Israel has continued its war on journalism with another attack on Al Jazeera, this time with a raid on the outlet’s office in the West Bank and an order to shut down for 45 days. The shuttering occurred despite the office being legally under Palestinian control per the Oslo Accords.
Israel keeps attacking Al Jazeera, assassinating journalists and bombing press offices for the same reason the mafia kills witnesses. They want to commit their crimes in the dark.
You shut down the press, kill journalists in record numbers and ban foreign reporters when you have a lot to hide. https://t.co/EKNgqqsAag
Having destroyed Al Jazeera’s office in Gaza, and killed much of its staff there,
having outlawed Al Jazeera from broadcasting in Israel,
having admitted executing Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh (after lying that Palestinians did it),
Israeli troops have now invaded Al Jazeera’s office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, supposedly under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and shuttered the channel’s operations.
This is the latest attack on journalism by Israel: over the past year, it has killed more than 170 journalists, most of them Palestinians, and barred all foreign correspondents from reporting from Gaza.
When will the US and UK proscribe Israel as a terrorist state?
When will western media organisations and western journalists speak up in solidarity with their terrorised colleagues in occupied Palestine?
Israel hates truth.
Israel hates truth for the same reason anyone has ever hated truth: because the truth about them is ugly.
During the Iraq war/GWOT, the U.S. attacked Al Jazeera relentlessly, bombed its facilities, killed its Baghdad correspondent and locked a cameraman in Guantanamo. Israel has repeated this pattern. All journalists must condemn these violent assaults on freedom of the press. https://t.co/vDNMic2Vlu
The more I live and learn the more convinced I am that everything ultimately comes down to seeing. Clear perception is what moves things toward health, and the lack of clear perception is what keeps things in dysfunction. The more clear perception there is, the more things move out of dysfunction and toward health. This is true whether you’re talking about your own personal psychology, or the largest power dynamics in the world.
This is why profoundly ugly governments like Israel and the United States constantly attack the press, churn out propaganda, manipulate narratives, participate in online information ops, use censorship, and obstruct visibility via government secrecy. The truth about them is ugly, so they work to prevent the truth from being clearly seen.
You will see this same dynamic happening in your personal life with the nastier individuals you interact with. They pour a tremendous amount of energy into pushing and pulling at the way you see them, the way you see others in your circle, and the way you see yourself. They speak maliciously about others in private conversations and present a different face out in the open. They manipulate perception to make themselves seem big and shiny and make others seem small and unworthy. They work to inflate your view of them and devalue your view of yourself.
Even within yourself you’ll see this same dynamic. All our psychological dysfunctionality is driven by subconscious wounds, trauma and coping mechanisms that we have not yet coaxed out into the light of consciousness, and if we are really honest with ourselves the reason we have not done so is because some ugly truths are hidden within our inner darkness that we’d prefer not to look at. It takes a lot of courage and a fierce dedication to truth to bring all those inner demons out into the light where they can be healed, but it’s the only way to become an authentic person.
Everything ugly in our species clings to the darkness and avoids being seen, whether it’s experiences in early childhood that we’d rather not examine, unhealthy interpersonal relationships, or the most murderous and depraved impulses of the most powerful empire in human history.
And in all cases the treatment is the same: do everything we can every day to expand seeing at every opportunity. On the level of the personal this looks like rigorously honest and courageous inner work. On the level of the interpersonal this looks like paying attention to the ways abuse and manipulation play out in yourself and the people you know, and cultivating truth-based relationships with truth-driven people. On the level of the collective this looks like using every means at your disposal to help spread awareness of the abuses of our rulers and the abusive nature of the systems we live under, using your own unique gifts and abilities.
Seeing is the first step toward health, which is why every unhealthy aspect of humanity does everything it can to avoid it. We will not have a healthy world until we become a conscious species, and we will not become a conscious species until we all have unrestricted perception, both inwardly and outwardly.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“All around the world, national legislatures are going to be forwarding suspiciously similar looking pandemic preparedness bills that will have all of this, all of these tools for control.” – James Corbett, from this week’s interview
From the Pandemic Treaty, to the Summit of the Future, to Agenda 2030, multiple pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are coming together to form a picture of a world governed for the most part by a technocracy, with centralized control in the hands of a few unelected figures from on high.
James Corbett started to study this subject, from the time he realized the hole in our common knwledge is a rabbit hole taking him deeper and deeper. But he also maintains a positive attitude, even when observers listen with despair to the sad signs he sees on our horizon. He joins is this time to tell us about the new generation of “Replicon” vaccines, Pandemic preparations going through multiple national legislatures, “monkeypox” as the next pandemic and more. James spoke to Global Research during a fascinating and disturbing conversation on the 17th of September.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Global Research: As I understand it, there was a major demonstration put on by critics in Geneva, a Geneva convoy aimed at opposing the WHO pandemic treaty and the Pandemic Treaty that didn’t get passed, at least not in a form that all of us recognized or expected. So, at least a partial victory of sorts. Could you apprise us of what happened last May? And in your opinion, did the WHO just kick the pandemic treaty further down the road until later, or did the people successfully kick the WHO in the guts?
James Corbett: I suppose it is how you look at it.
But I’m certainly not resting on my laurels or patting myself on the back or, oh, everything’s done here. No, unfortunately, this is a war of attrition. And just because the worst didn’t happen in Geneva in May does not mean that it’s not an ongoing process.
In fact, quite the contrary. We talk about the Pandemic Treaty not having passed, but really that’s only because they weren’t able to finalize and get all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed in time for that World Health Assembly. But they’ve just kicked it, as you say, kicked the can down the road to later this year, potentially.
They have talked about the potential of holding a special World Health Assembly later this year to rubber stamp whatever they come up with. Or at the very, very least, next year, at the next World Health Assembly, they will have a Pandemic Treaty ready. So, unfortunately, all of that momentum and interest and enthusiasm amongst the freedom community, freedom supporting community out there, free humanity, they know how to take that energy and just divert it or cool it down or give people a sense of a victory so that they sit back on their laurels.
And it is interesting, actually. You mentioned, for example, that Geneva convoy that was taking place. But from my perspective here in Japan, it’s been amazing to see the pushback against the biosecurity agenda that’s been taking place and really gaining momentum in Japan, especially this year.
We’ve had a number of remarkable events I was just writing about with regards to the replicon vaccine, which is the self-amplifying mRNA vaccine, which is sort of an upgrade or downgrade, I suppose, depending on which way you’re looking at it, of the mRNA vaccine platform, which is essentially all of the worst parts of the mRNA vaccine, but even worse because it also includes a replicase protein, which will then encode for more of the mRNA within your own body that then encodes the proteins like the spike protein or whatever else Big Pharma wants to have circulating around in your system. And so if you are concerned about the mRNA vaccines and what the effects they are having on the global population, you should be very concerned about the prospect of self-amplifying mRNA vaccines and the potential, although we don’t really know all of the potential effects of this because, of course, it is not a thoroughly studied technology. It is a brand new experimental medical technology that has already been approved for use here in Japan and is due at this point to start rolling out in the next few weeks when the fall COVID-19 vaccination program starts here in Japan.
They are supposedly getting ready to start using the self-amplifying mRNA vaccines. This is very concerning and thankfully the Japanese people are starting to really wake up about this en masse. We saw earlier in January a vaccine study group here in Japan of some prominent doctors who held a really remarkable press conference talking about the problems of the mRNA vaccines and the many, many effects that they are having on the population.
We saw a massive rally against the WHO in April, which was then parlayed into an anti-WHO group here that’s about protecting the Japanese population from the global biosecurity agenda and stopping what they are calling the third atomic bomb, the self-amplifying mRNA vaccines that they say the government is now preparing to drop on its own citizens. We’ve seen another rally that took place in Tokyo in May. Tens of thousands of people, which featured a speech from a former Japanese minister, a cabinet minister who is still a sitting parliamentarian, who talked about his own experience developing cancer after having received the vaccine and tying those two things together, and then actually apologizing to the public, saying that these vaccines should have been tested more, they’ve been rolled out inappropriately, they’re having a horrible effect, actually apologized to the Japanese public for it.
Startling stuff. Just last month…
GR: The media in Japan, are they promoting this stuff as well?
JC: Well, just last month, NHK, which is the Japanese national broadcaster, the equivalent of the CBC, on its popular morning program aired an entire segment about mRNA vaccine side effects and things that have been happening to people, vaccine adverse events, because, as they put it in their own broadcast, we’ve received thousands of requests from viewers out there. Thank you very much.
So here’s our presentation. So they laid out an entire presentation about the mRNA vaccines, talked to people who were suffering from adverse events. Just two days later, the current minister of health in the Japanese government said, on a pretty significant walk back from the safe and effective line that we’ve heard from every, basically, health ministry in the world, said that we… I can’t remember the exact phrasing of this, so don’t quote me on this, but it was something to the effect of, we cannot guarantee the safety.
As to the safety of these vaccines, we can’t speak to that. Something along those lines. Anyway, it was a remarkable walk back from the position we were expected to hold.
And now, next week, there is going to be an international COVID summit, which will include not only people from around the world flying in to give presentations and to interact with prominent Japanese doctors about this issue, but also they will be giving a parliamentary presentation at the Japanese parliament as part of a press conference that’s happening. And there will be another massive rally in Tokyo coming up next Saturday on the 28th. So there is a lot of activity happening here, as you would expect in a country that is facing what they are calling the third atomic bomb.
GR: It sounds like the Japanese population is waking up way more than… Apparently the Canadian population… I mean, notwithstanding we’ve had certain people speaking up, but it’s pretty much quashed by the mainstream media. I think that maybe you could talk a little bit about looking at COVID-19 in retrospective as the dust settles, so to speak.
Now, the next pandemic that they’ve been talking about, it could just be around the corner. Now, a month ago, the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced an upsurge of MPOX in the Democratic Republic of Congo and a growing number of African countries who said that… WHO said it constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. I think the MVABN vaccine that just got added to the pre-qualification list, which is necessary for timely and increased access to communities in urgent need.
And as with COVID-19, no evidence was supplied regarding the virus’s existence. You know, it relies overly much on the RT-PCR test to detect it, which is really not good for diagnosis, as the Nobel Prize winning inventor of RT-PCR announced.
I mean, he’s dead in 2019. But with this device, you can create a scare factor around the virus, making me think this could be COVID-19, the sequel, okay, MPOX. It is apparent based on much of the reporting that I’ve done on the show, that you’ve done on your show regarding the pandemic, that it played a role of healing people.
It seemed to have been an attempt to test a new vaccine, not for health, but for control, and for seeing just how far you can push against democratic principles and so on. I mean, getting the entire world to lockdown, all of that stuff. So I’m wondering, what role do you think this MPOX virus will play? Is this a sequel to COVID-19? Is it maybe an off thing? Because, I mean, what is similar and what is different about this latest pandemic scare, in your opinion?
JC: Well, I think the similarities are obvious, as you point out several of them already.
And we see essentially with COVID-19, even preceding COVID-19, we see the template of how these types of pandemic scares will presumably continue to work until the public stops falling for them, which is to say PCR tests creating an appearance or a belief in a widespread phenomenon that is affecting public health. And for that reason, as we’ve already seen, they can lock you in your home, they can force you into quarantine, they can force you to use digital apps to scan your location, they can use contact tracing, etc., etc. The precedent has been set.
Now it’s just a question of finding the right trigger that will scare the public enough. And whether or not monkeypox, and I will continue to refer to it that way, because I remember a year ago when that was what it was called, but I don’t know if that is particularly going to be the one that will be the scandemic sequel, but it certainly is a candidate, as is many others. In fact, I’ve always found it quite humorous that one thing that the WHO has been warning about is Pandemic X, whatever.
They literally say, well, is this some sort of hypothetical thing? It could be anything, we don’t know. But in the future, where there will be some sort of Pandemic X and this X thing will have these properties and it will kill however many millions of people. And it’s literally something they just made up.
They’re literally saying it’s a hypothetical thing that we’re just making up, but we should be prepared for it. So it is on its face ridiculous. But I think it shows the actual connection between so many of these different threads that we’re talking about.
Not only the biosecurity agenda, finely detailed as it may be, but also the broader agenda that’s rolling out and how it connects in to that quest for world government, which I think is ultimately what all of this is really about. And we can see that, for example, from the UN Pact for the Future, the Summit for the Future that’s taking place, or is about to take place in New York, where they are going to be deciding on whatever they’re going to be deciding on with regards to an emergency action platform that will give the Secretary General of the UN special emergency powers and whatever other authoritarian nonsense they are dreaming up is just one part of that agenda. Another part is using the biosecurity scare to enact changes, for example, to the food supply.
And if that sounds like a strange leap, well, here we go. How about in Canada right now? Bill C-293, that is Bill C-293, is currently making its way through the Canadian Senate. It is called an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, which is, of course, presumably all about how do we prevent the next pandemic, monkeypox or whatever that may be.
And this has apparently been forwarded by a Liberal Party backbencher. It has already been approved in the House and is now making its way through the Senate. And apparently what this means is, given the wording, and I would suggest people go and actually read the context of Bill C-293 so they can see it for themselves, but it starts talking about regulating commercial activity to specifically prohibit any activities that may potentially give rise to some sort of pandemic in the future, including industrial animal agriculture.
And it also then instructs the Minister of Agriculture to promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins. And that phrase may not mean anything to people at the first level. What does that mean, promotion of alternative proteins? Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the Eat Ze Bugs agenda, they want you to eat insects.
That is going to be your new main diet staple in this new normal that they’re trying to bring in on the neo-feudal plantation. You are going to be eating bugs. And part of that, they are calling it alternative proteins.
It’s a protein derived from, say, cricket powder and other such things that are now being approved for human consumption for the first time in the history of many. The European Food and Safety Administration has just approved, for example, cricket protein to be sold for human consumption, etc. This is called alternative proteins.
And now this is being embedded in Bill C-293 in the Canadian Parliament that’s talking about pandemic preparedness. So we have to start eating bugs? I mean, this is how every aspect of this global agenda starts to interlock. And to a certain extent, it almost, I won’t say gives the lie to, but shows how the WHO Pandemic Treaty and all of that, to a certain extent, is window dressing.
Because this, at the end of the day, is going to be enacted in every nation state’s national legislature. And it’s going to be passed as, for example, Bill C-293 in Canada and whatever Senate bill or whatever in the United States, etc., etc. All around the world, national legislatures are going to be forwarding suspiciously similar looking pandemic preparedness bills that will have all of this, all of these tools for control.
Another thing embedded in Bill C-293 is contact tracing, of course, because the government needs to be able to have the communications technologies and facilities to be able to know everyone you’re interacting with all the time. So that in case you fall ill, well, they’ll be able to track everyone you’ve been in contact with. And that power would never be abused by any government, surely.
So again, you start to see how under the cover and pretense of a sufficiently ginned up scare that gets the public worked up enough that they will give up their basic fundamental rights, the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, right? As long as you are scared enough to be able to willingly give up those rights, the government will come along and take them gladly. And unfortunately, again, this is not just a Canadian problem. This is a global problem.
It is happening in country after country all around the world. It is happening right now. And until we stop giving away our basic rights in the event of any perceived threat, and most of these threats are complete ginned up nonsense, but even if there was a real threat, that still does not give the government the right to come in and completely control my activities and start telling me to eat the bugs and all of this other self-evident nonsense.
GR: James, on the subject of Bill C-292 and other legislations that are going up in countries around the world, is there a negative in terms of people bringing forward things like, I don’t know, something like ivermectin or anything else like that that’s going to be pushed as an alternative to the WHO treatment? Is there some inconceivable mechanism that’s going to even more profoundly marginalize those alternatives?
JC: Yes, but the real operative question is, treatment for what? Because as you say, this PCR test is something that is really not fit for purpose for diagnosing anyone with anything. It is a tool that can be used to gin up the perception of some sort of pandemic. But was there really a pandemic? And of course, researchers like Denis Rancourt there in Canada have talked about and gone in deeply into the statistics surrounding the appearance or lack thereof of an actual pandemic threat that did or did not take place in 2020, 2021.
And he came to the conclusion that there was not a pandemic event that took place just based on the statistics alone. And he’s done a lot of important research on that. So really, the question we should be thinking about is, well, is the response, the hysterical, tearing down the fabric of our society response that we saw in 2020 and 2021 really proportional to what we experienced in our actual lives? And if not, then what really happened there? And why is it happening? And I think that gets probably closer to the point.
I mean, yes, certainly people have talked about ivermectin and other ways of combating these spreading pathogens, etc. And I am certainly not here to tell. I’m not a doctor.
I don’t play one on TV. People’s personal health and the decisions they make. Great.
Good for you. I’m sure you can do that better than I can do that for you. But having said that, I think the obvious, the 10,000 pound elephant in the room that cannot be discussed is that health is fundamentally about preparedness, not preparedness, prevention of illness.
And prevention of illness involves being healthy, eating healthy, engaging in a healthy lifestyle, disentangling yourself from the glowing screen, going outside in the sunlight, grounding your feet on the actual earth, spending time in physical activity, all of these things that tend not to make money for major corporations and big Pharma, etc., which is precisely why the prevention side of all of this is completely and utterly neglected. And the mantra of the mainstream establishment message over the past few years is you got to get a needle in your arm. That is health.
And once you have your needle in your arm, you know, anything. And the epitome of that particular nonsense was the giving away of free Krispy Kreme doughnuts. If you get your vaccination, you can get some doughnuts.
You’ll be doubly healthy. You’ll have the experimental medical technology in your arm, and you’ll have some doughnuts to clog your arteries with. It’s laughable.
It’s ridiculous. It’s utterly stupid. But I feel like I’m the one taking crazy pills because am I the only one who sees this?
GR: Well, I can think of an interesting take on what you’re saying, and that’s with regard to what’s happening in Gaza right now, where the genocide-like actions are taking place, you know, committed by Israel, and people are subjected to bombings.
They’re also starved of food. Water supply, half of the water supplies in the place have been destroyed. Medical supplies you can’t get in, and basically the Israeli government yet is helpful enough to allow health care workers in to administer a polio vaccine once it was discovered that polio is back in the region.
I mean, after all the indifference the Israeli Defense Forces have shown toward Palestinian women and children over the last 11 1⁄2 months, I don’t think that protecting them from polio really makes a lot of sense. I mean, what’s behind, you know, is the vaccine. I mean, in spite of all the weapons that are being aimed at Gaza, I mean, is this vaccine an exception to that rule? I mean, is it really about saving lives, or what is it about?
JC: Well, I think you answered your own question there, because it clearly and obviously is not about saving lives.
In the midst of this, I won’t even dignify it with the word war zone. It is a slaughter zone where innocent men, women, and children are being bombed to smithereens every single day, but we’re going to pause that at certain times and certain places so that everyone can gather to get the shot in their arms so that they won’t get polio. On its face is just ludicrous nonsense on every level.
Every part of that story is stupid. But what does it signify? Why, then? What is really behind this? The absolute most basic level that we can always proffer as one reason for these things to happen, clearly the corporations, the corporatocracy that puppeteers so many of our national governments, has a strong interest in, at the very least, the incredible propaganda opportunity here. Look, hey everybody, look how important it is to get your vaccines.
We will literally stop this random wanton slaughter just so that people can make sure they get their vaccines because we love you and it’s good for you. And that idea gets embedded in the public consciousness if they simply accept a story like that without questioning it. So, yes, bottom line, profits, sure.
That is certainly part of it. But there does seem to be a deeper agenda to this, doesn’t there? Because I don’t think money simply explains all of what we have seen rolling out in the past few years and what we see on the plate right now. I think this has to tie into what I keep pointing out is essentially every aspect of my work for the past 17 years and presumably the next 17 years is, we’ll continue to stress, this is about a much bigger agenda that has been identified in many ways by many people over the years.
It’s been called the New World Order agenda or it’s been given many names. But the essential kernel of the idea is a global governmental system ruled over by a central, unelected, unaccountable body that will be issuing dictates and mandates to global citizens. And that can take many different forms.
We could preserve the nation-state infrastructure but have it as a system like what we’re seeing right now where the WHO is creating this Pandemic Treaty that may or may not ever get passed, but every single national legislature is forwarding these various pandemic preparedness bills that essentially do all of that within those national legislatures. So that’s kind of the vision of what we see rolling out before us right now. All of this is taking place within the context of an oligopoly, an oligarchy and an oligopoly that is attempting to solidify and centralize a position from which they can dictate mandates for the global population to control the world’s resources, including, of course, its natural resources and also its human population.
And unless and until we face that dark reality square in the face, because all my life, at any rate, that has been derided as crazy conspiracy theorizing, unless and until we can completely and utterly discard that thought-stopping pejorative of conspiracy theory and face this reality as it is coming into view, unless and until we can do that, I don’t think we have a chance of turning the tide against this agenda.
GR: Okay, I’ve got about 30 seconds left, but is there anything else you’d like to say to our listeners on the subjects at hand before we conclude our conversation?
JC: Absolutely. Well, as always, the most important thing is what we can be doing about this.
The number one thing right now is the number one political priority. We need to withdraw from the UN completely, totally. No questions asked, no holds barred.
Withdraw from the United Nations. That is the seat from which they are trying to wield this power right now. And unless and until that becomes a political policy and a point that people are out on the streets protesting about, I don’t think we have a chance against this.
Os parlamentares europeus tomaram uma decisão muito perigosa ao votarem a favor da autorização de ataques de longo alcance contra o território profundo da Rússia. Chamando a agressão ucraniana de “direito à autodefesa”, os políticos europeus deram um passo significativo em direção a uma escalada de violência que poderia facilmente levar a uma fase aberta no atual conflito entre a Rússia e a OTAN.
Uma resolução votada no Parlamento Europeu em 19 de Setembro aprovou uma recomendação para autorizar ataques profundos contra a Rússia. A resolução estabelece uma série de medidas que aumentam a escalada de tensões, incluindo o aumento dos gastos militares, a imposição de mais sanções e o confisco de bens russos. Contudo, o ponto central do documento é o pedido formal aos países fornecedores de armas de longo alcance para autorizarem o uso de tais equipamentos contra alvos militares russos fora da zona de conflito.
O texto da resolução afirma que as restrições à utilização de armas ocidentais pela Ucrânia prejudicam o direito à autodefesa e devem, portanto, ser abolidas. Atualmente, a maior restrição está no uso de armas de longo alcance contra alvos profundos, uma vez que os ataques transfronteiriços já estão oficialmente autorizados. Temendo uma escalada, os fornecedores de mísseis de longo alcance pedem que as suas armas não sejam utilizadas em áreas alvo muito distantes da zona de conflito, mas os eurodeputados apelam ao levantamento desta regra.
“(O Parlamento Europeu) insta os Estados-Membros a levantarem imediatamente as restrições à utilização de sistemas de armas ocidentais entregues à Ucrânia contra alvos militares legítimos em território russo, uma vez que isso prejudica a capacidade da Ucrânia de exercer plenamente o seu direito à autodefesa sob a lei internacional e deixa a Ucrânia exposta a ataques à sua população e infraestrutura”, diz a resolução.
A adoção desta resolução pró-guerra refletiu a preocupação de centenas de eurodeputados sobre a possível deterioração do apoio militar à Ucrânia. Vários relatórios recentes indicam que a Europa está perto de reduzir significativamente a assistência militar, dada a deterioração da indústria de defesa local. Por esta razão, o lobby pró-guerra na UE está a fazer o seu melhor para manter o atual nível de apoio – ou expandi-lo – através da aprovação de novos documentos legais no Parlamento Europeu.
Os parlamentares europeus destacaram a redução do fornecimento de armas e munições como uma das principais ameaças à Ucrânia. A este respeito, a resolução recorda acordos internacionais assinados entre os países ocidentais e Kiev para enfatizar a alegada importância de manter a assistência militar a um nível elevado, bem como de expandi-la constantemente.
“(A resolução) Sublinha que as entregas insuficientes de munições e armas e as restrições à sua utilização correm o risco de minar os esforços enviados até agora e lamenta profundamente o declínio do volume financeiro da ajuda militar à Ucrânia por parte dos Estados-Membros, apesar das fortes declarações feitas no início deste ano; reitera, por conseguinte, o seu apelo aos Estados-Membros para que cumpram o seu compromisso de março de 2023 de entregar um milhão de munições à Ucrânia, para acelerar as entregas de armas, em particular de sistemas modernos de defesa aérea e de outras armas e munições, em resposta a necessidades claramente identificadas , incluindo mísseis Taurus; apela à rápida implementação dos compromissos assumidos em compromissos conjuntos de segurança entre a UE e a Ucrânia; reitera a sua posição de que todos os Estados-Membros da UE e aliados da OTAN devem comprometer-se coletiva e individualmente a apoiar militarmente a Ucrânia, com pelo menos 0,25% do seu PIB anualmente”, acrescenta o texto.
Como era de se esperar, a medida europeia foi celebrada pela grande mídia. O Politico publicou um artigo elogiando a forma como os parlamentares europeus apelaram a ataques ao “coração da Rússia”. As possíveis consequências da medida foram completamente ignoradas, sendo o foco dos jornalistas ocidentais simplesmente o elogio à irresponsabilidade da resolução.
Na Rússia, por outro lado, a notícia foi recebida com advertências. Moscou tem dito repetidamente que ataques profundos seriam vistos como uma declaração de guerra pela OTAN, uma vez que se sabe que apenas militares ocidentais estão qualificados para operar sistemas de longo alcance. Os políticos russos comentaram a resolução europeia, dizendo claramente que a UE está a “apelar à guerra nuclear”.
Deve ser enfatizado que as resoluções do Parlamento não criam obrigações para os Estados-membros, mas servem apenas como uma espécie de orientação. No final, cabe a cada estado europeu decidir se levanta ou não as restrições. No entanto, dado o elevado nível de belicosidade anti-russa, não seria surpreendente se este tipo de medida irresponsável fosse adotada. Resta saber se os países que realmente fornecem armas de longo alcance tomarão esta decisão.
A paciência e o desejo da Rússia de evitar a escalada e de cooperar para a paz impediram, até agora, que fossem tomadas medidas de retaliação adequadas. Contudo, no caso de ataques profundos, seria difícil evitar uma resposta, uma vez que este seria um cenário de guerra aberta iniciado pela própria OTAN
Washington parece compreender claramente a linha vermelha da Rússia, mas os europeus agem sem qualquer mentalidade geoestratégica. Talvez os EUA estejam a induzir os países europeus a permitir estes ataques, a fim de testar a paciência da Rússia, usando a França e a Alemanha como cobaias para ver se haverá ou não uma resposta nuclear. É importante que os países europeus compreendam a armadilha que estão a criar para si próprios – caso contrário, poderão cruzar um ponto sem retorno na escalada militar.
Serbia’s leadership are lucky that international law does not prescribe liability for political malpractice. If it did, they would find themselves in the dock.
As if Serbia had other viable options and acting with brazen contempt for the vital interests of the country, they have rudely turned down the Russian President’s courteous invitation to attend the forthcoming BRICS conference in Kazan on 22 October, reaffirming vocally instead their commitment to the “European path.” Ironically, at approximately the same time a revealing report ordered by the European Commission and authored by former EU commissioner Mario Draghi was published, with less than glowing conclusions about the Union’s competitive future. The report was redacted in insufferably tedious bureaucratic prose and it may have been unintelligible to Serbian officials. But even without Draghi’s hints, there is plenty of compelling evidence that the European Union is experiencing a deep structural crisis affecting its political, economic, and ideological dimensions. The question asked by savvy Europeans is not whether it is competitive, but whether it has a future. Hence, the stiff-necked refusal of official Serbia to even consider reasonable alternatives that could benefit their country is as breath-taking a demonstration of political malpractice, or malfeasance to put it more accurately, as has ever been witnessed, anywhere.
