thick ledger of war crimes during the especially violent Obama administration.
The state will no longer tolerate dissidence or demands of a change in policy (for instance, torturing and killing millions of people in foreign lands, then stealing their resources and privatizing everything from water to state services paid for by taxpayers).
The crack down on Trump supporters is only the beginning. If Democrats and their Republican allies continue to engage in political repression of opposing political organizations and parties, America will soon become a full-blown dictatorship. In fact, it is well on the way.
*
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.
Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In this episode, Mike is joined by scientist and social theorist, Denis Rancourt, to debunk climate change hysteria and the myths forwarded by its cult leaders and adherents.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Sanctions on Russia are preventing Gazprom from operating North Stream 1, the only one bringing Russian gas to Germany after the forced closure of its sister pipeline, North Stream 2. The Kremlin reports that “Sanctions imposed by the EU, UK, US and Canada have disrupted the technical maintenance system of turbine components that ensured pumping.”
The U.S.-EU strategy is clear: to prevent Europe from receiving Russian gas at low prices due to the long-term agreements previously made with Russia, forcing European consumers to buy it on the spot market at extremely higher prices set according to speculative and political mechanisms by the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, which is now part of a large U.S. holding company.
The only pipeline that regularly transports Russian gas to Europe is the TurkStream, via the Black Sea and the Balkans. Hungary, which opposes EU sanctions (despite being part of the EU and NATO), has signed a long-term agreement with Gazprom to receive 80 percent of the gas it needs from Russia through this pipeline.
However, there are growing tensions in the Balkans, especially against Serbia through which TurkStream passes, caused by NATO’s long hands, which could lead to the blocking of this last pipeline from Russia as well.
This situation is part of an increasingly explosive political-military scenario. The new British premier Liz Truss declares herself “ready to use nuclear weapons.”
A further danger is caused by the fact that Ukrainian forces – armed, trained and de facto commanded by NATO – are firing guns supplied to them by NATO and the EU on the Zaparozhye nuclear power plant currently under Russian control, exposing Italy and Europe to the very serious risk of a new Chernobyl.
The International Atomic Energy Agency warns: “With the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant we are playing with fire and something very, very catastrophic could happen” .
*
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 byoblu.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Calls have been growing for some of the Queen’s crown jewels to be returned to India and Africa.
While many have taken to the streets of London near Buckingham Palace, the area around Windsor Castle, as well as social media to pay their respects, others have spoken out about the colonial history of the country which the Queen served for 70 years.
In particular, people have been calling for the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond which is currently set in the crown of the Queen Mother and is part of the Crown Jewels on display at the Tower of London and the Great Star of Africa set in the Sovereign’s Sceptre, which is also part of the Crown Jewels.
‘The Koh-i-noor diamond from India sits atop the crown made for the Queen Mother in 1937 and the Great Star of Africa sits in the Queen's scepter’ pic.twitter.com/l1gZfmmrh5
The Koh-i-Noor is one of the largest cut diamonds in the world coming in at just over 105 carats. It is said to be worth between $140 and $400 million, but is also hailed as priceless. It is also known as one of the world’s most controversial diamonds too.
While it is believed to have first been mentioned over 5,000 years ago in a Sanskrit script, the diamond was referred to as the Syamantaka and subsequently who actually had ownership of it was simply speculation.
After that, for the next 300 years from the year of 1339, it stayed in the city of Samarkand.
The Koh-i-Noor remained in India until 1849, when British forces conquered the Punjab and it became part of the British East India Company.
It was then shipped back to Britain and, in July 1850, given to Queen Victoria.
The diamond became part of the crown jewels after Queen Victoria passed away.
“Instead of returning plundered patrimony to its rightful owners, the British are clinging to stolen artefacts such as the Kohinoor diamond, which they embedded in the Queen Mother’s tiara and shamelessly flaunt in the Tower of London,” Tharoor said.
Calls have also grown for the Great Star of Africa – also known as Cullinan I and First Star of Africa – to be returned.
Africa Archives tweeted:
“Queen Elizabeth II owns the largest clear-cut diamond in the world known as the Great Star of Africa. The 530-carat gem was mined in South Africa back in 1905. It was stolen from South Africa. It has an estimated worth of $400 million.
Queen Elizabeth II owns the largest clear cut diamond in the world Known as 'The Great Star of Africa' the 530 carats gem was mined in South Africa back in 1905. It was stolen from South Africa. It has an estimated worth of $400 million. pic.twitter.com/HesTmGTv4d
Africa Archives tweeted: “Queen Elizabeth II owns the largest clear-cut diamond in the world known as the Great Star of Africa. The 530-carat gem was mined in South Africa back in 1905. It was stolen from South Africa. It has an estimated worth of $400 million.
“The British claim that it was given to them as a symbol of friendship and peace yet it was during colonialism. The British then replaced the name ‘The Great Star of Africa’ with name of Chairman of Mine ‘Thomas Cullinan’.”
*
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.
Featured image is a collage from Unilad, image copyright Alamy Stock Photo
If anybody thinks that the recent extreme Pakistani monsoon floods (see Red Cross photo below) and the US-instigated ousting of Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan, are sheer coincidence, might be dead-wrong.
Lest we forget, one day before the 9/11 attacks [as well as on the morning of 9/11, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of the alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.
Much of the traditional control the UK exerted over the Middle East was grounded in a range of monarchies that had been imposed or backed by the empire and maintained close links to Britain’s royal family.
Damning words from Dunja Mijatovic, human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe on the controversial Legacy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The sense of panic to get this legislation into law has been hastened by the brilliant work of organisations like Relatives for Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre, which have been a tremendous help and support to victims and families of the Troubles.
When Stephanie de Garay allowed her three children to sign up for Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trial, she assumed the worst that could happen was anaphylactic shock — and in that case, they’d be treated with an EpiPen and be fine. From her daughter’s perspective, the trial was a way to keep up with a close friend who had already signed up for the trial.
I have taken the risky step of referring to the speech of Charles Coughlin in my recent writings. Coughlin was the most trenchant critic of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, after he had come out as an early supporter. Although Coughlin’s later writings are problematic, and at some points disturbing, it is not accurate to say he was simply an American fascist.
This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.
The German-French Nobel Peace Prize winner, pacifist and “jungle doctor” Albert Schweitzer was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. His philosophical thinking was based on the assumption that when people reflect on themselves and their limits, they mutually recognise each other as brothers who reflect on themselves and their limits.
In a rare gesture of political realism, the US government refused to consider Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. President Joe Bidenstressed that the measure would bring many problems and damages, being firm in his negative response.
The statement by Poland that it needs to rearm its troops in preparation for a “war with Russia” in the next few years is intended to attract additional aid and weapons from NATO to strengthen its eastern borders and to modernise its arsenal after it supplied obsolete weapons to Ukraine. However, this comes at the price of destroying the economy and the quality of life of the average citizen.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
According to Reuters, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will appear at a summit with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and other American weapons manufacturers later this month. The Ukrainian leader is expected to appeal for more arms transfers. On Thursday, top White House officials announced nearly $3 billion in military support for the war.
The conference will be hosted in Austin, Texas on September 21 and Zelensky will appear via video conference. Since the war started, he has spoken with Congress, the Grammys and numerous other worldwide cultural events. The summit later this month will be the first time Zelensky directly appealed to the heads of arms manufacturers.
After Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the Biden Administration has announced several rounds of security assistance for Kiev totaling tens of billions of dollars. The US has sent over one dozen High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) produced by Lockheed and thousands of Javelin anti-tank missiles produced jointly by Lockheed and Raytheon. Both companies experienced bumps in their stock prices after the start of the war.
The weapons sales from the war in Ukraine are expected to last well into the future. This week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told a group of European officials the US will support Kiev for the long haul. “We will work together to train Ukraine’s forces for the long haul. We will work together to help integrate Ukraine’s capabilities and bolster its joint operations for the long haul,” he said.
Austin was formerly employed at Raytheon and has supported the US intervention in Ukraine. On Tuesday, Austin, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, announced $2.8 billion in military aid for Ukraine. The US has pledged over $15 billion in weapons for Kiev since February.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Maddie de Garay signed up for Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trial when she was 12; previously a healthy preteen, her life has been forever changed due to health problems caused by the shots
Maddie suffered a severe systemic adverse reaction to her second dose of the shot and struggled through 11 ER visits and four hospital admissions in the year and a half that followed
Injuries from the shot have left her unable to walk or eat — she receives her nutrition via a feeding tube — and suffering from constant pain, vision problems, tinnitus, allergic reactions and lack of neck control
Maddie and her family were continually dismissed by the medical professionals put in place to help, ignored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and denied the care needed to help Maddie
The medical professionals went so far as to label Maddie’s health problems as psychological in nature, and they still haven’t been contacted by anyone from Pfizer or the FDA — even after her true diagnosis was revealed and found to be related to the shots
*
When Stephanie de Garay allowed her three children to sign up for Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trial, she assumed the worst that could happen was anaphylactic shock — and in that case, they’d be treated with an EpiPen and be fine. From her daughter’s perspective, the trial was a way to keep up with a close friend who had already signed up for the trial.
It also didn’t hurt that the trial offered monetary compensation of $119 per visit.1 This is what prompted all three of de Garay’s children to ultimately sign up for the COVID-19 shot trial, which changed the life of de Garay’s daughter Maddie. A healthy 12-year-old girl prior to the trial, Maddie loved to dance, play soccer and spend time with her friends.
She suffered a severe systemic adverse reaction to her second dose of the shot, however, and struggled through 11 ER visits and four hospital admissions in the year and a half that followed. Injuries from the shot have left her unable to walk or eat — she receives her nutrition via a feeding tube — and suffering from constant pain, vision problems, tinnitus, allergic reactions and lack of neck control.2
As though the physical trauma weren’t enough, Maddie and her family were continually dismissed by the medical professionals put in place to help, ignored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and denied the care needed to help Maddie.
The medical professionals went so far as to label Maddie’s health problems as psychological in nature, and they still haven’t been contacted by anyone from Pfizer or the FDA — even after her true diagnosis was revealed and found to be related to the shots.
In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” details Maddie’s ordeal and the family’s continued fight to not only get help for their daughter but get the word out so others aren’t similarly harmed by COVID-19 injections.3
Adverse Reaction Started Within Hours of the Second Dose
After Maddie joined Pfizer’s COVID-19 trial for 12- to 15-year-olds, she received her first dose of the experimental shot December 30, 2020. They were told it was just like a flu shot, “no big deal,” de Garay said. The second dose was given three weeks later, blood drawn two weeks after that and immune responses compared.
Participants were given access to the TrialMax app to record side effects, like a swollen arm, but de Garay was surprised at the format it used. There wasn’t space for open-ended comments, only direct questions with “yes” or “no” options for answers, or check boxes to signify a set of predetermined potential effects.
With the first shot, Maddie had a fever and her arm swelled. She received the second dose January 20, 2021, which the children said hurt more than the first shot. At that point, de Garay started writing notes to make sure she was documenting what happened to the children; she thought it would be valuable for the trial.
The next day, January 21, 12 hours after Maddie’s second COVID-19 shot, de Garay wrote, “Maddie came into our room around 4 a.m. and said she didn’t feel right and asked if she could sleep with us. Not typical of her.”4
The next day, she barely made it through the day at school, and when she walked in the door from the bus, she wasn’t in good shape. De Garay’s husband sent her a text at work saying Maddie was having a reaction to the shot. In the background, de Garay could hear her daughter screaming that her heart felt like it was going to be ripped out through her neck; she was in that much pain.
A trip to the ER was useless — they checked her out for appendicitis, ruled it out and sent her home, saying it was most likely an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 shot and would get better in time.
They recommended seeing a family doctor if there were any more issues — even though Maddie was part of a clinical trial, arguably the most high-profile clinical trial ongoing at the time, the whole purpose of which is to find out if the shots cause adverse reactions. Yet, Pfizer did not contact the family and Maddie’s heart pain wasn’t addressed.
Shot Reaction Labeled a Psychological Problem
January 23, 2021, de Garay recorded Maddie’s continued symptoms, which included severe body pain, nausea, diarrhea and extreme fatigue. They visited an ER three times that week and Maddie was finally admitted on the third visit.
But instead of sending in medical specialists and doing extensive testing, they sent in psychologists and social workers, as they were focused on her mental health. They labeled Maddie with anxiety and suggested that her anxiety about the shot was causing all of the symptoms.5 On Life Funder, a website where a fundraising effort has been started for Maddie, it’s explained:6
“After reporting everything to the Pfizer clinical trial Principal Investigator [Dr. Robert Frenck] and being brushed aside, we started documenting every detail of Maddie’s injury. Cincinnati Children’s first tried to treat Maddie as “a mental patient,” telling us it was anxiety and it was all in Maddie’s head.
Pfizer listed her traumatic systemic adverse reaction as “functional abdominal pain” when reporting to the FDA. A day before Pfizer submitted their request for emergency approval for the covid vaccine for 12-15-year-olds and before necessary testing was done, they put Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) as a diagnosis in her chart.”
Maddie’s symptoms continued into February, with old symptoms getting worse and new symptoms, including extreme bloating after eating, starting. Maddie was dizzy, nauseous and in pain. She felt like her heart was on fire and soon began throwing up when she ate, until she couldn’t eat at all. Her ability to shower on her own became a thing of the past.7
It was Dr. Amal Assa’ad at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital who, after spending just 15 minutes with Maddie, determined that her physical symptoms weren’t the result of the shots but were due to a functional neurological disorder.
She put in her notes that she had discussed with another doctor, Robert Frenck, measuring an antibody titer to determine whether Maddie had received the shot or a placebo in the trial, but ultimately she said she thought it will be “irrelevant to the management of Madeline’s functional disorder.”8 Assa’ad’s notes went so far as to advise against any further investigation, even though Maddie was a participant in a clinical trial:9
“My assessment is that Madeline has a functional impairment that is not organic in nature … I also discourage further work up since this is usually detrimental in functional disorders because it drives the patient to thinking that there must be something wrong that is indicating all this work up. It also delays the necessary psychologic intervention that is needed to help resolve the functional disorder.”
‘It’s Like We’re Stuck in a Nightmare’
Frenck, director of the Vaccine Research Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, was principal investigator of the Pfizer COVID-19 trial, put there to act as an advocate for the people in the trial and making sure that they were safe, as well as determine if any reactions they experienced were due to the vaccine. He offered little help to the de Garays, even as Maddie’s symptoms persisted and worsened.
February 19, 2021, de Garay wrote that Maddie fainted and, when she came to, couldn’t remember her birthday or her friend’s names. In response, the hospital gave her a different tape for her IV and said she may have a rubber allergy.
During her second hospital stay, Maddie woke up from an MRI of her brain and upper GI, fell to the ground and hasn’t been able to walk since. Her father said, “It’s like we’re stuck in a nightmare,” and they feel they’ve been abandoned.
When they signed Maddie up for the clinical trial, the de Garays assumed they’d have medical staff on hand and scientists there to support them. Any medical bills due to adverse events were also supposed to be covered, but Pfizer and the hospital were refusing to pay for Maddie’s treatments, claiming they weren’t research-related. De Garay’s notes continued into March 2021:10
March 24, blackout that lasted 20 minutes, pulse went up to 150
March 28, 10 convulsions and seizures, can’t walk, gets around by scooting on her butt
Previously, doctor’s notes said Maddie had no anxiety, but then they changed their tune, writing that she “seems to have some anxiety which may be augmenting her pain.” Even after 1.5 months in the hospital, the health care providers were treating Maddie’s shot reaction as a psychological issue instead of a physical one.
After she didn’t make any physical progress, the hospital transferred Maddie to a mental institution — but after seeing the harsh conditions used at the facility, the de Garays took Maddie home instead, with no support offered for her care.
“They’ve just basically pretended this didn’t happen … I thought in a clinical trial that if anything happened, they were going to do everything they could to figure it out,” de Garay said. “I thought that was the whole point. So that’s why I wasn’t worried. But they didn’t do that. They just tried to make her look like she was crazy.”11
Pfizer Reported Maddie’s Severe Reaction as Abdominal Pain
If you’re wondering how Pfizer got away with this, in Pfizer’s April 2021 disclosure of Maddie’s case to the FDA, it’s stated:12
“One participant experienced an SAE [serious adverse event] reported as generalized neuralgia, and also reported 3 concurrent non-serious AEs (abdominal pain, abscess, gastritis) and 1 concurrent SAE (constipation) within the same week. The participant was eventually diagnosed with functional abdominal pain. The event was reported as ongoing at the time of the cutoff date.”
Bigtree stated, “That looks like fraud to me.” Even as the de Garays tried to transfer Maddie’s care to a different local hospital, they were met with bias and red tape; the health care providers who received all the digital records had already made their minds up about the diagnosis before Maddie was seen.
The de Garays feel they’re blacklisted at major hospitals, and any doctor who’s going to do the right thing is going to risk their career in doing so. And, as noted on Life Funder, “Pfizer has zero financial obligation for Maddie’s injury and they have not offered any assistance.”13
After a year and a half, with the help of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and React19, a nonprofit that offers support for those suffering from long-term COVID-19 shot adverse events, they found doctors willing to conduct the proper tests, who diagnosed Maddie’s vaccine reaction as follows:14
“The findings were consistent with severe distal chronic acquired demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, small fiber sensory neuropathy and orthostatic intolerance in the setting of COVID vaccination.”
Pfizer Classifies Severe Reactions as ‘Not Related’ to Shots
The FDA and Pfizer attempted to hide the COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years, but the FDA was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to release redacted versions of trial documents on a much faster schedule. As part of the court order, 80,000 pages of documents related to the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots were released June 1, 2022.15
Among those documents were case report forms (CRFs) revealing that deaths and severe adverse events took place during Phase 3 trials, but, as reported by Children’s Health Defense, Pfizer had “a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”16
Examples include a woman in her early 50s who died from a heart attack November 4, 2020, five days after she’d received the second dose of Pfizer’s experimental COVID-19 shot. Her death was listed as “not related” to the shots. Two other heart attack deaths — one in a woman in her late 50s and the other in a man in his mid-60s — also occurred within two to three months of the shots, but were also listed as “not related.”17
In other instances, a teenage girl suffered from deep vein thrombosis two months after the second dose of the shot, but it, too, was deemed “not related,” as was the acute exacerbation of asthma experienced by a woman in her late 50s about two months after the shots.18 According to independent journalist Michael Nevradakis, for Children’s Health Defense:19
“The many serious adverse events — and several deaths — recorded during the Phase 3 trials are also apparent in a separate, massive document exceeding 2,500 pages, cataloging such adverse events. This document lists a wide range of adverse events suffered by trial participants classified as toxicity level 4 — the highest and most serious such level.
However, not one of the level 4 (most severe) adverse events listed in this particular document is classified as being related to the vaccination … Similarly, only a small number of toxicity level 3 adverse events were indicated as having been “related” to vaccination.”
Even the instances that were attributed to the shots were downplayed, such as the report of “one younger participant with no past medical history [who] had a life-threatening SAE of myocardial infarction 71 days after Dose 2 that was assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention.” The report then goes on to state that the SAE “lasted one day and resolved the same day.”20
The FDA Ignored Maddie’s Case
Just as it ignored the many red flags in Pfizer’s clinical trial data, the FDA also ignored Maddie’s case, even when attorneys got involved. In August 2021, the de Garays reached out to ICAN’s legal team; ICAN’s Aaron Siri is now representing them. According to Siri:21
“What happened to Maddie is not only the story of an injury to a child, which is heartbreaking in and of itself. But Maddie was in a clinical trial that only had 1,000 children in the age bracket of 12 to 15 years old that got the COVID-19 vaccine.
When she suffered that reaction, there should have been every medical expert at Cincinnati and at the FDA that should have descended to study what happened to Maddie, because if that could happen to one in 1,000 children, the repercussions could be really devastating, especially for an infection that doesn’t harm children anywhere near that rate.”
After ICAN’s team got Maddie’s medical records and reviewed them, they believe the causal connection to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot is extraordinarily strong. In October 2021, they sent a letter to the FDA, including all of Maddie’s medical records and highlighting how Pfizer downplayed the condition in their disclosure, describing Pfizer’s move as “at best dishonest. To regulators, it should be criminal.”22
In February 2022, the FDA finally responded, incredulously by saying to file a VAERS report or send a letter to CISA — Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project — which is run by Dr. Kathryn Edwards, who sits on the data safety monitoring board for Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials. In other words, they did nothing.23
Maddie’s story is ongoing but, sadly, is only one of many cases of people being seriously injured or killed by COVID-19 shots and not being taken seriously — or outright discredited — by health care providers and health officials. However, there is hope — and it comes in the form of protecting your right to informed consent and the freedom to make your own medical choices. As Siri put it:24
“The hope is that we make sure that we always have the choice to say no. As long as we can say no, that is the safeguard. That is the stopgap to all of this bad conduct. It’s not going to protect those who don’t know better to say no in certain situations, but it will protect those who do … There should be a lot of hope out there because COVID vaccine mandates have receded all across this country …
Freedom of speech, the ability to have individual liberties. That is what will save us … The ability to become educated, to have access to information and to make informed decisions … the ability to say no about something, or a medical procedure, that we don’t want to have on our bodies or our children’s bodies.”
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
BBC live report of the collapse of WTC building 7, more than minutes before the collapse took place. Building Seven in the background is still intact.
Author’s note
21 years ago. Commemorating 9/11: September 11, 2001:
The article below was published in April 2015. In the meantime, the issue of the mysterious 28 pages had resurfaced. The 28 pages were made public. Essentially they served as a distraction which undermines 9/11 Truth. They revive the role of Al Qaeda supported by Saudi Arabia. But Al Qaeda was not behind the attacks and therefore the links to Saudi Arabia constitute a non sequitur.
It is fairly well established that Al Qaeda could not have been behind the 9/11 attacks. This is confirmed by the analysis of Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The WTC towers were brought down through controlled demolition.
Al Qaeda did not have the technical capabilities of bringing down the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7.
Osama bin Laden was said to have coordinated the attacks. Where was he on the morning of 9/11? According to Dan Rather in a special CBS News report, Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th of September, one day before the tragic events of 9/11. His whereabouts were known to both Pakistani and US authorities.