Public opinion poll data confirm the existence of a deep discrepancy between the servile pro-European Union rhetoric of the ruling Serbian nomenklatura and the views of the ordinary citizens of Serbia. A public opinion survey conducted in mid-May 2024 by the Russia Today news organisation on a representative sample of the Serbian public has yielded results that, had it been mindful of the opinions of those it governs, should have led the government to urgently recalibrate its political course. A minority of 45,4% of Serbian respondents are currently in favour of joining the European Union. But if joining were predicated on Serbia’s recognition of the secession and “independence” of Kosovo, an overwhelming majority of 80% of the Serbian public would be opposed. European Union officials have repeatedly stressed that without that condition being met Serbia would be barred from joining, so it would seem evident that “No, thank you” is the actual response to EU membership of four-fifths of the Serbian people.
Interestingly, surveys conducted by collective West entities such as Voice of America have yielded very similar results. VOA finds that only 40% of Serbs would be prepared to vote in favour of entering the EU, roughly matching RT’s data. We do not know how VOA respondents would have reacted if admission to the EU were conditioned on the recognition of Kosovo because that option was not included in the published version of the results. But given the public’s mood, one can easily extrapolate what the response would most likely have been.
Curiously, RT and Voice of America poll results are in broad concordance on other issues as well. RT has found that 84,6% of surveyed Serbs oppose sanctions against Russia and that 76.1% hold the collective West and its Kiev proxy responsible for the conflict in Ukraine. As for the aforementioned Voice of America survey, it found that only 10% of the Serbian public support an “unequivocally pro-European Union and pro-Western course” and that a “majority of the Serbs indicated they want Serbia either to maintain ties to Russia or pursue a pro-Russian foreign policy.” Claiming that “the pro-Western trend in the region is strong,” Paul McCarthy, the International Republican Institute’s director for Europe, is quoted as telling Voice of America that ”Serbia goes against the grain of the other five countries in the region; it is more pro-Russian, blames the West for the conflict in Ukraine, has very low approval ratings for joining the European Union.” And, to add insult to injury, only 3% of Serbs would favour joining NATO.
What is keeping the Serbian government from reflecting the clearly articulated political preferences of its citizens, as found by pollsters of both interested parties in the current geopolitical confrontation? Spinning such devastatingly congruent findings is virtually impossible.
Nor would it be possible, disregarding the results of bogus “elections” and assuming that the principle of political accountability were even minimally respected, for such glaring discrepancies between the declared will of the people and the conduct of their “representatives” to occur.
This is a question that should be of the utmost practical interest not just to the Serbs, but even more urgently to Russian policy makers.
The succinct answer is that the alienated political elite are doing precisely what they were installed in the position of power to do. In Serbia, after the October 2000 color revolution takeover executed with money and logistical support furnished by Western special services, the rulers’ constituency are not the citizens but the foreign forces that set them up and that sustain them in power. To that effect, an immutable system has been established which permanently functions for the benefit of foreign interests and to the detriment of the country. The system is independent of the cosmetic, periodic regime changes and it is unaffected by the selection of individual puppets, all of whom follow the same general line. They all invariably perform at the pleasure of their curators, like the bought and blackmailed pawns on the chessboard that they are.
That exactly is the pattern, copy/pasted in Serbia, that is seen throughout the collective West. Shielded by a simulacrum of “democracy” whilst acting through corrupt, visible pawns, from the background it is the largely unseen forces of peculiar spirituality and imbued with a ferocious Molochian ideology that relentlessly implement policies abhorrent to the politically impotent citizenry. Events in those captive societies are directed by them through their puppets toward outcomes that virtually no one desires but all are powerless to resist. Just ask the Irish, who are uselessly protesting as their remonstrances are cruelly ignored by their alienated government. Or ask the English, who at the hands of the tyrannical government they had just “democratically” elected are suffering levels of arrogance and two- tier justice repression by comparison to which Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands might appear to many as decidedly mild.
The ordinary people of Serbia are in exactly the same position. Those pretending to represent them are impostors.
There are two things that official Russia must now do. The first is to ground its policy in the sharp distinction between the Serbian people and those who in international forums fraudulently monopolise the right to make decisions and speak in their name.
Granted, in international relations civility ought to be the preferred norm and to the degree possible governments should be treated with diplomatic discretion, even if their pretensions and legitimacy are questionable. But in serious policy planning such governments should never be conflated with those they rule when plainly that would be unwarranted.
The second thing that the critical mass of Serbs expect from Russia is a more intense and demonstrative people to people and even more importantly at the present moment government to people engagement. Whatever one may think of Stalin, at the end of World War II he wisely noted that German regimes come and go, but what always remains is Germany for the Soviet Union to deal with. Russian policy in relation to Serbia should take its cue from that eminently based observation and henceforth treat only the Serbian people as Russia’s enduring political partner.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Shutterstock/Dmitriano Hanov
Rethinking Srebrenica
By Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has cancelled a meeting he planned to hold in New York with leaders from Latin America and the Caribbean on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. The reason is the low number of participants, as reported by Brazilian media.
According to an article published on September 17 by Folha de S. Paulo, the invitation, sent in August, received few confirmations of attendance. This follows Russia’s absence from the June summit organized by Switzerland to address the war. Only 11 of the 33 nations in the region participated, and the majority, such as Brazil, did not send heads of state.
At the same time, the Brazilian and Chinese governments are organizing a meeting on the sidelines of the UN assembly to release a joint proposal for peace in Ukraine. Zelensky rejected the Sino-Brazilian initiative as “destructive.”
The lack of support for Kiev from Latin American and Caribbean countries is just the tip of the iceberg, especially since the conflict has already been largely deflated, with less relevance on the international scene and media coverage, especially since the Hamas attack on Israel last year.
At the same time, Ukraine has been losing support from various sides, especially from the Global South—including Latin America and the Caribbean—which has avoided showing support for either side. For example, Brazil has tried to appear neutral regarding the conflict since the beginning, but President Lula is becoming increasingly critical of the Kiev regime.
The growing loss of support has to do with Zelensky behaving like a spoiled child who, at any cost, even at the expense of his own people, is trying to engage in a war that cannot end in a Ukrainian victory. Latin America recognizes that Russia has already sent proposals to Zelensky to try and pacify the conflict, but Ukraine is always trying to escalate. It is easy to see that Zelensky is using this narrative of victimization to try to garner support and demonstrate personal power, which does not benefit either side.
Recent events indicate that countries in Latin America and the Global South have little to gain by unrestrictedly supporting any parties involved in the conflict. With this in mind, Latin American countries have opted for diplomacy and neutrality in relation to the conflict. There is also the complexity of external influences in economic and political terms, with initiatives and activities dominated by China and Russia, followed by the West. Consequently, most nations in the Global South avoid openly committing to an alignment with either side.
The Global South, which encompasses Latin America, Asia, and Africa, has seen Russia as a more politically engaged actor that recognises the economic importance of these regions. Russia has highlighted the role of BRICS and the need to deepen relations with the Global South, both within the context of BRICS and in other multilateral forums, such as the G20. China, in turn, exerts strong commercial influence, being the leading partner of several countries in the Global South.
Different ideals have weighed heavily on the Global South in confrontation with the narratives of the West, Russia, China, and other nations, and this is having an influence on their views towards the Ukraine War. The current international scenario is marked by the influence of several poles, making the calculation of state actors much more complex in decision-making and giving them greater room for maneuver since they no longer depend exclusively on the West and its interests.
The involvement of the BRICS countries, particularly Brazil and China, playing active roles in elaborating the joint peace proposal for Ukraine indicates a push towards multilateralism and the defence that countries do not isolate themselves in economic or political groups. This is evident in the preparation of the joint peace proposal for Ukraine drafted by Brazil and China, suggesting that non-Western countries may prefer diplomatic and peaceful solutions outside the scope of NATO, which is a military alliance. This effort aligns with the broader BRICS goals of promoting a multipolar world order, which will likely have repercussions in discussions during the UN General Assembly.
Low participation in Zelensky’s meeting could also be interpreted as a sign of the difficulties NATO faced in disseminating its narrative among non-Western countries. NATO’s narrative is increasingly centered on a zero-sum logic, defending exclusive interests in relation to Russia, which makes the search for a negotiated solution to end the conflict more complex and difficult to achieve. No peace proposal by NATO countries would be successful since the organization has acted in prolonging the war, such as through constant weapon deliveries to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.
Therefore, it is possible that proposals originating from other countries, such as those from Latin America and Africa, will have greater weight within the international community over time, and NATO’s discourse will become weakened because it is a directly interested party in the conflict.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Between Tuesday and Wednesday, 32 people were killed and about 4,000 injured by exploding handheld devices, including pagers, walkie-talkie radios, mobile phones, laptops, and even solar power cells across Lebanon, with two children among the dead. Many of the injured lost fingers, hands, and eyes, with some 300 in critical condition according to the Health Ministry’s press briefing on Thursday morning.
Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, gave a televised address on Thursday evening. Nasrallah explained how Israel had sent direct and indirect messages on Tuesday threatening the Lebanese resistance that more attacks would follow if the attacks on Israel continued. The Wednesday attack was a follow-up of the threat from the previous day.
Nasrallah called the Israeli attacks a ‘declaration of war’ and a ‘war crime’. Belgium’s Foreign Ministry called it an act of ‘terrorism’, with other Western countries also condemning it.
Nasrallah reiterated that to stop the attacks on Israel, a ceasefire in Gaza must be put into effect.
Hezbollah discontinued the use of mobile phones among its operatives because Israel was capable of listening in. Instead, the Lebanese resistance group started using pagers and walkie-talkies.
The pagers were sold under the name Apollo Gold, a well-known Taiwanese manufacturer. However, investigators confirmed that they were not made in Taiwan but by a Hungarian firm, BAC Consulting, which had a contract from Taiwan to use the Apollo Gold brand name.
According to the New York Times, BAC was an Israeli shell company set up to mask the identity of the Israeli agents who inserted explosive material and a remote detonator capability into the pagers.
According to leaked intelligence to Al-Monitor, the explosions were planned to go off at the start of a full-scale war against Lebanon. Still, a leak alerted two members of Hezbollah to the danger, and the Israelis detonated the devices on Tuesday.
Hezbollah had attacked Israel on August 25 and among the targets was the elite spy center known as Unit 8200. 22 Israelis were killed and 74 wounded at the cyber-spy headquarters.
When the pagers exploded on Tuesday, many analysts saw the attack as a response to the attack on Unit 8200.
The Israeli spies who planted the explosives in the pagers were most likely from Unit 8200.
Hezbollah has been calibrating its attacks and minimizing casualties to avoid justifying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to start a full-scale war against Lebanon. The US administration of President Joe Biden has been asking Netanyahu to reign in the extremist elements in his cabinet who are pushing for a regional war.
Israel has been waiting for Hezbollah to lose patience so that they can start a full-scale war. Media reports from Tel Aviv say Netanyahu will fire Yoav Gallant the Defense Minister. The two have a tense relationship, but Gallant seems to accept that his next mission will be a full-scale attack on Lebanon.
According to the Times of Israel, Gallant said Israel’s focus has moved to the northern front as a “new phase” of the war is beginning. Lebanon’s Foreign Minister saw the attack on Lebanon as a signal to a wider war.
Netanyahu knows that he could stop the Hezbollah attacks on Israel by agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden got Netanyahu’s promise of a ceasefire in July, but later Netanyahu reneged on his agreement and used the excuse of demanding Israeli troops on the Philadelphia corridor. Once it was clear to Biden that Netanyahu would not agree to any ceasefire, under any terms, Biden stepped out of the race for a second term as President.
Netanyahu is bound to keep the war going in Gaza, despite not having achieved his military goals there, because he is in office only as long as he does the bidding of two Ultra-Extremist Jewish settlers, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich. If Netanyahu loses their support in his cabinet, his coalition will fall, and Netanyahu will go to jail on past corruption charges.
From the beginning of the war on Gaza, Netanyahu has been determined to destroy Hamas, and his second goal has been to destroy Hezbollah. Military experts have cautioned that his goals cannot be achieved because the resistance to occupation can never be stopped. An army can kill leaders and fighters, but the desire for freedom and independence can never be wiped out. India and South Africa are both examples of winning independence from colonial rule.
With the Biden Oval Office flying on auto-pilot, Netanyahu feels this is the unique chance to start a major war in Lebanon, which the US government will pay for. He knows from his standing ovations speech at the US Congress, that Israel is assured of US military support during a war in Lebanon. Netanyahu has calculated that the time is right because if Donald Trump were to win in November, he might pressure Netanyahu to a ceasefire and stop the blank check for weapons. Trump has proved in his previous term in office that he is not in favor of foreign wars in which the US taxpayers have to pay the bill.
All eyes are on the skies of Lebanon, as the hours passing by bring us closer to a possible war that has not been seen in its scope for 50 years.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In the fourth revision of the Pact for the Future the request to present “protocols for convening and operationalizing emergency platforms” has been replaced with the more watered down: “consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations’ system’s response to complex global shocks within existing authorities”.
.
.
.
This is somewhat of a relief for all of us who has warned about the consequences that these platforms can have on our human liberties if triggered, but it remains to be seen what this means in practice, as the wording leaves room for interpretation.
.
.
Stimson Center writes in their Emergency Platform Brief that “some, especially G77 states and China, are likely to contend that ‘complex global shock’ is essentially a code for great power interests [no shit, Sherlock], and that this template necessitates assembling global resources only in the service of the influential”, but adds that “none seem to have been entirely dismissive” to the idea of an Emergency Platform.
We can be assured that the technocrats will try to find other ways to implement the Emergency Platform-toolbox within the current system.
But the changed paragraph fortunately means that the Climate Governance Commission’s advice (for the Summit of the Future) to declare a planetary emergency, and trigger the setup of an Emergency Platform for “urgent coordinated action” won’t be possible to implement at this time.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The American Psychological Association (APA), which infamously conspired with the CIA to justify torture during the Bush-era “war on terror”, published a new children’s book last month to “pre-bunk” children from conspiracy theories.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The APA’s new Magination Press kid’s book titled True or False? The Science of Perception, Misinformation, and Disinformation, mis/disinforms its young readers on several topics, including racism, gender, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here Are 9 Dystopian Lessons Being Taught to Children in APA’s New Book of “Science”
Lesson #1. Trust the Experts
“During the COVID-19 pandemic,” the book says there was “seemingly conflicting information from scientists”. This is a patently false message. Statements from the experts were not “seemingly conflicting” but completelycontradictory, on several big issues, including masks, vaccines, and the virus’s origin.
.
.
Instead of teaching kids to exercise critical thinking, when it comes to COVID-19, the book tells kids the experts did nothing wrong: “[T]his was just how science works”! The book then blames the spreading of false information and death on “friends and family”.
“Since people were very worried, they talked to friends and family about the virus a lot. This meant false information was spread quickly.”
.
.
Lesson #2. Don’t Ask Questions
Asking a question is a crucial step in the scientific process. For example, Khan Academy, Museum of Natural History, and Encyclopedia Britannica, all include asking questions at the top of their flowcharts and summaries of the scientific method. However, the APA’s science book doesn’t include asking a question anywhere in its chart of the scientific method. Instead, the “science” book teaches kids to “beware” of questions.
“[D]isinformation can be spread just by asking a question…Especially if the person asking…can’t even answer their own question!”
.
.
The book’s example of such “disinformation” is a girl humbly asking a logical question: “I’m not a scientist but why would we have all this snow if global warming was real?” The book draws another kid reacting to the girl as if it’s crazy to ask basic questions, “WHAT?!”
.
.
Lesson #3. Corporate Media Is Good & Trusted!
Another lesson teaches kids that corporate media gatekeeping is good and “trusted”. See the friendly gatekeeper man? Only true information passes through the media gatekeeper gates!
.
.
“Unlike books, newspapers, or trusted news shows, the internet does not have a gatekeeping mechanism. It doesn’t have a way to fact-check information for accuracy before it is made available to the public. This means a lot of what you read or see online or on social media might not be reliable. Or exactly true. And some people can take advantage of that to spread disinformation.”
Notice there’s no mention of how people at the “newspapers and trusted news shows” can also take advantage of “gatekeeping” to spread disinformation.
Lesson #4 Only White People Can be Racist!
The book misleadingly suggests only “minority groups” and “people of color” can be negatively stereotyped and victims of racism, omitting the obvious fact that white people can be negatively stereotyped and victims of racism too.
.
.
Lesson #5 “Some People Say” = Research
The book conflates “research” with “some people say”. Underneath the headline, “CHECK OUT THE RESEARCH,” the book shares no research but says Black lives are at risk in American workplaces because “Some Black people say…code-switching is necessary…simply to survive and keep safe…”
.
.
Lesson #6. No Biological Difference Between Boys & Girls
The APA book’s example of logical fallacy misleadingly suggests there’s no athletic difference between boys and girls. Likewise, when asking young readers why boys might play more team sports than girls, the book only mentions cultural reasons, not biology, which according to the scientific literature (published by APA) also plays a strong factor.
.
.
Lesson #7. Russia Russia Russia!
The “science” book also touches on foreign and domestic politics. Russia is the only country mentioned to spread disinformation, which gives kids the false impression that Russia’s the only country that spreads disinformation.
.
.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is presented as only a victim of disinformation, and never a purveyor of disinformation herself.
.
.
In reality, Hillary Clinton spread disinformation about Trump/Russia collusion, falsely accusing her political opponent of both treason and “stealing” the 2016 election.
According to the Bad News game, the first step to becoming a “disinformation and fake news tycoon” is making a public complaint about the government.
.
.
Lesson #9 Conspiracies Aren’t Real!
APA’s book also directs children to the YouTube channel of John Cook, the creator of another “disinformation” game, Cranky Uncle, which like Bad News, is designed to dismiss anyone questioning the government as a crazy kook.
.
.
Cook’s 2nd most viewed video smears “conspiracy theorists” for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab—a belief now supported by “the experts” and an overwhelming amount of evidence.
The APA’s book dedicates five pages to villainizing “conspiracy theories” and suggests that merely learning about conspiracy theories “makes people think…that truth doesn’t matter”.
.
.
But of course some conspiracy theories are true. For example, after many denials, APA later apologized for secretly collaborating with the CIA on torture.
.
.
Maybe if my new report is shared enough, APA will one day have to address all the misinformation it’s spreading into the minds of children.
.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Soviet Union collapsed when Soviet President Gorbachev was placed under house arrest by hardline elements in the Politburo who were alarmed by the rapidity with which Gorbachev was establishing friendly and open relations with the West.
For the hardline American neoconservatives, the Soviet Collapse removed the constraint on American unilateralism. The neoconservatives quickly seized the initiative and with the Wolfowitz Doctrine declared US hegemony and stated that the principal goal of US foreign policy was to prevent the rise of any power that could serve as a constraint on Washington’s hegemony. This policy resulted in the hopes of Reagan and Gorbachev and the trust Gorbachev had placed in Washington being frustrated. Washington’s pledge not to move NATO one inch to the East was disavowed, and more hostile steps followed.
By 2007 it was clear to Russia’s President Putin that the promise of a multi-polar world was being over-ridden by a policy of Washington’s hegemony. At the Munich Security Conference, Putin threw down the gauntlet and said that Russia did not accept Washington’s rules based uni-polar world. At that moment the US/NATO went to war against Russia.
The first attack on Russia was a year later in 2008 when Washington sent a US supplied and trained Georgian army into disputed South Ossetia, resulting in the deaths of Russian peace-keepers and many civilians. Putin, caught off guard, returned from the Beijing Olympics, and the Russian army quickly defeated the US trained Georgian forces. Putin is often accused of intending to rebuild the Soviet Empire, but he had in his hands Georgia, historically a part of the Soviet Union and previously of Russia. Instead of reincorporating Georgia back into Russia, he turned them loose to be again subjected to Washington’s plots against Russia.
Having failed in Georgia, Washington turned its attention to Ukraine, another former province of the Soviet Union and previously of Russia for centuries. As Victoria Nuland boasted at a televised conference, Washington spent $5 billion organizing NGOs, students, and purchasing Ukrainian politicians in support of a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian government and install a neo-nazi regime hostile to Russia.
For unknown reasons except perhaps surprise–Putin was at the Sochi Olympics–Putin did nothing to prevent Washington’s coup. For eight years Putin relied on the Minsk Agreement, which the West used to deceive him, while Washington built up a Ukrainian army capable of overthrowing the Donbas republics that broke away and resisted Ukraine’s persecution and murder of the Russian population.
When Putin and Lavrov’s efforts during December 2021 and February 2022 to achieve a mutual defense agreement with the US and NATO were cold-shouldered by Washington, NATO, and the EU, Putin had no choice but to intervene in order to protect the Donbas, a former Russian province attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders, from massacre, as the Israelis are doing in Gaza and the West Bank.
The West disingenuously called Putin’s “limited military operation” confined to Donbas an “invasion of Ukraine.” It was no such thing. The fact that it was not an invasion and conquest of Ukraine was Putin’s mistake.
It is the limited nature of Putin’s intervention that is the cause of the possible explosion of the conflict into a nuclear war.
Putin, being a mid-20th century American liberal, had trusted diplomatic relations and good will between nations and did not understand that the West was at war with Russia. He and his Foreign Minister kept stressing their “American partners” and belief in negotiations, while the West organized its attacks on Russia.
These attacks now include attacks deep into Russia far removed from the battle front. Russia has suffered many attacks from low-flying drones that evade air defense systems. As I write, Nato Secretary Stoltenberg and the UK prime minister are urging the Biden regime to give approval to US/NATO firing long range missiles into Russia. Putin has said that this is the final red line that will force him to acknowledge that Russia is at war with the West.
NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg says the West does not need to pay attention to Putin’s threat, because “There have been many red lines declared by Putin before, and he has not escalated.”
We have reached the point that I said we would each. Putin by his failure to act in response to aggression now has his back to the wall. He has three choices: He can surrender. He can end the Ukraine conflict with force, which puts the West on notice that the West is at risk if the conflict continues, or he can continue to ignore reality, thereby leaving the initiative in the West’s hands where it has been throughout the conflict.
We are faced with Putin’s mettle. Is he a warrior or an out-of-date American liberal?
I agree that this question is unfair. Putin is the only statesman the world has at this crucial time when the world’s continued existence is in question. Putin has accepted insult after insult, provocation on top of provocation in order to avoid a war that means death for humanity.
No one gives Putin credit for this.
Stoltenberg, a nonentity, mocks Putin. Biden, a nonentity, insults him. Zelensky, a nonentity, vows to defeat him.
We can see Satan’s hold on the West when the only leader determined to preserve human existence is demonized.
Despite his honorable characteristics, Putin is failing because he cannot recognize the extreme evil that confronts him and the country he represents.
As England’s ambassador Craig Murray has reported, the Western world is criminalizing free speech.
Washington’s investigations of Scott Ritter, Dimitri Simes, and others indicate that those who talk with Russians are being criminalized for aiding and abetting Russian disinformation, which is being equated with espionage. How can the dangerous situation be resolved when talk is prevented?
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark nuclear arms control treaty in 1987. (Photo: White House Photographic Office/National Archives and Records Administration)
I wrote this essay about Kris Kristofferson on September 21, a week before he died on September 28. In the intervening week, I was surprised to receive a message from one of his children who had read my tribute and was showing it to Kris whom I was told would appreciate it. I am very sad this morning, but also glad that I wrote it when I did and that Kris may have found comfort in knowing that someone was listening and knew “he beat the devil” as he “fed the hunger in his soul.”
***
“He who binds to himself a joy Does the winged life destroy; But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity’s sun rise.”
– William Blake,Eternity
“But dreamin’ was as easy as believin’ it was never gonna end And lovin’ her was easier than anything I’ll ever do again”
– Kris Kristofferson, “Loving Her Was Easier (Than Anything I’ll Ever Do Again)”
Kris Kristofferson, a man of deep soul and poetic genius, is eighty-eight years-old, an elderly man who has come a long way down life’s road, now “Looking at a looking glass/ Running out of time/ On a face you used to know.”
His songs keep echoing in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of millions of others.
Great songwriter-singers, like great poets, are possessed by a passionate melancholic sensibility that gives them joy in the telling. They seem always to be homesick for a home they can’t define or find. At the heart of their songs is a presence of an absence that is unnamable. That is what draws listeners in.
While great songs usually take but a few minutes to travel from the singer’s mouth to the listener’s ears, they keep echoing for a long time, as if they had taken both singer and listener on a circular journey out and back, and then, in true Odyssean fashion, replay the cyclic song of the shared poetic mystery that is life and death, love and loss, the going up and coming down, the abiding nostalgia for a future home and a past that was a fleeting moment in time.
Time is the core theme of all great writers. Its mystery, its intimacy, how it holds us as we try to tell it, as if we could, knowing that we can’t as it mocks all our pretensions.
My 100 year-old mother, as she neared death, would often plead with me, “Don’t let me go, Eddy.” I would tell her I was trying, knowing my efforts were a temporary stay and that through our conversations we were building what D. H. Lawrence called her “ship of death”:
Build then the ship of death, for you must take the longest journey, to oblivion. And die the death, the long and painful death that lies between the old self and the new. *** We are dying, we are dying, so all we can do is now to be willing to die, and to build the ship of death to carry the soul on the longest journey. *** And the little ship wings home, faltering and lapsing on the pink flood, and the frail soul steps out, into her house again filling the heart with peace.
In those days she also used to ask me: “Now that you have lived more of your life in Massachusetts than in New York City, where do you say you are from and which do you consider your home?” I didn’t know what to say but would wonder where I would like to be buried, as if it mattered. I would be dead. Home. I don’t think so. Not underground, so why does it matter where.
Home isn’t a place for permanently sleeping. It’s the place from which we launch our ships out into the world. And the place that we discover when all our sailing is done and we enter the harbor of the ultimate unknown.
Where was the lightning before it flashed?
Kris Kristofferson is an astonishing songwriter and bard, a man of faith and conscience, and a humorously devilish performer with an on-stage persona of a spiritual satyr. Although he retired from performing a few years ago, he wrote and performed some of the finest songs in the American songbook. A man’s and a woman’s man, he wrote songs of exquisite passion and sensitivity and rough rollicking freedom that only an emotionless zombie would fail to be moved by. And in the last 15 or so years, he has fearlessly confronted his mortality, writing many brave tunes that bookend his earliest hits, such as Help Me Make It Through the Night.
I have loved and listened to his music for a long time and wish to honor him.
This is my small tribute to a great artist, a poetic genius whose songs manifest the fact that he studied the Romantic poets.
Counterpose what is perhaps his most well-known song, Me and Bobby McGee, first made famous by the rocking swirling twirling wild dervish Janis Joplin, a former lover so I’ve heard, confirming William Blake’s dictum that “Exuberance is Beauty” with his lilting poem that is little known but whose gorgeous melody confirms in turn the saying of that other Romantic poet, John Keats, that “Beauty is truth, truth beauty”: Shadows of Her Mind. Two meditations in very different song styles on love, loneliness, searching, loss, and the secrets of one’s soul – a magician at work. Whether partly truth or partly fiction doesn’t matter. Secrets are secrets, sung or spun like memories in the mind, webs of wonder.
Kristofferson broke barriers when he found success in Nashville’s country and western scene in the early 1970s. He made explicit the sexuality and the yearning for love that underlay traditional country music. The endless yearning that never ends. Its secret. Not just sex in the back room of a honky-tonk, but the “Achin’ with the feelin’ of the freedom of an eagle when she flies,” as he sings in Loving Her Was Easier. Something intangible. True passion for love and life.
He was an oddball. Here was a man whose inspiration for Me and Bobby McGee was a foreign film, La Strada (The Road), made by the extraordinary Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini. Not the stuff of movie theaters in small Texas towns. In the film Anthony Quinn is driving around on a motorcycle with a feeble-minded girl whose playing of a trombone gets on his nerves, so while she is sleeping, he abandons her by the side of the road. He later hears a woman singing the melody the girl was always playing and learns the girl has died. Kris explains:
To me, that was the feeling at the end of ‘Bobby McGee.’ The two-edged sword that freedom is. He was free when he left the girl, but it destroyed him. That’s where the line ‘Freedom’s just another name for nothing left to lose’ came from.