Al Qaeda is known to be supported by Saudi Arabia in liaison with the CIA.
But there is a lot more to this saga.
The two key figures behind this new wave of propaganda are former Senator Bob Graham, who led the joint inquiry of the Senate and the House intelligence committees together with (former) Rep. Porter Goss, a career CIA official who was subsequently appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by the Bush administration.
Graham coordinated the drafting and editing of the report including the 28 classified pages on Saudi Arabia.
While Graham is now heralded by the mainstream media as a 911 Truther, the evidence suggests that immediately in the wake of 9/11, he was involved (together with Porter Goss) in a coverup on behalf of Bush-Cheney.
The 28 pages have nothing to with 9/11 Truth. This alleged Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks has served to precipitate segments of the 9/11 Truth movement into an erroneous and contradictory discourse.
The objective of the Saudi connection propaganda ploy is to ultimately sustain the official narrative which states that Islamic terrorists were behind the 9/11 attacks, which has been disproved by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Even assuming that Al Qaeda were behind the attacks, it is amply documented that al Qaeda, “the Base” was a creation of the CIA and that Osama bin Laden was a CIA intelligence asset. In this regard, Saudi Arabia as well Pakistan were involved in close liaison with the CIA in the recruitment and training of terrorists.
And because Bob Graham accuses the FBI and the federal government, the 9/11 Truth movement applauds without realizing that these accusations directed against the FBI are “framed” with a view to sustaining the mainstream 9/11 narrative. What is at stake is a desperate ploy to uphold the legend that Muslims were behind 9/11 and that Saudi Arabia was behind the terrorists giving them money, with the FBI involved in a coverup, George W. Bush protecting his Saudi cronies because the Bushes and the bin Ladens were “intimo amigos”.Porter Goss and Bob Graham played a direct role in sustaining the propaganda ploy in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. (quoted from article below)
In late August 2001 Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Pakistan for consultations with the head of Pakistani military intelligence (ISI), General Mahmoud Ahmad. The Inter-services Intelligence (ISI) was known to having provided covert support to various al Qaeda affiliated organizations in liaison and consultation with the CIA.
Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2016, updated September 4, 2016, September 11, 2022
* * *
Saudi Arabia’s Alleged Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks and the 28 Pages: “Red-Herring”, Propaganda Ploy
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, April 2015
***
The 9/11 narrative in the mainstream media has taken on a new slant. The FBI is now accused of whitewashing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
The alleged Saudi involvement in supporting Osama bin Laden, not to mention the classified 28 pages of the 9/11 joint Congressional inquiry pertaining to the insidious role of Saudi Arabia in supporting the hijackers is part of a propaganda ploy.
When the report of Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was released in December 2002, it was met with considerable skepticism. That skepticism grew for a period of time but then was reduced to speculation about what was contained in the 28 pages that had been redacted by the Bush White House.
Various U.S. government leaders have since suggested that the missing 28 pages point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/11 crimes. However such musings fail to discuss other important issues, like the links between the Saudi regime and the Western deep state, or the fact that, from the start, even the Saudis were calling for the 28 pages to be released. Discussion of the missing 28 pages also omits mention of the highly suspicious nature of the Inquiry’s investigation and its leaders. (Kevin Ryan, The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and the 28 Missing Pages, Global Research, March 14, 2014
The report of the FBI 9/11 Review Commission (25 March 2015) has revealed circumstances which allegedly were withheld by the FBI from both the 9/11 Commission headed by former Jersey Governor Thomas Kean as well from the joint Senate House inquiry committee chaired by former Senator Bob Graham. Graham.
And now agencies of the US government including the FBI are being accused of protecting the Saudis. This alleged Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks has served to precipitate segments of the 9/11 Truth movement into an erroneous and contradictory discourse. On the part of the US government and its intelligence apparatus, the objective is to ultimately to build a narrative which will weaken the 9/11 Truth movement.
The purpose of this new propaganda ploy is ultimately to sustain the legend that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks and that Saudi Arabia relentlessly supported Al Qaeda, namely that Saudi Arabia acted as a “state sponsor of terrorism”.
In this regard, the media reports intimate that if the Saudi connection is confirmed by the 28 classified pages, this “would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government.”
There is, however, an obvious hiccup in this reasoning: if the Saudis were indeed the State sponsors of 9/11, why on earth did the US and the Atlantic Alliance (under the doctrine of collective security) choose to wage a “Just War” of retribution against Afghanistan. Did they get their countries mixed up?
9/11 Truth
Many 9/11 Truthers across America are now calling for the release of the 28 classified pages. They are also accusing the FBI of coverup and complicity.
All eyes are on the classified 28 pages, which document Saudi support for the alleged hijackers. Meanwhile, the irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers –not to mention the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 which was announced by CNN and the BBC more than 20 minutes before it occurred– no longer constitutes the centrefold of the 9/11 Truth movement: ‘The Saudis are behind 9/11 and our government is protecting them.”
Framed in a “Tele Novela” style scenario featuring wealthy Saudis in the plush suburban surroundings of Sarasota, Florida two weeks before 9/11, the New York Post describes the circumstances of Saudi involvement (quoting the FBI 9/11 Review Commission Report) in an article entitled How the FBI is whitewashing the Saudi connection to 9/11: .
“Just 15 days before the 9/11 attacks, a well-connected Saudi family suddenly abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Fla., leaving behind jewelry, clothes, opulent furniture, a driveway full of cars — including a brand new Chrysler PT Cruiser — and even a refrigerator full of food.
About the only thing not left behind was a forwarding address. The occupants simply vanished without notifying their neighbors, realtor or even mail carrier.
The 3,300-square-foot home on Escondito Circle (see image right) belonged to Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of then-King Fahd. But at the time, it was occupied by his daughter and son-in-law, who beat a hasty retreat back to Saudi Arabia just two weeks before the attacks after nearly a six-year stay here.
Neighbors took note of the troubling coincidence and called the FBI, which opened an investigation that led to the startling discovery that at least one “family member” trained at the same flight school as some of the 9/11 hijackers in nearby Venice, Fla.
… The Saudi-9/11 connection in Florida was no small part of the overall 9/11 investigation. Yet it was never shared with Congress. Nor was it mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Now it’s being whitewashed again, in a newly released report by the 9/11 Review Commission, set up last year by Congress to assess “any evidence now known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission.” Though the FBI acknowledges the Saudi family was investigated, it maintains the probe was a dead end.
The panel’s report also doesn’t explain why visitor security logs for the gated Sarasota community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers, including 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta.
The three-member review panel was appointed by FBI Director James Comey, who also officially released the findings.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers. He says the al-Hijjis “urgent” pre-9/11 exit suggests “someone may have tipped them off” about the coming attacks.
Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify 28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President George W. Bush.
….
Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks — which if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government. The section allegedly identifies high-level Saudi officials and intelligence agents by name, and details their financial transactions and other dealings with the San Diego hijackers. It zeroes in on the Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi Embassy, among other Saudi entities.
The [FBI] review commission, however, concludes there is “no evidence” that any Saudi official provided assistance to the hijackers, even though the panel failed to interview Graham or his two key investigators — former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann and FBI investigator Michael Jacobson — who ran down FBI leads tying Saudi officials to the San Diego hijackers and documented their findings in the 28 pages. (emphasis added)
The key figure behind this new wave of propaganda is former Senator Bob Graham, who led the joint inquiry of the Senate and the House intelligence committees together with Rep. Porter Goss, a career CIA official who was subsequently appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by the Bush administration. Graham coordinated the drafting and editing of the report including the 28 classified pages on Saudi Arabia.
While Graham is now heralded by the mainstream media as a 911 Truther, the evidence suggests that immediately in the wake of 9/11, he was involved (together with Porter Goss) in a coverup on behalf of Bush-Cheney. According to Kevin Ryan, “in the months following 9/11, both Goss and Graham rejected calls for an investigation”:
The Senate voted for one anyway, however, and that led both Bush and Cheney to attempt to stop it or limit its scope. Apparently the best they could do was to make sure that Goss and Graham were put in charge. That seemed to work as the Inquiry began in February 2002, more than five months after the attacks, and the approach taken was one of uncritical deference to the Bush Administration and the intelligence community.
Goss immediately made it clear that the Inquiry would not be looking for guilt or accountability with regard to 9/11. Saying he was “looking for solutions, not scapegoats,” Goss continued to defend the White House with regard to warnings the president had received about an impending attack, saying it was “a lot of nonsense.” The FBI did not cooperate but that didn’t seem to bother Goss and Graham. (Kevin Ryan, The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and the 28 Missing Pages, Global Research, March 14, 2014
Both the joint inquiry led by Graham and the 9/11 Commission were part of a Big Lie. And now Bob Graham and 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean are accusing the FBI of camouflage and the Saudis of collusion in the 9/11 attacks, while failing to acknowledge coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
According to Bob Graham in an interview with the Miami Herald,
‘The FBI has served America through most of its history. There were stumbles by the agency before 9/11 and since the tragedy there has been a consistent effort to cover up the extent of Saudi Arabia’s involvement.’ (emphasis added)
And because Bob Graham accuses the FBI and the federal government, the 9/11 Truth movement applauds without realizing that these accusations directed against the FBI are “framed” with a view to sustaining the mainstream 9/11 narrative. What is at stake is a desperate ploy to uphold the legend that Muslims were behind 9/11 and that Saudi Arabia was behind the terrorists giving them money, with the FBI involved in a coverup, George W. Bush protecting his Saudi cronies because the Bushes and the bin Ladens were “intimo amigos”.
Former Senator Graham “smells a rat” and that rat is the FBI and complicit government agencies:
“This is a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 by all of the agencies of federal government which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.”
“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” he said, adding, “I am speaking of the kingdom,” or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.
But who is the rat? The FBI or Senator Bob Graham who is visibly involved in a coverup on behalf of US intelligence? He accuses US government agencies of negligence, which serves to arouse protest against the FBI by many 9/11 Truthers.
Graham’s staged accusations thereby serve to distract the American public’s attention from the real evidence, amply documented that the WTC towers were brought down through controlled demolition and that Islamic terrorists were not behind the 9/11 attacks. The issue of Saudi financial support of al Qaeda is not only known and documented since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war, it is irrelevant in establishing who was behind the terror attacks. Moreover, the contents of the 28 classified pages are known.
Former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who co-chaired a congressional inquiry into 9/11 — separate from the 9/11 Commission — stated, as though now it was obvious, “None of the people leading this investigation think it is credible that 19 people — most who could not speak English and did not have previous experience in the United States — could carry out such a complicated task without external assistance.”
Now, Graham says, a breakthrough may finally be around the corner with the upcoming declassification of the 28 pages of the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Calling for the official release and publication of the 28 page classified section of the joint inquiry report pertaining to Saudi Arabia is an obvious red-herring. The objective is to confuse matters, create divisions within the 9/11 Truth movement and ultimately dispel the fact that the 9/11 attacks were a carefully organized False Flag event which was used to declare war on Afghanistan as well as usher in sweeping anti-terrorist legislation.
Both the Congressional inquiry as well the 9/11 Commission report are flawed, their objective was to sustain the official narrative that America was under attack on September 11, 2001. And Graham’s role in liaison with the CIA, is “damage control” with a view to protecting those who were behind the demolition of the WTC towers as well sustaining the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of US military doctrine under the so-called “Global War on Terrorism”.
Without 9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism”, the warmongers in high office would not have a leg to stand on. In turn, 9/11 Truth is an encroachment which undermines war propaganda and the US-led campaign of Islamophobia, which is sweeping the Western World.
Note to Readers: Remember to bookmark this page for future reference.
Please Forward the GR I-Book far and wide.
This text was first published in August 2012.
It provides a detailed introduction and overview as well as a collection of articles by Global Research authors on 9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism”.
Note: Apart from minor edits, this text including the selection of articles has not been modified since its publication in August 2012.
[scroll down for I-BOOK Table of Contents]
*
GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE
INTERACTIVE READER SERIES
GR I-BOOK No. 7
THE 9/11 READER
The September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks
9/11 Truth: Revealing the Lies, Commemorating the 9/11 Tragedy
Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)
August 2012
The 911/ Reader is part of Global Research’s Online Interactive I-Book Reader, which brings together, in the form of chapters, a collection of Global Research feature articles, including debate and analysis, on a broad theme or subject matter. To consult our Online Interactive I-Book Reader Series, click here.
INTRODUCTION
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.
A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion.
9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.
September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
The 9/11 Commission Report has largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks.
The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
The 911 Reader is composed of a carefully selected collection of key articles published by Global Research in the course of the last eleven years. [since 2001]
9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001.
Within this collection of more than 60 chapters, we have included several important reports from our archives, published by Global Research in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. These articles provide a focus on issues pertaining to the 9/11 Timeline, foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, the attack on the Pentagon, the issue of insider trading on Wall Street in the days preceding 9/11 pointing to foreknowledge of the attacks.
What prevails is a complex web of lies and fabrications, pertaining to various dimensions of the 9/11 tragedy. The falsehoods contained in the official 9/11 narrative are manifold, extending from the affirmation that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, to the assertion by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that the WTC buildings collapsed due to the impacts of fire. (see Part III).
Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?
Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?
According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last eleven years.
DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.
The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:
1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;
2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.
U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.
October 7, 2001: Waging America’s 9/11 War of Retribution against Afghanistan
The immediate response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks was to declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden. By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.
Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times:
“When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.
This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) is an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security. Under any stretch of the imagination, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon cannot be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.
Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.
The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away. Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. The war on Afghanistan was already in the advanced planning stages prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, almost immediately following 9/11 with the adoption of the PATRIOT legislation and the setting up of a Homeland Security apparatus, under the pretext of protecting Americans. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset
Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.
“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)
“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.
In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.
In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
(source RAWA)
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
The Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings
Based on the findings of Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was not caused by fire resulting from the crash of the planes:
In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses.”
Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.” Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.” Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”
Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?
Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn’t fit in with the official conspiracy theory.
Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There’s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate’s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7’s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. … The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other – perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said “This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.”
Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive.(Richard Gage, January 2008)
The following AE911Truth Video provides evidence that the WTC center towers were brought down through controlled demolition.
According to David Ray Griffin:
“The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.” See David Ray Griffin).
According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, based on solid scientific analysis and evidence, the collapse of the WTC towers was engineered through controlled demolition. While AE11Truth does not speculate on who might be behind the conspiracy to bring down the WTC buildings, they nonetheless suggest that the carrying out such an operation would require a carefully planned course of action with prior access to the buildings as well as an advanced level of expertise in the use of explosives, etc.
The Collapse of WTC Building Seven
The most grotesque lie pertains to the BBC and CNN announcement in the afternoon of September 11, that WTC Building Seven (The Solomon Building) had collapsed. The BBC report went live at 5.00pm, 21 minutes before the actual occurrence of the collapse, indelibly pointing to foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7. CNN anchor Aaron Brown announced that the building “has either collapsed or is collapsing” about an hour before the event.
CNN anchor Aaron Brown seems to struggle to make sense of what he is seeing one minute after announcing that WTC Building 7, whose erect facade is clearly visible in his view towards the Trade Center, has or is collapsing.
Coverup and Complicity
The 911 Reader presents factual information and analysis which points to cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
This body of articles by prominent authors, scholars, architects, engineers, largely refutes the official narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report, which is reviewed in Part IV. It dispels the notion that America was attacked on September 11, 2001 on the orders of Osama bin Laden.
This is a central issue because US military doctrine since 9/11 has been predicated on “defending the American Homeland” against Islamic terrorists as well as waging pre-emptive wars against Al Qaeda and its various “state sponsors”. Afghanistan was bombed and invaded as part of the “war on terrorism”. In March 2003, Iraq was also invaded.
War Propaganda
Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation (Part XI) is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.
In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council.
September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.
What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.
With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of media disinformation and war propaganda.
Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.
Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally.
Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!
The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion. It prevents people from thinking.
All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained –by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.
The Alleged Role of Iraq in the 9/11 Attacks
9/11 mythology has been a mainstay of war propaganda. In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:
“The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. .,.. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.” (President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)
Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See . The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com, March 14, 2003)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Iran: Alleged State Sponsor of 9/11
In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.
In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).
“U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.
According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).
This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.
But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran), Global Research, May 11, 2012)
Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers
Ironically, while Washington accuses Iran and Afghanistan of supporting terrorism, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command: “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.”
In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:
Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region. http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/
Table of Contents of the 9/11 Reader
In Part I, the 911 Reader provides a review of what happened on the morning of 9/11, at the White House, on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, at Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM), What was the response of the US Air Force in the immediate wake of the attacks? Part II focusses on “What Happened on the Planes” as described in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Part III sheds light on what caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. It also challenges the official narrative with regard to the attack on the Pentagon.
Part IV reviews and refutes the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Part V focusses on the issue of foreknowledge by Western intelligence agencies. Part VI examines the issue of how foreknowledge of the attacks was used as an instrument of insider trading on airline stocks in the days preceding September 11, 2001. The bonanza financial gains resulting from insurance claims to the leaseholders of the WTC buildings is also examined.
Part VII focusses on the history and central role of Al Qaeda as a US intelligence asset. Since the Soviet-Afghan war, US intelligence has supported the formation of various jihadist organizations. An understanding of this history is crucial in refuting the official 9/11 narrative which claims that Al Qaeda, was behind the attacks.
Part VIII centers on the life and death of 9/11 “Terror Mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who was recruited by the CIA in the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. This section also includes an analysis of the mysterious death of Osama bin Laden, allegedly executed by US Navy Seals in a suburb of Islamabad in May 2011.
Part IX focusses on “False Flags” and the Pentagon’s “Second 9/11”.
Part X examines the issue of “Deep Events” with contributions by renowned scholars Peter Dale Scott and Daniele Ganser.
Part XI examines the structure of 9/11 propaganda which consists in “creating” as well “perpetuating” a “9/11 Legend”. How is this achieved? Incessantly, on a daily basis, Al Qaeda, the alleged 9/11 Mastermind is referred to by the Western media, government officials, members of the US Congress, Wall Street analysts, etc. as an underlying cause of numerous World events.
Part XII focusses on the practice of 9/11 Justice directed against the alleged culprits of the 9/11 attacks.
The legitimacy of 9/11 propaganda requires fabricating “convincing evidence” and “proof” that those who are accused actually carried out the attacks. Sentencing of Muslims detained in Guantanamo is part of war propaganda. It depicts innocent men who are accused of the 9/11 attacks, based on confessions acquired through systematic torture throughout their detention.
Part XIII focusses on 9/11 Truth. The objective of 9/11 Truth is to ultimately dismantle the propaganda apparatus which is manipulating the human mindset. The 9/11 Reader concludes with a retrospective view of 9/11 ten years later.
PART I
Timeline: What Happened on the Morning of September 11, 2001
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview
– by Prof David Ray Griffin – 2010-01-12
Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, were virtually impossible
The official theory about the Twin Towers says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”
The Pentagon revealed that some of the unidentifiable remains from victims at the Pentagon and Shanksville sites on September 11, 2001 were disposed of in a landfill.
“Foreknowledge” and “Failure to act” upholds the notion that the terrorist attacks (“act of war”) “waged by Muslims against America” are real, when all the facts and findings point towards coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA in 1979. The US spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings.
The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.
Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World’s oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.
“Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-08-10
The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack “which is lacking today” would usefully create both a “justification and an opportunity” to wage war on “some known targets
This is not the first time that brash and unsubstantiated statements have been made regarding an impending terror attack, which have proven to be based on “faulty intelligence”.
The Doomsday Project is the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.”
In both 9/11 and the JFK assassination, the US government and the media immediately established a guilty party. Eventually, in both cases a commission was set up to validate the official narrative.
9/11 Ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation
– by Dr. Daniele Ganser – 2005-08-27
Atta was connected to a secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. A top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger identified Atta and 3 other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Today is the 21st anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. There has never been an official US investigation of the attack. After much pressure from families of those who died in the collapse of the towers, the White House finally and most reluctantly assembled a 9/11 Commission consisting largely of politicians and a neoconservative staff director to sit and listen to the government’s narrative and to write it down. This is what comprised the 9/11 Commission Report.
Afterwards the commission’s co-chairmen and legal counsel wrote books in which they said the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail, that resources and information were withheld from the Commission, and that the Commission considered referring criminal charges to the Department of Justice against some of the government officials who falsely testified before the commission. These confessions were ignored by the presstitutes and had no effect on the government’s highly implausible narrative.
NIST’s account of the collapse is simply a computer simulation that delivered the results NIST programed into the simulation.
For 21 years I reported on the independent investigations and findings of scientists, scholars, engineers, and architects that concluded on the basis of hard evidence that the government’s narrative was a false account. Initially, the distinguished scientists, architects, and engineers who rejected the official narrative were characterized by the presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists,” following the line the CIA had employed against experts who disputed the official narrative of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. However, over time the efforts of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth convinced more and more Americans that the official story was false. In recent years polls have shown that half of those polled no longer believe the official narrative.
It was obvious to me early that 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag event blamed on Muslims in order to justify two decades of a “war on terror” whose purpose was to destroy Israel’s Middle Eastern opponents who were funding Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that twice drove the vaunted Israeli Army out of Israel’s attempted occupation of southern Lebanon. If Hezbollah’s supporters–Iraq, Syria and Iran–could be eliminated, Israel could seize the water resource in southern Lebanon. This, and profits and power for the US military/security complex are all the “war on terror” was about.
The reason it was obvious to me that 9/11 was an inside job is that, as it was presented, it amounted to the worse humiliation a superpower had suffered in all of recorded history.
The Official Narrative
A handful of young Saudi Arabians without support of any state or security agency had delivered a crushing blow to the image of the United States. The almighty National Security Apparatus was incapable of warding off a handful of foreigners who, magically, caused US airport security to fail four times on the same morning, hijack 4 airliners, cause the US military to conduct a simulation of the attack at the same time an actual attack was occurring, thus causing massive confusion and prevented the US Air Force from intercepting the hijacked airliners. The young men also prevented VP Dick Cheney, who was monitoring “the attack on America,” from blocking the attack on the Pentagon.
When you look at this record of extraordinary failure of the multi-trillion dollar National Security State and hear no demand from the President of the United States, the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, and the media for investigation and accountability for the government’s total failure, hearing instead opposition to any inquiry, you know for an absolute fact that the highest levels of the US government were responsible for the attack in order to unleash war on the Middle East, just as Pearl Harbor was a Roosevelt orchestration to get the US into a war that Congress and the American people opposed.
If in fact the US government believed its narrative, the government, embarrassed to the hilt, would have been demanding explanation and accountability. There would have been endless investigation. Many heads would have rolled. I spent a quarter century in Washington, and I know for a fact that the government would not have been content to assemble a Commission and then read an implausible account to them and call that an investigation of America’s and their own humiliation.
What the government did instead of an investigation was to quickly destroy all the evidence. The massive steel beams of the towers clearly cut at an angle by high temperature explosives were quickly collected over objections by fire marshals, shipped out of the country in order to get rid of the evidence, and sold as scrap metal in Asia.
No explanation or even admission was given for the molten steel still under the ruble weeks after the event.
The testimony of more than a hundred, firemen, police, and building maintenance workers that they experienced explosions all over the towers, including one in the basement before the alleged airliners even hit the towers, was ignored.
That the three buildings collapsed into their own footprints as in controlled demolition was ignored. That the BBC reporter announced the collapse of the third building 30 minutes before it happened while she was standing in front of the still standing building was ignored.
But Americans were sitting ducks for their deception, as they always are. Americans, self-righteous, content in the goodness of their country with the belief reinforced by patriotism and flag-waving were pleased to believe that they were attacked, as President Bush said, because America is so good.
One wonders if today, after 21 years of Identity Politics, Aversive Racism, Critical Race Theory, transgender theory, the NY Times’ 1619 Project, the demonization of our Founding Fathers, destruction of their reputations and removal of their statues, and the glorification of perversity, Americans would still have the confidence in their goodness to fall victim to another 9/11 deception?
Perhaps they would. Many of them seem to have fallen for “we have to save the liberty of Ukraine from Putin,” by which is really meant is that “we must save the Biden family’s and the Democrats’ money laundering operation in Ukraine.” The insouciant Americans sent over billions of dollars, and the money comes back, with a cut taken out for Zelensky and his henchmen, to the Democrats for advice, consulting fees, facilitators of wartime needs.
In recorded history there have been corrupt empires, but the American one takes the cake.
*
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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
When the lateQueen Elizabeth II took the throne in February 1952, the UK was still an empire that held control over vast swathes of the planet and counted hundreds of millions of subjects.
Since then the world has seen wars, revolutions and coups. Britain’s empire has largely disappeared.
Much of the Middle East and North Africa, still a region where the UK holds deep ties – not least through the monarchy – was largely under British control, both directly and indirectly, when she came to the throne.
Much of the traditional control the UK exerted over the Middle East was grounded in a range of monarchies that had been imposed or backed by the empire and maintained close links to Britain’s royal family.
Elizabeth ascended to the British throne on 6 February 1952. At that time, Britain directly controlled most of what are now the Gulf Arab states, with only Saudi Arabia and North Yemen as independent states – albeit ones closely aligned to the empire.
Kuwait would have to wait until 1963 before it became formally independent, while the UAE (then known as the Trucial States), Qatar and Oman would remain protectorates until the 1970s.
Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Jordan were all monarchies aligned with Britain, while the Republic of Turkey would join the Nato alliance that year and come into the Western sphere of influence.
In 1955, Iraq, Iran and Turkey would join Pakistan and the UK in the anti-communist Baghdad Pact.
Four years before Elizabeth became queen, Britain pulled out of Palestine, but not before encouraging Jewish immigration and the Zionist movement’s plan to settle there – a policy that rocked a region that is still coming to terms with the creation of Israel.
Though Britain had left Palestine, in the wake of the Second World War the Middle East was firmly in the Western camp – though the fear of communism and Arab nationalism was never far from rulers’ minds.
Though no longer a direct colony, Egypt played a crucial role in the empire.
Under the rule of King Farouk, the country was closely aligned with Britain, the former colonial power. Poverty and inequality were rife in the kingdom under Farouk, but British support ensured – for a time at least – his administration’s ability to weather the burst of discontent from the populace.
The British had also shared sovereignty over Sudan with Egypt since 1899, maintaining forces in the southern region following their victory in the Mahdist war of 1881-1899.
Crucially, British forces were stationed around the Suez Canal, a route integral to international trade.
Constructed by the Suez Canal Company between 1859 and 1869, the British- and French-owned canal would later become symbolic for Egyptian nationalists of their country’s subservience to foreign powers.
Ensuring the steady flow of ocean trade was one of the key goals of the British Empire in the Middle East.
At the other end of the Red Sea was Aden, in the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. The city’s port was one of the busiest harbours in the world for trade and travel in the 1950s, overlooking the Gulf of Aden.
Tens of thousands of British soldiers were stationed in Aden. Deals with local tribal leaders helped keep down threats from labour unions and leftists who demanded autonomy and better treatment for native workers – at least for the time being.
In addition to the forces stationed at Suez, control of the canal and Aden left the British fully in control of the quickest shipping route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean.
At the time of her accession, Elizabeth counted more than 7,300,000 subjects in the MENA region, while a further 55,000,000 at least were under British influence.
A question of sovereignty
The Iranian government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who in 1951 had nationalised his country’s oil industry, provided real concern for the empire.
Mosaddegh’s decision to take over the British-0wned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – with the popular support of the communists – was in part motivated by the belief that the company existed as a means of exerting foreign control over Iran.
The takeover alarmed Britain and its allies. But the problem would be rectified soon: a year later, with the backing of the UK and the US, Mosaddegh would be overthrown in a coup and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would be placed in full control of the country and in full deference to foreign powers.
Across the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, other colonial powers still held sway, as well.
Following the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement during World War 1, Syria and Lebanon had fallen under French control but had achieved independence by the 1940s.
However, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria were still under French colonial rule, while Spain controlled what is now known as Western Sahara.
It would not be long before all demanded their own indepdence, with Algeria plunging in a brutal anti-colonial conflict, while Western Sahara remains a disputed region and site of anti-colonial struggle to this day.
The status quo was not to last.
Just five months after Elizabeth ascended to the throne, a group of nationalist military officials, including Gamal Abdel Nasser, launched a coup d’etat in Egypt, abolished the monarchy and declared the country a republic.
That event, perhaps more than any other, kicked off the process ending Britain’s role as the dominant power in the Middle East. Nasser’s government would later oversee indepedence and the end of UK rule in Sudan in 1956, as well as expelling British forces from Suez and nationalising the canal.
The Suez Crisis that followed would see Britain – and its allies France and Israel – fail to unseat Nasser through military force and re-assert control over the canal. The British Empire’s status as the foremost imperial power was over and the US would soon move in to take its place.
“We feel that we are strong, we feel that the world has changed,” Nasser said in a speech following the start of the invasion.
“They want to insult us? Well, we can also insult them… can’t our papers also insult the Queen and their prime minister?”
What the young queen thought – if anything – of these events goes unnoted, as became standard for a figurehead keen to be seen as apolitical.
The same year as the Suez Crisis, King Faisal II of Iraq would pay a visit to London.
In footage taken by British Pathe, Elizabeth, her husband Prince Phillip and other royals and government officials meet Faisal off the train at Victoria Station before being taken by a coach and horses down the thronged street to Buckingham Palace.
During the visit Elizabeth described Iraq as the “model of a modern state built on ancient and famous foundations and confidently facing towards the future”.
Within two years, Faisal would be overthrown and killed in a nationalist takeover inspired by Nasser’s coup in Egypt. The country would be declared a republic and withdrawn from the Baghdad Pact, growing closer to the Soviet Union.
By the end of the 1970s the only remaining monarchy outside of the Gulf was Jordan, with South Yemen becoming a “socialist country” after independence in 1967 (later uniting with the north in 1990), and Iran’s transformation into the Islamic Republic following the 1979 revolution.
*
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.
Featured image: Mohammad Mosaddegh in court, 8 November 1953 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“The UK government has embarked on a course of action that runs a very significant risk of eventually being found by domestic courts and/or the European Court of Human Rights not to be compliant with the convention.”
Damning words from Dunja Mijatovic, human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe on the controversial Legacy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.
The sense of panic to get this legislation into law has been hastened by the brilliant work of organisations like Relatives for Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre, which have been a tremendous help and support to victims and families of the Troubles.
Also the recovery of information by Cairan MacAirt at Paper Trail, who has consistently published information supporting the allegations of collusion and cover-up by agencies of the British government.
Recently uncovered documents by Paper Trail highlight missed opportunities that could have saved more lives on what was one of the most frightening days of the Troubles.
It was a little over 50 years ago when the IRA rocked Belfast with 19 bombs across the city. Labelled by the media as Bloody Friday, the bombs on July 21 1972 claimed the lives of nine people and injured 130 others.
All of the fatalities on that awful day occurred at two of the explosions: the Oxford Street bus station where six people died at 3.02pm; and Cavehill Road shops at about 3.15pm where three people lost their lives.
However, Paper Trail discovered documents including British military logs which calls into question the account given by the British army on that terrible day.
The IRA alleged at the time that warnings were given via the Public Protection Agency (PPA) which had been set up by the British government to field complaints of intimidation and attack.
However, on July 30 1972, the Sunday Times published an article under the heading “Mystery of Bloody Friday’s Lost Warnings.”
This article highlighted the discrepancy between records kept by the PPA and public reports by the British armed forces.
The PPA said its log showed it had passed the IRA warnings to the British army immediately. The warning for Oxford Street at 2.40pm, 22 minutes before the explosion and at 2.07pm for Cavehill, one hour and eight minutes before the bomb exploded. Regardless of this revelation, the British army remained adamant that no warnings were given.
The Historical Enquiries Team (HET), which was initially set up in 2005 and operated until 2014 to look into unsolved murders committed during the 30 years of the Troubles, reported that 19 explosions occurred (from 21 planted bombs) on Bloody Friday.
Paper Trail researchers scrutinising these files and others concerning Bloody Friday, discovered a warning against the Europa Hotel via its manager at 6pm the night before Bloody Friday to say a threat was imminent within the next 24 hours.
The threat against the Europa Hotel was considered serious enough for the Welsh Guards, the British army regiment detailed with responsivity for that area, to ask units of the Military Reaction Force (MRF), a covert unit of British soldiers that dressed in civilian clothes and appeared to operate outside of the rules that governed British forces in the North of Ireland, for their assistance.
The MRF confirmed its allocation of six covert operators from 11.59pm on July 20 to 3am on the 23rd and in addition requested a “sniffa team.”
Further evidence of a threat on the Europa hotel was found when the Welsh Guards informed the British army’s 39 Brigade that “journalist reports he has been warned to keep away from the Europa Hotel from 1500 hrs today.”
The HET report confirmed a warning had been passed to the British army at 2.42pm for the bomb located at the bus station in Oxford Street.
The bomb exploded 20 minutes later while members of the Welsh Guards were tasked with the duty at 2.40pm of trying to find it and clear the area.
However, records obtained by Paper Trail show 39 Brigade logged a warning from the PPA of a 200lb bomb at Oxford Street bus station between 2.25pm and 2.30pm, and not 2.40pm as reported by the PPA, 32 minutes before the bomb exploding at 3.02pm.
With regards to the explosions at Cavehill and Limestone road, Paper Trail again found discrepancies. Despite bombs at both locations being recorded as “No-warning bombs,” the “British army Brigade and Headquarters Northern Ireland” logs show warnings were given for both locations.
Files for Headquarters Northern Ireland also record a message from its exchange regarding the car bomb in Cavehill. In addition, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) liaison officer was informed of the Cavehill earning at 2.08pm but that had already been reported by the RUC to Brigade at 2.06pm.
At 2.06pm 39 Brigade logged a warning from the PPA regarding a car bomb at Limestone Road. The report was very informative and contained the make, model and full registration number of the vehicle.
At the same time, the log also shows a warning of a car bomb located at Cavehill received from the RUC. Again, the vehicle’s registration number was included.
This information suggests that by 2.06pm, both the RUC and the British army were aware not only of the location of the bombs but the registration of the cars that contained the bombs.
However, neither the RUC nor the British army recorded any action taken to clear the area or deactivate the bombs at Cavehill or Limestone Road.
Instead, the bombs were left to explode. The Limestone Road bomb exploded approximately 44 minutes after the warnings (again, the reports of the bomb differ with the British army recording the explosion at 2.50pm, while the HET logs it at 2.40pm) while the Cavehill bomb was left in situ for approximately 69 minutes before it too exploded.
Understandably, the families of those who had relatives caught up in the explosions, some left with life-changing injuries, like a woman who lost both legs in the blast, and a child who lost a leg will rightly blame the IRA for planting the bombs.
They may also want answers to why the bombs were classed as “no-warning bombs,” and understandably feel there were missed opportunities to save more lives and prevent casualties.
Families would also be right to question why they and the coroner were provided with false information by the authorities.
No-one can argue with the fact that the actions of the British army, despite being stretched to breaking point that day, still saved many lives, but so too did the actions of one 14-year-old boy.
Stephen Parker was rightly described as heroic after he lost his life as he attempted to clear people from the local shops after spotting the bomb in Cavehill.
His father, a local minister, was only able to identify his son’s body by the box of trick matches in his pocket. A task no parent should have to do, and which should serve as a reminder of why the peace process must not be allowed to be jeopardised by any British government.
*
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.
Featured image: A dark cloud of smoke drifts across the centre of Belfast, as firemen hose down the remains of Oxford Street bus station on the day which later became known as Bloody Friday in 1972 (Source: Morning Star)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
I have taken the risky step of referring to the speech of Charles Coughlin in my recent writings. Coughlin was the most trenchant critic of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, after he had come out as an early supporter. Although Coughlin’s later writings are problematic, and at some points disturbing, it is not accurate to say he was simply an American fascist. I suspect there is an agenda behind that argument as well.
That someone like myself with Jewish ancestry who sees great value in the Jewish tradition, would see value in Coughlin also suggests that dismissing him as rabid anti-Semite is overly simplistic, even destructive.
Coughlin’s speech, “Americanism, Neither Nazism Nor Communism” (1939) is most certainly not a model for us, but it does suggest an effort to address the problems of global finance that Roosevelt was afraid to take on.
I would like to read for you a slightly shortened version of Coughlin’s speech of 1934, “Money is no Mystery,” a speech that inspired my series of speeches on the topic of money and led me to the conclusion that we cannot simply go back to the New Deal to find solutions to today’s crisis because the shortcomings of the New Deal in addressing the axis of global finance that ties New York together with London are the very source of today’s financial, social, and civilizational collapse.
As a product myself of Harvard and Yale, I want to make sure that it is perfectly clear that I represent the Franklin D. Roosevelt who held up the responsibility of the intellectual, of those who have privileged backgrounds, to serve the people, but that I cannot endorse his refusal to give up his ties to the bankers and industrialists of Wall Street which undermined the true potential of the New Deal. I hope I can be a true traitor to my class and offer a true “New Deal” to all Americans, to all citizens of the Earth.
Unlike Roosevelt, I was ready to be dismissed from my job, to be driven out of Washington D.C., and to be impoverished for my critiques of the deep corruption within my country.
Unlike Roosevelt, I was ready to lose all my ties to colleagues at Yale and Harvard if that was what it took to fight for true social justice. When push comes to shove, I stand with you, not with the bankers and billionaires. I am not interested in any backroom deals to protect myself from their wrath.
“Money is no Mystery”
by Charles E. Coughlin, December 30th, 1934
We, in America, have one choice, namely, to construct a new system founded upon social justice. Still, withal, those who prospered most and produced least under the old system are battling fiercely to maintain their privileges and their functions of legislation.
Certainly, during this coming year and the years immediately following, we will witness the total dissolution of modern capitalism. It is advisedly that I use the adjective “modern,” because capitalism, as we knew it in the past twenty or thirty years, differs substantially from the capitalism which was originally conceived. Today it is more renowned for its vices than for its virtues.
Those who are fighting so relentlessly to preserve its poverty-breeding corpse refuse to face the pressing problem of squaring production with distribution. They are those who, during the coming years, will continue to oppose the restoration to Congress of its right to coin and regulate the value of money.
They still believe that the debts of the farmer, of the merchant, of the municipality, of the state which were incurred through the operation of an insane credit inflation, of manufactured bookkeeping money, should be paid back to them in honest currency which does not exist.
That we will refuse to suffer this financial domination any longer is certain. This form of capitalism, now a corpse, demands at least, an honorable burial.
As for modern democracy it has degenerated into a system whereby two political parties, under the leadership of the bankers and the banker-controlled industrialists, so manipulate conventions and elections and so control, either directly or indirectly, the majesty of the state that there is too little democracy and too much plutocracy.
Against all these systems – unspeakable communism, philosophic socialism, dictatorial Fascism, decadent capitalism, controlled democracy and modern plutocracy – there stands an economic system known as social justice. Seeking no compromise, enticing no man by vain promises, it writes down a platform for today, with principles of truth, of justice, of humanity as the Jews of old had them in their codes, as Jesus taught them on the Mount: Justice to the laborer, justice to the farmer, justice to the property owner, justice to all!
Social justice regards man and his family, not as chattel of the state, but regards the state as the servant of its citizens.
Finally, the philosophy of social justice teaches us that the earth is to be apportioned for our maintenance, according to our merits, in such a manner that he who gains ownership of any property cannot use that property contrary to the common good.
This program of social justice does not militate against the Constitution of the United States in any degree. It does, however, oppose the misinterpretation given to that Constitution by the international bankers who have written laws for their own selfish purposes.
At times our bankers extended credit until it became an inflated balloon that could do nothing else but burst. And at all times, with only their billion dollars of real currency on deposit, they loaned this extra twenty or thirty or forty billions of dollars of stage money, of fiction money, at five or six or seven per cent, making a billion dollars in profit even in a poor year.
Bankers, as a class, have proven themselves greedy. They can no more escape that qualification than can a tiger escape being called vicious. Their very nature demands that they be greedy.
Now it is very well for the banker to start his printing press. But at the moment a student of banking and of monetary reform brings the facts to his attention, the banker and his kept press yells out, “Stop, thief!”
The printing press money is the banker’s money. It is his currency. He owns this prerogative. That is why the Baruchs, the Warburgs, the Morgans, and the Mellons, the Federal Reserve bankers and every white-carnation-bedecked banker in America sees red if the bankers’ racket is interfered with.
That is why they scamper up the steps of the White House, and into the cloakrooms of Congress, if anyone dares suggest that the sovereign people of the United States recapture their power over money which originally was placed squarely in the hands of Congress by the Constitution.
A banker is not a producer. He is a leech who lives upon the artistry, the labor, and the scientific development of others. He is in business with his prerogative of manufacturing money through an act of Congress and through the grace of a printing press and fountain pen. His business is eventually to get that which he did not create.
Do you wonder, then, that depressions have been decreed by bankers?
What matters it to them if fifteen million men be idle, if factories close, if commerce freezes, if dire and abject poverty be the lot of the multitude in this land of plenty! Their racket must continue – a sordid, vicious racket that poisons the very life blood of the nation.
What if there is less banking business to be done in the days of depression – they care not! Because, aside from the ordinary loans which they make to ordinary citizens, they still continue to make money on the interest-bearing government bonds which they possess. At least $20-billion of these bonds are in the bankers’ vaults.
And many of those bonds where were issued by the government to dress the boys of 1916 in khaki, to pump murder into their hearts, to feed them hardtack, and to prepare them to become fodder on the battlefields of France.
Bloody bonds which were used for destructive purposes! Criminal bonds which they expect you and me to redeem for the privilege of their having made a slaughter house of this world!
What care they for depressions as long as these bloody bonds continue to drip their malignant poison upon the prosperity of a misunderstanding people!
We are subject to panics, to man-made panics, the greatest of all occurring after the establishment of the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking system which, in the preamble of its charter, practically guaranteed this nation freedom from panics.
They made their runs on the people and captured the real wealth of the nation!
Shall we permit this system to continue, this system of private banking which creates depressions and cashes in on bloody bonds?
*
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 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.
An entire generation of new human beings have been born, grew up and are now entering the work force, university and college – all without ever knowing the age before the war on terrorism. The Patriot Act, anti-terrorism legislation, and the threat of attacks is part of daily life. Like taxes and death.
This incisive article by William Arkin summarizes the key elements of America’s nuclear doctrine, formulated both before and in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001.
On September 11, 1973, Salvador Allende’s democratic government in Chile was ousted by United States-backed forces in one of the Cold War’s defining moments. Allende himself was killed during the coup while his presidential palace, La Moneda, was extensively bombed. Many thousands of Chileans were either murdered, “disappeared”, imprisoned, and coerced to emigrate or enter exile. Allende’s widow and family were forced to go into hiding in Mexico for many years.
Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts on September 10, 2001 were confirmed by a CBS News Report. Osama had been hospitalized on September 10th, 2001, one day before the 9/11 attacks. How on earth could he have coordinated the attacks from his hospital bed in a heavily guarded Pakistani military hospital located in Rawalpindi.
On the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama declared that the CIA, on his personal order, successfully killed Al-Qaeda “mastermind” Osama bin Laden. In a conveniently scheduled Sunday evening telecast, Obama shamelessly wielded tired lies and 9/11 propaganda, while congratulating himself and the CIA. In classic lying George W. Bush fashion, Obama announced “mission accomplished”.
Watching the twin towers being struck, Putin immediately phoned President Bush to offer his condolences and understanding. When his call couldn’t reach Bush because he was on Airforce One, Putin immediately spoke to Condoleezza Rice, asking her to pass his message to Bush. The next morning, Putin reached Bush and assured him that “in this struggle, we will stand together.”
Distinguished 9/11 scholar Graeme MacQueen joins host Andy Steele to talk about the soon-to-be-published paper he co-authored with Ted Walter entitled “The Triumph of the Official Narrative: How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11.” In that paper, they reviewed 70 hours of news coverage and found that the “explosion hypothesis” was the dominant hypothesis among reporters on the ground. In this new paper, using the same 70 hours of news coverage, they examine how the official narrative supplanted what journalists on the ground were reporting.