Not exactly country, yet a traditional storyteller, a Rhodes scholar and a former Army Captain, an Oxford “egghead” in love with romantic poetry, a sensitive athlete, a risk-taker who gave up a teaching position at West Point for a janitor’s job in Nashville to try his hand at songwriting, a patriot with a dissenter’s heart, he is an unusual man, to put it mildly. A gambler. A man who knows that heaven and hell are born together and that the body and soul cannot be divorced, that all art is incarnational and meant to be about ecstasy and misery, not the middle normal ground where people measure out their lives in coffee spoons. He always wanted to tell what he knew, come what may, as he sings in To Beat the Devil:
I was born a lonely singer, and I’m bound to die the same, But I’ve got to feed the hunger in my soul. And if I never have a nickel, I won’t ever die ashamed. ‘Cos I don’t believe that no-one wants to know.
What do people want to know? A bit here and there, I guess, but not too much, not the secrets of our souls. Not the truth about their government’s killers, the lies that drive a Billy Dee to drugs and death, and the hypocritical fears of cops and people who wish to squelch the truths of the desperate ones for fear that they might reveal secrets best buried with the bodies. Secrets not about the dead but the living – or more appropriately put, the living dead. Kris has always had that wild man’s frenzy to never let the living dead eat him up, as D. H. Lawrence put it.
There are only a handful of songwriters with the artistic gift of soul-sympathy to write verses like the following, and Kris did it again and again over fifty years:
Billy Dee was seventeen when he turned twenty-one Fooling with some foolish things he could’ve left alone But he had to try to satisfy a thirst he couldn’t name Driven toward the darkness by the devils in his veins
All around the honky-tonks, searching for a sign Gettin’ by on gettin’ high on women, words and wine Some folks called him crazy, Lord, and others called him free But we just called us lucky for the love of Billy Dee
Like William Blake – “Can I see another’s woe/And not be in sorrow too?/Can I see another’s grief/And not seek for kind relief?” – Billy Dee captures in rollicking sound more truth about addiction than a thousand self-important editorials about drugs.
Kristofferson joins with Dylan Thomas, the Welsh bard, another wild man with an exquisite sense for the music of language and the married themes of youth and age, sex and death, love and loss, home and the search, always the search:
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees Is my destroyer. And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
Although most of his songs lack overt political content, such concerns are scattered throughout his massive oeuvre (nearly 400 songs) where his passion for the victims of America’s war machine and his respect for great spiritual heroes like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and John and Robert Kennedy ring out in very powerful songs that are not well known. Note his use of the word theyin They Killed Him, surely not a mistake for such a careful songwriter. Sounds like Dylan about the assassination of President Kennedy in Murder Most Foul: “They killed him once and they killed him twice/Killed him like a human sacrifice.”
And in The Circle, a song about Bill Clinton killing with a missile an Iraqi artist and her husband and the wounding of her children, his condemnation is powerful as he links it to the disappeared of Argentina in a circle of sorrow. Of course, no one is responsible.
“Not I” said the soldier “I just follow orders and it was my duty to do my job well” “Not I” said the leader who ordered the slaughter “I’m saddened it happened, but then, war is hell” “Not us” said the others who heard of the horror Turned a cold shoulder on all that was done In all the confusion a single conclusion The circle of sorrow has only begun
As everyone knows, songs have a powerful hold on our memories, and sometimes we learn ironic truths about them only years later.
When I was young, my large family, consisting of my parents and seven sisters and me – Bronx kids – would go on vacation for a week in the late summer to a farm called Edgewater. We would pack our clothes in cartons weeks in advance and would load into the car like sardines layered in a can. On the trip north to the Catskill mountains, in our wild excitement, we would sing all sorts of happy songs, many from Broadway shows. As we approached the farm, we would go crazy with excitement and sing over and over the repetitive song we had learned somewhere: We’re Here Because We’re Here Because We’re Here. To us it was a song of joy; we had arrived at our Shangri-La, our ideal home, paradise regained. To this day, the name Edgewater is like Proust’s madeleine dipped in tea for many of us.
What we didn’t know was that the song we were singing was the sardonic song that WWI soldiers sang as they awaited absurd and senseless death in the mud and rat-filled trenches of the war to end all wars. Sardonic words to them and joy to us. They were there because they were there and it was meaningless. We sang it out of joy. So Blakean:
Man was made for joy and woe Then when this we rightly know Through the world we safely go. Joy and woe are woven fine A clothing for the soul to bind.
To listen to Kris Kristofferson’s vast oeuvre is a confirmation of that Blakean truth. It is to realize that all those songs he has written and sung have been his way of fulfilling the words of another Romantic poet who was Blake’s contemporary, John Keats. Keats called life “a vale of soul-making,” meaning that people are not souls until they make themselves by developing an individual identity by doing what they were meant to do, by listening to the voice within, not the cacophony without. Kris did exactly that to the consternation of his family. He answered the hero’s spiritual call that asked him to follow his true self. The call that Joseph Campbell, in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, says, when refused, results in sterility:
Often in actual life, and not infrequently in the myths and popular tales, we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered; for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests. Refusal of the summons converts the adventure into its negative. Walled in boredom, hard work, or “culture,” the subject loses the power of significant affirmative action and becomes a victim to be saved. His flowering life becomes a wasteland of dry stones and his life feels meaningless. . . . Whatever house he builds, it will be a house of death: a labyrinth of cyclopean walls to hide him from his Minotaur. All he can do is create new problems for himself and await the gradual approach of his disintegration.
By answering the call, Kris blossomed into his sacred calling with all its unremitting deaths and births, unlike his character, Saul Darby, whose life’s obsessive labor was to build Darby’s Castle as a monument to his ego, even as he failed to hear his young wife weeping in the next room. Yet befitting the artist that he is who can grasp two tragic truths at once, perhaps Kris was singing of himself as well.
In Ken Burns’ fascinating documentary series, Country Music, Kris answers the question of why he took such a radical turn early on and gave up his military road to success for a lowly job as a janitor in Nashville where he hoped to write songs. He said:
I love William Blake…. William Blake said, ‘If he who is organized by the divine for spiritual communion, refuse and bury his talent in the earth, even though he should want natural bread, shame and confusion of face will pursue him throughout life to eternity.’
When he answered this call of the spirit and took such a dramatic turn away from the conventional road to success, his mother wrote him a letter essentially disowning him (“dis-owning” – an interesting word!). When Johnny Cash read it, he sardonically said, “Isn’t it nice to get a letter from home?”
Not devoid of humor, Kristofferson wrote Jessie Younger, a catchy tune that no doubt concealed his pain while sharing it, an example of his extraordinary ability to use words in paradoxical ways:
Jesse Younger’s parents wonder where it all went wrong that Jesse’s name has turned to ashes on their tongues But he chose to starve and try to carve a future of his own And he got his druthers because now his younger brother Is his father’s and his mother’s only son
A close examination of so many of his lyrics leaves me aghast at his talent.
There are just a handful of songwriter/performers who can match the art of Kris Kristofferson. Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, and Paul Simon particularly come to mind, for their work also contains that deep spiritual questing for “home,” the enigmatic word we use to try to capture life’s deepest yearnings.
Kris has an attribute that is very beautiful and emanates from a very deep place. Heart. Spirit. Soul. His songs are permeated with the quality Keats called “soul-making.” Life as a vale of soul-making. One can hear it throughout Sunday Mornin’ Comin’ Down, that plaintiff cry from the bottom of a despairing bottle that gripped the great Johnny Cash as well. Like Dylan so often, the tintinnabulation of the bells conjures someone calling a lost soul to return home. “Then I headed back for home/And somewhere far away a lonely bell was ringin’/And it echoed through the canyons/Like the disappearing dreams of yesterday”
Whatever word we give it, this quality shines through in a beautifully poignant way, especially in a concert he gave in the Plaza de la Trinidad, an intimate venue, when he was seventy-four years old. Age has etched its marks on his rueful countenance but has added pathos to his performance. His song selection, while including many of his famous hits, also contains lesser-known songs that add an even greater humanness to his deeply moving performance. I am reminded of something the English writer John Berger said of Rembrandt: “The late Rembrandt self-portraits contain or embody a paradox: they are clearly about old age, yet they address the future. They assume something coming towards them apart from Death.”
Kris Kristofferson may have been “out of sight and out of mind” in recent years, so I would like to bring him back to your attention and salute him as we remember him.
Thank you, Kris. You are an inspiration. Blessings as you fall into grace, as you reminded us with Why Me Lord.
And here is his encore, “The Last Thing to Go”:
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
feature image: Hitler, Schacht and Prescott Bush
Below an Introductory Article by Michel Chossudovsky, followed by Yuri Rubtsov’s article entitled
History: Hitler was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England
This carefully researched article by Yuri Rubtsov sheds light on the role of Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve in financing the Nazi government of Adolph Hitler. (scroll down)
The Power of the U.S. Dollar
1932 Secret Agreement
Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Election Campaign
by
Michel Chossudovsky
November 21, 2023
minor corrections, September 22, 2024
Introduction
From World War I to the Present: Dollar denominated debt has been the driving force behind all US led wars.
Wall Street creditors are the main actors.
They were firmly behind Nazi Germany. They financed Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
“On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler andFranz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.
This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.
A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.” (Y. Rubtsov, text below)
Upon the accession of Adolph Hitler as Chancellor in March 1933, a massive privatization program was initiated which bears the finger-prints of Wall Street.
Dr. Hjalmar Schacht –re-appointed in March 1933 by Adolph Hitler to the position of President of The Reichsbank— was invited to the White House (May 1933) by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
“After his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion” [equivalent to $23.7 billion in 2023, PPP estimate] (Y. Rubtsov, op cit)
Barely a year later, in April 1934, The Economist “reported that military expenditure was forcing the Minister of Finance to look for new resources” including the privatization of the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) (quoted in Germa Bel, p. 20). The Nazi government also sold off State owned shipbuilding companies, State infrastructure and public utilities.
“[T]he government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.
In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Germa Bel, University of Barcelona)
The proceeds of the privatization program were used to repay outstanding debts as well as fund Nazi Germany’s buoyant military industrial complex.
Numerous U.S. conglomerates had invested in Nazi Germany’s arms industry including Ford and General Motors:
Both General Motors and Ford insist that they bear little or no responsibility for the operations of their German subsidiaries, which controlled 70 percent of the German car market at the outbreak of war in 1939 and rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the German army.
… In certain instances, American managers of both GM and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. (Washington Post, November 30, 1998)
“A Famous American Family” Sleeping with the Enemy. The Role of Prescott Bush
Of significance: “A famous American family” made its fortune from the Nazis, according to John Loftus’ documented historical analysis.
Prescott Bush (grandfather of George W. Bush) was a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. , and director of the Union Banking Corporation , closely linked to the interests of German corporations, including Thyssen Stahl, an important company involved in the arms industry of the Third Reich.
The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.
Image: (right) Senator Prescott Bush with his son George H. Walker Bush. (1950s)
.
Thyssen was a partner of Prescott Bush.
.
“From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.
Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen –-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine– talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.
… What the Allied [Nuremberg] investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.
He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts–from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker, Thyssen’s partners … were the father and father-in-law of a future President of the United States. (John Loftus, The Dutch Connection, September 2002).
The American public was not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record had been carefully withheld by the mainstream media. In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US Senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. …
His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.”
( Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power, Guardian, September 25, 2004, emphasis added)
Screenshot, The Guardian
Prescott Bush entered politics in 1950. In 1952 he was elected Senator for Connecticut, a position which he held until January 1963.
Evidence of the Bush family’s links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior) and George W. Bush entered politics, not to mention Bush Senior’s stint at the CIA.
The U.S. media remained totally mum. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):
“After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enem\\y national” partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.
While Prescott Bush’s company’s assets, namely Union Banking Corporation were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (See below), George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with Nazi Germany.
“In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.
There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.” (John Buchanan, op. cit)
Up until Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Wall Street was trading with Germany.
In the wake of Pearl Harbor (1941-1945), Standard Oil “was trading with the enemy” selling oil to Nazi Germany through the intermediation of so-called “neutral countries” including Venezuela and Argentina.
Without the U.S. supply of oil to Nazi Germany instrumented by Standard Oil of New Jersey (owned by John D. Rockefeller and Associates), the Third Reich would not have been able to invade the Soviet Union. This is fully documented in the book of Dr.Jacques Pauwels:
“World War II is widely celebrated as a “crusade” in which the US fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship.”
While America liberated Western Europe in June 1944, the unspoken truth is that American corporations actively collaborated with Nazi Germany:
“Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT.
Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. …
Michel Chossudovsky, November 21, 2023, updates, September 22, 2024
***
History: Hitler was Financed
by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England
By Yuri Rubtsov
May 2016
World War II: More than 80 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.
If we are to approach the problem of “responsibility for the war”, then we first need to answer the following key questions:
Who helped the Nazis come to power?
Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe?
The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which the world was plunged into in the wake of World War I.
The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out as a means to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany and its ability to control political processes in Central Europe.
To implement this strategy, the following stages were envisaged:
From 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
From 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for Nazism (“national socialism”);
From 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
From 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.
WWI “War Reparations”
In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with WWI war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations.
After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.
To solve this problem, creditor nations tried to impose extremely difficult conditions for the payment of war reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes which led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured German Marks.
The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.
The Anglo-American ruling elites, in order to take the initiative in their own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out:
“It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”
The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference.
Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”,which then recommended H. Schacht in consultation with Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England.
In December, 1923, H. Schacht became Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial elites.
In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with the stabilization of the German Mark.
To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan.
While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country.
The Weimar Republic
By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for:
“the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”
The consequences of this were not slow to appear.
This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”.
The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt [were indebted] , and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country would suffer complete bankruptcy.
Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country.
The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.
The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.
US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign
“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller’s “Standard oil”.
Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric”) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”.
“General Motors”, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”.
Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of “Volkswagen”.
In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel Trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc. were under the control of American financial capital.
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.
As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks.
It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attaché of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.
It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances that Hitler was first introduced to German-American businessman Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, endorsed by significant financial support, while securing him ties and communication with prominent personalities of the British establishment.
Hitler was prepared in politics, however, whereas Germany under the Weimar Republic reigned, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the 1929 financial crisis.
Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the America’s stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of the Anglo-American financial establishment commenced.
The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the flow of “financial oxygen” to the Weimar Republic.
But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben” and Industrialist Emil Kirdorf (who was a firm supporter of Adolf Hitler), the Nazi party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated.
The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.
1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party
On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler andFranz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.
This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.
A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.
It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.
The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling elites in relation to the new Nazi government was very sympathetic.
When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments.
Moreover, after his visit to the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht became once more head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.
In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with Montagu Norman, Schacht also sought a British loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and cessation of payments on old loans.
Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 1930’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England.
Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which Times Magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”.
As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, America’s Standard Oil [owned by the Rockefellers] in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.
Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney”, “Douglas”, “Curtis Wright”, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard oil” invested – 120 million, General Motors- $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.
The close financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles was the background against which, in the 1930’s, a policy of appeasement led to World War II.
Today, the world’s financial elites have implemented the Great Depression 2.o [2008], with a followup transition towards a “New World Order“.
Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of military sciences, and member of the International Association of historians of World War II
Translated from Russian by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ. (references not available in this version of the article)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (Desk Top version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on February 7, 2023
Author’s Introduction
My long-standing commitment is to “the value of human life”, “the criminalization of war” , “peaceful co-existence” between nation states and “the future of humanity” which is currently threatened by nuclear war.
I have been researching nuclear war for more than 20 years focussing on its historical, strategic and geopolitical dimensions as well as its criminal features as a means to implementing what is best described as “genocide on a massive scale”.
What is presented below is a brief history of nuclear war: a succession of U.S. nuclear war plans going back to the Manhattan Project (1939-1945) leading up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Unknown to the broader public, the first U.S. Doomsday Blueprint of a nuclear attack directed against the Soviet Union was formulated by the US War Department at the height of World War II, confirmed by “Top Secret” documents on September 15, 1945 when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
There is an element of political delusion and paranoia in the formulation of US foreign policy. The Doomsday Scenario against the Soviet Union has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for almost 80 years.
Had it not been for the September 1945 plan to “wipe the Soviet Union off the map” (66 urban areas and more than 200 atomic bombs), neither Russia nor China would have developed nuclear weapons. There wouldn’t have been a Nuclear Arms Race.
Numerous US nuclear war plans have been formulated from the outset, leading up to The 1956 Strategic Air Command SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study (Declassified in December 2015) which consisted in targeting 1200 urban areas in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
The World is at a dangerous crossroads: it should be understood that the use of nuclear weapons in relation to the confrontation between US-NATO and Russia would inevitably lead to escalation and the end of humanity as we know it.
Michel Chossudovsky, Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2024
The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”:
Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s
Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to
“Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
by
Michel Chossudovsky
February 1, 2023
90 Seconds to Midnight according to the Doomsday Clock
The Nobel Peace Laureates are casually blaming Russia, without recalling the history of nuclear war, not to mention Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollar program to develop “more usable”, “low intensity” “preemptive nuclear weapons” to be used on a “first strike basis” against both nuclear and non nuclear states as a means of “self defense”.
This is the nuclear doctrine which currently prevails in US-NATO’s confrontation against Russia.
It is clearly outlined in the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
America’s Manhattan Project
Let us recall the history of the “doomsday scenario” which was part of America’s Manhattan project launched in 1939 with the participation of Britain and Canada.
The Manhattan Project was a secret plan to develop the atomic bomb coordinated by the US War Department, headed (1941) by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves.
Prominent physicist Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer had been appointed by Lt General Groves to head the Los Alamos Laboratory (also known as Project Y) which was established in 1943 as a “top-secret site for designing atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project”. Oppenheimer was entrusted in recruiting and coordinating a team of prominent nuclear scientists including Italian Physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Enrico Fermi who joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1944.
Oppenheimer not only played a key role in coordinating the team of nuclear scientists, he was also engaged in routine consultations with the head of the Manhattan project Lieutenant General Groves, specifically withregard to the use of the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in more than 300,000 immediate deaths.
The September 15, 1945 Blueprint to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued a blueprint (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)
Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department.
The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).
“To Ensure our National Security”
Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists.
On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Groves requesting an estimate of the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security” ( The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )
Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimer responded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945 in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
See section 2, subsections a, b and c.
“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”
Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.
Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.
Answering your memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below]
Video: Michel Chossudovsky on the Corbett Report
The 1949 “Dropshot Plan”: 300 Nuclear Bombs, Targeting More than 100 Soviet Cities
Numerous US war plans (under the Truman presidency) to attack the Soviet Union were “formulated and revised on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950”. Most of them were totally dysfunctional as outlined by J.W. Smith in his book entitled “The World’s Wasted Wealth 2”.
“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic.
The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly”
Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod in their book entitled: “To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,”provide evidence (based on declassified documents) that the September 1945 blueprint was followed by a continuous plan by USG to bomb the Soviet Union (as well as Russia in the post-Cold War era):
“This book [preface by Ramsey Clark] compels us to re-think and re-write the history of the Cold War and the arms race… It provides a startling glimpse into secret U.S. plans to initiate a nuclear war from 1945 to the present.”
The September 1945 Blueprint (66 Cities) was followed in 1949 by another insidious project entitled the Dropshot Plan:
According to Kaku and Axelrod, the 1949 DropShot consisted of a plan directed against the Soviet Union to “drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
The Dropshot Plan was formulated prior to Russia’s August 1949 announcement pertaining to the testing of its nuclear bomb.
The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities
The initial 1945 Blueprint to attack 66 cities, the subsequent 1949 Dropshot Plan (targeting 100 cities) were updated in the course of the Cold War. The 1956 Planincluded some 1200 cities in the USSR, the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europeand China (see declassified documents below).
The bombs slated for the attack significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see below)
We are talking about planned genocide against the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe .
Excerpt from list of the 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.
Details pertaining to the “The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 were declassified on December 22, 2015 (Excerpts below, click to access full text).
According to the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, the SAC, 1956:
“…provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.
The SAC study includes chilling details. … the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.
The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base. …
A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.” SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established. Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively. Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets. … According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons.
Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians. SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. (emphasis added).
Read carefully:
Had this diabolical project been carried out against the Soviet Union and its allies, the death toll would be beyond description (ie. when compared to Hiroshima. 100,000 immediate deaths). The smallest nuclear bomb contemplated had an explosive yield of 1.7 megatons, 119 times more “powerful’ than a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons of TNT)
The 9 megaton bomb mentioned above was 630 times a Hiroshima bomb, The 60 megaton bomb: 4200 times a Hiroshima bomb.
The Bulletin: Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists in September 1945
In a bitter irony, in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 in Chicago by Manhattan Project scientists, who had been involved in the development of the atomic bomb.
Two years later, in 1947, The Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock, “with an original setting of seven minutes to midnight”.
The initiative was formulated at a time when there was no arms race:
There was only one nuclear weapons state, namely the USA, which was intent upon carrying out a Doomsday scenario (genocide) against the Soviet Union formulated in September 1945.
In 1947, when the Doomsday Clock was created, the “justification” which was upheld by The Bulletin was that:
“the greatest danger to humanity came … from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race.”
The underlying premise of this statement was to ensure that the US retain a monopoly over nuclear weapons.
While in 1947, “The Plan to Wipe the Soviet Union of the Map” was still on the drawing Board of the Pentagon, the relevant documents were declassified thirty years later in 1975. Most of the former Manhattan project scientists were unaware of the September 1945 blueprint against the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear power in August 1949, two years after the launching of the Doomsday Clock, largely in view of applying what was later entitled “deterrence”, namely an action to discourage a nuclear attack by the US. At the height of the Cold War and the Arms Race, this concept eventually evolved into what was defined as “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
While several authors and scientists featured by The Bulletin have provided a critical perspective concerning America’s nuclear weapons program, there was no cohesive attempt to question the history nor the legitimacy of the Manhattan Project.
The broader tendency has been to “erase history”, sustaining the “rightfulness” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also casually placing the blame on Russia, as well as China and North Korea.
Nuclear War versus the “Imminent Dangers of CO2”
In the last fews years, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists “seeks to provide relevant information about nuclear weapons, climate change, and other global security issues”.
According to Mary Robinson, Chair of The Doomsday Clock Elders and former President of the Republic of Ireland (2023 statement):
The Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity. We are on the brink of a precipice. … From cutting carbon emissions to strengthening arms control treaties and investing in pandemic preparedness, we know what needs to be done. … We are facing multiple, existential crises. Leaders need a crisis mindset. (emphasis added)
This perspective borders on ridicule. CO2 is casually put forth as a danger to humanity comparable to nuclear war. It becomes an instrument of propaganda.
The Doomsday Clock is now said to “represent threats to humanity from a variety of sources” according to a collective of Nobel Prize Laureates.
Presenting C02 or Covid as a danger comparable to nuclear war is an outright lie.
Its intent is to mislead public opinion. It is part of a rather unsubtle propaganda campaign which provides legitimacy to the US doctrine of first strike “preemptive nuclear war”, i.e. nuclear war as a means of “self-defense” (formulated in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review).
What is of concern is that U.S. decision makers including Joe Biden believe in their own propaganda, that a preemptive first strike nuclear war against Russia is “winnable”. And that tactical nuclear weapons are “instruments of peace”.
Meanwhile history is erased. America’s persistent role in developing “a Doomsday Agenda” (aka genocide) since the onslaught of the Manhattan Project in 1939 is simply not mentioned.
What is of concern is that there is a continuous history of numerous projects and WWIII scenarios consisting in “Wiping Russia off the Map” and triggering a Third World War.
Nuclear war against Russia has been embedded in US military doctrine since 1945.
Meanwhile, Media Reports on Nuclear War are Weaponized
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
This important Interview of Riley Waggaman with Mike Whitney first published on October 2023 suggests that President Putin’s government is aligned with the so-called Globalists.
Question: What is the position of the Russian government regarding the “World of the Future” project which is scheduled to be adopted (tomorrow?) at a special session of the UN General Assembly (September 22-23, 2024)
The project consists of a package of “Global Digitization” to be adopted by the United Nations 190+ Member States.
According to Western critics, this “fully digitized world of the future” is an enslavement package on behalf of Big Tech and Big Money.
Michael Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 22, 2024
Mike Whitney (MW): In many parts of the world, Vladimir Putin is admired for his outspoken defense of national sovereignty. But on the domestic front, many of Putin’s policies seem to align with those of the Western globalists. As you note in a recent post at SubstackPutin just “signed a decree on the creation of a ‘digital’ domestic passport,” which many people think will pave the way to technocratic tyranny. Am I exaggerating the risks of digital ID here, or does this development pose a serious threat to personal freedom?
Riley Waggaman (RW): Imagine if the United States started issuing digital driver’s licenses that could be used as an official form of ID. What would the reaction be? I suspect a lot of Americans would feel “worried”, for lack of a better term. And not without good reason.
The digital passport system being implemented in Russia is deserving of the same skepticism.
First some context: Russia has a “domestic passport” that basically functions as a national ID. You use your domestic passport to open up a bank account, and for when you have to interact with the local bureaucracy. It’s an important document that you need to do ordinary, everyday things.
The digital passport has been billed as an electronic copy of the domestic passport, accessible via smartphone (via the State Services portal, Gosuslugi). The government is still deciding in what situations/scenarios the digital passport will be accepted as a valid form of ID.
Proponents of this digital document say it’s more convenient than a paper ID, and perhaps they’re right. The problem of course is that modern conveniences can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness, and with time these unpleasant things can even become “normal”.
The fact that this ID will be linked to the State Services portal (Gosuslugi) is certainly cause for concern and it’s easy to imagine how digital passports could be used (and abused) by the Russian government—or any government, for that matter. All in the name of convenience.
Of course, the authorities promise that digital IDs will never be made mandatory. Well, I’m old enough to remember when the Russian government promised that Covid vaccination would be 100% voluntary.
MW: Russia appears to be spearheading the transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) with its creation of the “digital ruble”. In your opinion, what are the potential pitfalls of such a plan?
RW:Excluding the possibility of imposing a full-spectrum digital gulag, the digital ruble has no obvious benefits. I would say the same of all CBDCs, of course.
Some claim that the digital ruble is a very necessary, prudent, and brilliant way to bypass Western sanctions. This is untrue. The Bank of Russia has a fully functional Financial Messaging System (SPFS) that operates independently from SWIFT. Here are a few RT.com headlines for your consideration:
All of these articles are about SPFS and were published long before the Bank of Russia announced its intention to develop the digital ruble in October 2020.
I’m puzzled as to why so many westerners who claim to understand the dangers of CBDCs think the digital ruble is somehow “different”. The Bank of Russia’s CBDC has been almost unanimously condemned by the country’s most prominent commentators in the alternative/conservative media space. Even mainstream outlets like Tsargrad have published scathing take-downs of the digital ruble.
Meanwhile, in English-language “alternative media”, we are blessed with the profound postulations of deep thinkers like Simplicius who write nipple-hardening purple prose about how amazing and anti-globalist the Bank of Russia is, and why the digital ruble is super hip and cool.
I just don’t understand why English-language commentary (all non-Russian commentary, actually) is so far removed from what patriotic Russians living in Russia are saying about their own country, in Russian.
By the way: The Bank of Russia has already reneged on its promise that it will never, ever “color” digital rubles so that they can only be used to purchase certain items. The central bank’s deputy chairman recently said that placing restrictions on how digital rubles can be spent is a real possibility—and one that will be explored in the future. (link)
The digital ruble hasn’t even entered circulation yet, and the Bank of Russia is already open to “exploring” how this fun new tool of total control—endorsed by Davos, the IMF, the G20,–can be used to curb and stomp on basic human dignity.
MW: Is Russia moving closer to mandatory vaccinations?
Image is from InfoBrics
Note: Here’s a quote from one of your recent posts:
Russia’s Ministry of Health wants to amend the National Preventive Immunization Calendar so that COVID vaccination could be mandatory for “vulnerable categories of citizens” whenever the country’s benevolent health authorities believe the “epidemiological” situation warrants another round of coercive injections…..