Western heads of state, UN officials and military spokespersons will invariably praise the humanitarian dimension of the October 2001 US-NATO led invasion of Afghanistan, which allegedly was to fight religious fundamentalists, help little girls go to school, liberate women subjected to the yoke of the Taliban.
We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.
This text was first published in August 2012. It provides a detailed introduction and overview as well as a collection of articles by Global Research authors on 9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism”.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“…. the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq—I mean of Ukraine.” — George W. Bush
“Kick ass. … If someone tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them. … Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” — George W. Bush to his generals
“This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog,” — Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, while throwing his shoes at George W. Bush
It is beginning to seem as if there will never be any meaningful accountability for the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. George W. Bush, now a personal friend of the Obamas, is being rehabilitated among the political elite, his crimes forgotten (except by his victims’ families). These disastrous wars have destabilized the Middle East and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths; the cases for both wars were built on mountains of lies; and they both involved unspeakable criminal violence (from the use of horrific white phosphorous in Fallujah to the bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that burned patients alive in their beds).Yet these wars are receding in Americans’ memories. The sheer amount of death and deprivation unleashed is difficult to even begin to come to grips with. The bipartisan consensus position in the U.S. appears to be that we are just not going to talk about it anymore, that while scores of Iraqis and Afghans will grow up orphaned, maimed, or both, there will be no investigations and no trials for some of the worst crimes committed in the 21st century.
There are still those who think the invasion of Afghanistan was a morally justifiable “good war,” since it was conducted with the explicit purpose of rooting out Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. It is hard to maintain this conclusion after reading the U.S. government’s own internal accounts of the war, as revealed in Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock’s 2021 book The Afghanistan Papers. We have evidence that the Taliban might have been willing to strike a deal to end the war quickly; the Guardian reported in October 2001 that “President George Bush rejected as ‘non-negotiable’ an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.” In fact, as Whitlock shows, the Bush administration conflated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, thus turning what should have been a narrow operation to round up a small criminal gang into an all-out war that toppled the country’s government and replaced it with an unstable, corrupt, and unpopular alternative. For 20 years, successive administrations were unwilling to admit that the war was squandering vast amounts of lives and money and achieving almost nothing. As in Vietnam, Whitlock says, U.S. officials were consistently “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” Whitlock documents almost unbelievable examples of ignorant policymaking, from trying to win “hearts and minds” by giving children soccer balls with Koran verses on them (utterly offensive) to destroying poppy fields in the name of the War on Drugs, thus encouraging enraged, impoverished farmers to join the Taliban. The Costs of War project at Brown University has summarized the harm done to the country:
The war in Afghanistan continues destroying lives, due to the direct consequences of violence and the war-induced breakdown of public health, security, and infrastructure. Civilians have been killed by crossfire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), assassinations, bombings, and night raids into houses of suspected insurgents. The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties. From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data during the Trump administration, the number of civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent. The CIA has armed Afghan militia groups to fight Islamist militants and these militias are responsible for serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings of civilians. Even in the absence of fighting, unexploded ordnance from this war and landmines from previous wars continue to kill, injure, and maim civilians. Fields, roads, and school buildings are contaminated by ordnance, which often harms children as they go about chores like gathering wood. The war has also inflicted invisible wounds. In 2009, the Afghan Ministry of Public Health reported that fully two-thirds of Afghans suffer from mental health problems. Prior wars and civil conflict in the country have made Afghan society extremely vulnerable to the reverberating effects of the current war. Those war effects include elevated rates of disease due to lack of clean drinking water, malnutrition, and reduced access to health care. Nearly every factor associated with premature death—poverty, malnutrition, poor sanitation, lack of access to health care, environmental degradation—is exacerbated by the current war. About 241,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan and Pakistan war zone since 2001. More than 71,000 of those killed have been civilians.
George W. Bush said in 2002 that “the history of military conflict in Afghanistan [has] been one of initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure. We’re not going to repeat that mistake.” Whitlock shows that that is precisely what happened, and that it was the Afghan people who suffered the most. The Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all lied to the U.S. public about how the war was going. After the U.S. finally withdrew (with one final horrifying drone strike on civilians for good measure, plus a coverup), the Taliban predictably returned to power. The U.S., not content to wreck the country with 20 years of war, froze Afghanistan’s assets and halted aid out of a purported concern with “human rights.” As a result, millions of Afghans are now on the brink of starvation. As the Washington Post notes in a report on the crisis, this is squarely the fault of the Biden administration, since “it was [Biden’s] decision to halt aid in response to the Taliban takeover that put the country on the brink of catastrophe.”
“We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town. … We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so fucking illegal.’” —Army Spec. Russell Baer, speaking of Pat Tillman, NFL football player and Army Ranger killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan
The Iraq war was completely indefensible from the start. The Bush administration knew that the intelligence it was relying on was shaky, but deliberately eliminated any possibility of doubt. It tried to terrify the American public into supporting the war by warning that proof of Saddam Hussein’s secret arsenal of world-ending weapons would come in the form of a “mushroom cloud.”
Saddam Hussein, interviewed in February of 2003 by Dan Rather, made protestations that turned out be quite true, and accused the Bush administration of delusion:
Hussein:
The inspection teams have been here. They have inspected every place. … I think the U.S. and the world know that Iraq no longer has the weapons. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq … .
Dan Rather:
Mr. President, Americans are very much concerned about anyone’s connections to Osama bin Laden. Do you have, have you had, any connections to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?
Hussein:
Is this the basis of the anxiety in the minds of U.S. officials? Or is it the basis of anxiety in the minds of the people of the United States? … This topic did not appear amongst the concerns of U.S. officials—that is, about any relationship between Iraq and Osama bin Laden—until recently. That is when they realized that what they had been saying about Iraq—that Iraq was probably in possession of proscribed weapons of mass destruction—or that Iraq might have manufactured some of those weapons … if that was the case, then that would be an embarrassment to the United Nations.
The elimination of Hussein, a homicidal psychopath, as Iraq’s leader, could have been a worthy goal in and of itself. Indeed, “bringing democracy to Iraq” swiftly became one of the major public justifications for the war (after it became apparent that the other reasons were nonsense). Yet at every stage the war and occupation were conducted without regard to the well-being or desires of the people of Iraq. After Hussein’s ouster, Bush installed a nincompoop named L. Paul Bremer (a Harvard MBA who spoke no Arabic and had never set foot in Iraq), who ruled over the country like an imperial viceroy. Bremer made disastrous, ignorant decisions that plunged the country into hideous violence, most infamously by disbanding the Iraqi Army, thus instantly creating anarchy. “We created half a million angry, armed, unemployed Iraqis in 48 hours,” commented Bremer’s predecessor. Bremer may have been a bit of a scapegoat for the administration’s failures—some Republicans blame Bremer in order to exonerate Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld—but he did fine out of it. After destroying Iraq, Bremer went on to serve as chairman of the advisory board for Global Secure Corporation, a company that focuses “on securing the homeland with integrated products and services for the critical incident response community worldwide,” as well as on the board of BlastGard International, a “Florida-based company that manufactures materials to mitigate the impact of explosions.” When he’s not doing that, he lives a pleasant life as a ski instructor in Vermont.
Let us review the damage: 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. war. Nearly 200,000 of those were violent deaths—people who were blown to pieces by coalition airstrikes or suicide bombers from the insurgency the U.S. occupation unleashed. Others died as a result of the collapse of the medical system—doctors fled the country in droves, since their colleagues were being killed or abducted. Childhood mortality and infant mortality in the country rose, and so did malnutrition and starvation. Millions of people were displaced, and toxins (such as depleted uranium, which is toxic when ingested or inhaled and, like other radioactive substances, confers a risk of cancer) introduced by American bombardment have been suspected of causing a range of public health effects including “increase[s] in Fallujah of congenital malformations, sterility, and infertility.” A “generation of orphans” was created; hundreds of thousands of children lost parents with many left to wander the streets homeless. The country’s infrastructure collapsed, its libraries and museums were looted, and its university system was decimated, its professors assassinated. For years, residents of Baghdad had to deal with suicide bombings as a daily feature of life, and of course, for every violent death, scores more people were left injured or traumatized for life. In 2007 the Red Cross said that there were “mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies on the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school.” The amount of death, misery, suffering, and trauma is almost inconceivable. In many places, we created a kind of hell on earth.
U.S. forces were not trained to deal with Iraqis as human beings. They solved problems with violence, and had little understanding of the culture. Houses were ransacked or destroyed in searches; people were shot for making sudden movements. The U.S. had absolutely no idea how to make Iraq into a functional country after destroying its government, and didn’t care to put in much effort. Testimonies from Iraq Veterans Against The War’s “Winter Soldier” interviews offering a disturbing look at how casual the dehumanization and violence toward Iraqis was:
“I remember one woman walking by. … She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food, and we blew her to pieces.” — Jason Washburn, a corporal in the U.S. Marines who served three tours in Iraq.
“By the time we got to Baghdad … I was explicitly told by my chain of command that I could shoot anyone who came closer to me than I felt comfortable with, if that person did not immediately move when I ordered them to do so, keeping in mind I don’t speak Arabic. My chain of command’s general attitude was ‘better them than us,’ and we were given guidance that reinforced that attitude across the ranks. I watched that attitude intensify throughout my three tours. … [At one point our commander] ordered that everyone on the streets was an enemy combatant. I can remember one instance that afternoon when we came around a corner and an unarmed Iraqi man stepped out of a doorway. I remember the marine directly in front of me raising his rifle and aiming at the unarmed man. Then I think, due to some psychological reason, my brain blocked out the actual shots, because the next thing I remember is stepping over the dead man’s body to clear the room that he came out of. It was a storage room and it was full of some Arabic version of Cheetos. There weren’t any weapons in the area except ours. The commander told us a couple of weeks later that over a hundred enemies “had been killed,” and to the best of my knowledge that number includes the people who were shot for simply walking down the street in their own city. — Jason Wayne Lemieux, sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps
“One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation. In Iraq, any car can be a taxi cab; you just paint it white and orange. One of the snipers replied back, “Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxi cabs?” The lieutenant colonel responded, “You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxi cabs.” After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment.” — Hart Viges, U.S. Army Infantry specialist, 82nd airborne
Very little of this was reported in the U.S. press. As Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC, who was punished by the network for being publicly critical of the war, said: “There are horrors that were completely left out of this war” by the media. Not that exposure made much difference. The practice of torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and CIA black sites was eventually exposed to the public, but when Barack Obama came into office, he made it clear that there would be complete impunity for misconduct. As Karen Greenberg of the NYU Center on Law and Security noted, Obama “refused to clamp down on [torture] in a way that would make it hard for people in the future to do it.” Obama said that he wanted to “look forward, not backward,” a bizarre phrase that would sound laughable applied to any other serious crime.
Iraqis of all sects and backgrounds made it clear from early on that they did not want to be occupied—public opinion polling consistently showed that the majority wanted the U.S. to leave, despite American rhetoric about bringing “democracy” to Iraq. (In a sign of how much the U.S. respected Iraqi democracy, when the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops in 2020, Donald Trump responded by threatening the country with sanctions.) One Iraqi quoted by a Winter Soldier testimonial likely spoke for many when he summarized: “Before America invaded, we didn’t have to worry about car bombs in our neighborhoods. We didn’t have to worry about the safety of our own children before they walked to school, and we didn’t have to worry about U.S. soldiers shooting at us as we drive up and down our own streets.”
When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, American politicians were almost unanimous in correctly declaring the war a hideous crime against humanity. But hardly any wished to discuss the difficult question: With what moral credibility can this country condemn aggressive warfare? We have long claimed the right to invade wherever and whenever we please in order to protect what we see as our national interests. We have wrecked countries and done nothing to make amends for our crimes. On what grounds do we claim Vladimir Putin is not allowed to do the same thing? Having undermined international law repeatedly, we are hardly in a position now to invoke it.
Joe Biden has publicly announced that he believes Vladimir Putin should be tried in the International Criminal Court for the invasion of Ukraine. He should. But shouldn’t George W. Bush? The United States declines to be bound by the jurisdiction of the ICC, and even claims the right to militarily rescue U.S. citizens who find themselves on trial there. (We have a law that has been dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act.”) If we believe that Vladimir Putin should be prosecuted, do we also believe in holding our own war criminals to account? Or do they get a free pass? If they do get a free pass, then the United States makes clear that it believes Putin should be bound by rules that we should be exempt from. And why should Putin be expected to accept such a setup? Asked in a 2003 press conference whether his Iraq policy was a violation of international law, George W. Bush joked: “International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn’t bring that up to me.” If Putin replied like this, we would consider it evidence of his depravity.
The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have caused decades-long human misery. Our lack of concern for the Iraqi people caused hundreds of thousands of them to die gruesomely, and gave the world the barbaric Islamic State. Afghanistan is now back under Taliban rule, but its people are starving to death. Few in the United States seem inclined to discuss what our country’s government did in our names. Supposedly there is no statute of limitations on murder. But if you are a U.S. official, the statute of limitations is “whenever public attention moves on to the next thing.” Usually that’s about five minutes. Then you are scot-free. Are we truly willing to accept this?
*
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.
Le sanzioni alla Russia impediscono alla Gazprom di far funzionare il North Stream 1, l’unico che porta in Germania il gas russo dopo la chiusura forzata del gasdotto gemello, il North Stream 2.Il Cremlino comunica che “Le sanzioni imposte da UE, Regno Unito, Stati Uniti e Canada hanno interrotto il sistema di manutenzione tecnica dei componenti della turbina che assicurava il pompaggio”.
La strategia USA-UE è chiara: impedire all’Europa di ricevere il gas russo a basso prezzo grazie agli accordi a lungo termine precedentemente stipulati con la Russia, obbligando i consumatori europei ad acquistarlo sul mercato spot a prezzi estremamente più alti fissati in base a meccanismi speculativi e politici dalla Borsa di Amsterdam, che fa parte oggi di una grande società finanziaria statunitense.
L’unico gasdotto che trasporta regolarmente gas russo in Europa è il TurkStream, attraverso il Mar Nero e i Balcani. L’Ungheria, che si oppone alle sanzioni UE (nonostante faccia parte della UE e della NATO), ha firmato un accordo a lungo termine con la Gazprom per ricevere dalla Russia attraverso questo gasdotto l’80% del gas di cui ha bisogno.
Vi sono però nei Balcani, soprattutto contro la Serbia da cui passa il TurkStream, crescenti tensioni provocate dalle lunghe mani della NATO, che potrebbero portare al blocco anche di questo ultimo gasdotto dalla Russia.
Tale situazione si inserisce in uno scenario politico-militare sempre più esplosivo. La nuova premier britannica Liz Truss si dichiara “pronta a usare le armi nucleari”.
Un ulteriore pericolo è provocato dal fatto che le forze ucraine – armate, addestrate e di fatto comandate dalla NATO – sparano con i cannoni forniti loro da NATO e UE sulla centrale nucleare di Zaparozhye atttualmente sotto controllo russo, esponendo l’Italia e l’Europa al gravissimo rischio di una nuova Cernobyl.
L’Agenzia Internazionale per l’Energia Atomica avverte: “Con la centrale mucleare di Zaporizhzhya giochiamo col fuoco e potrebbe accadere qualcosa di molto, molto catastrofico” .
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on June 29, 2022
***
The German-French Nobel Peace Prize winner, pacifist and “jungle doctor” Albert Schweitzer was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. His philosophical thinking was based on the assumption that when people reflect on themselves and their limits, they mutually recognise each other as brothers who reflect on themselves and their limits. In the course of the process of civilisation, solidarity, which was originally only related to one’s own tribe, would gradually be transferred to all, including unknown people. In the 1950s, Schweitzer’s doctrine of “reverence for life” was a moral authority, a guiding principle in the struggle against the nuclear armament of nations.
Image on the right: Albert Schweitzer (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
But the general consciousness of individuals and peoples has not yet found an answer to the “Cain question” from biblical prehistory: “Am I my brother’s keeper? Once again, the catastrophe of a nuclear war threatens us as it did in Albert Schweitzer’s time almost 70 years ago. That is why his “Appeal to Humanity” – which can be read in the collection of writings “Peace or Nuclear War” (1) – has lost none of its topicality.
Bertha von Suttner: “Lay Down Your Arms!”
Never before could the problems of peoples be solved by the method of violence, war. This is no different today than in the history of mankind so far. The backslide into war is a backslide into barbarism, which makes itself felt in all areas of social life: it causes unspeakable suffering in the lives of individuals as well as peoples. The daily TV images of the war in Ukraine give us a lasting impression of this suffering.
Today’s wars are no longer responsible, they have become obsolete. Even the First World War was no longer a conventional war, it was genocide. Since then, the illegal wars of aggression have become even more murderous, more insidious, more widespread, more genocidal.
For the Austrian cultural historian Friedrich Heer, these wars are preparations for the “final solution of the human question” or, as Bertha von Suttner prophesies in her novel “Lay down your arms!”: “The downfall for all” (2). This is certainly true for a universally feared war with nuclear weapons.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote in a letter to Bertha von Suttner after the publication of the novel:
“God grant that the abolition of war may follow your works.” (3)
Alfred Nobel was inspired by Bertha von Suttner to endow the Nobel Peace Prize in his will (4).
History – a work of man
We know today that war is a calamity. We also know that its cause is not “human nature” but the injustice and inhumanity of our social order. This fact must not make us forget that history is a work of man and that man must be changed if the world is to be changed. Accordingly, enlightenment and education are the most important measures that can be taken against war.
We cannot yet say when the conscience of humanity, whose cry of admonition goes through the centuries, will finally make itself heard. But we have no doubt that the existence of the human race hangs on the question of whether people will profess all-human solidarity to a far greater extent than they have done up to now.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired headmaster), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and graduate psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education and an education for public spirit and peace.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
(1) Schweitzer, A. (1984). Peace or nuclear war. Munich
(2) Heer, F. In: Von Suttner, B. (1977). Lay down your arms! Introduction, p. VII
I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety. Why? Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws. We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE). Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing. And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.
The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contain Teflon and other chemicals.
A Facebook friend reminds us:
1. Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide — a known carcinogen.
Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical.
2. The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals.
I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… “breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”
Don’t agree? Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency. These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust.
They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed person to person.
I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breath it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.
So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask — the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on. Those masks are completely useless against a virus, and are also very dangerous. OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time.
Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage. I’m not making this up. Again, you might say, well, Guy, you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years. That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.
You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. Um, no. No they don’t. They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room.
Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing? To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day. Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain damaged children. Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?” That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing. And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.
So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes. Got that? Good.
Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately. This is a very serious matter. And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends.
No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.
And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score. A very long memory.
END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), U.K.
The Australian Health Regulation Agency, AHPRA, Australia
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
Medsafe, New Zealand
Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities (FMRAC), Canada
***
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World War, feel bound to follow our conscience and write this letter.
It is obvious to us that another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. The majority of the world’s populace do not yet realize what is happening, for magnitude of an organized crime such as this is beyond their scope of experience.
We, however, know. We remember the name Josef Mengele. Some of us have personal memories. We experience a déjà vu that is so horrifying that we rise to shield our poor fellow humans. The threatened innocents now include children, and even infants. In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013—a period of 15.5 years. And people affected worst are between 18 and 64 years old – the group which was not in the Covid statistics.
We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on humankind immediately. What you call “vaccination” against SARS-Cov-2 is in truth a blasphemic encroachment into nature. Never before has immunization of the entire planet been accomplished by delivering a synthetic mRNA into the human body. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied. The 10 ethical principles in this document represents a foundational code of medical ethics that was formulated during the Nuremberg Doctors Trial to ensure that human beings will never again be subjected to involuntary medical experimentation & procedures.
Principle 1 of the Nuremberg Codex:
(a) “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
(b) This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
(c)The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Re (a): There is no question of a free decision. Mass media spread fear and panic and use the rule of Goebbels’propaganda by repeating untruths until they are believed. For weeks now they have been calling for the ostracism of the unvaccinated. If 80 years ago it was the Jews who were demonized as spreaders of infectious diseases, today it is the unvaccinated who are being accused of spreading the virus. Physical integrity, freedom to travel, freedom to work, all coexistence has been taken away from people in order to force vaccination upon them. Children are being enticed to get vaccinated against their parents’ judgement.
Re (b): The 22 terrible side effects already listed in the FDA emergency use authorization were not disclosed to the subjects of the experimental trial. We list those below to the benefit of the world public.
By definition, there has never been informed consent. In the meantime,thousands of side effects recorded in numerous databases are on record. While the so-called case numbers are being bleeped in 30-min-intervals by all mass media, there is neither any mentioning of the serious adverse side effects nor how and where the side effects are to be reported. As far as we know, even recorded damages have been deleted on a large scale in every database.
Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Code requires:
“The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment”.
“Vaccination” against Covid has proven to be more dangerous than Covid for approximately 99% of all humans. As documented by Johns Hopkins, in a study of 48,000 children, children are at zero risk from the virus.
Your own data shows that children who are at no risk from the virus, have had heart attacks following vaccination; more than 15,000 have suffered adverse events –including more than 900 serious events. At least 16 adolescents have died following vaccination in the USA. As you are aware, just around 1% are being reported. And the numbers are increasing rapidly as we write. With your knowledge.
Principle 10 of the Nuremberg Code:
“During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”
Allegedly around 52% of the world population has received at least one shot. Honest disclosure of the true number of “vaccine” injured, terminally injured as well as deceased worldwide is long overdue. These are millions in the meantime. Provide us with the true numbers of Covid vaccine casualties now.
How many will be enough to awaken your conscience?
List of adverse effects being known to FDA before the emergency approval:
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In a rare gesture of political realism, the US government refused to consider Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. President Joe Biden stressed that the measure would bring many problems and damages, being firm in his negative response. The matter had been discussed for a long time in the country, with several congressmen supporting that the measure should be implemented. Until then, responses from top government officials had been ambiguous and evasive, but Biden finally appears to have eliminated any doubts on the topic.
On September 5, Joe Biden was asked by journalists about the possibility of including Russia in the list of states sponsoring terrorism. He replied with a simple “no”, practically ending the discussion on the topic. The next day, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that using the term “terrorism” is not the most effective way to hold Russia accountable for the situation in Ukraine. She noted that such a designation could obstruct the supply of aid to conflict-affected areas or even prevent aid groups and companies from participating in an eventual deal to export grain from blocked ports in Ukraine.
“This designation could have unintended consequences to Ukraine, and the world (…) For example, according to humanitarian experts and NGOs we have spoken to, it could seriously affect the ability to deliver assistance in areas of Ukraine. Another one is it could drive critical humanitarian and commercial actors away from facilitating food exports to help mitigate the global food crisis and jeopardize the Black Sea ports deal that has already led to over a million tons of Ukrainian food exports reaching the world, including those in Horn of Africa”.
As expected, the US government’s stance was heavily criticized by Kiev. President Volodymyr Zelensky recorded videos stating that Russia should be considered a terrorist state due to the alleged bombings that would be being made by Moscow against the Zaporizhye nuclear power plant facilities. On several occasions, Russian state officials presented clear and irrefutable evidence that the side that is bombing the plant is the Ukrainian one, and the matter was even discussed at the UNSC. However, Zelensky insists on his narrative and uses it as an argument to demand that Russia to be considered “terrorist” by other countries.
Within the American political scenario, there were also criticisms against Biden’s stance. Lawmakers who were interested in passing the measure responded harshly to Biden Administration’s officials. In all, 100 lawmakers formed a bipartisan group to demand that the government consider Russia a sponsor of terrorism. These politicians wrote a parliamentary resolution setting out their point of view.
Commenting on the case, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated:
“To the Biden administration: You have the complete unanimous support of the United States Senate to label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. Do it. I didn’t think there was an issue under the sun that could get 100 Senate votes, but we found it: Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism”.
In the same vein, Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who also signed the resolution, argued in favor of including Russia on the list using “moral” arguments. In fact, Blumenthal came to sound offensive and racist in his statements, considering the enemy countries of the US as “pariahs” and “uncivilized”.
“The designation of state sponsorship of terrorism puts Russia in a very small club — it consists of nations like Syria, Iran and Cuba that are outside the bounds of civilized countries…”, he said.
In fact, the arguments of the signers of the resolution seem weak and reflect more the interests of Kiev than the ones of Washington. Considering Russia a sponsor of terrorism would be a delicate decision even if there were reasons to do so, but this is not the case. Moscow simply does not carry out or supports terrorist acts in any country. There are only unsubstantiated accusations in this regard on the part of the Ukrainian and Western sides.
More than that, the strategic value of such a decision would be extremely damaging to the US and the entire Western world. Diplomatic relations would be absolutely broken, the dialogue would be interrupted abruptly and tensions would rise irreversibly, harming everyone involved. The global security crisis resulting from this inclusion would be disastrous and its consequences would negatively affect the entire world.
Another interesting point is to observe the hypocrisy of those who are supporting the inclusion of Russia in the list, considering that the West insists on omitting that the Kiev regime is protected by neo-Nazi and extremist militias, whose acts are really terrorist. Apparently, “terrorism” for anti-Russian activists means being contrary to NATO-backed governments.
Despite having made several catastrophic decisions in recent times, Biden acted rationally, strategically and realistically in making it clear that he does not intend to consider Russia a sponsor of terrorism.
*
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.
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
According to promoters of The Great Reset, a traditional whole food diet is not only “unsustainable” but “environmentally destructive” and must be replaced with GMOs and protein alternatives made from insects, plants and synthetic biology. Life on earth cannot be sustained, they say, unless we transition to what amounts to an ultraprocessed and highly unnatural diet
A scientific review throws The Great Reset’s talking points in the proverbial trash, as ultraprocessed foods are “fundamentally unsustainable” and nutritionally nonessential. As such, the environmental impacts of ultraprocessed foods are indefensible, as they are wholly avoidable
Ultraprocessed foods account for 17% to 39% of total diet-related energy use; 36% to 45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss; up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, land use and food waste; and up to one-quarter of total diet-related water-use among adults in high-income countries
The EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust and the Stockholm Resilience Centre in 2014, has developed a “Planetary Health Diet,” intended to be applied to the entire global population. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, and working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives — all in the name of climate change prevention and “sustainability”
Once corporations have a monopoly on meat, dairy, cereals and oils, they will be the ones profiting from and controlling the food supply. The companies that control the food supply will also end up controlling countries and entire populations
*
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its allied Great Reset minions, a traditional whole food diet is not only “unsustainable” but “environmentally destructive.”
A recent “food analysis” in The Guardian1 took aim specifically at organic pasture-fed beef and lamb, lambasting such farming practices for their extravagant land use while underperforming in terms of yield:
“Arable crops, some of which are fed to farm animals, occupy 12% of the planet’s land surface. But far more land (about 26%) is used for grazing: in other words, for pasture-fed meat and milk. Yet across this vast area, farm animals that are entirely pasture-fed produce just 1% of the world’s protein.”
Animal foods in general, and organically produced ones in particular, The Great Resetters claim, must be replaced with produce genetically engineered for high yield and pest resistance, and protein alternatives made from insects, plants and synthetic biology. Overall, life on earth cannot be sustained, they say, unless we transition to what amounts to an ultraprocessed and highly unnatural diet.
A paper2 published in the September 25, 2022, issue of the Journal of Cleaner Production throws The Great Reset’s talking points in the proverbial trash, but before we get into that, let’s review some background material.
Global Cabal’s Goal: Wipe Out Good Food
In recent months, I’ve dedicated many articles to exposing the intentional destruction of our food system. The decision of the Dutch government to impose nitrogen pollution restrictions on farmers is only one recent example of this. This “green” policy will cut livestock production in the country by 30% in the next year, put farmers out of business and force them to sell their land.
Since The Netherlands is the largest meat exporter in the European Union,3 this plan will inevitably result in meat shortages around the world. Canada is now also implementing identical restrictions as part of its climate plan.4
Not to worry, though, because The Great Reset leaders around the world have a plan to build a new food system based on “micro livestock” like crickets, mealworms and cockroaches, along with cultured meat5 grown in petri dishes, and plant-based meat alternatives such as Beyond Meat, the primary ingredients6 of which are pea protein, canola oil and rice protein.
The Plan for a Planetary Health-Destroying Diet
The EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust and the Stockholm Resilience Centre in 2014,7has developed what they call “The Planetary Health Diet,”8 intended to be applied worldwide. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, and replacing it with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oils, most of which are now genetically engineered (GE).
Their largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system by working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives — all in the name of climate change prevention and “sustainability.”
Once tech giants have control of meat, dairy, cereals and oils, they will be the ones profiting from and controlling the food supply. Needless to say, the private companies that control the food supply will also end up controlling countries and entire populations. At the end of the day, that’s what this hoopla about “sustainable food systems” is all about.
Junk Food on Steroids
However, anyone who knows anything about nutrition can see that everything about this proposed new food system is a disaster in the making. For starters, synthetic biology — meat and dairy alternatives — is junk food on steroids.
They’re all highly processed, and ultraprocessed foods are associated with increased calorie intake, weight gain and chronic disease,9 including cognitive decline,10 while simultaneously promoting malnutrition.
One of the primary reasons why processed food is so bad for health is because it’s loaded with the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA) mostly from industrial seed oils. It’s important to realize that plant-based meat alternatives do not contain animal fats. All the fat comes from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil, which are prescriptions for metabolic disaster.
Sure, processed foods also contain high amounts of sugar, typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup, but as bad as that is, it doesn’t even come close to the damage caused by high LA intake, which acts as a metabolic poison. What’s worse, the LA stays put in your cell membranes for up to seven years, while sugar is rapidly used up and eliminated once you stop putting more in.
To be clear, LA is the one fat you absolutely want to minimize in your diet, not eat more of! Anything above 10 grams a day is likely to cause ill health, and most Americans consume far more than that already. To learn more about the harmful mechanisms of LA, see “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”
In my view, replacing real meat with fake substitutes, regardless of how they’re made, is going to further exacerbate the rapid decline in health the population has already experienced. Next week I will be posting a report on the record-breaking decrease in U.S. life expectancy that just had its sharpest two-year decline in 100 years.11
Simply put, there are no benefits in replacing real meat with fake substitutes. Not for the environment, climate, human nutrition or animal welfare. It’s only hazards and false claims. So, if you value your health, you would do well to stay clear of all meat substitutes.
Why Insect Protein Is a Bad Idea
Alright, but what about insect protein? According to The Great Reset minions, insect protein is as good as it gets, nutrition-wise, and will protect the planet by eliminating the need for livestock, cutting down on agricultural land use and reversing climate change.12
Not so fast. Perhaps someone didn’t think this through. (Or, they did, and any potential negative ramifications of an insect-based diet are actually their intended effects.) As it turns out, insects contain chitin,13,14 a highly inflammatory and allergy-inducing compound.15
Some human tissues do have a chitin-destroying enzyme called chitinase, but it doesn’t always work well, in which case the chitin may trigger an immune response, allergic reactions and inflammation, as it increases inflammatory cytokine production.
Edibleinsects.com, however, launched in 2022, describes chitin as “a valuable prebiotic fiber” with antifungal, antiviral and antibacterial properties,16 and eatcrickster.com claims it can reduce inflammation.17 A number of studies published in recent years have made similar claims.
I for one would recommend proceeding with great caution, as the food industry has, for decades, claimed that processed foods and artificial ingredients are safe and effective, just like the COVID jab, even when ample research shows otherwise.
Food Compass Designed to Destroy Nutrition Guidance
A perfect example of how unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods are being touted as superior to unprocessed animal foods is the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy’s Food Compass,18 unveiled in late 2021. Food Compass was created to:19
The problem is that Food Compass leads people AWAY from wholesome natural foods, and toward processed junk foods. For example, Frosted Mini Wheats scores three times higher than ground beef (87 out of 100, compared to 26), as illustrated in the graph below, posted on Twitter by independent journalist Nina Teicholz.20
Other high-scoring, highly processed foods include chocolate covered almonds, Honey Nut Cheerios, fries, egg substitute fried in vegetable oil, and Lucky Charms. Almond M&M’s even score higher than whole egg fried in butter, cheddar cheese and ground beef — all three of which are whole, unprocessed foods.
Who in their right mind can believe M&Ms are healthier than whole food — any whole food? According to Food Compass, anything with a score below 30 should be minimized, so based on this tool, you’ll be healthier if you replace whole egg, cheddar cheese and ground beef with candy, which is nothing short of insanity.
That’s how you know it’s serving a purpose other than actual nutrition guidance. It’s a Great Reset tool to miseducate people about what’s healthy and what’s not. Without false propaganda, they won’t be able to retool the food system the way they want to.
Interestingly, the top fruit, watermelon, is actually quite healthy for most and it is my absolute favorite fruit. Just be careful to avoid eating the seeds as they, like most seeds, are loaded with LA.
Ultraprocessed Foods Are NOT ‘Green’
Having reviewed why The Great Reset’s ideas for a new food system is a disaster for your health, let’s jump into the Journal of Cleaner Production paper21 I mentioned at the beginning.
The title of the paper is “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Ultra-Processed Foods and Implications for Sustainable Food systems.” It explains why ultraprocessed foods are completely counterproductive to environmentally “green” and sustainable goals. For example, ultraprocessed foods (UPF) account for:
17% to 39% of total diet-related energy use
36% to 45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss
Up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, land use and food waste
Up to one-quarter of total diet-related water-use among adults in high-income countries
Ultraprocessed food production and manufacturing also significantly contributes to the degradation of land, promotes herbicide use, and contributes to eutrophication (aka nutrient-induced increase in phytoplankton productivity).
And, for all the lip service paid to making sure there’s “equity” in all areas of life, increasing consumption of processed foods redirects finances away from smaller farmers and homesteaders, thereby contributing to “economic inequalities as some large transnational corporations responsible for UPF production rely on underpaid food system workers in poor conditions, resulting in an uneven distribution of wealth.” In other words, promoting consumption of processed foods:
Promotes financial inequity, the exact opposite of what The Great Reset supporters claim to be working toward
Promotes biodiversity loss and degrades both land and water, which is the opposite of environmental and planetary protection promised by Green New Deal supporters
Ultraprocessed Foods Are ‘Fundamentally Unsustainable’
As noted by the authors:22
“The findings highlight that environmental degradation associated with UPFs is of significant concern due to the substantial resources used in the production and processing of such products, and also because UPFs are superfluous to basic human needs …
UPFs utilize persuasive marketing and are usually mass-produced using inexpensive ingredients to enable overconsumption through availability, hyper-palatability, poor satiety and displacing wholefoods in diets.
A growing body of evidence reports that UPF consumption is associated with increased risk of overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality, among others. It is plausible that this is caused by UPFs poor nutrient composition and degraded food matrices …
A detailed understanding of the environmental impacts of UPFs is key to informing food policies and dietary guidance. This is pertinent because UPFs are frequently excluded from global and national guidelines and policy documents on sustainable food systems and diets.
For example, the EAT-Lancet report, one of the most recognized reference documents on sustainable diets, does not mention UPFs, nor does the major FAO report on the biodiversity impacts of food and agriculture.
The few policy activities which consider the environmental sustainability of UPFs are based on conceptual evidence, rather than evidence from empirical studies …
Conclusion: Ultra-processed foods are fundamentally unsustainable products; they have been associated with poor health and social outcomes and require finite environmental resources for their production … UPFs are responsible for significant diet-related energy, [and] greenhouse gas emissions …”
The real take-home here is that the environmental impacts of ultraprocessed foods are AVOIDABLE, because these kinds of foods are NOT nutritionally essential. They could and should be eliminated altogether, if we actually want to protect the environment, our planet and our health.
What we need more of is organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming of everything from fruits and vegetables to animal foods. That’s what the world needs for optimal health, and it’s also what can preserve and improve our environment the best.
Reject The Great Reset Diet
As noted in a 2004 review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,23 “many health disparities are linked to inequalities in education and income.” A nutrient-dense diet typically costs more than a calorie-dense but nutrient-deficient one.
One reason for this is because high-calorie processed foods contain ingredients subsidized by government, such as corn, wheat, sugar and various seed oils. Because they provide better profit margins for industrial farmers, there’s little incentive to grow crops that don’t make it into the processed food cycle. Back in 2016, the WEF published an article titled “What Will We Eat in 2030?”24
Taking note of the health and income disparity link just mentioned, the article proposes to improve the food system, not by reducing processed foods, but by processing foods which they claim are “ways that are better for our health,” such as “fortification (or biofortification) — where nutrients are engineered in, either in the biology or manufacture of food — and the significant reformulation of current foods for fewer calories and more nutrients.”
“‘Ultraprocessed’ foods need not be unhealthy,” the WEF goes on to claim. This is as big a lie as “Roundup is safe enough to drink,” “Smoking is safe for pregnant women,” “DDT is good for me” and “COVID vaccines are safe and effective.” There is no way to make ultraprocessed food healthy. Period.
Below is a graphic that has circulated on Twitter,25 showing the WEF’s plans for our dietary future. For the record, while it claims to have been sourced from the WEF, the clear sarcasm suggests it’s a spoof. It’s highly instructive, however, and right on the money, in terms of being factually correct.
This is indeed the kind of diet the WEF and its Great Reset allies want us to adopt, whether we want to or not. Even the most questionable inclusion of “upcycled citizens” is not wrong, as this cabal is, in fact, promoting the idea that cannibalism is, or can be, acceptable.
For solutions to this rapidly approaching dystopian future, review my previous article, “Why Food Prices Are Expected to Skyrocket,” and Corey Lynn’s article “Finding Sources of Fresh Food.”26
Part of the answer is to grow your own food, to the best of your ability. Another part is to support local growers by buying their produce, or else they’ll get pushed out. Starting local co-ops and community gardens can also go a long way toward creating food security in the long term.
At the same time, we also have to reject globalist solutions like fake meat, gene-edited beef, GMO foods, insect-based foods and all the rest of it. It’s time to recognize that none of their solutions are for our benefit. They’re for our detriment. The WEF has declared that by 2030, you will own nothing, and they really do mean it. They will take everything from us, including the right to grow our own food and to eat natural unprocessed, unadulterated foods — if we let them.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The statement by Poland that it needs to rearm its troops in preparation for a “war with Russia” in the next few years is intended to attract additional aid and weapons from NATO to strengthen its eastern borders and to modernise its arsenal after it supplied obsolete weapons to Ukraine. However, this comes at the price of destroying the economy and the quality of life of the average citizen.
Poland’s Deputy Defence Minister Marcin Ociepa said that Warsaw sees “the danger of war with Russia” in next three to ten years and needs to use this time to rearm, “no matter the cost”.
With war waging in Ukraine, Poland wants to show that it is on the front lines in the fight against a supposedly “aggressive Russia” and position itself as a major player in Europe and NATO. Poland in this light is stressing that the EU and NATO need to strengthen its eastern borders.
The Poles freed up their stockpile of obsolete weapons by sending them to Ukraine and now expects new weapons and preferential treatment from Western countries, primarily the United States. The Poles are wanting air defence systems, missile defence systems, potentially new ground forces, and heavy equipment, such as tanks and self-propelled artillery.
This also comes as Poland and the three Baltic states said on September 8 that they would temporarily restrict access for Russian citizens holding EU visas from entering by September 19. Supposedly, this is to address “public policy and security threats.”
The prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland said in a statement they were concerned “about the substantial and growing influx of Russian citizens” into the EU, adding: “We believe that this is becoming a serious threat to our public security and to the overall shared Schengen area.”
The statement said they “agreed on a common regional approach and hereby express their political will and firm intention to introduce national temporary measures for Russian citizens holding visas”, with exceptions only made for “dissidents,” “humanitarian cases,” and family members and holders of residence permits in EU countries.
It is recalled that EU foreign ministers met in Prague last month and agreed to suspend a 2007 visa facilitation deal with Russia, stopping short of a wider visa ban. However, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said that countries bordering Russia could “take measures at a national level to restrict entry into the European Union.”
Effectively, in a cowardly way, Borrell allowed the Baltic states and Poland to put roadblocks on Russians from entering the EU. He emphasised that any measures would have to conform with rules for the EU’s Schengen common travel zone and members of Russian civil society should be able to travel to the EU. But clearly this is not the case.
With Poland closing its borders to Russian citizens and demanding the strengthening of its military, it is evident that Warsaw is preparing for an escalation in its relations with Moscow, something that will be enthusiastically backed by the US.
Poland is not an exception to the energy crisis gripping Europe, which is bringing great fears of recession once the winter arrives. US-led sanctions were imposed following the Russian military operation in Ukraine, forcing Moscow to insist that all purchases of energy must be made in the rouble, a demand that Warsaw has rejected. With Moscow’s decision to slash oil and natural gas exports, energy prices in Europe have gone through the roof and sent the cost-of-living soaring.
To deal with this, Poland has turned to Nigeria, already one of its gas suppliers, to increase its LNG shipments. This prompted Poland’s President Andrzej Duda to become the first leader from the Eastern European country to ever visit Nigeria since diplomatic relations were established 60 years ago. However, many remain sceptical that Nigeria, whose economy is badly battered, can meet the European and Polish demand, especially as unprecedented crude oil thefts by militants in the Niger Delta are affecting exports.
More importantly, Poland’s economy is slowing down. A GDP drop to 2.7% is expected in Q3 2022, the Polish Economic Institute (PIE) reported on August 31. This followed from a drop of 8.5 to 5.3% in Q2. The state-owned think tank believes that inflation by the end of Q4 will be at 14.5% but could rise to 15.6% in February 2023 due to rising energy prices.
In this way, Poland is prioritising US interests in pressuring Moscow in the false belief that Russia is preparing to invade the country. This not only highlights that Poland still does not fully understand the reasons for Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, but that it is also willing to destroy the economy and quality of life of the average citizen for the sake of having new weapons and strengthening its military.
*
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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
For much of the population, September 11 marks the anniversary of the infamous terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
But for the people of Chile, much of Latin America, and democratic reformers at large, it marks another significant anniversary.
On the morning of September 11, 1973, all branches of the Chilean Armed Forces had conspired to wrest control of the country from democratically-elected leader Salvador Allende. Allende, having been tipped about the military’s activities, held his ground in his Presidential palace, La Moneda.
After Allende refused to negotiate or surrender, General Augusto Pinochet ordered a siege on the compound accompanied by military helicopter gunships and Air Force bombers. Salvador Allende died during the melee, apparently by his own hand, and a military junta took power headed by General Pinochet.
It is well documented that the US government, through the CIA, played a key role in the overthrow of the Allende government.
The new order in Chile saw massive economic reforms take effect. An alarming number of people were imprisoned and tortured under his rule. Over three thousand people are estimated to have been killed during Pinochet’s 17 year reign.
PInochet himself was eventually arrested in London in 1998, and faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to answer for his crimes.
The 40th anniversary of Chile’s 9/11 is an occasion to ask what have been the impacts of the coup, and the dictatorship that followed?
These questions are explored in depth by two people knowledgeable about the coup.
Michel Chossudovsky was a visiting Professor of Economics in Chile at the time of the coup. In this week’s radio show, Chossudovsky reflects on his memories of the coup, and looks at how it served as a dress-rehearsal for the use of macro-economic reform as a weapon for disarming governments worldwide.
Peter Kornbluh then recounts the US role in the affair. He is the author of The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, recently updated to mark the 40th anniversary of the coup. Not only does he elaborate on the proof of the US connection with the coup, he explains his conviction that the arrest of Pinochet marks a major turning point in terms of holding past and present state criminals accountable.
Of utmost relevance to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, this article by Mark Taliano was first published on July 16 2016
***
Recently [June 20, 2016], General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, admitted that,
“It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.”
Decoded, this means that intelligence reports indicate that Russia is not a threat to the West.
Since Russian aggression is not a threat, then increased NATO deployments to encircle Russia are a threat — to Russia.
Decoded again: We are the bad guys, Russia is not.
But this hasn’t stopped Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, from confirming, according to CBC news, that
“Canada will send a battle group of soldiers to Latvia by early 2017 as part of a NATO plan to counter fears of Russian aggression in eastern Europe.”