Of course, any new mandatory vaccination decrees would also apply to state employees, including teachers, doctors, military personnel, etc. Edward Slavsquat, Substack
RW: If Russia’s enterprising health ministry—which works tirelessly to safeguard public health—decides that “Covid” is “spreading” at an unacceptable rate, various categories of citizens will have to choose between getting vaxxed or losing their jobs. This is of course still voluntary vaccination because Russians get to choose whether they want to be employed or inject themselves with an unproven genetic goo developed in cooperation with AstraZeneca.
There are many highly intelligent intellectuals—like Aussie Cossack —who continue to pretend that Russia never had mandatory Covid vaccination, which is very brave considering that as of January 2023, there were still hundreds of Russians who were barred from working because they refused to be injected.
The Gamaleya Center continues to “update” its Covid vaccine, and the Russian government continues to shill this dangerous and barely tested trash to children. Whether Covid vaccination will become as ubiquitous and “normal” as the annual flu shot (which is even shoved into the little arms of Russian children every year; I know because I had to sign a document forbidding the kindergarten nurse from injecting my 6-year-old son) is an open question.
But you have to be impressively credulous to believe that the Russian government wants to keep Covid vaccination a purely voluntary affair. Russia’s health bureaucracy has a very poor track record when it comes to calling out Big Pharma/WHO scams. Did you know that you have to get an HIV test (an old school 1980s Fauci scam) to get a work visa in Russia? Well, now you know.
MW: Here’s an excerpt from one of your recent posts that will surprise many readers who think that President Putin actually opposes the Davos crowd and their globalist agenda:
“To defeat globalism, Moscow is reluctantly but responsibly adopting the globalist agenda….
There is no way to stop the technological “progress” promoted by Davos, the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, and the WHO, which is why Moscow must closely collaborate with all of these globalist organizations in order to maintain globalist parity with the Collective West—otherwise Russia won’t be able to protect herself from the globalists.”
And, here’s more from another post:
“…almost every joint declaration Moscow signs (whether it be a G20 Declaration, a BRICS Declaration, or just some word salad authored with the help of Beijing) includes a passage praising the vital roles of the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund? This seems like relevant information.
The Russian government has repeatedly said it has no intention of withdrawing from the WHO, the WTO, or even the IMF. It would be nice if Cerise could update his article to reflect this undeniable reality. Edward Slavsquat, Substack
You appear to be saying that—even though Russia is fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine—it is still marching in lockstep with the globalists on matters of social policy. Can you expand on this a bit? And how does Putin fit in with all of this? Is he an unwitting accomplice or an eager participant?
RW: Is Moscow fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine? Gazprom has been pumping gas across Ukraine since Day 1 of the Special Military Operation (SMO). And that’s not the only natural resource that Russian “entrepreneurs” are desperately transiting through Ukrainian territory.
I have yet to read about a western-backed Ukrainian oligarch having his home vaporized by a Russian missile. Actually, it’s doubtful that a single western oligarch, anywhere, has been inconvenienced by the SMO. On the contrary, it has been a wonderful money-making opportunity—for Russian oligarchs as well.
But to address the second part of your question: Anyone who follows Russian-language media knows that Moscow is in near-total lockstep with the West when it comes to soul-crushing technocracy and other forms “safe and convenient” societal progress. Actually, an objective observer would recognize that Russia is far ahead of the West in implementing “digitalization” shilled by Davos and other celebrated globalist organizations.
Putin has done nothing meaningful to slow this process down. Actually, by allowing glorious patriots like HermanGref to spearhead AI, biometrics, QR-coded cattle-tagging, facial recognition systems, “sustainable development”, and other trendy tech-development in Russia, Putin is an unapologetic accomplice in all the unsavory madness pestering Russia and every other country.
MW: Can you summarize your views on the Covid-19 vaccine?
RW: It’s bad.
MW: You say that “Russians are not too keen on Russia’s Central Bank chief Elvira Nabiullina”. According to you: “The socialists, the monarchists, the neo-soviets, the conservatives, the military hardliners—with few exceptions,… all despise Elvira and her digital rubles.”
Later in your article you say: “(Elvira) Nabiullina is a symbol of pursuing an economic policy contrary to Russia’s interests.”
That’s pretty harsh criticism. Can you explain what’s going on? Why would Putin reappoint someone to such an important position who –many feel– is implementing a globalist agenda?
RW:The second quote is actually from Nakanune.ru, which is a left-leaning independent news outlet based in Yekaterinburg. Excluding state-funded media, every news outlet in Russia hates Elvira Nabiullina and thinks she’s a globalist stooge who is actively working to destroy Russia. The conservatives, the Orthodox hardliners, the Communists, the Neo-Bolshiviks, the nationalists—they all despise Nabiullina. This is a fact and why it is never conveyed to non-Russian “alternative news” consumers is a massive mystery.
I haven’t the slightest idea why Putin nominated this Yale World Fellow graduate for another term as the Bank of Russia’s governor, even though she is awful and nobody likes her. Probably this is part of Putin’s ingenious strategy to defeat the globalists with a programmable CBDC 100% controlled by an IMF-obedient central bank that operates independently from the Russian state.
MW: In our last interview, you delivered a stirring summary of our current epoch saying:
“I am often reminded of that unsettling line from Alexis de Tocqueville: “I go back from age to age up to the remotest antiquity; but I find no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity.”
With each passing day it seems we are being forcibly severed from our own past. We are being “retrained” to accept a new civilizational model. It’s happening at the local, regional, national and global level. It is tearing apart families.
I do believe we are facing an evil that has no equal in human history.” Edward Slavsquat Substack
Judging from the response, I think there are a great number of people who feel the same as you do… My final question to you is this: Do you still feel as pessimistic as you did then?
RW: Mike, I would like to thank you (again) for that interview—it remains the most-read post on my blog. As you probably recall, the realities of Russia’s “public health” policies lacked “accuracy” (I’m trying to be charitable here) in 2021, and I think our internet exchange paved the way for a more fact-based, nuanced discussion about Russia’s “Covid response”.
Actually, I’m quite optimistic in the sense that I have accepted that there isn’t a 5-dimensional omnipotent white hat Twitter account that will save me from the Western Satanists, and I will have to save myself—which is actually relatively painless, easy, and even fun. I would even describe my current outlook as hopeful. But I fully understand the pessimism of someone who is sick of the US government, or any western government; someone who looks longingly at the Russian government as an alternative.
The problem with this curious way of thinking is that according to official data, around 30% of Russians live on less than $10 a day, Russia is facing a catastrophic demographic crisis (and it’s hard to think of a more basic metric for gauging the health and of a nation), and the Russian government is a fanatical proponent of policies that are chipping away at the last vestiges of basic human dignity.
But again, I am an optimist. I have been able to connect with like-minded individuals here in Russia, and all over the world, and my life has greatly improved as a result. I am able to live the life I want to live without having to make obscene excuses for the inexcusable.
We should all be guided by truth, friendship, and love, and why the so-called “alternative media” is so obsessed with carrying water for governments who offer the world nothing but more of the same (sadness) is truly amazing. Enough already. We have everything we need.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Riley Waggaman is a Moscow-based writer. He worked for Russia Insider, RT, and Press TV. He contributes to Russian-Faith.com and Anti-Empire.com. He writes regularly about Russia on his Substack account: Edwardslavsquat.substack.com
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
United World Federalists founder James Warburg’s father was Paul Warburg, who financed Hitler with help from Brown Brothers Harriman partner Prescott Bush. [1]
Colonel Ely Garrison was a close friend of both President Teddy Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson. Garrison wrote in Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve, “Paul Warburg was the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London.”
The Aldrich Plan was hatched at a secret 1910 meeting at JP Morgan’s private resort on Jekyl Island, SC between Rockefeller, lieutenant Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg of the German Warburg banking dynasty. Aldrich, a New York congressman, later married into the Rockefeller family. His son Winthrop Aldrich chaired Chase Manhattan Bank. While the bankers met, Colonel Edward House, another Rockefeller stooge and close confidant of President Woodrow Wilson, was busy convincing Wilson of the importance of a private central bank and the introduction of a national income tax. A member of House’s staff was British MI6 Permindex insider General Julius Klein. [2]
Wilson didn’t need much convincing, since he was beholden to copper magnate Cleveland Dodge, whose namesake Phelps Dodge became one of the biggest mining companies in the world. Dodge bankrolled Wilson’s political career. Wilson even wrote his inaugural speech on Dodge’s yacht. [3]
Wilson was a classmate of both Dodge and Cyrus McCormick at Princeton. Both were directors at Rockefeller’s National City Bank (now Citigroup). Wilson’s main focus was on overcoming public distrust of the bankers, which New York City Mayor John Hylan echoed in 1922 when he argued, “The real menace to our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as the international bankers”. [4]
But the Eight Families prevailed. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was born, with Paul Warburg its first Governor. Four years later the US entered World War I, after a secret society known as the Black Hand assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his Hapsburg wife. The Archduke’s friend Count Czerin later said, “A year before the war he informed me that the Masons had resolved upon his death.”[5]
That same year, Bolsheviks overthrew the Hohehzollern monarchy in Russia with help from Max Warburg and Jacob Schiff, while the Balfour Declaration leading to the creation of Israel was penned to Zionist Second Lord Rothschild.
In the 1920’s Baron Edmund de Rothschild founded the Palestine Economics Commission, while Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan offices helped Rothschild form a network to smuggle weapons to Zionist death squads bent on seizing Palestinian lands. General Julius Klein oversaw the operation and headed the US Army Counterintelligence Corps, which later produced Henry Kissinger. Klein diverted Marshall Plan aid to Europe to Zionist terror cells in Palestine after WWII, channeling the funds through the Sonneborn Institute, which was controlled by Baltimore chemical magnate Rudolph Sonneborn. His wife Dorothy Schiff is related to the Warburgs. [6]
The Kuhn Loebs came to Manhattan with the Warburgs. At the same time the Bronfmans came to Canada as part of the Moses Montefiore Jewish Colonization Committee. The Montefiores have carried out the dirty work of Genoese nobility since the 13th Century. The di Spadaforas served that function for the Italian House of Savoy, which was bankrolled by the Israel Moses Seif family for which Israel is named. Lord Harold Sebag Montefiore is current head of the Jerusalem Foundation, the Zionist wing of the Knights of St. John’s Jerusalem. The Bronfmans (the name means “liquorman” in Yiddish) tied up with Arnold Rothstein, a product of the Rothschild’s dry goods empire, to found organized crime in New York City. Rothstein was succeeded by Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Robert Vesco and Santos Trafficante. The Bronfmans are intermarried with the Rothschilds, Loebs and Lamberts. [7]
The year 1917 also saw the 16th Amendment added to the US Constitution, levying a national income tax, though it was ratified by only two of the required 36 states. The IRS is a private corporation registered in Delaware. [8] Four years earlier the Rockefeller Foundation was launched, to shield family wealth from the new income tax provisions, while steering public opinion through social engineering. One of its tentacles was the General Education Board.
In Occasional Letter #1 the Board states, “In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds and, unhampered by tradition, we will work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall try not to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science…of whom we have ample supply.”[9]
Though most Americans think of the Federal Reserve as a government institution, it is privately held by the Eight Families. The Secret Service is employed, not by the Executive Branch, but by the Federal Reserve. [10]
An exchange between Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker at Senate hearings in 1982 is instructive. Kennedy must have thought of his older brother John when he told Volcker that if he were before the committee as a member of US Treasury things would be much different. Volcker, puffing on a cigar, responded cavalierly, “That’s probably true. But I believe it was intentionally designed this way”. [11] Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) put it to Volcker that, “People realize that what that board of yours does has a very profound impact on their pocketbooks, and yet it is a group of people basically inaccessible to them and unaccountable to them.”
President Wilson spoke of, “a power so organized, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breaths when they speak in condemnation of it.” Rep. Charles Lindberg (D-NY) was more blunt, railing against Wilson’s Federal Reserve Act, which had cleverly been dubbed the “People’s Bill”. Lindberg declared that the Act would, “…establish the most gigantic trust on earth…When the president signs this act, the invisible government by the money power will be legitimized. The law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created. The invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized. The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to strip of power”. [12]
The Fed is made up of most every bank in the US, but the New York Federal Reserve Bank controls the Fed by virtue of its enormous capital resources. The true center of power within the Fed is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), on which only the NY Fed President holds a permanent voting seat. The FOMC issues directives on monetary policy which are implemented from the 8th Floor of the NY Fed, a fortress modeled after the Bank of England. [13]
In the fifth sub-basement of the 14-story stone hulk lie 10,300 tons of mostly non-US gold, 1/3 of the world’s gold reserves and by far the largest gold stock in the world. [14]
The world of money is increasingly computerized. With the introduction by the Eight Families of complicated financial instruments like derivatives, options, puts and futures; the volume of inter-bank transactions took a quantum leap. To handle this the fed built a superhighway eerily known as CHIPS (Clearing Interbank Payment System), which is based in New York and modeled after Morgan’s Belgium-based Euro-Clear – also known as The Beast.
When the Fed was created five New York banks- Citibank, Chase, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover and Bankers Trust- held a 43% stake in the New York Fed. By 1983 these same five banks owned 53% of the NY Fed. By year 2000, the newly merged Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank combines owned even bigger chunks, as did the European faction of the Eight Families. Collectively they own majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and do the bulk of stock and bond trading. In 1955 the above five banks accounted for 15% of all stock trades. By 1985 they were involved in 85% of all stock transactions. [15]
Still more powerful are the investment banks which bear the names of many of the Eight Families. In 1982, while Morgan bankers presided over negotiations between Britain and Argentina after the Falklands War, President Reagan pushed through SEC Rule 415, which helped consolidate securities underwriting in the hands of six large investment houses owned by the Eight Families: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Brothers, First Boston and Lehman Brothers. These banks further consolidated their power via the merger mania of 1980s and 1990s.
American Express swallowed up both Lehman Brothers-Kuhn Loeb – which had merged in 1977 – and Shearson Lehman-Rhoades. The Israel Moses Seif’s Banca de la Svizzera Italiana bought a 7% stake in Lehman Brothers. [16] Salomon Brothers nabbed Philbro from the South African Oppenheimer family, then bought Smith Barney. All three then became part of Traveler’s Group, headed by Sandy Weill of the David-Weill family, which controls Lazard Freres through senior partner Michel David-Weill. Citibank then bought Travelers to form Citigroup. S.G. Warburg, of which Oppenheimer’s Chartered Consolidated owns a 9% stake, joined the old money Banque Paribas- which merged into Merrill Lynch in 1984. Union Bank of Switzerland acquired Paine Webber, while Morgan Stanley ate up Dean Witter and purchased Discover credit card operations from Sears.
Kuhn Loeb-controlled First Boston merged with Credit Suisse, which had already absorbed White-Weld, to become CS First Boston- the major player in the dirty London Eurobond market. Merrill Lynch – merged into Bank of America in 2008 – is the major player on the US side of this trade. Swiss Banking Corporation merged with London’s biggest investment house S.G. Warburg to create SBC Warburg, while Warburg became more intertwined with Merrill Lynch through their 1998 Mercury Assets tie up. The Warburg’s formed another venture with Union Bank of Switzerland, creating powerhouse UBS Warburg. Deutsche Bank bought Banker’s Trust and Alex Brown to briefly become the world’s largest bank with $882 billion in assets. With repeal of Glass-Steagal, the line between investment, commercial and private banking disappeared.
This handful of investment banks exerts an enormous amount of control over the global economy. Their activities include advising Third World debt negotiations, handling mergers and breakups, creating companies to fill a perceived economic void through the launching of initial public stock offerings (IPOs), underwriting all stocks, underwriting all corporate and government bond issuance, and pulling the bandwagon down the road of privatization and globalization of the world economy.
A recent president of the World Bank was James Wolfensohn of Salomon Smith Barney. Merrill Lynch had $435 billion in assets in 1994, before the merger frenzy had really even gotten under way. The biggest commercial bank at the time, Citibank, could claim only $249 billion in assets.
In 1991 Merrill Lynch handled 26.8% of all global bank mergers. Morgan Stanley did 16.8%, Goldman Sachs 16.3%, Lehman Brothers 16.1% and Credit Suisse First Boston 14.5%. Morgan Stanley did $60 billion in corporate mergers in 1989. By 2007, reflecting the repeal of Glass-Steagel, the top ten NMA advisers in order were: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, UBS Warburg, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Lazard. In the IPO stock underwriting field for 1991 the top four were Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and CS First Boston. In the arena of global privatization for years 1985-1995, Goldman Sachs led the way doing $13.3 billion worth of deals. UBS Warburg did $8.2 billion, BNP Paribas$6.8 billion, CS First Boston $4.9 billion and Paribas-owner Merrill Lynch $4.4 billion. [17]
In 2006 BNP Paribas bought the notorious Banca Nacionale de Lavoro (BNL), which led the charge in arming Saddam Hussein. According to Global Finance, it is now the world’s largest bank with nearly $3 trillion in assets.
The leading US debt underwriters for the first nine months of 1995 bore the same familiar names. Merrill Lynch underwrote $74.2 billion in the US debt markets, or 15.3% of the total. Lehman Brothers handled $52.5 billion, Morgan Stanley $47.4 billion, Salomon Smith Barney $45.6 billion. CS First Boston, Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs rounded out the top seven. The top three municipal debt underwriters that year were Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and UBS Paine Webber. In the euro-market the top four underwriters in 1995 were UBS Warburg, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. [18] Deutsche Bank’s Morgan Grenfell branch engineered the corporate takeover binge in Europe.
The dominant players in the oil futures markets at both the New York Mercantile Exchange and the London Petroleum Exchange are Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Goldman Sachs (through its J. Aron & Company subsidiary), Citigroup (through its Philbro unit) and Deutsche Bank (through its Banker’s Trust acquisition). In 2002 Enron Online was auctioned off by a bankruptcy court to UBS Warburg for $0. UBS was to share monopoly Enron Online profits with Lehman Brothers after the first two years of the deal. [19] With Lehman’s 2008 demise, its new owner Barclays will get their cut.
Following the Lehman Brothers fiasco and the ensuing financial meltdown of 2008, the Four Horsemen of Banking got even bigger. For pennies on the dollar, JP Morgan Chase was handed Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Bank of America commandeered Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. And Wells Fargo seized control over the reeling #5 US bank Wachovia. Barclays got a sweetheart deal for the remains of Lehman Brothers.
Former House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman (D-TX), declared of Federal Reserve Eight Families owners, “The United States today has in effect two governments. We are the duly constituted government. Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution”. [20]
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, US debt (mostly owed to the Eight Families) has skyrocketed from $1 billion to nearly $14 trillion today. This far surpasses the total of all Third World country debt combined, debt which is mostly owed to these same Eight Families, who own most all the world’s central banks.
As Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) pointed out, “International bankers make money by extending credit to governments. The greater the debt of the political state, the larger the interest returned to lenders. The national banks of Europe are (also) owned and controlled by private interests. We recognize in a hazy sort of way that the Rothschilds and the Warburgs of Europe and the houses of JP Morgan, Kuhn Loeb & Co., Schiff, Lehman and Rockefeller possess and control vast wealth. How they acquire this vast financial power and employ it is a mystery to most of us.”[21]
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
Notes
[1] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Press. Sedona, AZ. 1991. p.81
[2] Dope Inc.: The Book that Drove Kissinger Crazy. The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992.
[3] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.67
[4] Descent into Slavery. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena 1991
[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.158
[6] The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. p.504
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid. p.77
[10] “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”. Discovery Channel. January 2002
[11] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.26
[12] Icke. p.178
[13] Solomon. p.63
[14] Ibid. p.27
[15] The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness. A.V. Krebs. Essential Books. Washington, DC. 1992. p.166
[16] The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. p.79
[17] “Playing the Middle”. Anita Raghavan and Bridget O’Brian. Wall Street Journal. 10-2-95
[18] Securities Data Corporation. 1995
[19] CNN Headline News. 1-11-02
[20] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977. p.156
[21] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.77
Featured image is from The Canadian Patriot
Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network
Big Oil… pulls back the covers to expose a centuries-old cabal of global oligarchs, whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet’s three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world’s central banks.Henderson implicates these oligarchs in the orchestration of a string of conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy Assassination to 911. He follows the trail of dirty money up the food chain to the interbred Eight Families who- from their City of London base- control the Four Horsemen of Oil, the global drug trade and the permanent war economy.”Big Oil… is an extraordinary expose of the powers and events that are exacting a heavy toll on us, the people”.- Nexus New Times Magazine. Australia.”Big Oil… is hair-raising and a masterpiece which deserves not less than the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism. This book should be a requisite for every American to study.”- Dr. Carlos J. Canggiano, M.D., Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico.
Os grandes jornais da burguesia estão chamando a série de atentados terroristas ocorridos no Líbano esta semana de “explosões”. Claro, o atentado não foi obra dos árabes e não ocorreu na Europa, nos Estados Unidos ou em Israel. Se fosse, seria rotulado de terrorista na primeira leva de breaking news.
Como foi obra de Israel – todo o mundo sabe disso, ainda que os sionistas o neguem –, então é claro que não é terrorismo. São apenas algumas “explosões”. Explosões exclusivamente em áreas civis e que já mataram mais de 30 pessoas (incluindo crianças) e deixaram mais de 3.000 feridos.
Em meio ao mar de ingenuidade fingida nos grandes veículos de imprensa, uma reportagem do New York Times cita 12 fontes da Defesa e da Inteligência israelense que confirmam que Israel está por trás dos atentados. De acordo com algumas das fontes do NYT, a companhia húngara B.A.C. Consulting, que produziu os pagers para a taiwanesa Gold Apollo, na verdade é uma empresa de fachada dos serviços de inteligência israelenses. Ela produziu os dispositivos para que fossem monitorados e ativados para explodir a qualquer momento por Israel.
Esse tipo de ataque é considerado terrorismo em qualquer lugar do mundo pelos mesmos que estão negando ou ocultando que tenha sido um atentado terrorista de Israel.
Em 2018, um refugiado afegão de 19 anos atacou com uma faca dois turistas americanos na estação central de trem de Amsterdã. Ele sequer matou os turistas (pelo contrário, foi morto em apenas nove segundos pela polícia). Aquilo, porém, foi considerado um ataque terrorista.
Se casos como esses são terrorismo, por que os jornais e os governos ocidentais não reconhecem as “explosões” no Líbano como atentados terroristas?
Justamente porque isso implicaria considerar que Israel é uma entidade terrorista. E a imprensa controlada pelos Estados Unidos – que sustentam e incentivam o terrorismo israelense – jamais poderia fazer isso.
Após muitas maquinações do Império Britânico durante o final do século XIX e a primeira metade do século XX, os Estados Unidos se tornaram o principal responsável por assegurar a criação e consolidar a existência do “Estado de Israel”, uma entidade artificialmente fabricada. Desde então, utilizam esse pedaço de terra roubada dos palestinos como uma gigantesca base militar em sua ânsia de dominar o Oriente Médio e sugar as suas preciosas riquezas naturais.
Desde o início da nova fase do genocídio (que tem origem ainda em 1947/48), em outubro do ano passado, os Estados Unidos forneceram mais de 6,5 bilhões de dólares em ajuda militar a Israel. Entre 2017 e 2021, os Estados Unidos foram responsáveis por fornecer 92% de todas as armas importadas por Israel, segundo o Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Os EUA também são os responsáveis pelo desenvolvimento tecnológico de Israel – que é voltado primordialmente para a área militar e cujos atentados terroristas no Líbano são uma consequência.
Yoav Gallant, o ministro da Defesa israelense, ligou para sua contraparte estadunidense, Lloyd Austin, minutos antes do primeiro atentado, para informá-lo sobre uma operação que seria realizada imediatamente no Líbano, segundo o portal Axios.
Há décadas a CIA e a NSA realizam operações de espionagem a partir de dispositivos eletrônicos, como TV’s, computadores e celulares, contra cidadãos de todos os países do mundo. Agora Israel, uma máquina genocida, mostra que não é possível apenas espionar a partir de dispositivos que pertencem às próprias vítimas, mas também matar – e matar quem está por perto.
Esse episódio covarde e cruel de terrorismo cibernético e assassino é uma demonstração do perigo que é a dependência tecnológica. A maior parte do mundo depende da tecnologia monopolizada pelos países ricos, em particular os EUA, e seus gigantescos conglomerados que fabricam esses dispositivos praticamente sem concorrência – pois eles a suprimem.
Os grandes monopólios ocidentais estão diretamente ligados aos governos imperialistas, como o dos Estados Unidos. As big techs são um exemplo óbvio disso – basta ver o repasse de informações privadas dos usuários de redes sociais ao governo norte-americano, ou a censura política exercida contra páginas que desagradam Washington.
Se as grandes empresas que fabricam e, portanto, detêm o controle de toda a tecnologia que está dentro dos dispositivos eletrônicos que nós adquirimos para uso corriqueiro têm acordos com governos como os de EUA e Israel para fornecer dados dos usuários e mesmo estabelecer um controle remoto que pode ativar e explodir o dispositivo, qualquer pessoa no mundo está suscetível ao terrorismo imperialista.
Há poucos meses, Israel já havia cometido outro (de tantos) atentados, quando bombardeou e matou o líder do Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, em Teerã. A sua localização foi obtida através do monitoramento de seu aparelho telefônico. Isso levou Hassan Nasrallah a instruir os membros do Hezbollah a não utilizarem smartphones em reuniões ou conversas sigilosas, e substituírem-nos pelos pagers.
Mas nem mesmo aparelhos pouco sofisticados, como pagers e walkie-talkies, estão protegidos do monitoramento e do controle remoto das agências de espionagem e empresas privadas dos EUA e Israel.
O sistema de vigilância e invasão da privacidade dos indivíduos erguido pela ditadura imperialista dos EUA – da qual Israel é um preposto criminoso e covarde – atingiu um novo nível. É por essas e outras que governos que estão na alça de mira desses criminosos, como China e Rússia, lutam por criar tecnologias e dispositivos eletrônicos próprios. Não querem ter suas casas – ou suas cabeças – voando pelos ares a qualquer hora do dia.
O rompimento com a tecnologia e os produtos eletrônicos dos EUA e de seus prepostos não é mais mera questão de soberania nacional. Agora é questão de sobrevivência – no sentido mais literal do termo.
Para quem pensa que esse perigo não existe, basta lembrar que estamos falando de entidades (EUA e Israel) que já mataram mais de 30 mil mulheres e crianças em Gaza em menos de 12 meses. Eles são capazes de tudo.
O presidente Biden”, relata o New York Times, ‘abre caminho para que a Ucrânia lance armas ocidentais de longo alcance nas profundezas do território russo, desde que não use armas fornecidas pelos EUA’. A Grã-Bretanha e a França já enviaram à Ucrânia seus próprios mísseis de cruzeiro lançados do ar: eles são conhecidos como Storm Shadow na Grã-Bretanha e SCALP na França.
O principal defensor do uso desses mísseis contra a Rússia é o primeiro-ministro britânico, Keir Starmer, do Partido Trabalhista: depois de ter estado em Kiev com o secretário de Estado dos EUA, Blinken, e de ter sido recebido em Washington pelo presidente Biden, ele se reuniu com a primeira-ministra Giorgia Meloni em Roma.
Na conferência de imprensa conjunta, Starmer enfatizou que “devemos colocar a Ucrânia na melhor posição possível”, ou seja, permitir que ela realize ataques com mísseis nas profundezas do território russo. Giorgia Meloni afirmou que “no que diz respeito à autorização de mísseis de longo alcance, na Itália essa autorização não está em discussão hoje”, acrescentando, no entanto, que “todas essas são decisões que compartilhamos com nossos aliados”.
Assim, Giorgia Meloni tenta ocultar o fato de que os mísseis Storm Shadow / SCALP, que a Grã-Bretanha e a França já forneceram a Kiev para “ataques profundos contra alvos de alto valor, como bunkers reforçados”, são fabricados pela MBDA, o grupo europeu de produção de mísseis do qual a Itália faz parte, juntamente com a França e a Grã-Bretanha, por meio de Leonardo, com uma participação de 25%. Leonardo fabrica os rastreadores eletro-ópticos, ou seja, os “olhos” que guiam os mísseis até os alvos, um setor no qual é líder mundial.
Ao mesmo tempo, também por meio da Leonardo, a Itália participa da produção de mísseis nucleares fornecidos à França pelo grupo MBDA. A Itália também se comprometeu a produzir – juntamente com a França, a Alemanha e a Polônia – mísseis de cruzeiro lançados do solo com um alcance de mais de 500 km. Esses mísseis, que sem dúvida serão armados com ogivas nucleares, são da mesma categoria que os mísseis nucleares dos EUA instalados em Comiso na década de 1980, que foram eliminados de acordo com o Tratado INF sobre Forças Nucleares de Alcance Intermediário, assinado pelos EUA e pela URSS em 1987, mas rasgado pelos EUA em 2018. Dessa forma, a Itália, em total violação do Tratado de Não Proliferação de Armas Nucleares (ratificado pela Lei de 24 de abril de 1975), está contribuindo para a escalada nuclear contra a Rússia. Nesse contexto, ela participará do Steadfast Noon, o exercício de guerra nuclear da OTAN, de 14 a 24 de outubro.
Manlio Dinucci
Breve resumo da análise da imprensa internacional do Grandangolo na sexta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2024, no canal de TV italiano Byoblu:
Manlio Dinuccié geógrafo e jornalista, e ex-diretor executivo italiano da International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, que recebeu o Prêmio Nobel da Paz em 1985. Porta-voz do Comitato no Guerra no Nato (Itália) e pesquisador associado do Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation (Canadá). Vencedor do Prêmio Internacional de Jornalismo 2019 para Análise Geoestratégica do Club de Periodistas de México.
“President Biden is clearing the way for Ukraine to fire long-range Western weapons deep into Russian territory, provided it does not use weapons supplied by the United States”.
Britain and France have already sent Ukraine their own air-launched cruise missiles, known as Storm Shadow in Britain and SCALP in France.
The main proponent of the use of these missiles against Russia is the British Prime Minister, Labour’s Keir Starmer. After meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in Kiev and President Biden in Washington, he met Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome.
“We have to put Ukraine in the best possible position, i.e. to be able to carry out missile attacks deep into Russian territory”, Starmer stressed at the joint press conference.
Giorgia Meloni stated that
“as far as authorizing long-range missiles is concerned, in Italy it’s not on the table today“, but she added that “these are all decisions we share with our Allies“.
Giorgia Meloni is trying to hide the fact that the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, which Britain and France have already supplied to Kiev for “deep strikes against high-value targets such as reinforced bunkers“, are manufactured by MBDA, the European missile group, of which Italy is a member, along with France and Britain, through Leonardo, with a 25% participation.
Leonardo produces the electro-optical trackers, the “eyes” that guide the missiles to their targets. It is a world leader in this sector.
At the same time, Italy is participating, again through Leonardo, in the production of nuclear missiles supplied to France by the MBDA group. Italy has also undertaken, together with France, Germany and Poland, to manufacture ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of over 500 km.
These missiles, undoubtedly armed with nuclear warheads, are of the same category as the US nuclear missiles deployed at Comiso in the 1980s, eliminated by the INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by the US and USSR in 1987, but abrogated by the US in 2018.
In this way, Italy, in flagrant violation of the Treaty on the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation (ratified by the law of 24 April 1975), is contributing to the nuclear escalation against Russia.
In this context, it will be part of the NATO nuclear war exercise Steadfast Noon from 14 to 24 October.
Os apoiadores da Ucrânia parecem estar começando a mudar os seus planos em relação ao conflito ucraniano. De acordo com um importante jornal francês, a dificuldade de Kiev no campo de batalha está a começar a encorajar os seus patrões ocidentais a repensar a sua estratégia de guerra, sendo as negociações diplomáticas uma das soluções possíveis.
Num artigo recente publicado pelo Le Figaro, fontes familiarizadas com assuntos políticos e diplomáticos expressaram pessimismo sobre uma “vitória ucraniana”. O meio de comunicação informou que o plano para uma solução diplomática já está a ser discutido “discretamente” tanto nos EUA como na Europa, deixando claro que uma visão mais realista do conflito está a tornar-se comum entre as autoridades ocidentais.
As razões para esta mudança de perspectiva por parte do Ocidente são muitas. A principal delas seria o rápido avanço das forças russas no Donbass, especialmente considerando o progresso dos militares russos na cidade de Pokrovsk – que é um centro logístico entre diferentes regiões e uma cidade extremamente estratégica para toda a zona de conflito. Estas vitórias russas esgotariam as esperanças ocidentais de uma solução através de meios militares.
Outro fator vital para a mudança seria o resultado da invasão ucraniana de Kursk. Acredita-se que os objetivos de diversão da operação não foram alcançados, tornando assim inevitável que os russos ganhem o controle de todas as regiões-chave do Donbass num futuro próximo. Isto torna os objetivos militares e territoriais ucranianos quase inalcançáveis, tendo em conta a grande quantidade de recursos e tropas desperdiçadas na fracassada incursão diversiva.
Fontes citadas pelo jornal consideram que a redução da ajuda militar também é inevitável. Apesar das promessas dos Democratas de continuarem a apoiar incondicionalmente a Ucrânia, os diplomatas entrevistados pelo Le Figaro deixam claro que, independentemente de quem seja o novo presidente, haverá uma redução da ajuda à Ucrânia, uma vez que a opinião pessimista sobre o futuro da a guerra é compartilhada por ambos os lados da política americana.
“No Ocidente, é cada vez mais reconhecido abertamente que Donbass e a Crimeia estão fora do alcance militar dos ucranianos (…) Seja quem for o presidente dos EUA [após as eleições de Novembro], a ajuda diminuirá e a guerra não será sustentável para os ucranianos”, diz o artigo.
Um dos objetivos atuais dos americanos e europeus, tendo em conta as circunstâncias desfavoráveis do conflito para Kiev, é repensar e atualizar os interesses estratégicos do lado ocidental-ucraniano. Neste sentido, diplomatas e políticos tentam reavaliar o que considerariam uma “vitória ucraniana”, tendendo a acreditar que a melhor saída para Kiev é abandonar os territórios reintegrados na Rússia e procurar de forma “democrática e livre” o alinhamento com o Ocidente no que resta do seu território soberano.
“[O Ocidente deveria repensar] o que poderia ser considerado uma vitória para a Ucrânia (…) O mais importante é ter uma vitória territorial, o que implica continuar a lutar para recuperar as regiões ocupadas pelos russos? Ou será obter uma vitória política, ou seja, um país livre e democrático, virado para o Ocidente, engajado na UE e na OTAN, mesmo que isso signifique desistir temporariamente, dos territórios ocupados?” um diplomata disse a jornalistas franceses.
Segundo as fontes do jornal, já estão em curso vários movimentos para acabar com a guerra. Por exemplo, a insistência em não autorizar ataques profundos com mísseis de longo alcance é vista pelos diplomatas entrevistados como um sinal de desescalada por parte do Ocidente. Além disso, a França e a Alemanha são citadas como exemplos de países que alegadamente começaram a afrouxar os seus laços militares com Kiev.
Finalmente, o artigo menciona que os aliados da Ucrânia estão a preparar-se para fazer progressos significativos numa próxima “cimeira de paz”. Acredita-se que os EUA liderarão uma reunião em Abu Dhabi após as eleições de novembro. Na cimeira, os países ocidentais começarão a reavaliar o conflito de forma mais realista, tendo em conta as atuais circunstâncias militares. Assim, espera-se que se registem progressos no sentido da criação de uma agenda diplomática para estabelecer um fim oportuno às hostilidades.
Na verdade, por um lado, o artigo do Le Figaro é realista ao admitir o progresso russo e a incapacidade da Ucrânia Ocidental de impedir a vitória de Moscou. Por outro lado, os meios de comunicação franceses estão errados ao afirmar que o Ocidente tem qualquer intenção de paz. A recente diminuição da ajuda francesa e alemã à Ucrânia deve-se simplesmente ao esgotamento da capacidade produtiva europeia e não a qualquer intenção de paz. No mesmo sentido, a recusa em autorizar ataques “profundos” deve-se ao receio de retaliação russa e não a qualquer desejo real de paz.
Além disso, deve ser sublinhado que o Ocidente perdeu o timing para negociar. A Rússia está disposta a negociar há mais de dois anos, mas depois da recente invasão de Kursk, Moscou deixou claro que já não confia no inimigo e todas as conversações de paz foram canceladas. O desespero do Ocidente para aliviar o peso da sua derrota é inútil porque a Rússia não aceitará quaisquer condições do inimigo, sendo Moscou o único lado qualificado para decidir quando as hostilidades terminarão.
“Il Presidente Biden – riporta il New York Times – spiana la strada all’Ucraina per il lancio i armi occidentali a lungo raggio in profondità nel territorio russo, a patto che non utilizzi armi fornite dagli Stati Uniti”. Gran Bretagna e Francia hanno già inviato all’Ucraina i propri missili da crociera a lancio aereo: sono noti come Storm Shadow in Gran Bretagna e SCALP in Francia.
Principale fautore dell’uso di questi missili contro la Russia è il primo ministro britannico, il laburista Keir Starmer: dopo essere stato a Kiev col segretario di Stato USA Blinken ed essere stato ricevuto a Washington dal presidente Biden, ha incontrato a Roma la presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni.
.
Alla conferenza stampa congiunta Starmer ha sottolineato che “dobbiamo mettere l’Ucraina nella migliore posizione possibile”, ossia metterla in grado di effettuare attacchi missilistici in profondità nel territorio russo.Giorgia Meloni ha dichiarato che “per quello che riguarda l’autorizzazione dei missili a lungo raggio, in Italia questa autorizzazione oggi non è in discussione”, aggiungendo però che comunque “sono tutte decisioni che condividiamo con i nostri Alleati.”
Giorgia Meloni cerca in tal modo di nascondere il fatto che i missili Storm Shadow / SCALP, che Gran Bretagna e Francia hanno già fornito a Kiev per “attacchi in profondità contro bersagli di alto valore, come i bunker rinforzati”, sono fabbricati da MBDA, il gruppo europeo per la produzione di missili di cui l’Italia fa parte, insieme a Francia e Gran Bretagna, tramite la Leonardo con una quota azionaria del 25% . La Leonardo produce gli inseguitori elettro-otticii, ossia gli “occhi” che guidano i missili sugli obiettivi, settore in cui è leader mondiale.
Allo stesso tempo, sempre tramite la Leonardo, l’Italia partecipa alla produzione di missili nucleari forniti alla Francia dal gruppo MBDA. L’Italia si è inoltre impegnata a produrre –insieme a Francia, Germania e Polonia – missili da crociera lanciati da terra con una gittata superiore a 500 km.Questi missili, che saranno sicuramente armati di testate nucleari, sono della stessa categoria dei missili nucleari USA schierati a Comiso negli anni Ottanta, che vennero eliminati in base al Trattato INF sulle forze nucleari intermedie, stipulato da USA e URSS nel 1987, ma stracciato dagli Stati Uniti nel 2018.In tal modo l’Italia, in completa violazione del Trattato di non-proliferazione delle armi nucleari (ratificato ai sensi della legge 24 aprile 1975), concorre alla escalation nucleare contro la Russia. In tale quadro parteciperà, dal 14 al 24 ottobre, alla Steadfast Noon, l’esercitazione NATO di guerra nucleare.
[Links to Parts I to X are provided at the bottom of this article.]
“I am for peace. And I am for a negotiated peace. But this accord is not a just peace.” (Edward W. Said)[1]
Over the last 50 years, achieving peace in the Middle East region through the “two-state solution” – i.e., carving out two sovereign Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side – to the irreconcilable century-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has consistently been endorsed by the “international community” as the best, if not the only, option. However, so far, it has been impossible for the two protagonists to reach an agreement, in particular since the collapse of the talks brokered by John Kerry in 2014 and the continuing, indeed the accelerated expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements established on Palestinian land in the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem since 1967.As a result, world powers and leaders have contented themselves with “crisis management”.
Yet, before[2] – and even more so since – the attacks of 7 October, 2023 and the ensuing unprecedented death toll and destruction caused by the blind and vengeful Israeli reaction to them, as well as the high risk of regional and global conflagration, the international community was still faced with the unescapable reality that there cannot be lasting peace and stability without an agreement that speaks to the national and political aspirations, the security needs, and the human dignity of all the peoples of the region.
Paradoxically enough, both proponents and opponents of the two-state solution are finding new arguments to revive the debate on the way out of a disheartening and bloody situation in the most volatile region of the world. Meanwhile, the “one-state solution” is steadily gaining more and more traction, particularly among Palestinians and their supporters around the world.[3]
The Genesis and Enduring Adverse Consequences of a Bad and Unjust Idea
The idea of establishing two states for two peoples in historic Palestine came together in 1936 when Lord William Robert Wellesley Peel was appointed by the British government to head a commission of inquiry, formally known as “Palestine Royal Commission”, with a view to investigating the causes of unrest among Palestinians and Jews in Palestine, following a six-month-long Arab general strike. The unrest intensified after the April 1920 San Remo Conference awarded the United Kingdom a mandate to control Palestine, which had for centuries been part of the Ottoman Empire, until its dismemberment in the wake of its defeat in the First World War.
In a widely-acclaimed book[4] containing a wealth of untapped archival material and primary sources, Israeli journalist and historian Tom Segev reconstructs in vivid detail the tumultuous three decades of the British mandate in Palestine, when “anything seemed possible and everything went awry”. Tom Segev argues that the British, far from being pro-Arabist as commonly thought, consistently favored the Zionist position, thereby ensuring the creation of the “Jewish state”; and that they did so out of the mistaken and anti-Semitic belief – “a uniquely modern blend of classical antisemitic preconceptions and romantic veneration of the Holy Land and its people” – that the “Jews turned the wheels of history”. At first, he writes, the British were received as an army of liberation, and both Arabs and Jews wished for independence and assumed they would win it under British sponsorship. The Promised Land had, by the stroke of a pen, become “twice-promised”, and as a result, “confusion, ambiguity, and disappointment were present at the very beginning”. In sum, although the British took possession of “one Palestine, complete”, as noted in the receipt signed by British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Louis Samuel, “Palestine was riven, even before His Majesty’s Government settled in”.
Therefore, as it unavoidably turned out, Britain was caught in the middle of a bloody fight between two competing national movements. There were those in the British administration who identified with the Arabs and those who identified with the Jews; and there were also those who found both repugnant: “I dislike them all equally” wrote General Sir Walter Norris “Squib” Congreve, emphasizing that “Arabs and Jews and Christians, in Syria and Palestine, they are all alike, a beastly people. The whole lot of them is not worth a single Englishman.” For his part, High Commissioner Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope (from 20 November 1931 to 1 March 1938) compared himself to a circus performer trying to ride two horses at the same time. Of these two horses, he said in a lecture[5], “one cannot go fast and the other would not go slow”.
In fact, as Chaim Weizmann rightly observed, the British were fooling the Arabs, fooling the Jews, and fooling themselves[6]. And Segev was equally right to conclude that from the start there were, then, only two possibilities: that the Arabs defeat the Zionists or that the Zionists defeat the Arabs; “War between the two was inevitable”.
With its formal approval by the League of Nations in 1922, the mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which provided for both the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine for a minority Jewish population and the preservation of the civil and religious – but not the political or national – rights of non-Jewish indigenousPalestinian majority. Desiring political autonomy and resenting the continued Jewish immigration into their ancestral land, Palestinian Arabs disapproved of the British mandate, and by 1936 their dissatisfaction had grown into open rebellion.
The Peel Commission published its report in July 1937, admitting that the mandate was unworkable and, therefore, proposed that Palestine be partitioned into three zones: an Arab state, a Jewish state, and a neutral territory containing the holy places. Even though it initially accepted these proposals, by 1938 the British government recognized that such partitioning would not be feasible, and ultimately rejected the Commission’s report. And by the time the post-World War Two newly-created United Nations Organization voted the infamous Resolution 181 devising the partition of Palestine, in 1947 – giving 56% of historic Palestine along with 80% of the coast and the most fertile land to the Jewish minority side, and only 43% to the Palestinian majority side –the binational idea, and its array of supporting factions, had dissolved, soon to be followed by a civil war in Mandatory Palestine, the confirmation of the termination of the British mandate on 14 May 1948, the Israeli “Declaration of Independence” on the same day, and the outbreak, the following day, of the first Arab-Israeli war on 15 May 1948 – which ended with a final armistice agreement concluded in July 1949, also demarcating the so-called “Green Line” which separated Arab-controlled territory from Israeli-occupied territories until the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
.
Israeli reconnaissance forces from the “Shaked” unit in Sinai during the war (Attribution: Rafi Rogel)
.
In the aftermath of the Six-Day (June) War, UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, on 22 November 1967, in an effort to secure a “just and lasting peace” in the Middle East. The Israelis willingly supported the resolution because it called on the Arab states to accept Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force.” For their part, Arab states reacted in a very disparate way: Egypt and Jordan accepted it from the outset because it called for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict”, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat rejected it until 1988 for the main reason that it lacked explicit references to Palestinians and their inalienable national rights. As far as the League of Arab States is concerned, it convened a Summit in Khartoum, Sudan, on 1 September 1967, and adopted the “Khartoum Resolution”, famously known for its “Three Noes” contained in its third operative paragraph[7], namely: no peace, no negotiation, no recognition of Israel.
Although Resolution 242 – and UNSC’s Resolution 338 adopted on 22 October 1973 following the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War, and calling for a ceasefire and for theimplementation of Resolution 242 “in all of its parts” – was never fully implemented, it nevertheless constituted the basis of international diplomatic efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict until the 1978 Camp David Accords and remains, to this day, at least theoretically, an important touchstone in any negotiated resolution to this longstanding conflict.
The United States Takes Over the Steering of International Peace Efforts
As history teaches us, efforts aimed at re-building peace almost always follow destructive wars. The two Iraq Wars of 1991 and 2003 paved the way for renewed peace efforts, first within the framework of the 1991 “Madrid Peace Conference”[8] and the 1993 Oslo Accords, and then through such initiatives as “The Middle East Peace Summit” at Camp David[9] in 2000, “The Roadmap to Peace” of the “Quartet”[10] in April 2003, the “Geneva Accord”[11] published in October 2003, the Bush administration-convened “Peace Conference at Annapolis”[12] in November 2007, the “Kerry Initiative”[13] in 2013-2014, and the “Paris Conference”[14] of January 2017 intended to “preserve the two-state solution and create incentives that would move the parties closer to direct negotiations.”[15]
The Madrid Conference, co-chaired by George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, marked the first time that Israelis had sat down at a conference table with Arabs since the Geneva Conference in December 1973, and the first time in which all four of the frontline Arab states, as well as Palestinian representatives, sat down with Israelis since the Lausanne Conference of 1949. With the defeat of Iraq at the hands of an American-led military coalition in the Gulf War of January-March 1991 and the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union that same year, the George Bush administration “felt that it had to ‘reward’ the Arab countries, especially Syria, for their participation in the coalition against the Iraqi regime and that ‘the time was right to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict’, using the immense power and prestige of the United States in the Middle East. To do so, the United States proposed reconvening the international conference provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 338 of 1973, but which had been held in abeyance ever since.”[16]
Contrary to the commonly held belief, the Oslo Accords of 1993 (Oslo I)[17] and 1995 (Oslo II)[18] were not a peace treaty; they were in fact a profoundly asymmetric and imbalanced interim agreement in favor of the disproportionately stronger Israeli side.However, their historic signing, first on the lawn of the White House in Washington D.C, was a moment of great optimism, raising hopes worldwide that a long-sought settlement to a bitter conflict was finally within reach.
.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. (From the Public Domain)
.
While the seemingly promising negotiations were still ongoing, Edward Said wrote an important collection of fifty essays, later forming the contents of a fascinating book[19] in which he questioned the very foundation of the Accords and incisively cut through the hyperbole in the press surrounding the Accords almost unanimously hailed as a success and a breakthrough for peace.
Very early on thus, Said realized that the imbalance of power between the signees of what he called a “permanent interim agreement” would set up a problematic dynamic that can neither lead to a real peace nor likely provide for one in the future. He also vehemently criticized the “repressive leadership and inflated bureaucracy” of Yasser Arafat, a leadership which has “in a cowardly and slavish way, tried to forget its own people’s tragic history in order to accommodate their American and Israeli mentors”.
Later events proved him right, starting with the interim agreements of Taba, Hebron, and the Wye Plantation that would already limit the next phase, that is to say the infinitely more sensitive and complex postponed issues of refugees, status of Jerusalem, exact borders, settlements, and water. Said believed the “peace process” was an “expedient” and a “foolish gamble that has already done far more harm than good”, because, he added, “Peace requires sterner measures than Arafat, Clinton, and company have, or are ever likely to have, taken. And so, some of us must try to make the effort that our leaders will not make”.
Three decades later, the consensus is that the Oslo accords have failed. Indeed, today’s Israeli-Palestinian reality is marked by “a massive expansion of Israel’s settlement project, a gradual erasure of the Green Line, a symbiosis between Israeli security forces and the settlers, and an authoritarian and divided Palestinian leadership, with the Palestinian Authority acting as Israel’s sub-contractor. Israel’s regime of control also separates between Palestinian groups, with each group given a different set of limited rights. While the Oslo process had the potential to transform a predominantly ethnic struggle into a conflict over land and borders, the ramifications of the one single regime that has replaced the Oslo order cannot be underestimated”.[20]
With the failure of the two sides to reach a peace agreement despite – or perhaps more accurately, because of – the role played by the partial U.S. mediator, the Accords allowed Israel to maintain full control over more than 60 percent of the West Bank (marked in the Oslo I agreement as Area C), including over its settlements and army bases. The PA retained administrative control in Area A, a mere 18 percent of the West Bank, where the majority of West Bank Palestinians live. Since the interim agreement did not include any moratorium on settlement expansion, Israel created facts on the ground. A close examination of settlement growth shows that “in 1993, the year of the first Oslo accord, 273,900 Israeli settlers lived in the occupied Palestinian territories: 116,300 in the West Bank, 4,800 in the Gaza Strip, and 152,800 in East Jerusalem. In 2000, the year of the failed Camp David summit, this number had grown to a total of around 372,000 Israeli settlers. In 2016, when the Kerry mission talks broke down, the total number of settlers in Palestinian territories had more than doubled compared to the beginning of Oslo: from 273,900 to around 613,700 settlers. Notably, in the same time span, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank had more than tripled (from116,300 to 399,300). Today, over 465,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and another 230,000 live in East Jerusalem. Whether the massive expansion of the settlement project was an Israeli negotiating tactic during Oslo or a response to pressures from the Israeli right, the fact remains that since the Oslo Accords, Israel has constantly expanded its settlements and their population on a massive scale – independently of whether negotiations were taking place or not”.[21]
Thereafter, against the backdrop of the seismic shift in the global geopolitical landscape brought about by the September 11th, 2001 events, and the dismal failure of the Oslo Agreements to achieve the hoped-for “two-state solution” within the intended time frame, the collective Arab stance toward Israel evolved dramatically. Thus, in 2002, during their annual summit in Beirut, Lebanon, the twenty-two members of the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative (API), which called for normalizing relations with Israel on the condition of the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The API was initially meant to be a framework to peacefully end the decades-old conflict. While that framework still remains intact today, “the API has played a different function since the Arab Spring jolted the region into an intense zero-sum game between Saudi Arabia and Iran. From then on, Saudi official discourse treated the API as a focal point in the Kingdom’s pragmatic policy toward Israel. It gained a simultaneous function that allowed the Saudis to express their willingness for cooperation, yet still distance themselves from such willingness by emphasizing the centrality of Palestinian rights”.[22]
Later on, with successive bilateral (Israeli-Palestinian), regional, and international peace efforts failing and falling to the wayside, the API was eventually overshadowed, if not clinically dead, when the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan – with regional political mastodon Saudi Arabia programmed to be next – signed normalization agreements with Israel in 2020 and 2021 within the framework of President Trump-brokered Abraham Accords[23], without guarantees for Palestinian rights.
The UAE showed the way in this regard. On the pretext of stopping Israel’s plan to annex 30% of the West Bank, in July 2020, Abu Dhabi engaged in negotiations with Tel Aviv to normalize relations, further encouraged by and “sweetened” with a US offer to sell the wealthy pro-Western emirate 50 F-35 combat jets; an offer that has not materialized so far, while hundreds of those highly technologically advanced fighter jets have been sold by Washington to its other allies around the world, including, of course, Israel.
The tiny and vulnerable kingdom of Bahrain quickly followed suit. And in December 2020, in a joint declaration between the US, Morocco, and Israel, Rabat and Tel Avivagreed to normalize relations; and to “recompense” the Alawite monarchy, President Donald Trump, having lost the re-election one month earlier and just a few days before he left office, decided unilaterally, through a simple tweet[24], that the U.S. recognizes Morocco’s sovereignty over the illegally occupied territory of Western Sahara, thus acting one of the most shocking U-turns in American foreign policy.[25]
As for the internally torn and externally fragilized Sudan, it was, in the same month of December, removed from Washington’s sanctions list against “state sponsors of terrorism”, and in January 2021, signed the Abraham Accords Declaration, but has yet to formally sign a bilateral agreement with Israel, deeply engulfed as it is in a devastating and unending civil war.
Finally, as is well-known today, the prospect of the signing of a groundbreaking – and far greater prize for Israel than the other Gulf emirates – Saudi-Israeli agreement within the same framework was only thwarted by the 7 October 2023 assaults, to the great dismay of the “Arab normalizers” and their Western backers and protectors.
By all accounts, as observed by Ambassador Chas freeman: “Israel has essentially exhausted its military options. It can do more of the same but more of the same will not bring it peace. Only a reconciliation with the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors can do that. In this context, it must be said, the so-called Abraham accords are a diversion, not a path to peace.”[26]
The Knesset Writes the Epitaph of the Two-State Solution’s Grave
Less than two months before he died, the famous statesman and veteran of American diplomacy Henry Kissinger did an interview[27] – most probably the last he would ever do. In it, he said the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was no longer viable and that it “doesn’t guarantee that what we saw in the last weeks [the 7th of October attacks] won’t happen again”. He added: “I believe the West Bank should be put under Jordanian control rather than aim for a two-state solution which leaves one of the two territories determined to overthrow Israel”.
And on 18 July 2024, the Knesset put the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution.
Indeed, Israel’s parliament passed a resolution[28] that overwhelmingly and firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. Such a state in the heart of the Land of Israel, the motion reads,
“will pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region”, and“Promoting the idea of a Palestinian state at this time will be a reward for terrorism and will only encourage Hamas and its supporters to see this as a victory, thanks to the massacre of October 7, 2023, and a prelude to the takeover of jihadist Islam in the Middle East.”
The resolution was co-sponsored by parties in Netanyahu’s coalition together with right-wing parties from the opposition. It passed with 68 votes in favor, and only 9 lawmakers, all from the Arab-majority Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al parties, voted against it.
Commenting on the resolution put forward by his own right-wing opposition party New Hope-United Right faction, Party chairman Gideon Sa’ar said that the resolution decision is intended to express the blanket opposition that exists among the [Israeli] people to the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would endanger Israel’s security and future, and that it “signals to the international community that pressure to impose a Palestinian state on Israel is futile”.[29]
Also, expressing the exact same mindset and feelings, albeit in a more candid and crude manner in a clip[30] from an English-language Israeli podcast, hosts Naor Meningher and Eytan Weinstein discussed the idea of eradicating all Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Weinstein said: “If you gave me a button to just erase Gaza, every single living being in Gaza would no longer be living tomorrow. I would press it in a second”, claiming that “most Israelis” would do the same. Meningher added that they would also want to wipe out Palestinians in “the territories” because “that’s the reality we live in, it’s us or them, and it has to be them.” In a later episode, the two discussed what they deemed to be Israel’s failures in its ongoing war on Gaza, with Weinstein saying that the government should stop “trying to get international acceptance” and “instil sovereignty over and annex the West Bank, Gaza… make it all Israel”. Weinstein went on to say that Israel’s “50-year plan” should involve conquering Lebanon. CBC journalist Evan Dyer shared the clip on X, pointing to Meningher’s former media roles in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s last five political campaigns. “This is not a fringe show or fringe people… the show is as mainstream as it gets,” Dyer wrote, citing a review of the podcast by Times of Israel that billed it as a “platform for free and open conversations”. In response, the podcast posted a gif of a finger pressing a red button.