So, Canada’s decision to provoke Russia is based on groundless fears.
Since reasonable foreign policy decisions are few and far between, Canadians might want to pay heed to a recent observation made by Paul Craig Roberts:
“ … only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army. In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.”
Decoded? We’re idiots.
Our now broad-based idiocy is based on the fact that we are being fed a constant diet of lies, and stories, and toxic myths.
The fake Russian threat is consistent with the fake terrorist threat. It is very well documented, with sustainable, Western-based evidence, for example, that NATO and its allies support terrorism. The terrorists currently invading Syria are Western proxies/”strategic assets”, employed to effect illegal regime change.
It is also well documented that the illegal Western sanctions besieging Syria are impacting the legitimate, secular, pluralist, democratic government of Syria, and liberated areas, not the foreign terrorist- plagued areas that are replenished from surrounding NATO countries, especially Turkey.
So, the “Russian threat” is fake; there never was a “Syria threat” (except that Syria insists on its sovereignty and territorial integrity); and the “terrorist threat” is a hoax, because we support the terrorists.
The “humanitarian bombing” strategy is also a hoax, because ISIS territory expands when the U.S illegally bombs Syria.
Basically, everything we’re hearing is fake. The government, and Soros et al.–funded “non- government organizations” (NGOs) – are fake, not only because they aren’t “non-governmental”, but also because they’re embedded with the terrorist invaders.
The fakery of the news stories is doubly protected by laws embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act which blur the lines between reality and spectacle. The author writes,
“According to an amendment to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the House Bill H.R 5736 (now law), the federal government of the United States can now legally propagandize the domestic public.
“As reflected in a recent NATO conference in Latvia and in the Pentagon’s new ‘Law of War’ manual, the U.S. government has come to view the control and manipulation of information as a ‘soft power’ weapon, merging psychological operations, propaganda and public affairs under the catch phrase ‘strategic communications.’ “
We can also reasonably assume that much of the terrorism afflicting the West is also fake, in the sense that it is synthetic/false flag terrorism. This doesn’t mean that innocent people aren’t being killed — thousands were murdered during the 911 false flag — but it does mean that deep state operatives are likely orchestrating much of the domestic terrorism with a view to blaming “ISIS”, advancing imperial war plans, and institutionalizing domestic police state legislation that protects the neo-con war criminals responsible for the mass-murdering barbarity.
Seemingly, all of these “Gladio-style” crimes demonstrate the dirty hand of intelligence operatives – who should be the first suspects — but rarely are.
All of this fakery provides cover for imperial conquest and the advancement of a predatory economic model called “neoliberalism”. The name itself is fraudulent, because it isn’t new, and it isn’t “liberal”. It’s a predatory economic model of bailed-out, deregulated, parasitical privatization schemes that preys on the commons, the people, and protects the transnational oligarch criminals who capture legislative bodies, and advance transnational corporate empowerment faux “deals” (deceptively labeled “free trade).
Spectacle and deceit is everything, since democracy, justice for all, and freedom, are incompatible with this predatory system.
We are being trained and brainwashed to willingly accept, even embrace, our enslavement.
Syrians are at the forefront of those who are effectively opposing this globalized, unipolar model of enslavement, poverty, and barbarity. Those who are currently being demonized – Syria, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and their allies – are paying with their blood, but they are fighting for all of us, and for our freedoms.
As Canadians, we should be opposing our country’s foreign policy idiocy, and we should be supporting the heroics of Syria and its allies. Warmongers have successfully managed our perceptions to view Syria, Russia, and Iran etc. as “threats” or “enemies”, but beneath the lies and deceptions, evidence demonstrates that they are neither.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
What the US hadn’t incorporated into its grand strategic calculations was that the success of its structurally identical divide-and-rule scheme against Russia and Ukraine would positively influence China and India’s perceptions of one another to the point of inspiring them to pragmatically manage their security dilemma.
China and India agreed on Thursday to the mutual disengagement of their military forces from the disputed frontier in a milestone development that represents these two multipolar Great Powers making tangible progress towards their shared grand strategic goal of jointly pioneering the AsianCentury. The security dilemma that had hitherto threatened to disastrously divide and rule them the detriment of Eurasia is now in the process of being responsibly managed.
As a brief backgrounder, their preexisting border disputes that date back to the imperial era formed the basis of mutual suspicions, which were exacerbated by the US’ divide-and-rule information warfare campaign against them. America actively sought to manipulate their perceptions of one another in order to ultimately turn India into its proxy for “containing” China. These Great Powers eventually clashed over the Galwan River Valley in summer 2020, which represented a dangerous low-point in their ties.
Instead of the all-out war that Washington wanted and in spite of many observers’ expectations, Beijing and Delhi surprisingly pulled back from the brink even though tensions continued to boil up until recently. Prior rounds of talks failed to achieve any tangible progress in de-escalating tensions, though neither seemed prepared to unilaterally worsen the situation at risk of their own interests, to say nothing of their region’s and Eurasia’s more broadly.
The core of the Chinese-Indian security dilemma isn’t so much their unresolved border disputes from the imperial era, but their mutual suspicions of one another’s grand strategic intentions, though the US manipulated views of the first-mentioned in order to worsen the second. The largely unpopulated Himalayan frontier between them can be delineated through mutual compromises without harming either’s objective national interests, but this is impossible without the restoration of trust.
America is keenly aware of this, hence why it twisted perceptions about this sensitive issue in ways that attempted to inflame domestic public opinion in both countries so as to artificially manufacture grassroots resistance to such an outcome. From there, it took advantage of comparatively less significant but nevertheless still important issues of mutual concern such as perceived technological and trade disparities in order to catalyze a self-sustaining cycle of suspicion and resultant escalation.
The latest US-provoked phase of the UkrainianConflict was a game-changer, however, since it directly led to both multipolar Great Powers correcting their perceptions of the other. India realized the lengths to which its new military-strategic partner will go to divide and rule neighboring pairs of countries in order to advance its hegemonic interests. Moreover, the US very aggressively pressured India to sanction and condemn Russia, which Delhi declined to do since that would go against its own interests.
In response, a malicious information warfare campaign was launched by the MSM against this South Asian civilization-state, which immediately showed its decisionmakers, strategists, and the society that they represent that America had unfriendly intentions towards them. Delhi’s redoublingof its principled neutrality towards the Ukrainian Conflict strengthened perceptions of its strategic autonomy in the Global South, which China paid very close attention to and appreciated.
The People’s Republic then began to gradually re-evaluate its prior assessment of India’s role in Eurasia, which started to shift from perceiving it as an obstacle to multipolarity to an indispensable asset. This process was brought about purely by India’s proud refusal to sacrifice its objective national interests for the purpose of pleasing the US, the latter of which wanted to coerce that country into becoming its largest vassal state in the New Cold War. Accordingly, China came to acknowledge India’s independence.
The past six months therefore led to India wising up to the US’ long-running scheme to erode its hard-earned strategic autonomy in parallel with China finally concluding that this neighboring Great Power truly had multipolar intentions all along. Neither no longer regarded the other as an irredeemable threat to their interests that required a never-ending cycle of tit-for-tat military-strategic moves to deter, hence the consensual decision to mutually disengage their military forces from the disputed frontier.
The unresolved border dispute was merely the fuse that the US wanted to spark in order to doom their shared grand strategic goal of jointly pioneering the Asian Century that would thus doom its own declining unipolar hegemony if it succeeded. To that end, the MSM manipulated the perceptions that each of those two’s decisionmakers, strategists, and societies had of one another in order to create the security dilemma that the US hoped would be insurmountable and thus inevitably divide and rule Asia.
What Washington hadn’t incorporated into its grand strategic calculations was that the success of its structurally identical divide-and-rule scheme against Moscow and Kiev would positively influence Beijing and Delhi’s perceptions of one another to the point of inspiring them to pragmatically manage their security dilemma. Dividing Russia from Ukraine, and consequently from Europe, isn’t as significant in sabotaging the global systemic transition to multipolarity as dividing China and India would be.
That’s not to say that the US hasn’t somewhat succeeded in disrupting part of the emerging Multipolar World Order, but just that it’s been far less successful than it planned after China and India just decided to do what’s needed in order to stop America’s attempted replication of the Russian-Ukrainian scenario in Asia. Considering that their continent is the center of global processes, this means that their present rapprochement has the chance to supercharge multipolarity and thus deal a death blow to unipolarity.
*
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 OneWorld.
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.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.
A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
The following article was first published in August 2004, following the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. It was also published as a chapter in the author’s book: “America’s “War on Terrorism”
***
“We Have Some Planes”
The 9/11 Commission’s Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.
In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights (UAL 93).
Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them “into large guided missiles” (Report, Chapter 1, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf ).
The Technology of Wireless Transmission
The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.
Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.
More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:
“Wireless communications networks weren’t designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they’re surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground
Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on “the findings” of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:
“it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations… From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude”
While serious doubts regarding the cell calls were expressed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry has further contributed to upsetting the Commission’s credibility. Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology –which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a special rate aerial roaming charge) (see http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html )
“Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.” (WP, July 27, 2004)
Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:
“Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.
For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This “pico cell” transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network”
Needless to say, neither the service, nor the “third generation” hardware, nor the “Picco cell” CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.
The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations.
In substance, the Aviation Weekreport creates yet another embarrassing hitch in the official story.
The untimely July American Airlines / Qualcomm announcement acted as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirms that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone narrative (similar to what they did with WMDs) and that the 9/11 Commission’s account was either flawed or grossly exaggerated.
Altitude and Cellphone Transmission
According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.
In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.
The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.
The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?
While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report’s timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.
Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.
United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:
“It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14.”
The Report confirms that by 8:33, “it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet.” According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it “deviated from its assigned altitude”:
“The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.”
And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.
[Flight UAL 175]“At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.
Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson’s call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)
Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.
It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro’s cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.
At 8:58, UAL 175 “took a heading toward New York City.”:
“At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50 At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.”
American Airlines Flight 77
American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10… “At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.”
At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot” that the plane had been hijacked….
On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission’s Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:
” [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane.”
According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.
Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am. The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29am. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]
UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93 passengers, apparently: “alerted through phone calls, attempted to subdue the hijackers. and the hijackers crashed the plane [in Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_93 ). Another version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.
According to the Commission’s account:
“the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft….”
At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.
The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report’s confirmation of the plane’s attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)
“At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164 “
This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)
Moreover, there was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet:
“At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.
We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east. The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.
Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center.77…At least two callers from the flight reported that the hijackers knew that passengers were making calls but did not seem to care.
The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the passengers to the back of the aircraft.80 Callers reported that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead—possibly the captain and first officer. One caller reported that a flight attendant had been killed.81 One of the callers from United 93 also reported that he thought the hijackers might possess a gun. But none of the other callers reported the presence of a firearm. One recipient of a call from the aircraft recounted specifically asking her caller whether the hijackers had guns.
The passenger replied that he did not see one. No evidence of firearms or of their identifiable remains was found at the aircraft’s crash site, and the cockpit voice recorder gives no indication of a gun being fired or mentioned at any time.
We believe that if the hijackers had possessed a gun, they would have used it in the flight’s last minutes as the passengers fought back.82 Passengers on three flights reported the hijackers’ claim of having a bomb. The FBI told us they found no trace of explosives at the crash sites. One of the passengers who mentioned a bomb expressed his belief that it was not real. Lacking any evidence that the hijackers attempted to smuggle such illegal items past the security screening checkpoints, we believe the bombs were probably fake. During at least five of the passengers’ phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted. At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows:
“Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.” The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din.
We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained. In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates.
At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.” The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down.At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,“Roll it!” Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit,“ Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?” to which the other replied, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.” The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!” The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.
The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. ”With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington D.C. Jarrah’s objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United”
The Mysterious Call of Edward Felt from UAL 93
Earlier coverage of the fate of UAL 93 was based in part on a reported cell call from a passenger named Edward Felt, who managed to reach an emergency official in Pennsylvania. How he got the emergency supervisor’s number and managed to reach him remains unclear.
The call was apparently received at 9.58 am, eight minutes before the reported time of the crash at 10.06 am in Pennsylvania:
“Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. “We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!” he was quoted as saying. A California man identified as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that somebody on the plane had been stabbed. “We’re all going to die, but three of us are going to do something,” he told her. “I love you honey.”
The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently gagged by the FBI.” (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html ).
Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report.
American Airlines Flight 11
Flight 11 took off at 7:59. Just before 8:14. The Report outlines an airphone conversation of flight attendant Betty Ong and much of the narrative hinges upon this airphone conversation
There are no clear-cut reports on the use of cell phones on Flight AA11. According to the Report, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46.
Concluding Remarks
A large part of the description, regarding the 19 hijackers relies on cell phone conversations with family and friends.
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission’s script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
According to the American Airline / Qualcomm announcement, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.
In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is under attack.
The “war on terrorism” underlying the National Security doctrine relies on real time “evidence” concerning the Arab hijackers. The latter personify, so to speak, this illusive “outside enemy” (Al Qaeda), which is threatening the homeland.
Embodied into the Commission’s “script” of 911, the narrative of what happened on the plane with the Arab hijackers is therefore crucial. It is an integral part of the Administration’s disinformation and propaganda program. It constitutes a justification for the anti-terror legislation under the Patriot acts and the waging of America’s pre-emptive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
ANNEX
The 9/11 Commission’s Report’s Footnotes on the Cell Phone Conversations
70. On FDR, see NTSB report,“Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation—Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; Commission review of Aircraft Communication and Reporting System (ACARS) messages sent to and from Flight 93 (which indicate time of message transmission and receipt); see UAL record, Ed Ballinger ACARS log, Sept. 11, 2001. At 9:22, after learning of the events at the World Trade Center, Melody Homer, the wife of co-pilot Leroy Homer, had an ACARS message sent to her husband in the cockpit asking if he was okay. See UAL record,ACARS message, Sept. 11, 2001.
71. On FDR, see NTSB report,“Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation—Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; FAA report,“Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001; NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording—United Airlines Flight 93, Dec. 21, 2001.
72.The 37 passengers represented a load factor of 20.33 percent of the plane’s seating capacity of 182, considerably below the 52.09 percent for Flight 93 on Tuesdays in the three-month period prior to September 11 (June 11–September 4, 2001). See UAL report, Flight 93 EWR-SFO load factors, undated. Five passengers holding reservations for Flight 93 did not show for the flight.All five were interviewed and cleared by the FBI. FBI report,“Flight #93 ‘No Show’ Passengers from 9/11/01,” Sept. 18, 2001.
73. INS record,Withdrawal of Application for Admission for Mohamed al Kahtani,Aug. 4, 2001.
74. See FAA regulations,Admission to flight deck, 14 C.F.R. § 121.547 (2001);UAL records, copies of boarding passes for United 93, Sept. 11,2001.One passenger reported that ten first-class passengers were aboard the flight. If that number is accurate, it would include the four hijackers. FBI report of investigation, interview of Lisa Jefferson, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 passenger manifest, Sept. 11, 2001.All but one of the six passengers seated in the first-class cabin communicated with the ground during the flight, and none mentioned anyone from their cabin having gone into the cockpit before the hijacking.Moreover, it is unlikely that the highly regarded and experienced pilot and co-pilot of Flight 93 would have allowed an observer into the cockpit before or after takeoff who had not obtained the proper permission. See UAL records, personnel files of Flight 93 pilots. For jumpseat information, see UAL record,Weight and Balance Information for Flight 93 and Flight 175, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL records, Dispatch Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11 and Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001.
75. Like Atta on Flight 11, Jarrah apparently did not know how to operate the communication radios; thus his attempts to communicate with the passengers were broadcast on the ATC channel. See FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003.Also, by 9:32 FAA notified United’s headquarters that the flight was not responding to radio calls.According to United, the flight’s nonresponse and its turn to the east led the airline to believe by 9:36 that the plane was hijacked. See Rich Miles interview (Nov. 21, 2003); UAL report, “United dispatch SMFDO activities—terrorist crisis,” Sept. 11, 2001.
76. In accordance with FAA regulations, United 93’s cockpit voice recorder recorded the last 31 minutes of sounds from the cockpit via microphones in the pilots’ headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire.The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found,and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable. See FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,”Dec. 4, 2003; see also FAA regulations, 14 C.F.R. §§ 25.1457, 91.609, 91.1045, 121.359; Flight 93 CVR data. A transcript of the CVR recording was prepared by the NTSB and the FBI.
77. All calls placed on airphones were from the rear of the aircraft. There was one airphone installed in each row of seats on both sides of the aisle.The airphone system was capable of transmitting only eight calls at any one time. See FBI report of investigation, airphone records for flights UAL 93 and UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, Sept. 18, 2001.
78.FAA audio file, Cleveland Center, position Lorain Radar; Flight 93 CVR data; FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003.
79. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Todd Beamer, Sept. 11, 2001, through June 11, 2002; FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Sandy Bradshaw, Sept. 11, 2001, through Oct. 4, 2001.Text messages warning the cockpit of Flight 93 were sent to the aircraft by Ed Ballinger at 9:24. See UAL record, Ed Ballinger’s ACARS log, Sept. 11, 2001.
80.We have relied mainly on the record of FBI interviews with the people who received calls. The FBI interviews were conducted while memories were still fresh and were less likely to have been affected by reading the accounts of others or hearing stories in the media. In some cases we have conducted our own interviews to supplement or verify the record. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham,Sandy Bradshaw,Marion Britton,Thomas Burnett, Joseph DeLuca,Edward Felt, Jeremy Glick,Lauren
Grandcolas, Linda Gronlund, CeeCee Lyles, Honor Wainio.
81. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Thomas Burnett, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Marion Britton, Sept. 14, 2001, through Nov. 8, 2001; Lisa Jefferson interview (May 11, 2004); FBI report of investigation, interview of Lisa Jefferson, Sept. 11, 2001; Richard Belme interview (Nov. 21, 2003).
82. See Jere Longman, Among the Heroes—United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back (Harper-Collins, 2002), p. 107; Deena Burnett interview (Apr. 26, 2004); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Jeremy Glick, Sept. 11, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001; Lyzbeth Glick interview (Apr. 22, 2004). Experts told us that a gunshot would definitely be audible on the CVR. The FBI found no evidence of a firearm at the crash site of Flight 93. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11).The FBI collected 14 knives or portions of knives at the Flight 93 crash site. FBI report, “Knives Found at the UA Flight 93 Crash Site,” undated.
83. FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Jeremy Glick, Sept. 11, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001.
84. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93.
85. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93. For quote, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Philip Bradshaw, Sept. 11, 2001; Philip Bradshaw interview (June 15, 2004); Flight 93 FDR and CVR data.At 9:55:11 Jarrah dialed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nation’s capital.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Russia’s hope was to establish long-standing ties with the EU and make sure the strategic security on its western borders would be ensured through economic cooperation, not military might. However, Washington DC had other plans and the compliant elites in Brussels followed suit.
For years, the political West has been accusing Russia of so-called “weaponization” of its natural resources, particularly gas and oil. Moscow is being blamed for using these essential resources to supposedly “blackmail” the European Union, while Brussels, partly pushed by US imperialist belligerence, partly by its own (neo)colonialist ambition, kept creeping up to Russia’s geopolitical backyard, creating ever-escalating tensions with the Eurasian giant. Moscow would never allow the repeat of the Nazi German invasion which took tens of millions of Russian lives, in addition to the unprecedented devastation left in its wake. To make matters worse, “Barbarossa” was yet another on the long list of attempts by the political West to destroy Russia. For over a thousand years, many in Europe have tried to neutralize the Eurasian giant. Russia prevailed each and every time, but it had to do it with the force of arms.
However, in recent decades, Moscow has been trying hard to establish mutually beneficial cooperation with the political West, especially its European portion. This included making long-term deals with the EU, particularly those concerning the supply of essential commodities such as natural gas, oil, food and other raw materials which were helping fuel the growth of entire industries in Europe and elsewhere. Russia’s hope was to establish long-standing ties with the EU and make sure the strategic security on its western borders would be ensured through economic cooperation, not military might. However, Washington DC had other plans and the compliant elites in Brussels followed suit, making sure NATO military infrastructure (especially the strategically impactful US military facilities) kept expanding eastwards, getting ever closer to Russia’s heartland.
Instead of trying to make a deal with Moscow, Brussels joined the economic war on Russia, prompting the Eurasian giant to respond. Now, when natural gas prices are upwards of 400% higher than just a year ago, EU powers, particularly Germany, are faced with the prospect of a near-complete industrial shutdown. And the burning issue isn’t only coming from soaring natural gas prices, but also the shortages. For months, high prices were bleeding the EU economies dry of cash, but after the Nord Stream stopped pumping natural gas altogether, the issue is exponentially worse, as entire industries are at risk of collapsing completely.
In addition to the production sector shutdown, many EU members are faced with soaring energy prices, which is putting a tremendous amount of pressure on households, which are faced with the prospect of not just bankruptcy, but also freezing, as the cold season in the EU is starting with natural gas storage facilities at their lowest level ever. Thus, the pressure on Brussels is both economic and social. With many EU member states’ governments collapsing, the political instability in the troubled bloc is bound to get much worse in the coming months. In addition to natural gas shortages, there is also the problem of soaring food prices, which also might turn into shortages soon, causing even more social and political instability across the EU.
The question is what will the EU do? Should it ask for help from its overlords in Washington DC? And will the US send food, oil, gas and other essential commodities? Does the US even have enough of those for itself? How will the “moral high ground of sticking it to Putin“ help heat homes, feed hundreds of millions of hungry (and angry) citizens and power entire economies and countries? How will the EU governments explain to their voters that all this is “worth doing“ so that the “young, vibrant democracy in Kiev“ can survive? What will Europe look like in 2023 after it goes through a complete political and social unraveling? Will the EU ever become sovereign enough to realize that whatever happens, the US will continue importing essential commodities from Russia while pressuring others not to do so? The coming winter will be a perfect litmus test of sovereignty and an excellent indicator of who will get the privilege of joining the new multipolar world of sovereign nations.