Image: Mustafa Barghouti (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Mustafa Barghouti, the Secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, slammed the passing of this resolution and summed up what that move really means in practice, highlighting the fact that “No Zionist party from both the government and the opposition voted against the resolution”[31], which “represents a rejection of peace with Palestinians and an official declaration of the death of [the] Oslo agreement.”
Similarly, senior Palestinian Authority official Hussein al-Sheikh condemned the resolution, saying the Knesset’s rejection “confirms the racism of the occupying state and its disregard for international law and international legitimacy, and its insistence on the approach and policy of perpetuating the occupation forever”.
For his part, United Nations Secretary-general António Guterres declared that “Recent developments are driving a stake through the heart of any prospect for a two-state solution (…) We must change course. All settlement activity must cease immediately.”, adding that the settlements were a flagrant violation of international law and an obstacle to peace with Palestinians.
In trying to plan for a post-7 October 2023 future, world leaders are obstinately looking to and seeking inspiration from the outmoded and ineffectual visions and initiatives of the past. Joe Biden is calling for a new peace process:
“When this crisis is over, there has to be a vision of what comes next, and in our view, it has to be a two-state solution”[32], he said in one of his many public statements about the nearly year-long war on Gaza. British prime minister Rishi Sunak and French president Emmanuel Macron have made similar comments, and so have several League of Arab States and Organization of Islamic
Cooperation summits. Most recently, the Spanish government hosted a meeting[33] with the Arab-Islamic contact group and European officials bringing together the Secretary-general of the Arab League, the EU Foreign Policy Chief, the Minister of State for Qatar, and the foreign ministers of Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Türkiye, and Egypt. Speaking to journalists, Spanish foreign minister Jose Manuel Albares emphasized that the contact group is currently “united in implementing the two-state solution.”
All things considered, however, the “peace process” through the two-state solution is well and truly dead; and it is past time for everyone to carry it to the graveyard of failed ideas, and there to whisper “requiescat in pace”![34]
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the books “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014 and “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde” (Islam and the Order of the World),Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2021.
Notes
[1] Edward W. Said, “Power, Politics and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said”, Pantheon Books, New York, 2001.
[2]A Pew Research Center survey (Sarah Austin and Jonathan Evans, “Israelis have grown more skeptical of a two-state solution”: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/) conducted in September 2023 found that only 35% of Israelis believe “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully” – a decline of 15 percentage points since 2013. And a Gallup poll (Jay Loschky, “Palestinians Lack Faith in Biden, Two-State Solution”:
[3]Harriet Sherwood, “Israel-Palestine: Is the two-state solution the answer to the crisis?”, The Guardian, 4 November 2023.
[4]Tom Segev, “One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under British Mandate”, Little, Brown and Company, London, 2000; originally published in Hebrew as “Yeme Ha-Kalaniyot: Erets Yisrael bi-tekufat ha-Mandat”, by Keter Publishers, Jerusalem, 1999.
[5]Lecture by Arthur Wauchope, 1 November 1923, Central Zionist Archive, CZA S25/10006.
[6]Chaim Weizmann to the JAE, 7 March 1939, Central Zionist Archive, CZA Z4/303/32.
[7]Paragraph 3 reads as follows: “The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of 5 June. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.”
[9]Akram Hanieh, “The Camp David Papers”, articles, published in al-Ayyam in seven installments between 29 July and 10 August 2000, Journal of Palestine Studies XXX, no. 2 (Winter 2001):
[10]The Quartet, set up in 2002, consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. Its mandate is to help mediate Middle East peace negotiations and to support Palestinian economic development and institution-building in preparation for eventual statehood. It meets regularly at the level of the Quartet Principals (United Nations Secretary General, United States Secretary of State, Foreign Minister of Russia, and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Quartet Special Envoys.
[12]To read the “Joint Understanding Read by President Bush at Annapolis Conference”, Office of the Press secretary, the White House, 27 November 2007:
[15]Greg Shapland and Professor Yossi Mekelberg, “Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking: What We Can Learn from Previous Efforts?”, Chatham House, 24 July 2018 (updated on 14 December 2020).
[16] Michael Fischbach, “Madrid and the Oslo Agreement, 1991-1993: Short-Lived Promises of a Negotiated Settlement”, Interactive Encyclopedia of Palestinian Question, Institute for Palestine Studies, 13 September 2023.
[18]The Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba, Egypt, on 28 September 1995, gave the Palestinian Authority self-governing powers in Area A and shared responsibilities with Israel in Area B of the West Bank, with the prospect of negotiations on a final settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338. Area A corresponds to all major Palestinian population centers and Area B encompasses most rural centers. Area C constitutes the territory outside of the enclaves of Areas A and B (representing about 60 percent of the West Bank) that was to remain under full Israeli control but that was to be gradually transferred to PA jurisdiction.
[19]Edward Said, “The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After”, Pantheon Books, New York, 2000.
[20]Rafaella A. Del Sarto and Menachem Klein, “Oslo: Three Decades Later”, Israel Studies Review, Volume 38, Issue 2, Summer 2023.
[21]Figures provided by the Foundation for Middle East Peace 2012 and Peace Now 2023a, 2023b.
[22]Aziz Alghashian, “A Revived Arab Peace Initiative from Saudi Arabia Could Save the Middle East”, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Winter 2024.
[31]Mustafa Barghouti was likely referring to the lawmakers from opposition Leader Yair Lapid’s center-left Yesh Atid and the more left-leaning Labor Party, who left the plenum to avoid backing the measure, even though they had previously spoken in favor of a two-state solution.
[32]The White House, “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia in Joint Press Conference”, 25 October 2023.
[33]Sertac Aktan, “Spain hosts high-level meeting on Israel-Palestine two-state solution”, Euronews, 19 September 2024.
[34]Latin phrase for a familiar prayer in the Church’s liturgy meaning “may (the deceased) rest in peace”, to which the response is “Amen”. It is customarily abbreviated R.I.P.
This article was first published on March 19, 2022 prior to the release of Michel Chossudovsky’s book in August 2022.
The focus is to refute the Covid narrative by examining the timeline, the (official) data and definitions pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic. The data presented in this article pertain to January 2020-March 2022.
Introduction
March 11, 2024: Four Years Ago the Covid-19 Lockdown was imposed in one fell swoop by national governments Worldwide.
The Lockdown implied: “Confining the Labour Force” and “Freezing the Work Place”.
Not a single economist has acknowledged this relationship. From their standpoint, it was the virus which triggered economic and social collapse. What nonsense.
What does this imply. The most serious economic and social crisis in World history which four years later is still ongoing, leading to economic chaos and mass poverty Worldwide.
Destabilizing the social, political and economic structure of 190 sovereign countries cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus.
But that was the imposed “solution” which was implemented in several stages from the very outset of the corona crisis in January 2020.
It’s the destruction of people’s lives. It is the destabilization of civil society.
Fake science was supportive of this devastating agenda. The lies were sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant and Repetitive “Covid alerts” in the course of the last four years.
The historic March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered economic and social chaos Worldwide. It was an act of “economic warfare”: a war against humanity.
This diabolical agenda has undermined the sovereignty of nation states.
It has contributed to a wave of bankruptcies. It has impoverished people Worldwide.
It has led to a spiralling dollar denominated global debt.
The powerful structures of global capitalism, Big Money coupled with its intelligence and military apparatus were the driving force.
Using advanced digital and communications technologies, the lockdown and “closure” of the global economy is unprecedented in World history.
The video below was produced by Global Research in December 2020 prior to the launching of the vaccine. It was released in early 2021.
It was the object of immediate censorship. It was taken down.
Thanks to Vaccine Choice Canada, this version on Rumble was saved.
Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち
As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.
The Central Role of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR)
From the very outset, both the media and the governments have overlooked and ignored the flaws and falsehoods pertaining to the RT-PCR test as a means to detecting the spread of the virus and identifying SARS-CoV-2.
“The PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick”.
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the RT-PCR, passed away in August 2019.
This misuse of the RT-PCR technique is applied as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governmentsto justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, … under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients. .
Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian physician specialized in critical care and renowned public health analyst.
The Entire Data Base of “Covid-19 Confirmed Cases” is Invalid.
Media disinformation has prevailed for more than two years despite the fact that both the WHO and the CDC (with the usual innuendos) have confirmed what was known from the very outset in January 2020, namely that the RT-PCR test used to justify every single policy mandate including lockdowns, social distancing, the mask, confinement of the labor force, closure of economic activity, etc. was flawed and invalid.
The WHO issued its Mea Culpa more than a year ago on January 20, 2021. A few months later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (July 21, 2021) called for the withdrawal of thePCR test as a valid method for detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the WHO in January 2020, did not possess an isolate and purified sample of the novel 2019-nCov virus. The Berlin Virology team (headed by Drosten):
“recommended to the WHO, that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003-SARS-CoV should be used as a “proxy” (point of reference) of the novel virus” (See Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book, Chapter III)
The CDC has now firmly acknowledged that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between Covid-19 and Seasonal Influenza. A PCR positive does not imply a “Covid-19 Confirmed Case”. It could be influenza or a corona common cold. The CDC called for its withdrawal effective December 31, 2021.
Fake Data: 465 Million So-Called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” [March 2022]
If the PCR test is invalid (confirmed by numerous studies as well as WHO, CDC), the 465 Million so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” (see diagram below, MARCH 18, 2022) collected and tabulated Worldwide since the outset of the Covid-19 crisis are meaningless. Click here to get the latest figures.
The Pandemic Treaty and the QR Verification Code
In early March 2022 an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was established with a mandate to create “A Pandemic Treaty”, i.e. a global health governance entity under WHO auspices, which would override the authority of the WHO member states:
, “The INB held its first meeting to draft and negotiate an international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response under the authority of the WHO” (Mercola)
The Pandemic Treaty is tied into the WHO’s QR Verification Code project, which is intent upon creating a global digital data bank of 7.9 billion people. Both initiatives are to be carried out concurrently by the WHO in liaison with ID2020 and the Gavi Alliance, both of which are funded by the Gates Foundation.
Peter Koenig describes the QR Code as
“an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”
According to David Scripac “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all thecentral banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”
The QR Verification Code potentially sets the stage for the instatement of “a global police state” controlled by the financial establishment. It’s part of what the late David Rockefeller entitled “the march towards World Government”.
The legitimacy of both the Pandemic Treaty and the QR Verification Code under WHO auspices rests on the presumption that the alleged “Covid-19 Pandemic is Real” and that the “mRNA vaccine constitutes a SOLUTION to the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.”
Both initiatives are based on outright fraud and corruption. What is the evidence:
1. The Number of “Covid-19 Cumulative Confirmed Cases” resulting from the RT-PCR test did not justify the WHO’s decision to officially launch a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The numbers were ridiculously low. There was no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was spreading nationally or internationally.
2. The Lockdown instructions transmitted in March 2020 to more than 190 member states of the UN are totally invalid.
3. The methodology using the PCR test to detect and identify the SARS-CoV-2 and its alleged variants has been acknowledged by the WHO and the CDC as being totally dysfunctional as outlined above.
4. All the data pertaining to Covid-19 Cumulative Confirmed Cases compiled by national governments and tabulated by the WHO since January 2020 are invalid and meaningless.
5. The Covid-19 Vaccine launched in November 2020 has resulted in an upward Worldwide tide of mortality and morbidity
In this article I will distinguish between several phases in the evolution of this crisis.
Phase I: Ridiculously Low Numbers of “Covid-19 Confirmed Cases” Used to Justify the Launching of the Covid-19 Pandemic
From the very outset, the estimates of “confirmed positive cases” have been part of a “Numbers Game”.
The first stage of this crisis was the launching of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the WHO on January 30th. While officially it was not designated as a “Pandemic”, it nonetheless contributed to spearheading the fear campaign. The number of [cumulative] “confirmed cases” based on faulty estimates (PCR) used to justify this far reaching decision was ridiculously low.
The Worldwide population outside China is of the order of 6.4 billion. On January 30, 2020 outside China there were:
83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).
83 Cases outside China: There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
On the following day January 31, 2020: President Trump Suspends Air Travel with China, which contributed to the broader crisis in air travel and commodity trade. The five so-called “confirmed cases” in the US were sufficient to “justify” President Trump’s January 31st 2020 decision.
“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …
“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”
Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion
These “shock and awe” statements contributed to heightening the fear campaign, despite the fact that the number of confirmed cases outside China was exceedingly low.
February 20-21, 2020 marks the beginning of the 2020 Financial Crash which was Spearheaded by Dr. Tedros’ Statement.
March 11, 2020: The Lockdown. 44,729 [cumulative] “Confirmed Cases” As a Justification to Close Down 190 National Economies
A Pandemic is broadly defined as
“An outbreak of a disease occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population” (Webster-Merriam, emphasis added)
Assuming that the PCR test is valid (which it is not), the number of cumulative confirmed cases on March 11 was ridiculously low. 44,279 PCR positive cases Worldwide out of China.
IT’S A FRAUD. THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC ON MARCH 11, 2020
“the world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic”. The WHO had called upon countries to be “in a phase of preparedness”.
The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when the number of confirmed cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44279 and 1440 deaths (figures recorded by the WHO for March 11, (on March 12) (see table right). These are the figures used to justify the lockdown and the closing down of 190 national economies.
In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people
These were the figures used to justify the “closing down” of the U.S., Canada and Germany, among more than 190 countries in March, 2020.
IT’S A FRAUD. A BIG LIE.
Immediately Following the March 11, 2020 WHO Announcement: A Worldwide Fear Campaign
Yet it was on the basis of these 44,729 cases that sweeping lockdown policies were imposed on 190 sovereign countries through a complex decision-making procedure which inevitably required corruption and bribing of senior government officials.
The March 11 Lockdown was followed by “Black Thursday“, a second major Financial Crash, which immediately followed the pandemic announcement.
Phase II. March-December 2020: Fear Campaign. PCR Test Goes Into High Gear
From March 2020 up until the launching of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in November 2020, the PCR test goes into high gear.
As of March 11, 2020, following the lockdown, national governments were urged to implement the PCR-RT test on a massive scale, with a view to pushing up the numbers of covid positive cases Worldwide.
Test, Test, Test: The numbers started to climb with a view to generating more and more fake statistics.
Look at the table below. A very small number of positive cases in early March. And then, Covid positive cases going fly high as of April, May and June 2020.
Phase III. Early November 2020. Commencement of the Worldwide Covid Vaccination Program
Sustained by media disinformation, the mRNA vaccine was put forth as a solution to curbing the pandemic. Amply documented, the Vaccine has triggered from the outset in December 2020 an upward trend in mortality and morbidity
In many countries, there was a significant shift in mortality following the introduction of the mRNA vaccine
69,053 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 10,997,126 reported as at 3 April 2022 for the EU, US and UK combined.
Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-!9 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.
It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage (1 to 10%) of the actual figures.
But only a small fraction of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine-related deaths and adverse events to the national health authorities.
It’s the Covid-19 mRNA “Vaccine” rather than the SARS-CoV-2 virus which is “the killer”.
Media Disinformation: The Virus is a “Hit and Run Killer”, “The Vaccine Saves Lives!”
SARS-CoV2 detected by the PCR test is relentlessly portrayed as a “killer virus”.
“there are many crucial unknowns about this virus, including how exactly it kills, whether it will evolve into something more — or less — lethal … . (Nature)
A sensationalist BBC report under the title: “Why is the Virus such a Threat” contends (quoting and misquoting “scientific opinion”) that the virus’ has a “hit and run killer evolutionary tactic” to spread the Covid-19 infection far and wide. Timely report published two weeks prior to the November 2020 launching of the mRNA vaccine:
“Master of Deception. In the early stages of an infection the virus is able to deceive the body. …
It [the virus] behaves like a ‘hit and run’ killer
The amount of virus in our body begins to peak the day before we begin to get sick. …
But it takes at least a week before Covid progresses to the point where people need hospital treatment. “This is a really brilliant evolutionary tactic – you don’t go to bed, you go out and have a good time,” says Prof Lehner.
So the virus is like a dangerous driver fleeing the scene – the virus has moved on to the next victim long before we either recover or die.
In stark terms, “the virus doesn’t care” if you die, says [Cambridge] Prof Lehner, “this is a hit and run virus”. ….
What rubbish! The BBC personifies the killer virus, with a view to creating panic. Not only are these sensationalist reports based on the results of the flawed PCR tests, they also contradict the official WHO definition of Covid-19:
“The most common symptoms of COVID-19are fever, dry cough, and tiredness. … These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but only have very mild symptoms. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing hospital treatment. Around 1 out of every 5 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing.”
“Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses. Because some of the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are similar, it may be hard to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone, and testing may be needed to help confirm a diagnosis. Flu and COVID-19 share many characteristics, but there are some key differences between the two.”
If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is “similar to Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat. And the vaccine program would have been rejected outright.
It is worth noting that the mRNA vaccine presented to public opinion as a solution to curbing the killer virus relied on the the PCR test as a valid means to assessing the spread of the disease. In the United States, the mRNA vaccine was launched on December 14, 2020. Six weeks later (January 20, 2021), the WHO repealed the validity of the PCR test. In turn on July 21, 2021 the CDC declares the PCR as invalid as a means to detecting the virus.
Phase IV: November 26, 2021, “Black Friday”. The Omicron Variant
Remember the Omicron crisis, still ongoing. Scary. A novel Covid variant allegedly discovered in South Africa which has been spreading Worldwide. How was it detected? The PCR test?
It started on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, 26th of November 2021.
It triggered a renewed fear campaign as well as instability on the stock markets with the shares of Big Pharma vaccine producers going fly high. It incited people to get their vaccine booster shots.
The omicron announcement was a carefully prepared fraud. Two days later, the WHO politely repealed the statement of its own advisory task force:
“There is currently no information to suggest that symptoms associated with Omicron are different from those from other variants.”
In turn, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, Chair of the South African Medical Association (SAMA) described the omicron variant as “extremely mild, for us [these are] mild cases. … I’ve spoken to other colleagues of mine and they give the same picture.” (See Video Interview on CNBC)
These rectifications did not in any way impede the 24/7 fear campaign sustained by media disinformation. In fact it created panic.
Meanwhile, a massive home testing campaign was initiated.
Phase V: Billions of Home and Antigen Tests Distributed Worldwide
Massive Home Testing: Fear is “Good For Business”
Literally billions of antigen and home test kits have been distributed Worldwide. In the U.S. more than a billion test kits were made available for a population of 340 million Americans.
In Canada, 291 million test kits were distributed. Canada’s population is of the order of 38.5 million.
In many countries, the “deadly” Omicron variant became the pretext for implementing renewed partial lockdowns, the speeding up of the vaccine mandate, restrictions on travel as well as confinement and stay at home mandates over the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
Below are the figures for so-called “Covid-19 Confirmed Cases” Worldwide in early November 2021. (11/01/21)
Pushing up the Numbers of FAKE “Covid-19 Confirmed cases”
Coinciding with the Omicron crisis, the surge in the import and distribution of literally billions of home and antigen test kits Worldwide has contributed to pushing up the number of FAKE “Covid-19 confirmed cases”.
In the course of less than 5 months (November 1st, 2021 to March 18, 2022), the cumulative confirmed cases have almost doubled.
Joe Biden’s Purchase of More than A Billion Home and Antigen Test Kits
In the US the White House announced in January that it was buying at tax payers expense:
“One Billion Tests to Give to Americans for Free with Online Ordering of a Half-Billion Tests Begins on January 19th”.
This purchase was in addition the earlier deliveries of several hundred million home kits.
Starting in late November, the home test kits contributed to hiking up the so-called “Confirmed Cases” in the US. (See graph below)
These figures are fake because the WHO and the CDC have categorized the PCR test as totally invalid.
And the home tests are categorized as less reliable than the PCR test which is upheld as the gold standard.
Justin Trudeau’s Purchase of 291 Million Home and Antigen Test Kits
In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered the delivery of 94 million rapid home test kits (self testing and antigen testing kits) back in November 2021 which were delivered and distributed to the provinces.
Another 140 million were ordered by the federal government in early January 2022 at a cost of 1.7 billion (Canadian) dollars at tax payers’ expense.
Canada has a population of 38.5 million and we now have 291 million antigen rapid test kits (See table below). In other words exactly 7 tests per person.
This process has contributed in the course of the last few months to creating fear and havoc within Canadian families while hiking up the number of so-called “Covid-19 confirmed cases”
The estimated cost to Canadian tax payers is of the order of 3.5 billion Canadian dollars. (February 2022). A recent update (December 6, 2022), confirms that “the federal government has provided $4.28 billion to the provinces and territories to help them”:
conduct testing (up to 200,000 tests per day across Canada)
perform contact tracing
share public health data to help fight the pandemic
Needless to say this 4.28 billion dollar budget sustained by a mounting public debt has created havoc in the Canada’s fiscal structure, to the detriment of routine expenditures on infrastructure in the areas of health, education, transport etc, etc.
See Health Canada (Table Below)
“The Gold Standard” PCR Test
Ironically the home tests are compared to the flawed PCR test which is currently upheld as the so-called gold standard. According to the NYT (Updated Nov. 10, 2021) the rapid antigen and home test kits are less effective than the PCR test:
The rapid antigen tests are less reliable for finding Covid-19 in people with low viral loads compared to the “gold standard” P.C.R. tests you’d get from a health care provider. One study found that a rapid home antigen test had a 64 percent chance of correctly spotting the virus in people with symptoms who had tested positive on a P.C.R. test. (The test caught only about 36 percent of those who had the virus but didn’t have symptoms.)
What the NYT fails to acknowledge is that the CDC had called for the “Gold Standard” PCR test to be discontinued on July 23, 2021 before it’s official withdrawal on December 31, 2021. (see analysis above)
The CDC directive tacitly admits is that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between “SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”. We have known this from the outset. While it has taken them almost two years to recognize that the PCR test is totally flawed and invalid, the PCR test is upheld as the gold standard in relation to the antigen and home test kits.
December 31, 2021 CDC declares the PCR test as invalid
Invalid PCR Test Upheld as the Gold Standard
Billions and Billions of Antigen and Home Tests Push up the Numbers
March 12, 2022 452,201,564 cumulative cases
The results of the home and antigen tests are meaningless. They do not under any circumstances confirm an increase in the so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases”.
The surge in the numbers is largely attributable to the worldwide sale and distribution of billions of home and antigen tests. This in turn has contributed to a new wave of fear and social disruption.
This engineered surge in so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases” has occurred at a time when a large percentage of the world’s population has been vaccinated.
“Fear is Good for Business”: Big Money Behind the Covid-19 Self Testing Kits
.
Who owns the intellectual property rights?
.
“The FDA made this decision based on results from a study conducted by United Health Group. The Gates Foundation provided technical support on the design of this study” (Gates Foundation)
In August 2021, the Gates Foundation together with Soros’ Open Society Foundation invested in
“acquiring Mologic, a British company that specializes in the development of rapid-testing technology, including for Covid-19 and various tropical diseases”.
Mologic is described as “a leader in rapid testing [which] presents a unique opportunity”
This initiative consisted in “rebranding” Mologic into “a non-profit social enterprise.” which would operate under the auspices of the Gates’ Foundation’s Global Access Health
The stated purpose of GAH is to act as a “a social enterprise which expands access to affordable state-of-the-art medical technology such as diagnostic tests and manufacturing processes.”
Dear Readers, I am much indebted for your support.
For a more detailed and comprehensive analysis including the economic and social dimensions: Recently released Book.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity
As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.
You are welcome to forward it to family and friends.
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.
He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)
He is the author of 13 books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).
He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]
Comments Off on March 11, 2020, Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid
In two weeks, our government wants to agree to a global pact for digital coercion.
On September 22 and 23, a UN Future Summit prepared by the German and Namibian governments will take place in New York. A global digital pact is to be adopted, which has already been negotiated in almost complete secrecy and – as far as I know – in the absence of the public and parliaments. If you put aside the empty words in which the Global Digital Compact has been wrapped, you see an agreement to force everyone into a world controlled by digital corporations.
.
.
*
When I write about exclusion of the public, I do not mean secrecy.
The negotiations at the summit are taking place behind closed doors. But the Global Digital Compact in the versions of the 2nd revision and the 3rd revision is published on the UN’s Summit of the Future website.
However, neither the UN nor the German government, which was heavily involved in the preparations for the summit, have made any serious efforts to inform the public about what is planned or even to have it discussed in parliaments and the media. It is also not public which corporations, foundations and hand-picked representatives of so-called civil society will be allowed to sit at the negotiating table. The World Economic Forum will almost certainly be there, as will the Club of Rome, according to reports.
The text of the agreement begins by stating that digital technologies “offer immense potential benefits for human welfare and the advancement of societies” and that we must therefore eliminate any digital divide between and within countries. The stated goal is “a digital future for all”.
What is important is what the contract does not say. The word voluntary only appears in connection with the signing of the contract.For citizens, however, there is no right to choose a future for themselves other than a completely digitalized future. After all, that would open up a digital divide that should no longer exist.
There is no provision for the right to manage many of one’s affairs in the traditional way by interacting with other people rather than with computers.
No one should be able to choose to have their children taught by teachers instead of computers, or to keep conversations with their doctor and treatments a secret instead of being stored on the servers of IT companies. Nothing in the contract indicates that such a right has even been considered.
Risks are acknowledged, but without the text being specific. They are to be “mitigated”. Human oversight of the new technologies should also be ensured. International cooperation must be agile and adapt to the rapidly changing technological landscape. Then there is a lot of blah-blah with nice adjectives such as sustainable, fair, open, responsible, etc. It sounds good, but it has big feet.
The development of the digital technology “landscape” is thus presented as coming from above, as something that citizens and even governments have to adapt to.
Yet landscape is just another word for the digital corporations and what they come up with. It recognizes a leadership role for corporations. This, as I have shown in a previous post, is a common thread of the UN Summit on the Future and the UN’s actions over the last two decades.
Risks of digitalization should not be avoided in any way, but only “mitigated”.
“Human oversight” of new technologies is something quite different from democratic control and decision-making autonomy for users. If Elon Musk of X, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Sam Altman of OpenAI and the bosses of Google have sovereignty over the new technologies, this requirement of the treaty is fulfilled, but the interests of citizens are anything but safeguarded. The whole treaty reads as if the IT corporations and their foundations had drafted it, and that is probably not far from the truth. After all, the UN relies on corporate money, and the world’s richest and most powerful corporations are IT companies.
Conclusion
When the UN, which is heavily influenced by the IT companies, is working at an international level, away from the public and parliaments, to promote digitalization and encourage everyone – whether they want to or not – to make extensive use of digital devices and programs, it is no longer surprising why our federal government is so committed to subjecting citizens to digital coercion. Be it by abolishing the option of paying in cash, be it via the state-owned railroad company or the semi-state-owned DHL, or by arbitrarily linking state benefits such as the Deutschlandticket, cultural vouchers for 18-year-olds and one-off energy payments for students to the use of a smartphone. This is how our government earns marks in the international evaluation of progress in digitalization.
The fact that this subjects citizens to ever more intensive digital surveillance of their every move and utterance is an added bonus for our surveillance-hungry rulers, one increasingly gets the impression.
Do not accept this in silence! Let them know that you expect them to defend citizens’ right to a self-determined life with protected privacy.
Ask them why the Digital Pact does not mention an individual right to opt out of digitalization and ask them what they think about it.
Ask them whether they follow the maxim that everything that is good for IT companies is also good for Germany. Check whether they want to vote for parties that put the interests of the IT industry above those of the citizens. According to my assessment, which I have repeatedly backed up with examples on this blog, the parties with a digital compulsion are first and foremost the FDP, closely followed by the Greens and, at a short distance, the CDU and SPD.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In less than two weeks, the United Nations will present during a special session – 22 and 23 September — of their 2024 UN annual meeting in New York, the World of The Future. It is a fully digitized world. For the UN AG meeting, a “package” of global digitization was prepared by the governments of Germany and Namibia. Of course, with the “help” of Big Tech and Big Finance.
This digital enslavement package will be adopted under almost complete exclusion of the public, of people like you and me.
Most parliaments and governments worldwide have apparently already agreed to it, so that the presentation and the so-called discussion during the UN Annual Conference is a sheer fig leaf, a mere farce.
This is the new “rules-based” way of forcing an entire population into a compact of a digital straightjacket, escaping from which is almost impossible.
People nowhere have been consulted or even informed. Governments worldwide were forced by the unnamed powers-that-be to accept a complete digitization of our future – what the WEF calls the 4th Industrial Revolution.
People, it is here!
No waiting for the end of the UN Agenda 2030. The goals have conveniently been advanced. You – and me – will be confronted with cash elimination, already started in many European countries and to some extent in the US; and even in some “developing countries” like India, without people’s consent.
All will be controlled, our money-spending, health data, food and eating habits, travels, TV viewer preferences, radio favorites, friends with whom we regularly meet and communicate, as well as others from the opposition camp; shopping / spending habits – and so on – all will be controlled digitally by the IT-digital corporate control system.
The means to do so is the benign looking QR code which has been gradually and gently introduced over the last two decades or so – and today has become a common appearance in our daily life. In many cases you may not be able to read a restaurant menu without downloading it on your personal QR code.
Who do you guess will control all personal QR codes?
Exactly, you guessed right.
QR stands for Quick Response. It is a barcode on steroids. While the barcode holds information horizontally, the QR code does so both horizontally and vertically. The two-dimensional matrix barcode was invented in 1994, by the Japanese company Denso Wave, originally meant for labelling automobile parts.
Western control freaks quickly discovered its potential and captured it for their evil “program for the future of mankind”, left to the corporate IT world (with a combined worth of about 3 to 4 trillion dollars) for administering and imposing it on humanity. An individual QR code has basically unlimited storage capacity. So, it may know you better than you know yourself.
The debate or “negotiations” for this digital compact, officially take/s place on 20 and 21 September behind closed doors, during the UNGA, but the context had been discussed and agreed upon in several clandestine iterations, also called Revisions 2 and 3, which are published on the UN website for “The Summit of the Future”. See this.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone knows this page and even fewer read it. If people were better and more informed or would care to inform themselves, we might not stand before the digital abyss, as we do today.
It is not clear what corporate / IT, and civil society representation was part of these secretive “negotiations”. But for sure the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Club of Rome, both headquartered in “paradise” Switzerland (it cannot be repeated often enough how “neutral” Switzerland hosts the bulk of these evil organizations, whose purpose is to reduce and control humanity), were party to the original drafting and the subsequent revisions.
The digital compact has no space for human choices. There is no way a “voluntary option” is available. In other words, an individual cannot say, “Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to opt out of this digital world”. People are forced into this system, come hell or high water. That is the plan.
Governments’ choice to participate was equally blocked, as they were told it is a MUST, or else. We know what “or else” means.
There are no exceptions allowed in “full digitization” because they would throw global control, or Globalist Control, out of the window, or to the wolves, so to speak.
Exceptions would be a definitive hindrance for the impending One World Order.
The compact clearly explains the enormous advantages offered for the human wellbeing by digital technologies. Therefore, it is imperative that no gaps remain between people and countries, that ALL navigate on the same wavelength – namely full-digitally.
The goal of overall human wellbeing, as explained in the compact – no wars, no conflicts, no pollution, no noise, diseases under control, and more — justifies the rapid move towards full or ALL digitization.
Without directly saying so, this is the first step to a One World Order, and a One World Government. The latter executed by the UN, with a policy framework established by the WEF, and a GESTAPO-like tyranny imposed by WHO.
The UN has been fully co-opted into this humanity destroying enterprise which in hindsight can be traced back over the last 20-some years, while humanity was lulled into a deep slumber. It was finally made official, with a Cooperation Agreement between the UN and the WEF, signed in June 2019. Illegal as such, as the UN may not enter into agreements with NGOs, but de facto irrelevant in a rules-based-ordered world.
Besides, the UN’s resources and budget, currently depending mostly on contributions from member countries, could be easily replaced by the ruling paymasters, Big Tech and Big Finance, who eventually will call the shots. Deservedly in today’s world, where “who pays decides” mandates.
Future UN Annual Meetings could be considered as pro-forma shareholders meetings, or in WEF terms “stakeholder’s meetings”, without in fact having any power to change direction, or chart a different, more human course.
Digital Management is in control, with voiceless (trans)humanity following almost blindly. Those who are not blind and may resist can easily be digitally removed. Nobody cares. Mr. “digital” cannot be accused of murder. The rules-based order has no concept of killing; it is simply a digital disappearance.
In the ranks of the closer UN advisory services, we are to be expected finding the Big Tech IT corporations. They will decide in terms of digital directions, as they are given the playscript by so far unnamed Big Finance.
Do we, humanity, have a choice, an alternative, a way to get out of this digital stranglehold? We have, but only when we realize what is being planned, when we recognize the implications, and when we act not as individuals but when we are ready for shedding “system-imposed” individualism and adopt “Together we Can”.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image: United Nations General Assembly hall in New York City. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
To that end, the Kiev regime is ready to do virtually anything, including ally itself with terrorist groups and even directly recruit them. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrovrecently revealed disturbing details about the Neo-Nazi junta’s efforts to work together with extremists in Idlib, a NATO-backed terrorist-infested region that has been under Turkey’s control since the political West and its vassals and satellite states launched the crawling invasion of Syria back in 2011.
According to Lavrov, Moscow “recently received information that ’emissaries’ from the Ukrainian intelligence services are present in the Idlib de-escalation zone within the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic” and that “they are recruiting local militants from Jabhat Al-Nusra, now known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham [HTS], with the intention of involving them in nefarious operations”. The Kiev regime intelligence services are also focusing on the south, “towards the Sahara-Sahel zone in Africa”.
Lavrov also pointed out that “they team up with recruited extremists there to carry out terrorist attacks against the armed forces of multiple countries”.
“The investigation is still underway, but it has already revealed evidence that the Main Directorate of Intelligence [GUR] of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry was involved in the preparation of the terrorist attack. In particular, the escape routes of the killers across the Russian–Ukrainian border were planned in detail,” Lavrov stated.
Moscow’s top diplomat is essentially warning that the Kiev regime is planning additional sabotage and terrorist attacks within Russia and it needs extremists ready to conduct them.
However, in recent years, the Neo-Nazi junta got directly involved in pro-terrorist operations in this highly contested area. Reports indicate that it’s working together with HTS and several other (mostly Turkish-backed) terrorist groups. Major sources in Turkey, such as the Istanbul-based Aydinlik, also covered this in a report that actually predates Lavrov’s statements.
The outlet claims that “Ukrainian government officials recently traveled to Idlib and met with members of HTS to discuss a drones-for-fighters deal”. The meeting with the terrorists was reportedly held in June. Worse yet, military sources report that the Kiev regime’s special forces (specifically GUR operatives of the Khimik Group) launched an attack on a Russian military outpost on the southeastern outskirts of Aleppo. The attack reportedly took place on September 15 and “saw a powerful explosion followed by secondary blasts causing serious damage to the site”.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“What the secretary-general is trying to do is an end run around the United Nations charter and delegate to himself all the powers he can possibly assume.” – Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois [1]
“The Pact is a dire threat to every nation, and it must be stopped.” – Dr. Meryl Nass [2]
At the beginning of this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on his website that next week, he would be attending the 79th Session of the United Nations Assembly and something called the Summit of the Future. [3]
The news that he would co-preside over the Summit of the Future in particular has gotten no attention in any of the country’s major newspapers as of this date. [4]
In fact, this writer has so far not been able to find the Summit of the Future mentioned in any of the major Western mainstream news outlets. Yet there has been significant concerns raised by critics about the dangers of the “Pact for the Future” to be presented at the Summit. [5][6]
Michael Nevradakis, writing for the Childrens Defense Network news and views site, The Defender, wrote that the document contains 11 policy proposals, including “proposals for the establishment of a U.N. “Emergency Platform” and a “Global Digital Compact,” and policy proposals on “Information Integrity” and “Transforming Education.””
Under these proposals, the secretary-general would have “standing authority” to declare “an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.” [7]
In spite of the lack of attention to such a predominantly significant move, the media stays silent. This step, like the attempts to pass the Pandemic Treaty is putting authority to authorize profound power in the hands of a privileged few unelected figures. On the Global Research News Hour, we will devote scrutiny to such initiatives, and try to determine ways to stop, or elude their impacts with two prominent independent journalists.
In our first half hour, we hear from Derrick Broze, a writer with The Last American Vagabond and Conscious Resistance Network about what people should be concerned about in the Pact for the Future. Derrick will be at the UN next week to cover the Summit of the Future.
In our second half hour, we are joined by James Corbett, host of the Corbett report. He will be highlighting his concerns about Pandemic Treaty in spite of it not being passed last spring at the World Health Assembly. He will also speak of other developments, including a “new generation of vaccines” to be introduced to the world in a few short weeks.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Global Research: So what, in a nutshell, is so troubling about this benign-sounding Pact for the Future?
Derrick Broze: So, yeah, in your intro there, you kind of outlined what has come before.
I’ll share a little more detail. So in 2020, it was the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Obviously, COVID was going on.
It was a big year for the globalist, internationalist movement, you could say. And that was also around the time, of course, we heard the term, the Great Reset. At that same time, the UN was putting out a report calling for accelerating the race to the completion of the Agenda 2030, the race to the completion of the Sustainable Development Goals.
You had Secretary General Antonio Guterres putting out statements sort of lamenting the fact that, in the UN’s words, that we were falling behind and that we weren’t going to reach the targets for completing this environmental agenda, this transformation of the world, really, by 2030. And so at that time, there was a call for a report to be issued. And this report ended up becoming Our Common Agenda.
And it was at the Our Common Agenda report, when that was released, which called for two different meetings. One of them was the Sustainable Development Goals Summit, which took place in 2023. And the other was this Summit of the Future.
And so for the last four years, the United Nations, as well as the World Economic Forum, and then another lesser known group to at least the public, the Club of Rome, have been working towards this effort. And you can look at the United Nations websites and reference material, and you can see that they have been really pumping up that everything is going towards the Summit of the Future. Now, this doesn’t mean, of course, this will be the last meeting the UN ever holds, or that at the end of the summit, world government is going to magically appear or anything like that.
But it is absolutely a major step forward in that goal, just like we saw during the COVID-19 years. And I’ve been trying to raise the alarm bells about this for the last year, myself and a few other researchers who’ve been paying attention, because I’m sure your audience is aware there was a lot of resistance and pushback to the World Health Organization pandemic agreement to the pandemic treaty. And that has sort of stalled, it’s still in the background.
But for a moment, a lot of people were paying attention to that, both online and in the real world. People went to go rally in Geneva back in May. But there has been little to no attention paid to the Summit of the Future, which I think is an equal threat, if not a greater threat, than the WHO pandemic agreement was.
And I can outline the reasons for that. But the first reason is because of this Pact for the Future document that you mentioned. And there’s actually going to be three documents which will be signed by every single 193 member states of the United Nations at the Summit of the Future.
That includes the Pact for the Future, what they’re calling a global digital compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations. And so these three documents, in their own ways, really set the stage for the UN to grab more powers as we move forward. And there’s a few different key points that we can get deeper into.
And just briefly, they are that there’s calls for a “UN 2.0”, that it’s time to remake or reset the UN. There’s talks of potentially invoking the UN Charter to remake the United Nations Security Council. So that’s one big thing, this idea that the UN is no longer, in their terms, it’s no longer fit for purpose because it was created after World War II.
And well, at this point, we’re dealing with pandemics and wars and economic calamity. And so obviously, individual governments, nation states cannot handle these problems on their own. Thus, it’s time to remake the UN to make it stronger.
So that’s one of the big push that we’re seeing. The other thing is this call for resetting the financial systems. We keep seeing references to a new Bretton Woods moment.
And of course, Bretton Woods is the agreement that brought us the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have been responsible for really extorting and taking resources from developing nations and putting them in debt and stealing their resources and things like that. So they’re calling for a new financial system, which will help accelerate the push to the SDGs. And then again, part of the Pact for the Future is also this potential for the declaration of a planetary emergency.
And this includes, based on the draft versions that we’ve seen of the pact, we’ve seen three of them so far. There more than likely will be one more released before the summit is happening next weekend, September 22nd and 23rd. But so far, the versions we have seen, both the zero draft and the first, second and third version, all include language about an emergency platform.
And this emergency platform is another, I think, piece of the puzzle that is a bit worrisome, because it essentially says, in the UN’s own words, that if there is an emergency which “shocks multiple regions of the world,” then the UN could invoke this emergency platform. And what comes next, none of us know for certain. But I do find it interesting that the UN is feeling the need to at least put in language that says, we promise the emergency platform won’t be a standing body.
It won’t be a standing institution. We promise it will respect national sovereignty. And I think that is because there’s this awareness, again, after the WHO pandemic agreement, that so many people are awake to the UN’s real intentions about global control.
And this definitely ties into the whole eugenics population reduction conversation as well. So I think because of this resistance, that they feel the need to kind of, okay, let’s throw a little caveat there about national sovereignty. And let’s make sure they know this isn’t going to be a standing body.
And I guess whether or not you believe that depends on whether or not you trust the UN.
GR: Yeah, well, when you talk about, I mean, the whole idea of being able to declare a planetary emergency and having an emergency platform, it seems to kind of intersect with the pandemic treaty when they were talking about it, because essentially, it would give them, they had room to declare a pandemic, like the snap of a finger, essentially. And I’m wondering if this is also a way of, you know, interacting at a larger level.
I mean, it’s giving the UN, essentially, because it gives them an opportunity to be a new governing system. You know, effectively, a new world order. I gotta ask how, when there actually are environmental threats, plaguing a region of the planet, whether it’s climate change, or some other environmental disaster, or whatever.
I guess I’m just wondering, how would you see it? What’s maybe a test example of this emergency situation affecting a certain region of the world?
DB: So the only examples they really provide, of course, they mentioned climate change, they do mention war, they mention, as I said, economic crises. There also is a whole section in the latest version of the Pact for the Future that deals with space, which I think is interesting because, you know, there’s been concerns about the recent discussions in the mainstream media about UFOs, and, you know, threats from beyond. And many folks, I think, in the Truth-Research-Freedom community have been concerned for years about the potential for some type of false flag involving claims of, you know, we’re being invaded from the stars or something.
I don’t know if that’s on the table, but there’s definitely a lot of attention paid to space and how we need to protect space. And we need to make sure that space is diverse and equitable and sustainable and all this sort of thing. And so the UN is mainly focused on the climate change narrative, but they absolutely do mention potential for new pandemics, potential for other events.
And I think they’re purposely keeping the language vague, because, again, it talks about global shocks, shocks to multiple regions of the world. And I want to make the point that there’s a few organizations that are really kind of been behind this. One of them is the Stimson Center, which I did some reporting on at the last American Vagabond.
The Stimson Center, that’s spelled S-T-I-M-S-O-N. They have been around for quite some time, but I don’t think they’ve gotten the attention that the Rockefeller Foundation or the Gates Foundation and others have. But they’re definitely tied to that whole nexus.
And they have been one of the biggest proponents of this idea of not only the summit for the future, but they’ve been one of the biggest groups calling on the UN to declare a planetary emergency. And the planetary emergency, again, you can find another organization also funded by the Rockefellers called the Climate Governance Commission that has been promoting this idea about the need to declare this planetary emergency. They put out a November 2023 report that actually came out at the UN Climate Change Conference COP28, and it was called Governing Our Planetary Emergency.
And with that report, which came out last year, they said, “we therefore urge the UN General Assembly at the 2024 Summit of the Future to declare a planetary emergency, recognizing that the triple planetary crisis poses a grave risk to global stability and security and to be reinforced in similar statements by bodies and agencies of the UN system.” And so, yeah, they talk about this triple planetary crisis, which is deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate change. And that sort of echoes statements and terms we’ve heard from the World Economic Forum who’ve been pushing this idea of polycrisis for a couple of years now.
We’re dealing with a polycrisis. And all of this is designed to get the public to believe that the Earth is in such a state of calamity, that the only way we can make it through this is to come together as a world government. There’s no way that France or Mexico or the United States or the UK or Canada can handle this on our own, because it’s a global, it’s global in scope.
And thus, we need to come together and use this Pact for the Future to either declare a planetary emergency. And I will say, I have less confidence that they’re actually going to do that at this event in terms of literally saying we now declare a planetary emergency. But 100%, the current version of the Pact for the Future does include this emergency platform I mentioned.
So even if they don’t outright declare the emergency yet, they’re putting in place the infrastructure so that if they later declare this planetary emergency, they can go ahead and kind of rapidly accelerate their plans and their goals. And one other point I’ll just mention here is that we can look back to the Club of Rome, and I encourage folks who are not familiar with the Club of Rome to become more familiar with them. They have deep ties, of course, to Henry Kissinger and to the World Economic Forum’s beginnings as well.
But the Club of Rome, they’ve actually been talking about this since before the Climate Governance Commission or the Stimson Center or the UN even. I found a report in 2019, which was called Planetary Emergency Plan, and it was just all about this whole idea. And then a year later, the Club of Rome updated the report in August 2020, of course, a few months after we were into the COVID-19 1984 nightmare.
And the Club of Rome described this report as, quote, a roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity. And so this all goes back to the Club of Rome. And for those who are unaware of their history, it absolutely is a eugenicist history.
You can look at their 1991 report titled The First Global Revolution, which was written by a man named Alexander King, who is one of the co-founders of the Club of Rome, who attended the 1973 meeting of the first meeting of the World Economic Forum. And it is in this report titled The First Global Revolution, which includes a section titled The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man. And it is this section which many of us point to and say, hey, look, the Club of Rome clearly are eugenicists, they believe in population reduction.
They claim that this has been misinterpreted, but I’ll just quote it for your audience really briefly, and then they can decide what they think on their own. So again, this is from a 1991 report titled The First Global Revolution. The section is titled The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man.
And it says, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat, which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
“All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” So this is really the root of the Summit of the Future, this call for a planetary emergency and everything else that we’re going to see happen in New York City next weekend.
GR: You mentioned a kind of a renewal of Bretton Woods as well, and bringing in the financial system. And I mean, because as you know, I mean, the Bretton Woods system, you know, instituted the International Monetary Fund, and essentially, you know, they got a system of essentially overruling the sovereignty of nations, you know, getting them to use Structural Adjustment Programs, you know, regardless of who was in power, or else they would not follow up with a, or if they wanted to get a loan that they needed. And I know we’re living in a world where just about everybody is really good using a loan.
I mean, is this this, the notion or the changes to the financial system? Is this essentially about becoming an enforcer to the UN? Because I mean, I’m looking at right now, the United Nations, I mean, they could say, you know, Israel has to stop their genocidal policies, and Israel can just say no. But I mean, this, you know, this financial mechanism could be a way or one of many ways, perhaps, of getting, you know, bringing power to the UN by restricting assets, funds, funding, and so forth. I mean, is that kind of what you’re talking about? Or is there more to it than that?
DB: No, that’s absolutely it right there.
I mean, this is, as you said, it’s, they keep saying, it’s time for a new Bretton Woods moment, etc. So they’re, you know, they’re doing, they’re trying to do the same thing we’ve already seen them do in the past. For those who are familiar, for example, with John Perkins’ work, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it would be that same type of strategy.
And in the latest version of the Pact for the Future, they specifically mentioned Special Drawing Rights, or SDR, which you may be familiar with, or maybe some of your audience. I’m not an expert on it. But I know that this has been a discussion for over a decade now.
And essentially, it’s not a currency, it’s a, they call it like a basket of financial tools or something like, you know, they use this sort of legalese financial economic terms. But I do know that James Corbett, of course, a great researcher on his own, since at least 2013, has been warning that the Special Drawing Rights might be the sort of foundation for a potentially global currency. And it definitely appears that that is in the works because of this latest version of the Summit of the Future, the Pact for the Future draft, the third version, which just came out on August 27.
So it’s the most recent version we have, absolutely mentions using Special Drawing Rights as the way that nations could, you know, get access to money. And they talk about using multilateral development banks, well, multilateral development banks, that’s the World Bank, that’s the IMF. So whether it’s the same old systems that we’ve seen them using in the past to, you know, extort resources and, you know, put their thumb over nations, or it’s brand new institutions, we don’t know yet.
But it definitely appears to be the same old strategy at play here. But this time, they’re saying, because it’s so we’re so late in the game, and we might not accomplish the SDGs, we need all nations to step up their injection of financial cash. And of course, we’re also seeing the discussion around public private partnerships, which has been made really popular by the World Economic Forum.
And so the UN latest draft says something to the effect that we need both public private partnerships to inject money. And then we need individual nations to step up their, their, their funds that are coming in to the UN. Now, it does stop short, I will say it does stop short of saying, all nations are required to put in X amount of dollars, it’s still sort of couched in kind of like softer language of, we should suggest we should recommend.
And that’s been one of the major complaints that people who like the UN who think it could be a force for good have said for years is that it has no enforcement mechanism. Now, personally, I think that’s a good thing that it can enforce these, you know, these things I would like, but there are others who would like for it to have the ability to actually enforce this. So like I said, we’ll just have to see what happens in New York City next weekend.
As you mentioned, I will be there on the ground in person, I did get access for at least two of the days, they’re doing what they’re calling two action days, and then they’re doing the actual summit. I’ll be there for at least two of those days. And I’m going to try to get some interviews, maybe some confrontations and just get a feel for what’s going on on the ground.
Because one other thing I will mention is that we know that none of us have been consulted about the Summit of the Future, the Pact for the Future, the vast majority of people have no idea this is even going on. But they are absolutely going to trot out some younger folks, some Indigenous folks, some women, some marginalized communities, so that they can say, we’re considering all stakeholder viewpoints. And, you know, look, we brought in the youth, we’re going to listen to them.
And I’m really curious to see how that plays out. Because I definitely think the younger the younger generations are being heavily indoctrinated to believe that the world is about to end. So they want to create this illusion that the youth are demanding action, the youth are demanding this pact for the future.
And, you know, if you’re not taking steps, governments of the world, it’s you’re failing the younger generations. And I think, unfortunately, a lot of well meaning, probably very intelligent young people are being manipulated and brought into this, this event.
Lebanon officials are now reporting that multiple home solar energy systems have reportedly exploded in various neighborhoods across Beirut.
This attack follows closely on the heels of Tuesday’s pager blasts, which claimed the lives of 12 and left nearly 4,000 wounded in what is rapidly becoming an unparalleled security nightmare for the terrorist organization.
On Wednesday, walkie-talkies exploded simultaneously at various Hezbollah-controlled locations across the country.
Now, reports emerged from Lebanon’s Official News Agency detailing how home solar systems—often touted as the solution to climate change—were also going up in flames.
Al Jazeera reported, “Several blasts took place simultaneously, Hashem said, similar to what happened on Tuesday. “But this time, it was mostly walkie-talkies or radios [that exploded],” he said, adding that reports suggested that solar devices and some batteries in cars also exploded. Lebanon’s official news agency reported that home solar energy systems exploded in several areas of Beirut.”
#BREAKING Lebanon's state news agency reports that home solar energy systems have exploded in several areas of Beirut – AP pic.twitter.com/Oe6atF3gnX
AP reported that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has announced the beginning of a “new phase” in the conflict as the country redirects its attention to the northern front, where Hezbollah militants in Lebanon pose a growing threat.
Gallant made the announcement while addressing Israeli troops on Wednesday, praising the army and security agencies for their operational successes in recent months. “The results are very impressive,” he said, acknowledging the accomplishments of the military in the fight against Hamas but emphasizing the need to pivot to the north.
“We are at the start of a new phase in the war — it requires courage, determination, and perseverance,” Gallant stated. While he did not directly address the recent mysterious explosions of electronic devices in Lebanon, his comments suggest that Israel’s military strategy will now focus on combating Hezbollah.
This is a breaking story.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jim Hᴏft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
O regime de Kiev já não esconde a sua natureza terrorista e extremista. Numa entrevista recente aos meios de comunicação ocidentais, o Presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky, apelou abertamente à promoção do terror contra os cidadãos russos. Segundo ele, esta seria a melhor forma de colocar o povo russo contra o governo de Vladimir Putin.
Zelensky comentou sobre este tema durante uma entrevista à CNN. Ele disse que é necessário lançar ataques profundos à sociedade russa, destruindo a suposta “vida confortável” dos cidadãos russos. Ele espera trazer as consequências da guerra para toda a sociedade russa, incluindo civis e pessoas comuns em regiões distantes da zona de conflito.
O presidente ucraniano afirma que Putin não quer negociar o fim do conflito e, portanto, não há possibilidade de um acordo diplomático entre a Rússia e a Ucrânia na situação atual. Assim, para forçar o presidente russo a mudar a sua posição, seria necessário tornar os próprios cidadãos russos hostis ao governo. Zelensky acredita que a maneira mais fácil de o povo russo deixar de apoiar o governo é espalhar o medo e a insegurança.
Na sua declaração, Zelensky defendeu abertamente colocar os russos “em risco”. Na sua narrativa, Putin é visto como uma pessoa que não se preocupa com questões como o apoio internacional ou a diplomacia, temendo apenas a opinião pública e a pressão popular. Neste sentido, só se os cidadãos russos estiverem em perigo constante haveria uma oportunidade para o presidente russo mudar de ideias e começar a negociar a paz com os ucranianos.
“Tenho certeza de que ele só tem medo de uma coisa. Sem líderes, sem países, sem nada. Ele tem medo da sua sociedade, do povo russo (…) Se o povo russo estiver em perigo, se não tiver uma vida confortável, se viver sem energia, como o nosso povo, compreenderá o preço da guerra . Eles não ficarão felizes com isso e começarão a pressiona-lo”, afirmou.
A retórica de Zelensky é totalmente falaciosa. Desde 2022, apenas o lado russo se mostrou repetidamente disposto a negociar. Moscou apresentou diversas propostas de paz que poderiam ter encerrado o conflito, evitando mais mortes. No entanto, Kiev recusou ou ignorou todas estas propostas, aceitando subservientemente ser utilizado pela OTAN num plano de guerra por procuração contra Moscou. Portanto, o lado culpado pelo fracasso diplomático não é a Rússia.
É verdade que os russos cancelaram recentemente todas as negociações de paz e decidiram resolver o conflito por meios militares. Mas esta decisão foi tomada precisamente porque Kiev, depois de boicotar todas as negociações de paz anteriores, lançou uma invasão ilegal da região de Kursk, assassinando sistematicamente civis russos numa área pacífica e indiscutível. O ato foi considerado terrorista pelas autoridades russas, impossibilitando novas negociações. A posição russa tem sido clara de que não tolerará ataques a civis e territórios indiscutíveis, sendo todas estas ações ucranianas vistas como terroristas.
Neste sentido, em vez de parar estes atos, retirando as tropas ucranianas de Kursk e pedindo a retomada das conversações diplomáticas, Zelensky está a fazer precisamente o oposto. Ele aposta ainda mais no uso do terrorismo, prometendo publicamente aumentar os ataques a áreas civis apenas para tentar, em vão, mudar a opinião pública russa. Obviamente, isto torna a diplomacia impossível, deixando a Rússia sem outra opção senão expandir as ações militares.
Além disso, deve ser sublinhado que o cálculo estratégico ucraniano está absolutamente errado. Zelensky espera fomentar a militância anti-Putin na Rússia, espalhando o terror. Contudo, quanto mais forem atacados, mais os russos apoiarão a operação militar especial. Os russos comuns não querem ser intimidados e ameaçados pela violência fascista. Tal como os seus antepassados lutaram contra a Alemanha de Hitler, eles estão prontos para fazer todos os esforços necessários para impedir o crescimento da russofobia e o genocídio dos russos.