*
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.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
There are themes in the West that are difficult to question without running the risk of receiving sharp criticism. For the following themes, for example, there is a position considered “correct” by Western collective opinion: “Welfare State,” “climate policy,” “multicultural society,” or “covid-19 vaccination.” It is implied that the “acceptable” position to each one of these themes can and should be adopted without any prior critical analysis at the individual level.
The list of these themes is not static; new ones rise to prominence in society, while others become less important over time. In recent years two new themes have emerged: “authoritarian Russia” and “communist China,” which is not surprising considering that Washington, and thus, by extension. the West, has decided to treat these two nations as strategic enemies. A recent study shows, for example, that in a very short time the percentage of Americans with a negative view of China increased dramatically, from 46 percent to 67 percent. This is not a coincidence, but the result of a media communication strategy.
The Critique of the Antiwar Position
As far as Russia is concerned, the “correct” attitude to have in the West, especially since the start of the Ukraine conflict on February 24, 2022, is no less than an absolute condemnation of that country. Support for Ukraine must be comprehensive and can receive social confirmation by a small blue and yellow flag on Facebook. Unconditional support for the economic war waged by Western leaders against Russia is also socially required for Europeans, even though they will be the first to suffer from it.
It is for this reason that the Amnesty International report of August 4, 2022, which confirmed that “Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas” became a media bomb, not only in Ukraine but also in the West. This report disturbs a lot of people because it is not in line with the black and white view of Russia as a criminal aggressor and Ukraine as an innocent victim.
The people who do not take the “correct” stance on the conflict in Ukraine are often accused of being “pro-Russian,” even when this stance simply consists in being objective; by considering the recent history and behavior of the various protagonists. They are considered “pro-Russian” because they do not express unconditional support for Ukraine, but more often, propose conditions for peace. Indeed, the position of most of these critics is not at all “pro-Russian,” but “pro-peace” by supporting active Western efforts to reach a ceasefire, thus sparing as many Ukrainian lives as possible.
Western media did not react when, on July 14, 2022, the Ukrainian government published a black list of Western politicians, academics, and activists who, according to Kiev, “promote Russian propaganda.” This list includes leading Western intellectuals and politicians, such as Republican Senator Rand Paul, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, military and geopolitical analyst Edward N. Luttwak, the political realist John Mearsheimer, and award-winning freelance journalist Glenn Greenwald.
Though this Ukrainian blacklist should obviously have been condemned in the West, it has hardly elicited any reactions at all, because the Western media already agree with its conclusion: the people on the list are already criticized in their own countries for not adopting the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, would the Ukrainian government have dared to publish such a list if it had not had the prior agreement of Washington?
The Formation of the Collective Opinion
What is happening in the case of the attitude toward Russia, as well as in the other themes mentioned above, is not surprising or new. In his famous work, On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill is perhaps today best known for his prescient early warning of the dangers of the “collective opinion”; the “tyranny of the majority” in the form of “the dominant opinions and feelings that society is trying to impose” on a minority.
Society’s majority is naturally intolerant of nonconformism, because thinking like everyone else gives psychological comfort and strengthens social ties. Yet, though society depends on collective opinion for its social cohesion, paradoxically it also depends for its well-being on views that run counter to this majority opinion. Just as natural science progresses only through the sometimes tortuous but generally respectful process of peer review, society also needs minority opinions and dissident voices to curb the permanent search for consensus on the part of the majority.
But minority opinions will suffocate if there is no deeper understanding of Mill’s idea. Fortunately, this understanding exists today. To Mill’s “collective opinion” were added fundamental sociological concepts, such as “crowd psychology” (Gustave Le Bon, 1895), the “political formula” (Gaetano Mosca, 1923), “propaganda” (Edward Bernays, 1928), the “role of the intellectuals” (F.A. Hayek, 1949), the “banality of evil” (H. Arendt, 1963), the “manufacturing of consent” (Chomsky and Herman, 1988), and recently the concept of “mass formation psychosis” (Matthias Desmet).
This accumulated knowledge in the reference above leaves no doubt about the will and the ability of Western political and financial elites to form and direct collective opinion through the control that they exert explicitly and implicitly on the editorial boards of traditional media and on social media platforms. The development of the opinions of Western majorities to the themes mentioned at the beginning of this article is largely the result of these elites” influence on Western public opinion. The collective opinion with respect to climate change is probably the most glaring example of this influence today, considering the significant economic consequences that it will have for Western society.
Libertarianism Is the Only Solution
Political globalization, an antiliberal process which has been underway for several decades, has the effect of aligning national political centers and thus reducing plurality. Gradually, Western political power is flowing toward supranational institutions (like the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum). This centralization of political power, and the resulting economic concentration of business, including concentration of media groups that this has entailed enables and facilitates the formation of public opinion by the Western elites.
The political philosophy that theoretically is best placed to solve this dilemma of modern society is libertarianism, because it clearly argues for a significant and definitive reduction of political power, both nationally and internationally.
One of the strengths of libertarianism is precisely the importance it places on the cultural and intellectual plurality of a free society. This is the famous “marketplace of ideas” which, like the free market in goods and services, can only exist partially with the pervasive crony capitalism and massive State intervention that most Western societies are subject to today. In a free society, that is, a highly decentralized society with a weak State having at most a night watchman role, the formation of public opinion by political elites then becomes impossible.
The present moment in history represents a particular threat to freedom, because the ruling globalist elites now have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the attitudes and opinions of their societies, in their own, often twisted, interests. At the same time, the new and easy access by the general public to alternative analyses and independent information, can counteract this nefarious trend. In these social conditions, Western voices of freedom must continue to present libertarianism, not only for its economic benefits but also as a means of liberating Western peoples from the chains of directed collective opinion.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
If anybody thinks that the recent extreme Pakistani monsoon floods (see Red Cross photo below) and the US-instigated ousting of Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan, are sheer coincidence, might be dead-wrong.
There are no coincidences. Within the timeframe of UN Agenda 2030, or the Great Reset, all is connected.
Source: Red Cross
During a recent conference in Switzerland on geoengineering, a professor of a top European Technical University began his presentation, by saying – there is no need explaining that the current wave of extreme heat waves throughout the Northern Hemisphere, for a record period without interruption, is geoengineered. So let us concentrate on how it’s done.
If heat and drought can be geoengineered, so can extreme rainfall and floods be artificially manipulated.
On 25 July 2018 Pakistan, a country with a 2022 estimated population of close to 230 million, elected the members of the 15th National Assembly and the four Provincial Assemblies, as well as their new Prime Minister.
The 2018 elections were not without violence. But the results were a clear win for Imran Ahmed Khan, an Islamic socialist of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. See table below.
2018 Elections vs. 2013 Votes
The PTI terms itself an anti-status quo movement advocating an egalitarian Islamic democracy. The party aims to dismantle religious discrimination in Pakistan. It claims to be the only non-dynastic party of mainstream Pakistani politics.
The 2018 elections made clear that the people had enough of the US-managed “status quo”. Like the vast majority of the world’s nations, Pakistanis were also seeking sovereign autonomy among the globe’s nation states. The notion of a globalist world and under Washington’s scepter, was not of the Pakistanis. Imran Khan was a popular Prime Minister, of the type Pakistan never had since independence, in 1947.
On 10 April, 2022, prompted by a “silent” Washington instigated – speak corrupted – parliamentary no-confidence motion, Khan lost by a slim margin against a majority of 174 votes (out of 342) in the National Assembly. He was forced to leave the Prime Minister’s Office, thus, becoming the first Pakistani PM to lose a no-confidence vote.
Sworn in as the new PM was immediately Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, as Pakistan’s 23rd and current Prime Minister, as of 11 April 2022. Mr. Shehbaz Sharif came in second in the 2018 elections with 24.35% vs Khan’s 31.82% of the votes. Mr. Shehbaz Sharif is the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) – PML(N) party, a center-right and liberal conservative political party.
The PML(N) is allied with the US, and, therefore, Washington scored the perfect coup d’état; a pre-emptive coup, so to speak. The reason for the non-confidence vote is hardly mentioned by the mainstream media. As usual, they are paid for reporting on western interests, not on the interests of the people, let alone on the values of democracy.
The coup was not taken lightly by the majority of Pakistani people. They voted overwhelmingly for Imran Khan. People expected better and more stable living conditions and, foremost, independence from Washington-wielded western influence.
Geoengineered Monsoon?
As a consequence of this coup d’état, Pakistanis took massively to the streets. Popular unrest was growing – when the monsoon hit – an extraordinary monsoon. According to CNN reports, rainfall nationwide is 2.87 times higher than the national 30-year average, with some provinces receiving more than five times as much rainfall as their 30-year average.
The monsoon season in Pakistan usually runs from July to mid-September. This year it started in mid-June, “coinciding” with the peak of people’s pro-Khan uprising. The monsoon hit with an extraordinary severity, peaking in the last week of August 2022 – and ongoing.
Islamabad was quick in towing the western climate-freak line.
Pakistan’s climate minister warned that Pakistan is on the “front line” of the world’s climate crisis after unprecedented monsoon rains wracked the country since mid-June.
By now some 5 million people were directly affected, more than 1,200 people were reported killed by the flashfloods and up to a million left homeless.
Associated Press (AP) reports that Nearly a half million people were crowded into camps after losing their homes in widespread flooding.
CNN adds that the southern province of Sindh, which has been badly hit by the flooding, has asked the UN for 1 million tents, while neighboring Baluchistan province — largely cut off from electricity, gas and the internet — has requested 100,000 tents.
Extreme floods have hit particularly the north center-west of Pakistan and the southern Province of Sindh. It damaged bridges and road networks across Pakistan, and agricultural crops. In the Sindh Province 90% of agriculture was wiped out. Agriculture damage country-wide will likely produce food shortages and falling export incomes. It’s an economic disaster – in all possible ways.
Pakistan’s agriculture sector plays a central role in the country’s economy. It contributes close to 20% to GDP and absorbs 42.3 percent of the labor force. It is also an important source of foreign exchange earnings and stimulates growth in other sectors.
Juxtaposing these extreme floods to Pakistani politics, may show how the dots are connected.
The Washington-inspired ousting of the highly popular PM Imran Khan created massive and lasting people’s uprising. If left unchecked, they may bring the former PM Khan back.
What better way than deviating peoples’ attention away from politics, then by creating a deadly disaster? And this in disguise of an extreme monsoon, never before experienced in Pakistan’s history?
Death and destruction, imposing devastating economic disaster, has never been a hindrance for the diabolical agenda of those behind Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset. And the WEF is just an executing agency for the corporate and elite financial cabal.
Remember: If heat and drought can be geoengineered, so can extreme rainfall and floods be artificially manipulated.
“Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.” Study Commissioned by the US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning the Weather in 2025, August 1996
Only by being aware of the plan, and by seeing beyond the curtains of fatal deceptions, by stepping above the 24/7 lie-propaganda, may humanity be able to overcome this relentless onslaught.
*
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.
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).
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.
***
An investigation by Raya magazine reveals that Cuba was the target of espionage by Colombian military intelligence agencies under the previous government serving the interests of US agents.
Under the title Espionaje Internacional: Objetivo Cuba (International Espionage, Target Cuba), the publication announced that it had access to thousands of classified documents of Colombian military intelligence agencies where it is evident how they spied on Cuban diplomats and officials, leftist political leaders, journalists and social leaders.
In statements to Prensa Latina, its director Edison Bolaño explained today that as a journalist he has always been interested in Colombia’s geopolitical issues and he was very curious about tensions in the last four years between Bogota authorities and Cuba.
“I began to ask around and obviously, through confidential sources, after many conversations, I managed to gain access to more than a thousand files that reflect a whole espionage apparatus against Cuba and its diplomatic corps based in Colombia,” he said.
According to the journal, information was adulterated in the computer of a guerrilla chief to blame Cuba for the violent protest in Colombia at the end of 2019, 2020 and 2021.
The investigation points out that the target “Charlie” was the name given to the espionage operation against the government of Cuba, including its diplomatic corps in Colombia, was carried out fundamentally during the government of Ivan Duque (2018-2022).
It details that little by little the Colombian spies, without a judicial order, carried out surveillance and monitoring of Cuban diplomats by infiltrating political meetings and commemorations of the Cuban Revolution.
This espionage was done by the military intelligence agency in conjunction with the National Intelligence Directorate, a dependency of the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia, he pointed out.
In some cases, they used sophisticated equipment to breach private communications of diplomatic officials, the investigation showed.
It warns that there are documents in English under the name “Secret/Rel To USA, Colombia” that “come from US intelligence agents”.
In these reports it is clear – says RAYA – that the US agents were also very interested in obtaining information about the Cuban diplomats in Colombia.
The truth is that the Colombian agents did not obtain proof that Cuba was indoctrinating, nor behind the social protests, nor that it was carrying out espionage operations.
Finally, RAYA recalled that “on January 11, 2021, before leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump, using the old policy of the internal enemy and the ‘evidence’ that Colombia had provided, again declared Cuba as one of the countries in the world that sponsor terrorism”.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
History reveals the CIA has an affinity for death lists. In 1990, The Washington Post reported the agency “supplied the names of thousands of members of the Indonesian Communist Party to the army in Jakarta, which at the time was hunting down the leftists and killing them in a crackdown branded as one of the century’s worst massacres” in 1965.
The late investigative journalist, William Blum, wrote in his book “Killing Hope,” that the CIA has assassinated or attempted to assassinate leaders in China, India, Panama, Zaire (then the Congo), Haiti, Cuba, and numerous other countries. (See “The CIA’s Greatest Hits – US Government Assassinations”).
Thus it makes perfect sense the CIA would be involved in compiling a list of “terrorists” for the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) to eliminate. As Max Blumenthal recently tweeted, the Ukrainian Myrotvorets website lists “Langley, VA, USA” as a partner in the effort to track down dissidents and murder them. Langley is the hometown of the CIA.
Note: if you are upset by dead and mutilated bodies, do not visit the website. The front page, above the fold, displays dead Russian soldiers.
According to Whois, an internet domain lookup, the site is registered to OroCommerce, a “digital commerce solutions” company. The OroCommerce website’s front page mentions the Ukraine specifically. It features a “Donate Now” button for something called the “Stand with Ukraine” fund.
The StandWithUkraine website, like much of the corporate media, puts forward a number of lies and falsifications to justify its existence in supporting the Ukraine. The opening paragraph:
“On Feb. 24, 2022 Russia declared an unprovoked war on Ukraine and launched a full-scale invasion. Russia is currently bombing peaceful Ukrainian cities, including schools and hospitals and attacking civilians who are fleeing conflict zones.”
YouTube is replete with interviews of Ukrainians escaping the violence (most are now deplatformed). Invariably, they claim the UAF (Ukrainian Armed Forces), in particular its neo-Nazi contingents, have fired upon them as they attempted to escape the fighting. The truth is the opposite of what is claimed by StandWithUkraine and the western corporate media. The UAF has occupied hospitals and schools and used them as firing positions.
No stats on the eight year terror campaign against the civilians of Donbas are included on this heavily biased website. According to the United Nations, the number of casualties in Donbas (as of July, 2021) was 13,200–13,400 people killed and 29,600–33,600 wounded.
“A report from human rights watchdog Amnesty International claims the Ukrainian military is guilty of the widespread use of tactics that constitute war crimes, including using populated residential areas, schools, and hospitals as de facto military bases,” Washington Examiner reported on August 4.
In other words, the media, NGOs, and almost the entirety of the US Congress (including the senile wreck occupying the executive), have turned the truth on its head in astounding Orwellian fashion.
Some members of Congress are demanding Putin be assassinated, an attitude that would be more than welcome at Myrotvorets. In particular, the demented warmonger Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted in March:
“The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country—and the world—a great service.”
Evgueny Karas, outed in June as both a neo-Nazi (leader of SICH-C14) and an SBU agent, has given interviews denouncing Jews, gay people, and of course any ethnic group, especially Russian, that is not of “pure” Ukrainian blood. C14 is implicated in a number of violent events, including the murder of journalists.
The SBU excels at torture and murder. For instance, 74 year old Diana Prokofevna Nikiforova, “was told that she was a member of a sub-race in Ukraine, that of the Russians, whose language was no longer recognized, whose history and civilisation were being mocked,” according to Donbass Insider. She was mercilessly beaten for three hours by SBU goons. The abuses of the SBU and its ultranationalist leadership are too many to list here.
A SBU torture victim, simply known as “Larissa,” wrote for the Donbass Insider,
Today in the World, in Ukraine and in the United States, Nazism is rampant, how can they not react and how can they not understand in the West? And then we saw hundreds of Maydan activists arrive, with weapons, in black uniforms, SBU forces and people who came from Western Ukraine, with Biletsky and Mosiychuk. Very quickly they fired into the street and in April already they murdered three people. Terror spread, the city of Kharkov, which I love so much, was under the control of these brigands.
The Myrotvorets now include westerners on their murder list, including the popular former member of the progressive rock band Pink Floyd, Roger Waters. In addition, the Nazis of the Ukraine want to kill Hungary’s Viktor Orban, and Nobel Prize winner Zoran Milanovic. “Ukrainian writer Oles Buzina and former Verkhovna Rada parliamentarian Oleg Kalashnikov” were assassinated after Myrotvorets published their home addresses, reports Debt-Stop.
As for the US love and appreciation of the tactics of real Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, the CIA imported hundreds of Nazis in the late 40s and early 50s, many serious war criminals. This occurred secretly at the time under Operation Paperclip. Much of the information about this criminal program remains classified.
After Russia finishes its special operation to disarm and de-nazify the Ukraine, will the US allow Ukrainian Nazis to emigrate to the US?
Probably not. Most of them will either be eliminated or imprisoned in Russia.
*
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.
Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In addition, energy prices have reached a level that threatens the existence of many companies. Just this week, German toilet paper company Hakle filed for bankruptcy, with the owners citing unsustainable energy and material costs as the primary factor. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that Europe’s steel industry, which requires massive amounts of cheap natural gas to run, is slashing production and facing severe financial headwinds. Other sectors, such as chemical production, agriculture, and automating are all facing unprecedented hurdles as the energy crisis continues to grip Europe.
Cries for help from the once booming German economy are now coming from business leaders, associations, and consumers, with the Federation of German Industries (BDI) also warning of a wave of bankruptcies due to energy cost inflation. A new analysis by the BDI states that this is a major challenge for 58 percent of companies, and 34 percent believe the current crisis represents a matter of survival. Germany is no exception either, with warning from the United Kingdom showing that six in ten manufacturing companies face the risk of closure due to the energy crisis.
Some German companies, attempting to survive in an increasingly challenging environment, are claiming they are looking to move production overseas.
Almost every tenth company has already reduced or even interrupted production, while every fourth company is considering or is already relocating company shares or parts of production and jobs abroad where costs are often cheaper than Germany.
The situation is also coming to a head in the skilled trades.
“In the trades, a wave of insolvencies is rolling towards us because of the energy crisis,” said president of the Central Association of German Crafts, Hans Peter Wollseifer, to the Rheinische Post. “Every day, we receive emergency calls from companies that are about to stop production because they can no longer pay the enormously increased energy bills.”
Even though the coronavirus pandemic represented a severe threat to many German businesses, the downturn due to the energy crisis is expected to be much worse. Governments and central bankers are also constrained with their policy choices. Unlike the coronavirus crisis, they can no longer throw hundreds of billions in stimulus at the problem, as it would likely greatly exacerbate already high inflation.
However, despite alarm bells, there is some sign that up until now, the German economy has held up despite various economic threats. The number of insolvencies was still stable in June, according to the Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
“Despite the energy crisis, supply chain problems, and the gradual phase-out of Corona aid, the insolvency situation is still pleasingly robust,” said IWH expert Steffen Müller. In June, 709 partnerships and corporations filed for bankruptcy, which was slightly below previous months and actually almost exactly the same number as in June 2021. Müller said he did not expect increased numbers for July or August either.
However, severe headwinds remain on the horizon, including rising interest rates, energy prices, and an increase in the minimum wage in October to €12.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The first world leader to call President George W. Bush after 9/11 was Vladimir Putin. In fact, he had called him two days before, on September 9, to warn Bush that, based on unfolding events he had observed in the environment, he had “a foreboding that something was about to happen, something long in preparation.”
Watching the twin towers being struck, Putin immediately phoned President Bush to offer his condolences and understanding. When his call couldn’t reach Bush because he was on Airforce One, Putin immediately spoke to Condoleezza Rice, asking her to pass his message to Bush. The next morning, Putin reached Bush and assured him that “in this struggle, we will stand together.”
Putin offered more than understanding and standing together: he offered total support for whatever Bush decided to do. He and Bush later spoke on the phone for forty minutes. The next Monday, Putin offered to share intelligence with the US, to permit the US to use Russian airspace for humanitarian assistance, to participate in search and rescue operations and to increase military assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. He even stunned the Americans by offering, after an initial hesitation and against the advice of senior Russian military commanders, to allow US troops in Central Asia. The US would establish bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
Russia’s intelligence sharing was of great value because, during its own war in Afghanistan, it had gained detailed knowledge of the country. Russian intelligence provided a veritable map for the US, helping them navigate Kabul and the many mountains and caves. Even before 9/11, by June 2000, Russian intelligence was sharing information on the terrorist threat from Afghanistan.
Putin was still hoping, at this time, to improve relations with the US and the West. He hoped that his assistance to and cooperation with the US would facilitate that relationship. Putin saw the tragedy of 9/11 as a moment to show the US that a world order was possible in which Russia was a partner. In a speech in Washington in November, 2011, Putin said,
“It is very important that the interaction between our countries in fighting terrorism does not become a mere episode in the history of Russian-American relations, but marks the start of long-term partnership and cooperation.”
But in return for helping the US to win the war in the same country the US had lured the Soviet Union into to lose its war decades earlier, Russia got nothing, and NATO remained committed to expanding east. By 2004, the “big bang” of NATO expansion had moved NATO into the Baltic countries and right up to Russia’s border.
Francis Richards, then head of the GCHQ, Britain’s NSA, once said, according to Philip Short in Putin,
“We were quite grateful for Putin’s support after 9/11, but we didn’t show it very much. I used to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade people that we needed to give as well as take . . . I think the Russians felt throughout that [on NATO issues] they were being fobbed off. And they were.”
On 9/11, Jiang Zemin, the president of China, was watching the terrorist attacks on TV. It took him less than two hours to call Bush to offer his sympathy and his support.
China’s response to 9/11 would grow more complicated as the war in Afghanistan grew more complicated, and China began to fear a prolonged US military presence in their neighborhood almost as much as they feared the Taliban’s terror threat and influence globally and in their own country. China feared the US military on its borders, its Pakistani ally being compelled to allow US bases on its territory and supply routes through its territory and the possibility of a strictly pro-US government being set up in Afghanistan.
As the war dragged on, China would not fully back either the Taliban or the US, maintaining diplomatic relations with the Taliban and even supplying them with arms.
But in those first hours in September, 2001, the Chinese leader immediately called the American President and offered his support. According to Andrew Small in The China-Pakistan Axis, China offered intelligence sharing and minesweepers. They even allowed the FBI to set up an office in Beijing. The US rejected much of China’s offer to help, but China offered it.
Iran, also, came to America’s aid after 9/11. After the terrorist attacks in the US, Iran immediately sided with the US against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The reformist president, Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, wanted to improve relations with the US and, like Russia and China, saw the tragedy as an unfortunate opportunity to prove their partnership and friendship.
Iran arrested hundreds of the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters who had escaped into her borders. Iran documented the identity of more than two hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban escapees to the United Nations and sent many of them back to their homelands. For many others who couldn’t be sent back to their own countries, Iran offered to try them in Iran. Iran also followed up on an American request to search for, arrest and deport several more al-Qaeda operatives that the US identified.
The Northern Alliance, who provided many of the anti-Taliban fighters once the Americans and their allies invaded Afghanistan, was largely put together by Iran, who placed it in the hands of the US. Iran offered its air bases to the US and permitted the US to carry out search and rescue missions for downed US planes. The Iranians also supplied the US with intelligence on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets.
Iranian diplomats were secretly meeting with US officials as early as October 2001 to plan the removal of the Taliban and the creation of a new government in Afghanistan. At the Bonn Conference of December 2001, Iran played what Iran expert and author of Losing an Enemy, Trita Parsi, called an absolutely crucial role in setting up Afghanistan’s post-Taliban government.
In return, like Russia, Iran got less than nothing: all the US gave them was a membership in the Axis of Evil.
Russia, China and Iran, three of America’s arch enemies all offered their hands in friendship after 9/11. Those hands were full of, not just words, but of real support. The world might be just a little better today had the US taken those hands and, as Francis Richards said, shown gratitude and given as well as having taken.
*
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.
Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.
Featured image: The World Trade Center south tower (L) bursts into flames after being struck by hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 as the north tower burns following an earlier attack by a hijacked airliner in New York City in this September 11, 2001 file photo. REUTERS/Sean Adair/Files (UNITED STATES DISASTER POLITICS)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Two U.S. B-52 bombers flew a mission over the Middle East on Saturday in an apparent show of force in the region, the fourth of its kind this year, the U.S. Air Force announced Sunday.
The U.S. has frequently flown such missions at points of high tension with Iran, per AP.
The big picture: The nuclear-capable B-52 departed from a Royal Air Force (RAF) base in Fairford, England, and “flew over the Eastern Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula and Red Sea before departing the region,” the Air Force said in a statement.
The U.S. bombers were accompanied by warplanes from the RAF, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, while representatives from 16 nations helped organize logistical support, per the press release.
Israeli warplanes also accompanied the mission, though their presence was omitted from the U.S. release.
The Israeli military said that several of its fighter jets joined the mission “through Israel’s skies on their way to the (Persian) Gulf,” adding that working with the U.S. military is critical to “maintaining aerial security in Israel and the Middle East,” AP reported.
The last flyover mission of this kind was in June, the press release noted.
*
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.
Featured image: A B-52 Stratofortress arrives at RAF Fairford in 2018. (Photo: USAF / Ted Daigle)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
What right does the United States have to starve civilians to achieve political goals? Despite its obvious importance, this question is largely absent from mainstream discourse. Through economic sanctions, or economic warfare, the U.S. can unilaterally collapse economies and generate famine in foreign countries. The civilian death toll from sanctions is often equal to—and sometimes greater than—the toll from conventional warfare. Yet on both sides of the aisle, it is taken for granted that we have the “right” to impose destitution on civilian populations in order to advance our interests.
What are Sanctions?
The U.S. administers two types of sanctions: primary and secondary sanctions. Primary sanctions cut off economic relations between targeted foreign entities—states, individuals, industries, or corporations—and the American economy. Secondary sanctions, also known as “extraterritorial sanctions,” are more pernicious. Secondary sanctions impose sanctions or other penalties on third parties not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. if they refuse to cease economic relations with the entity under primary sanctions. For example, the U.S. imposed both primary and secondary sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Therefore, the U.S. prohibits American citizens and corporations from conducting business with the bank (primary sanctions), and imposes sanctions on any foreign state, individual, or corporation that chooses to work with the CBI (secondary sanctions).
Many legal scholars and most of the world, including the European Union, maintain that these secondary sanctions clearly violate well established principles of international law, interfere with the sovereignty of foreign governments, and are ultimately illegitimate.
However, due to the threat of being cut off from the American economy and the dollar, nations are often forced to comply, regardless of their legal or moral qualms.
Sanctions and Civilians
Through sanctions, the U.S. can, in effect, collapse foreign economies with the stroke of a pen, inflicting punishment on civilian populations. The current sanctions on Syria, for instance, established in the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019,” bar foreign entities from participating in Syria’s desperately needed reconstruction effort and obstruct the flow of humanitarian aid and other basic necessities. The sanctions were ostensibly enacted to punish the Assad regime and to promote human rights, but instead have devastated Syrian civilians.
Sanctions are About Politics, not Human Rights
Our political leaders consistently claim that we impose sanctions in order to protect civilians and promote human rights.
Despite this rhetoric, it is clear that the imposition of sanctions is totally inconsistent with these alleged values. Rather, like other tools of American foreign policy, sanctions are correlated with the interests of American elites. States that align themselves with the interests of the U.S. are spared from sanctions, and states that refuse, or choose to align themselves with an American adversary, are not. Defiance is a much better predictor of whether sanctions will be levied than a state’s human rights record.
Sanctions and Bipartisanship
Despite international condemnation and the devastating toll and human suffering caused by sanctions, criticism in mainstream circles is scant. These sanctions are, unfortunately, totally bipartisan. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019—which is currently threatening Syrian civilians with mass starvation—was introduced by Democratic Representative Eliot Engel, passed with bipartisan support, and then was signed into law by President Donald Trump. The 2017 bill which drastically increased sanctions on Iran—and subsequently sharply increased poverty and a lack of access to basic, lifesaving medicines—was passed in the Senate by a 98-2 vote. Only Senators Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul voted against the bill.
Establishment politicians from both parties have routinely campaigned on their support for sanctions, most prominently Hillary Clinton. Despite widespread criticism of the Clinton Administration’s devastating sanctions policies on Iraq in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton campaigned both in 2008 and 2016 on the promise to drastically tighten sanctions on Iran. Moreover, Clinton’s 2016 campaign website boastedof the fact that she “oversaw significant accomplishments” while Secretary of State, including “building a global coalition to impose crippling sanctions against Iran,” creating the “toughest sanctions regime in history.”
Only Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and a handful of congressional democrats have ever defied the bipartisan consensus and expressedfull-throated opposition to sanctions. In the mainstream liberal establishment, it is fully accepted that the U.S. has the right to impose these sanctions, regardless of the terrifying humanitarian toll. It is assumed, without question, that the U.S. should be allowed to collapse economies, generate famine, and drive civilian populations into destitution to achieve political—not humanitarian—goals.
But how would we feel if this assumption was universal, and we were the victims of this type of economic warfare?
Here, a thought experiment may be revealing. While unrealistic due to the immensity of American power, imagine if, in response to the unlawful American invasion and destruction of Iraq, the international community enacted broad sanctions on the U.S. Imagine that these sanctions—like the sanctions we impose—collapsed our economy; caused a severe shortage of lifesaving pharmaceuticals; increased hunger, unemployment, and destitution; and directly led to the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of Americans. To those who support sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy: would this hypothetical outcome be just?
To say yes is utterly callous. But if we say no, we are equally callous, but also hypocrites.
*
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.
The US is currently importing over $1 billion per month in Russian wood, metals, food and other goods. More than 3,600 ships from Russia have arrived at American ports since February 24, according to statistics cited by the Associated Press.
In the midwestern city of Columbus, Ohio, 20-year-old Donovan Lewis was shot to death while lying in his bed during the early morning hours of August 30. Police claimed they were serving an arrest warrant on multiple charges although there was no threat from Lewis who was unarmed.
During a White House briefing on the new COVID-19 bivalent booster shots, Dr. Ashish Jha, Biden’s COVID-19 response coordinator, urged Americans to get a flu shot and a COVID-19 shot at the same time, claiming that’s why “God gave us two arms.”
Those who drafted the Bill of Rights recognized that human rights are pre-political. They precede the existence of the government. They come from our humanity, and, in the case of privacy, they are reinforced by our ownership or legal occupancy of property.
Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan told reporters recently, that Ankara needs to “secure further steps with Syria.” He added, “You have to accept that you cannot stop political dialogue and diplomacy between countries. There should always be such dialogue.” Ankara’s goal, he added, was not to defeat Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.
The U.S. regime demands nothing less than to take over Russia. Putin fights against that; and that fact could be the best possible single explanation why his job-approval ratings are, and have been, vastly higher than those of his American counterparts have been. It’s a possibility that America’s propaganda-agencies (alias ‘news’-media) never even so much as consider.
The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers.
We cannot stop this silent takeover of the American economy, and of the Earth’s economy, a takeover making use of the covert devaluation of money, the reduction of the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury to agents for the rich, unless we confidently and bravely propose an alternative and simultaneously declare that the monetary and currency policies of the “public private partnership” of the billionaires are illegal and immoral.
With the passage of the 2022 Defense Authorization Act giving the executive branch sweeping powers over the use of the military in all domestic affairs, and with the obvious obsession by a supranational deep state technocracy intent on imposing a final endgame scenario onto the United States, it is important to recognize the historical precedent of the attempted Bankers’ Coup of 1934 that sought to impose a fascist puppet dictator into the White House.
The Argentine judicial system and parts of its national press are co-opted by the US to advance its objectives in the New Cold War through an intensification of Hybrid Warfare with elements of piracy and Lawfare.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
There were “terrible flaws” in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials — and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration knew it, Alexandra (Sasha) Latypova told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”
There were “terrible flaws” in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials — and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew it, according to Alexandra Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive who reviewed nearly 700 pages of documents Moderna submitted to the FDA as part of its application process.
Latypova, who has 25 years of experience in pharmaceutical research and development, started a number of successful companies — primarily focused on creating and reviewing clinical trials.
On a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” she told Kennedy what she learned after reviewing the Moderna documents, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.
Latypova told Kennedy that out of nearly 700 pages, about 400 pages are irrelevant studies that Moderna repeated multiple times.
Moderna also submitted three versions of a single module, she said. And one module contained only narrative summaries of Moderna’s studies, but no actual study results.
“So we are still missing a large number of results, such as full reports that are supporting those narratives,” Latypova told Kennedy.
The FDA “obviously did not object” to any of this, she said. “That’s evidence of collusion to me with the manufacturer.”
Latypova also discussed Moderna’s clinical trials timeline. She said the Investigational New Drug (IND) application meeting is supposed to occur with the FDA when the company initiates human clinical trials.
Moderna and the FDA had a pre-IND meeting on Feb. 19, 2020, and the IND application was formally opened the next day. The global pandemic was declared on March 11, 2020.
“Somehow these visionaries could predict the future with such certainty that they opened a clinical trial for the vaccine, for which a pandemic was announced a month later,” Latypova said.
There is normally only one IND application for one product. In this case, however, there are two IND applications — one belonging to Moderna, and one belonging to the National Institutes of Health, which partnered with Moderna on its COVID-19 vaccine.
Latypova also told Kennedy that Moderna did not conduct studies to determine if its mRNA vaccine affected male fertility.
“We have no idea what [the vaccine] does to young men who want to have children in the future,” she said.
The documents also confirm that Moderna’s trials studied the vaccine’s delivery mechanism, but not its payload, which in this case is the spike protein.
“They want you to believe that … you can … have a truck filled with food, or you can have a truck filled with explosives,” Latypova said. “They’re saying it doesn’t matter. Focus on the truck. It’s the same truck, doesn’t matter what’s inside.”
In the end, Latypova said, “They’re desperate to vaccinate every single person on the planet because they don’t want you to know what’s going 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.
Rachel Militello has worked extensively as a legal assistant at law firms and newspaper companies. She is also a self-published author of poetry that is geared toward mental health awareness.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Just two days before the 9/11 attack, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky singlehandedly launched the Global Research website.
Among the first articles was a coverage of the events surrounding the “terrorist attack” and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.
Since then, Global Research has been committed to delivering facts that are buried elsewhere — from US-NATO imperialistic ambitions, war crimes, crimes against humanity, to worldwide COVID-19 tyranny, and the imminent danger of nuclear war.
So much has changed since 2001 but our mission remains the same — to uphold the fight for truth, peace and justice.
On our 21st anniversary, we would like to extend our deepest gratitude to our authors and readers for all their contributions and support all through the years. Our thanks also to all independent voices, journalists, scholars, lawyers, scientists, medical doctors, health professionals and activists for challenging the establishment’s lies at the expense of their career and safety.
Even before but more so at the onset of the pandemic, we have been the object of censorship that has affected our worldwide reach. We’ve been blocked from mainstream social media platforms. In April this year, we were threatened with coordinated cyberattacks emanating simultaneously from five countries targeting Global Research with several hundred million “malicious DoS requests” (“A Denial of Service”).
For this year onwards, we only have one wish: that more and more people will awaken to the truth and fight for freedom and rights.
Help us sustain our mission and fulfill our wish:
1. Become a member of Global Research and be our messenger to the world.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Note: An earlier version of this book under the title The 2020/21 Worldwide Corona Crisiswas initially published as an online E-reader in December 2020 (distributed free of charge, more than 300,000 page views). The new edition includes five new chapters. All the chapters contained in the first edition have been thoroughly revised and updated.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In the midwestern city of Columbus, Ohio, 20-year-old Donovan Lewis was shot to death while lying in his bed during the early morning hours of August 30.
Police claimed they were serving an arrest warrant on multiple charges although there was no threat from Lewis who was unarmed.
The police in Columbus say that Lewis raised his arms and therefore this justified the bullet fired into his body causing him to die at a hospital shortly afterwards. The officer involved in the killing of Lewis, Ricky Anderson, a 30-year veteran of law-enforcement, has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal and judicial investigation.
This act of blatant police violence represents a continuation of the legacy of law-enforcement brutality and killings across the United States. Although the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police more than two years ago sparked widespread demonstrations and rebellions demanding the defunding of law-enforcement agencies, the current administration of President Joe Biden, who pledged during his campaign in 2020 to address the concerns of the African American people and other oppressed communities, has increased monetary resources for cops while still seeking the electoral support of people of color.
Police in their public statements have said that two other people in the apartment with Lewis had already exited the residence. Anderson, the police shooter, was also a member of the K-9 unit which had a dog on the scene of the raid.
According to a report from the Columbus Dispatch which quoted the lawyer for the Lewis family, Atty. Rex Elliot:
“There’s no indication he (Lewis) was aware of what was happening outside. The two individuals were handcuffed very quickly. There’s no indication there was violence in that apartment or about to happen. He was asleep before officers arrived and had no warning that CPD would burst into his apartment. Donovan was alone in his room, in his bed. He almost immediately shot as Donovan was trying to get out of bed. He was abiding by police commands to come out of his room when he was shot in cold blood by officer Anderson. There was no justification for officer Anderson to shoot an unarmed man trying to get out of bed as police officers were instructing him to do. I’d like to know why in the world they’re executing warrants at two in the morning. The reality is felony warrants are executed every day in daylight hours. There’s no reason for it to be served in the middle of the night.”
In response to the outrage exemplified by the community and the legal counsel for the Lewis family, the police have attempted once again to shift the narrative from the 20-year-old African American being a victim of law-enforcement personnel to suggest that this young man was somehow responsible for his own death. The police in every single incident of unprovoked brutality and killing calls upon the public to view the situation within its “totality.”
Image: Donovan Lewis killed by Columbus police on Aug. 30, 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
Nonetheless, there is no reasonable excuse for someone who is unarmed to be killed in their bed. People in Columbus have rejected the police version and are demanding the firing and prosecution of the officer who carried out the execution.
There was a rally held outside the Columbus police headquarters on September 2 where the father of Donovan, Daryl Lewis, and the mother, Rebecca Duran, spoke to a crowd of protesters. Later there was a march through the downtown area of Columbus demanding justice for the family and people of this municipality of 905,000 people.
A coalition which organized the rally presented a series of demands for the City of Columbus to adopt. The Justice, Unity & Social Transformation (JUST) formation wants the municipality to resolve the current crisis of police-community relations.
“In the aftermath of Lewis’ death, J.U.S.T. organizers are demanding the immediate firing and arrest of Anderson; the elimination of overnight warrants; a meeting between Lewis’ family and Police Chief Elaine Bryant, Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther and Director of Public Safety Robert Clark; an independent investigation separate from the one the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation is conducting; the erasure of qualified immunity for police; more city funding for mental health and social services and less for public safety; and no K-9 teams unless warrants for drug-related offenses are being served.”
Columbus Cited in Study of Frequency in Police Shootings
This violation of the human rights and personal safety of Donovan Lewis and his place of residence is not an isolated affair in Columbus. The police are noted for their frequent and repeated use of lethal force.
“A study released in February 2021, showed Franklin County, Ohio — which encompasses Columbus — has one of the highest rates of police shootings in Ohio and in the nation. The study, conducted by the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health, ranked Franklin County 18th among the 100 most populous counties nationally on average for annual police-related fatalities. In Columbus, there have been 62 shootings involving Columbus police officers since 2018, including Lewis’ shooting. Of those 62 shootings, 19 have resulted in a death, according to data from Columbus police and the Columbus Dispatch.”
These statistics are reflective of the overall atmosphere in the U.S. There is no discussion within the halls of Congress or the White House in regard to curbing, let alone eradicating, the level of police violence against oppressed and working class people.
Failure of the White House and Congress to Enact Police Reforms
The demonstrations which arose over the last two years have served to create the political conditions for the election of President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party dominance within the House of Representatives and the equally divided Senate. However, no guarantees within the law have been adopted to protect the rights of people most impacted by racism and national oppression.
A bill passed during August ostensibly to address the problems of runaway inflation related to energy and food prices not experienced in 40 years and the looming problems related to prescription drug costs and climate change were conveniently folded into a pre-election package to convey the notion that the legislative apparatus and the administration can work effectively to pass bills. However, these measures will not help the family of Donovan Lewis and the many other victims of police terrorism.
Earlier in the year in the same state of Ohio, Jayland Walker of Akron, was gunned down in a barrage of a hundred bullets, over 40 of which struck the young African American man. Since this time period, the City of Akron has engaged in every effort to blame Walker for his own victimization.
During early September, the city leaders in Akron released more video footage of the June 27 execution. Yet there has not been any definitive action taken to rectify the situation and provide justice to the bereaved family and community.
Municipal officials have released video footage of the Walker killing in separate segments which can easily be misleading to the public. Much of the video has been edited and blurred making it difficult to piece together the chronology of events leading up to Walker’s death.
In a statement released to the public and media through their lawyer, the Walker family noted:
“Now, two months after Jayland’s death, we have received just hand-picked videos, which the City has also released to the media in an apparent effort to build its own narrative of Jayland’s death. We call on the City to stop re-traumatizing the Walker family with these repeated edited video drops and release all unedited videos to their counsel in one comprehensive collection.”
The silence on the part of the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland, the White House and both houses of Congress on the persistence of police violence occurring across the country, comes at the same time when the Democratic Party is urging the African American electorate to go out in mass to vote for their candidates in local, state and federal elections. Neither the Republican or Democratic Parties are speaking directly to the concerns and interests of the African American people and all other oppressed and working people.
Irrespective of the outcome of the November ballot, if the questions related to racist violence and police brutality are not corrected there can be no genuine peace in the U.S. The Biden administration and other future presidents will continue to look very hypocritical in their attacks on other states and geo-political regions when they cannot provide just, safe and stable living environments for the ever-increasing minority communities in the U.S.
*
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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Donovan Lewis mother turns away from video of police killing of her son (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
Shocking: UK Government Admits COVID Vaccinated Children Are 4423% More Likely to Die of Any Cause & 13,633% More Likely to Die of COVID-19 Than Unvaccinated Children
Europe’s Energy Armageddon from Berlin and Brussels, Not Moscow
America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 out of 239 Years – Since 1776
Dr. Michael Yeadon: The Most Important Single Message I’ve Ever Written
The Planned Fall 2022 “Epidemics Tyranny”
Video: The Corona Crisis and the Criminalization of Justice. Reiner Fuellmich and Michael Swinwood
Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government, and World War Three?
Will the Tragic Fate of World Stars like Celine Dion and Justin Bieber Open the Eyes of their Fans? Impacts of Covid-19 Vaccine
9/11 Unanswered Questions: Mysterious September 11, 2001 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill
PfizerGate: COVID-19 Vaccination Causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Peer-Reviewed: 94 Percent of Vaccinated Patients with Subsequent Health Issues Have Abnormal Blood, Italian Microscopy Finds
Digital Trails: How the FBI Is Identifying, Tracking and Rounding Up Dissidents
The Military Situation In The Ukraine. Jacques Baud
Warning: Gates-Funded Factory Breeds 30 Million Mosquitoes a Week for Release in 11 Countries
On the Nature of Russia’s Military Campaign in Ukraine. Analysis of Russian Military Strategy
World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealed
Was the Kremlin’s “Limited Military Operation” in Ukraine a Strategic Blunder?
The COVID-19 Power Grab as “Organized Crime”. A Multi-faceted Deception
The High-Speed Bivalent COVID Boosters Are Here
Ukrainian Air Staff Suffer ‘Catastrophic Losses’ by Russian Forces