Na prática, os ataques ucranianos estão a fazer com que a opinião pública russa apoie ainda mais as ações contra Kiev. Zelensky só está acelerando o fim do seu próprio regime ao promover o terror, pois os russos continuam a ter abundante capacidade de mobilização, sendo capazes de expandir suas ações militares – enquanto a Ucrânia tem apenas alguns recursos restantes para resistir ao avanço russo. Em vez de “forçar Putin a negociar”, Zelensky apenas conseguirá prejudicar ainda mais a própria posição da Ucrânia no conflito.
Já é claro para todos os russos que não há possibilidade de negociação com o regime de Kiev. A operação militar especial é apoiada pela maioria do povo russo porque as ações cada vez mais agressivas do regime de Zelensky deixam claro que o lado ucraniano ocidental conhece apenas a linguagem da força.
The man who orchestrated the chemical attacks in Syria has died in Idlib. Mohamed Amin Khalid al-Hamoud was a chemical engineer, who was in control of the chemical weapons for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), headed by Mohamed al-Julani.
According to HTS’s media, al-Hamoud died of a heart attack, but other sources in Idlib say he was poisoned to death. He began with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which has dissolved into the current HTS.
The Syrian armed conflict has been over for years. The last terrorist-occupied territory is Idlib, west of Aleppo. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) holds about 3 million residents as human shields. HTS runs Idlib like an Islamic State, and Julani was formerly a member of ISIS, before creating his own Al Qaeda branch in Syria, Jibhat al-Nusra.
When the US designated Jibhat al-Nusra a terrorist group, Julani changed the name of the group to HTS, and the act of re-branding allowed him to live in freedom in Idlib, despite the 10-million-dollar bounty the US had placed on his head. But, that lucrative prize has not been awarded, even though American journalist Martin Smith of PBS interviewed him in Idlib, and UN and other international aid agencies hand-deliver millions of dollars in aid directly to Julani.
In the PBS interview in February 2021, Julani said,
“For example, till now there’s still international recognition of Bashar al-Assad, although he carried out tens of chemical attacks against his people. Actually, it was said over 100 attacks.”
In March 2011, the beginning of the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change began in Deraa.
On August 21, 2012, US President Obama, the architect of the US-NATO attack on Syria, gave a speech in which he said that the US would consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a ‘red line’. His threat was directed at the Syrian government in Damascus, but it was the US-supported armed opposition who took heed and began their plans.
Obama’s ‘red line’ speech was a ‘green light’ for the armed opposition, which had been trained, funded, supplied, and armed by the US. The US media presented them as freedom fighters and Sen. John McCain lobbied for them in Congress to keep their funding. They called themselves the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Despite the billions of dollars poured into the group, by 2017 President Trump shut down the CIA program responsible for the FSA.
Khan al-Assal is a village just west of Aleppo on the road to Idlib. The town was inhabited by farmers and livestock. The FSA had attacked the village previously, but the residents had fought back and repelled the attack. The second attack on the town utilized chemical weapons and marked the very first use of chemicals in the Syrian conflict.
Western media blamed the SAA, while the Syrian media blamed the FSA. Syrian TV news reporters were on the scene both at the site of the attack and among the survivors who were being treated at the hospital. Eyewitnesses said a missile fell and a smell of chlorine was present and both people and livestock had died, which was filmed by the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).
The Syrian government wrote a letter of complaint to the UN requesting a UN delegation of chemical investigators to come to Syria to investigate the chemical attack. The UN replied that it was too dangerous in that area to send a team of investigators.
On August 21, 2013, a chemical attack east of Damascus, in the suburbs of Ghouta, occurred. The video uploaded by the FSA showed horrific scenes of rows of dead children lying on the floor. The video was shown globally for days. There was no verification of the source of the video, or its authenticity. But, as the saying goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Immediately, most were unified in their conclusion that the SAA had carried out the chemical attack. What was missing in their long-distance jump to conclusion, was the fact the Syrian government had been requesting the UN chemical investigators to come to Syria to investigate Khan al-Assal, and the investigators had just arrived finally in Damascus the day before the Ghouta attack. They had just unpacked their bags when a new chemical attack occurred very near where they were staying.
Fred Pleitgen, a journalist with CNN, was in Damascus to follow the UN investigation story, and he reported on going to all the hospitals in Damascus after the attack looking for victims or survivors and found none.
On April 17, 2014, Seymour Hersh published an expose in the London Review of Books, which explained why Obama had changed his mind, and not attacked the Syrian government in response to the Ghouta chemical attack.
According to Hersh,
“Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defense laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff.”
On December 29, 2016, the SAA entered East Aleppo, which had been occupied by the FSA, Jibhat al-Nusra, and other allied international terrorists for years. The terrorists had been either killed or taken in a surrender deal to Idlib.
CNN’s Fred Pleitgen was with the SAA as they entered for the first time areas previously under occupation by the terrorists. On camera, Pleitgen was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour. Pleitgen was in a dusty room, which he identified as a chemical workshop. Large barrels and supplies were seen in the room he stood in. Amanpour asked him if that room of chemicals had been on the government side. Pleitgen answered equally directly, that no it could not, as the area was just recovered by the SAA moments ago.
The terrorists fighting the Syrian government realized that Obama had let them down, and had not delivered on his promise to them, that if chemicals were used the American military would take decisive action in Syria, and the terrorists took that to mean the Damascus government would fall.
The goal of the FSA and their allies has always been the downfall of the secular government in Damascus, and the formation of an Islamic State in Syria, governed by Islamic law. This is the global goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which has members throughout the US and Europe. During the Obama administration, the MB was elevated to key positions of power, after Trump tried to get the US Congress to designate the MB as a terrorist organization, he was stopped several times.
The terrorists refused to give up on their dream of a US response to the use of chemicals, and on April 17, 2014, they used chemicals in a small village of Khan Sheikhoun, near Idlib.
The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigated the Douma attack and prepared a report. But, Professor Emeritus of MIT, Theodore Postol received some leaked documents which caused Postol to say the “conclusion is clear; that the cylinder was placed near this hole that was already produced by a mortar shell or an artillery rocket in order to make it appear on the surface that this chlorine cylinder injected chlorine into the building. This is a staged event, no question about it, unambiguous.”
Postol took a look into a previous chemical attack report by OPCW and said, “And incidentally, the report on Khan Sheikhoun has similar problems. In the case of the Khan Sheikhoun report, which is an event that occurred a year earlier, they cite evidence that when you look at the evidence, it’s also inconsistent with what they claim.”
On May 19, 2024, protesters in Idlib were calling for the ouster of Julani and HTS. Protests had been ongoing, Julani had stopped all aid going to the residents, and some people on the HTS payroll were cut off.
On May 25, 2024, the protests continued against Julani and HTS. The protesters told how their relatives had been imprisoned and tortured to death by HTS. Julani is arresting members of HTS in a cover-up, preparing for the day when he would be captured, or perhaps escape.
His benefactor, President Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, had turned against HTS and in the summer of 2024 had been attacking HTS, as Erdogan prepared to normalize his relationship with President Bashar al-Assad.
Turkey, Russia, and Syria are united in their agreement to clear Idlib of terrorist control and open the M4 highway to Aleppo for civilians and commercial traffic.
On September 5, 2024, Robert Wood, a US official at the UN, issued a statement, “Resolution 2118 said those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria must be held accountable.”
Wood directs his statement at the Syrian government, but fails to mention the possibility that the US-supported armed opposition carried out the chemical attacks to elicit a military response from the US.
Mohamed Amin Khalid al-Hamoud is dead, and he cannot testify to his role as the mastermind of the chemical attacks in Syria. He may have gotten a taste of his own medicine.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
September 20th, 2024 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović
Power in Politics
Power is the ability to make people, states, movements, organizations, or things do what they would not otherwise have done. It is a matter of fact that politics is seen to be about might rather than right.
It can be said that, in essence, politics is power or, in other words, the ability of some international actor to get the desired results of his/her political behavior by using whatever instruments (legal or not, moral or not, etc.). In the very broadest sense of its meaning, power can be understood as the ability to influence the results of certain political/historical events, from the point of view to have or control power to do something in the arena of world politics and international relations.
The notion of power in world politics is usually attached to the nation-state and, therefore, power as an ability is prescribed to the country to direct its affairs but without the interference of other states or other international actors. As a consequence of such an understanding of the term, power in politics is, basically, a very close term if not even a synonym to autonomy or independence.
Nevertheless, in academic literature, power in international politics is mostly understood as a relationship as the real ability to influence the behavior of other actors (states, organizations, movements, parties, persons, etc.) in a manner, not of their choosing.
That is the reason why the term power over others is becoming more and more used as a proper one. In other words, power in politics can be understood as a phenomenon that is exercised when one actor gets another actor to do something that, in fact, the latter would not otherwise have done. However, from a very practical point of view, distinctions exist between potential and actual power, relational and structural power, and finally between hard and soft power.[1]
Power is for sure a property of a structure which means that it is an ability to control the political moves and shape how things of the others are going to be arranged influenced by key factors through which one actor may influence another one or several of them at the same time (for instance, the relations between the USA and the rest of the member states of NATO).
Soft Power
For decades, power in international relations has been seen through the prism of capabilities, and consequently, power as a phenomenon was understood either as an attribute or a possession. From this point of view, power was often reflected in attempts to make a list of components of the power of a nation-state. However, those components usually are seen, in fact, as the real capabilities of one actor to achieve its aim by using some sort of power.[2]The focal capabilities of nation-states in direct relation to their potential or real power are the next five:[3]
Military capability: It is the question of how large military forces one actor has, how many weapons possesses, and of what kinds of weapons, and of what quality? In other words, the greater the military capability of one actor taking into consideration all of these dimensions, the greater is its real political and military power in the international arena. Many Great Powers reduce their army’s size when they get more sophisticated weaponry. The realist school understands the power in international relations almost exclusively attached to the military capacity of a nation-state. Military capacity is a basic force of power as it enables a state to protect its own borders, people, and territory from external aggression but as well as to impose its interests across its borders by a policy of occupation and expansion. From a very military viewpoint, the crucial factors are, therefore, the size of the army, its effectiveness in terms of morale, training, discipline, command, and its possession of the most advanced weaponry and equipment.
Economic resources: From an economic standpoint, the power of the nation-state depends on how large is a GNP, how much the nation-state is industrialized and technologically developed, and how much its economy is diversified? In other words, the weight of the nation-state in the international arena is closely connected to its wealth and economic resources. We cannot forget that in practice, military power directly depends on the economic development of the actor for the very reason that economic wealth enables nation-states (and other actors in international relations) to develop large military forces, possess sophisticated weapons, pay for the mercenaries or wage costly wars (for example, the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003). Modern technology with advanced industry is as well as an expression of the economic wealth of a nation which gives political power in relation to trading and other partners. It is true particularly in those cases when national currencies are very strong and stable to the extent that other nations are using them as tools of international exchange (for instance, a petrodollar).
Natural resources: It means, how much an actor has access to natural resources for the sake of supporting its own economic capabilities in general and in particular its military?
Population resources: The power of a nation-state very much depends on its population number what is of extreme importance for both national economy and military as a large population usually contribute to a larger military and labor force. However, in this matter, it is necessary to respect a population’s age, gender, level of literacy, skills, health, and education as all of these factors have a direct influence on the actor’s economy, technological advantage, and military strength. Modern economic, especially industrial, development requires mass literacy and certain levels of work-related skills. Today, a higher level of scientific and technical skills has become a crucial requirement for national economic success. However, politically, it is a question is the population of nation-state united around its Government, or there are political, ideological, confessional, etc. cleavages which are threatening internal national cohesion?
Geographic features: The chief significance of geographical elements as land area, location, climate, topography, and natural resources, are always stressed by human geographers and geopolitics to be of extreme importance for the national power. In other words, from a geographical point of view, it is important to how large the territory of a nation-state is, does it possess direct access to the sea/ocean, does the terrain of the state can provide natural defenses (mountains, marshes or rivers, for instance)? Finally, it is as well as a question do climate, geographic features, and terrain in general permit agriculture and strengthening a defense system in general?[4]
How Many Principal Forms of Power?
In political science usually, power is classified into five principal forms: Force, Persuasion, Authority, Coercion, and Manipulation. Nevertheless, most political sciences claim that only coercion and manipulation are undoubtedly forms of power in politics.
Force implies the control of some actors in politics because they oppose the will of those who use the force which is the real reason to use it. In other words, only when he complies because of the threat of force in the relationships can be labeled as power. However, in such a situation, this becomes coercion.
Persuasion means that the powerless (slave) may persuade the powerful (ruler). The offering, in this case, of ideas and wishes is not controlled until it creates a dependency and, therefore, the capacity to manipulate.
Authority is understood as legitimate (according to the law) power that means in reality the existence of different (legal) rights to command duties to obey. Therefore, authority constitutes a significant resource for power.
Coercion is, in fact, a synonym for power as this form of power is controlling people by using the threats (open or hidden).
Manipulation as a form of power involves control exercised without direct use of threat or force but using resources of information and ideas/ideology. Manipulation is a more durable form of power – a kind of soft power.[5]
How Many Powers Are in IR?
We can say that almost all forms of politics are about power and, therefore, politics as an academic discipline is usually understood as the study of power. Contemporary political studies raise two focal questions concerning power:
1) Where power is located or who has it?; and
2) How many powers exist? That is the question regarding the changing nature of power.
The actors in international relations (IR), especially those who belong to the Great Powers[6], can use capabilities in different ways in order to increase their political, economic, military or so influence on others.
There are eight different and basic natures (types) of power used by actors in global politics and international relations but especially by those from the group of Great Powers in order to reshape World order:[7]
Hard Power: This is the ability of an actor (in fact, a nation-state) to influence another actor or actors by using threats or rewards. The actor using hard power is involving military “sticks” (punishment) or economic “carrots” (reward). The policy of hard power predominantly focuses on the use of economic sanctions, military threats, and even military deployment in order to coerce the compliance of others.[8]
Soft Power: This is the ability to influence other actors by convincing them by different means to follow or agree to certain norms, aspirations, and politics that produce the desired behavior. The term soft power is used in the studies of international relations to mark the use of economic, cultural, and diplomatic measures for the sake of attracting and shape the actions of other actors toward the desired direction.[9]
Smart Power: The policy of smart power is to combine both hard power and soft power to reinforce one another in the international arena. In other words, the main instrument used by smart power is, in fact, compelling and is a tactic/strategy used to force an actor to make concessions against its will by combining military threats with economic/financial rewards.
Relational Power: It means the ability of one actor to influence another actor or several of them in a direction that originally was not of their wish and choosing.
Structural Power: It is an ability to shape the frameworks within which actors in global politics relate to one another. Therefore, the structural power used by the supreme actor determines how politics is going to be done for the rest of the group. Structural power operates through structures that shape the capacities and interests of actors in relation to one another.[10]
Compulsory Power: Such power allows the actor to establish direct control over another by implying military, economic, or financial instruments.
Institutional Power: It is used when the actors exercise indirect control over as, for example, when states establish international institutions that work to their own long-term advantage and to the disadvantage of others (NATO, EU, IMF, ICJ, ICC, etc.).
Productive Power: This power is in essence inter-subjective power as it is the power that operates through the ability to shape an actor’s own traditional beliefs, values, or perceptions. Productive power is influenced by social constructivists, poststructuralists, and feminist thinking and works by defining the so-called “legitimate” knowledge and by determining whose knowledge matters.[11]
Closing Remarks
Politics, either domestic or international, in essence, is a power that means the ability to achieve desired results by using different instruments and policies. The quest for power and influence are basic points of any politics. Power as a phenomenon was all the time central to studies of conflict and security. Nevertheless, power is a very complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon. From a purely academic point of view, power as a concept is extremely disputed as there is no agreed notion of power. Instead, only exist different rival notions coming from different schools.[12]
However, almost all schools in global politics and international relations agree that power has to be understood in terms of capability – an attribute that an actor (mostly nation-state) possesses; relationship – the exercise of influence over other actors; and property of structure – the ability to control the political agenda and direct things to the proper direction.
To conclude, regarding global politics and international relations, power is “the ability to convince another state to do what it would not normally do”.[13] The first move of the state is to organize power domestically, and the second is to accumulate power internationally.[14]
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1]Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 210.
[2]Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second Edition, London−New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2012, 253.
[3]These five capabilities or the focal elements of national power are usually taken into consideration to rank nation-states within a global hierarchy especially those from the club of Great Powers.
[4]See more in [Paul Cloke, Philip Crang, Mark Goodwin, Introducing Human Geographies, Second Edition, Abington, UK: Hodder Arnold, 2005].
[5]See more in [Garrett W. Brown, Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan, eds., Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics & International Relations, Fourth Edition, Oxford, UK, 2018, 446−448].
[6]Originally, in the 18th century, the term Great Power was related to any European state that was, in essence, a sovereign or independent. In practice, it meant, only those states that were able to independently defend themselves from the aggression launched by another state or group of states. Nevertheless, after WWII, the term Great Power was applied to countries that were regarded to be in the most powerful positions within the global system of international relations. Those countries are only countries whose foreign policy is „forward“ policy and, therefore, states like Brazil, Germany, or Japan, who have significant economic might, are not considered today to be members of the Great Power bloc for the only reason that they lack both political will and the military potential for the Great Power status (a partial exception is Germany after 1990 as Berlin, especially since 1999, forwarding its neo-imperialistic policy within the frameworks of both NATO and the EU). One of the fundamental characteristics and historical features of any member state of the Great Power club was, is, and will be to behave in the international arena according to its own adopted geopolitical concept(s) and aim(s). In other words, the leading modern and postmodern nation-states are „geopolitically“ acting in the global politics that makes a crucial difference between them and all other states. According to the realist viewpoint, global or world politics is nothing else than a struggle for power and supremacy between the states on different levels as regional, continental, intercontinental, or global (universal). Therefore, the Governments of the states are forced to remain informed upon the efforts and politics of other states, or eventually other political actors, for the sake, if necessary, of acquiring extra power (weapons, etc.) which is supposed to protect their own national security (Iran) or even survival on the political map of the world (North Korea) by the potential aggressor (the USA). Competing for supremacy and protecting national security, the national states will usually opt for the policy of balancing one another’s power by different means like creating or joining military-political blocs or increasing their own military capacity. Subsequently, global politics is nothing else but just an eternal struggle for power and supremacy in order to protect the self-proclaimed national interest and security of the major states or the Great Powers. As the major states regard the issue of power distribution to be fundamental in international relations and as they act in accordance with the relative power that they have, the factors of internal influence on states, like the type of political Government or economic order, have no strong impact on foreign policy and international relations. In other words, it is of the „genetic nature“ of the Great Powers to struggle for supremacy and hegemony regardless of their inner construction and features. It is the same „natural law“ either for democracies or totalitarian types of government or liberal (free-market) and command (centralized) economies. About Great Powers, see more in [Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York: Vintage Books, 2010; Matthew Kroenig, The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and China, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020]. National interest is foreign policy goals, objectives, or policy preferences to be benefited by society. Public interest is, basically, a synonym for the national interest.
[7]World order can be understood as the distribution of power between and/or among Great Powers or other focal actors in global politics by different means establishing a relatively stable framework of relationships and behaviors in international relations. See in more detail in [Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters, Christian Scheinpflug (eds.), International Relations Theory, Bristol, England: E-International Relations Publishing, 2017].
[8]NATO military aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 illustrates how hard power works in practice as the Yugoslav army stopped fighting primarily because of the threat of use of additional and more effective NATO strategy and military actions.
[9]As one of the effective instruments used within the framework of soft power is, for instance, the NGOs [Karen A. Mingst, Essentials of International Relations, Third Edition, New York−London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, 180−185].
[10]Garrett W. Brown, Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan (eds.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, Fourth Edition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.
[11]See more in [Sorin Baiasu, Sylvie Loriaux (eds.), Sincerity in Politics and International Relations, London−New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017].
[12]See in more detail in [Stephen McGlinchey (ed.), International Relations, Bristol, England: E-International Relations Publishing, 2017].
[13]Steven L. Spiegel, Jennifer Morrison Taw, Fred L. Wehling, Kristen P. Williams, World Politics in a New Era, Third Edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2004, 702.
[14]John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Fourth Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, 100.
Washington does not support Brazil’s entry into the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for fear that the country will adopt divergent positions in votes on issues critical to the United States and that it will be another BRICS member in the body.
Brazil’s demand for a seat in the UNSC is long-standing, but the US has resisted accepting expansion. The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, recently stated that Washington does not guarantee its support for Brazil in an eventual expansion. She stressed that the US would only endorse the candidacies of India, Germany and Japan, which, together with Brazil, form the G4 — a group that advocates the expansion of the organization.
“We have expressed our support for Japan and, Germany and India. We have not explicitly expressed support for Brazil,” she said on September 12 at a Moderated Conversation on the Future of Multilateralism and UN Reform at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The South American country has adopted diplomacy characterized by independence, often misaligned with Washington’s interests. This explains the support for strategic allies with whom Washington has more stable and predictable relations. Supporting Brazil’s inclusion could create an undesirable precedent, encouraging demands from other countries and leading to an expansion of the council that would exceed Washington’s desired limits. The US seeks to maintain its privileged position by resisting changes that could compromise the effectiveness of the veto power.
However, Brazil’s entry into the UNSC would add a Latin American perspective, a notoriously underrepresented region. As a leading emerging economy, Brazil would have the capacity to amplify the voices and demands of developing countries, contributing to a more inclusive balance.
In addition, Brazil could promote greater plurality on the council, favoring agendas focused on sustainable development and poverty eradication — issues that resonate with the priorities of developing nations.
The current composition of the UNSC no longer reflects the geopolitical reality of the 21st century, which is characterized by the rise of emerging powers that remain underrepresented. In this context, a more inclusive and diverse structure would bring greater legitimacy and acceptance to the international body’s decisions. Including new powers would, therefore, promote a fairer balance in international policymaking and ensure a more equitable implementation of decisions affecting the global system.
It must be noted that the expansion would also result in a more complex and less agile decision-making process, especially in crises that demand rapid responses. The inclusion of new permanent members would have implications for the council’s internal dynamics, altering alliances and negotiations and possibly generating new tensions between members. Nevertheless, an expansion that reflects the reality of a multipolar world would potentially foster more lasting and sustainable solutions to global challenges, giving greater legitimacy to the council.
Washington sees the issue of hemispheric security and the policies of the American continent as centred on the US. The idea of another American country on the UNSC with a permanent seat would undermine the regional leadership that the US claims to have.
The reluctance towards Brazil’s entry is an idea of maintaining inevitable political domination and providing a certain capacity to define agendas and policies for the US. Brazil joining the UNSC could bring another vision to security, defense, and geopolitical issues.
Of the G4 countries, Germany is the least relevant for a fundamental change in the UNSC since there are already European representatives. Instead, Germany should be replaced with an African country or consider a G5 with at least one African country — perhaps South Africa or Nigeria.
However, the expansion of the UNSC will only happen in the face of a very serious, fundamental threat to the current international geopolitical and geoeconomic order, greater than the current tension between NATO and Russia. There is a tendency towards ossification in the UNSC; for example, the US vetoes anything that is even minimally aimed at a ceasefire in Gaza.
Today, the countries that challenge the international order have been harmed by it, and Brazil, like many African countries, questions this order. In these discussions about policies for the Global South and articulations of the Global South, there is a discussion within the system. It is not known to what extent this action within the system can force a reform of the UNSC or if it will only be used as a symbol, but reform could contribute to more global stability if it sought a more representative reform that democratizes a little more the governance of security issues via the UNSC.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Contrarian analysis isn’t just a contrarian quirk; it boasts a rich intellectual heritage stretching back centuries.
Imagine a world of homogenous thought, where everyone chants the same tune.
Contrarian analysis throws a wrench into this echo chamber, refusing to accept the prevailing opinion at face value.
Instead, it acts as an intellectual spelunker, venturing into the dark caves of unconventional perspectives to unearth hidden gems of insight.
These insights often lie buried beneath the layers of conventional wisdom, waiting to be discovered by those brave enough to challenge the status quo. By delving into the philosophical underpinnings of contrarian analysis, we can illuminate the powerful forces that fuel its ability to disrupt and enlighten.
Epistemological Skepticism lies at the heart of contrarian analysis. This philosophical stance, rooted in the works of ancient Greeks like Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-c. 270 BCE)[1], questions the very possibility of attaining absolute knowledge. Pyrrho and other skeptics argued that our senses and experiences can be deceiving, shaped by individual biases and limitations. This inherent uncertainty about the world around us makes claims of absolute truth suspect. Contrarians inherit this skeptical spirit, approaching the prevailing narrative with a healthy dose of doubt. They understand that popular opinion can be as much a product of perspective as it is a reflection of objective reality. This skepticism compels them to seek alternative explanations, venturing beyond the surface level to uncover hidden assumptions and potential blind spots.
Building on the foundation of skepticism, contrarian analysis finds further support in the concept of the “marketplace of ideas.”
This theory, championed by philosophers like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his influential work On Liberty[2], suggests that truth emerges most readily from a vibrant exchange of diverse viewpoints. Imagine a marketplace bustling with ideas – the more stalls with unique wares, the greater the chance of finding something valuable. Contrarian analysis enacts this very principle by injecting a dissenting voice into the conversation. By challenging the dominant narrative, contrarians can expose potential blind spots and biases that might otherwise remain hidden. This open competition of ideas, much like the competition in a marketplace, allows the strongest arguments to rise to the top, fostering a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the truth.
Dialectical reasoning, a method honed by the likes of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 BCE)[3], provides another key pillar for contrarian analysis. This method emphasizes the critical examination of ideas through a rigorous back-and-forth exchange. Imagine Socrates in the agora, relentlessly questioning his interlocutors, exposing inconsistencies and forcing them to refine their arguments. Contrarian analysis adopts this same spirit. Rather than passively accepting the prevailing view, it dissects it with a sharp scalpel, identifying its underlying assumptions, potential logical fallacies, and any weaknesses in its supporting evidence. By proposing counter-arguments and forcing a reevaluation of the dominant narrative, contrarian analysis pushes for a more in-depth and robust understanding of the issue at hand.
The power of minority voices resonates deeply with contrarian analysis. This perspective finds strong support in the concept of “perspectivism,” championed by the iconoclastic philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)[4]. Perspectivism posits that knowledge is inherently subjective, shaped by our unique experiences, values, and position in the world. There’s no single, objective truth waiting to be discovered; instead, we each navigate the world through our own unique lens. Contrarian analysis acknowledges this by recognizing the potential value of minority viewpoints, those often dismissed as outliers or eccentricities. Just as a single vantage point offers a limited view of a landscape, relying solely on the dominant perspective can obscure crucial details. By challenging the status quo and amplifying dissenting voices, contrarians can bring new information and alternative interpretations to light. These minority perspectives, though initially disregarded, might hold the key to unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the situation at hand.
The inherent dangers of groupthink serve as a stark reminder of the importance of contrarian analysis. Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s[5], describes the phenomenon where group members prioritize conformity over critical thinking. The desire for social cohesion and a fear of dissent can lead groups to make poor decisions, often overlooking crucial information or alternative perspectives in favor of maintaining a unified front. Disastrous historical events like the Bay of Pigs invasion are often attributed, at least in part, to the pitfalls of groupthink. Contrarian analysis acts as a powerful antidote to this group mentality. By questioning the status quo and challenging assumptions, even if it means facing social friction, contrarians can prevent catastrophic errors. Their dissenting voices can serve as a wake-up call, forcing the group to re-evaluate the evidence and consider alternative viewpoints before committing to a potentially disastrous course of action. In a world where consensus is often equated with truth, contrarian analysis reminds us of the critical role that dissent plays in ensuring sound decision-making.
The Challenge of Contrarianism
While contrarian analysis offers a valuable toolbox for dissecting popular narratives, it is crucial to recognize its limitations. Simply adopting a contrarian stance, a knee-jerk “against the grain” mentality, doesn’t equate to wisdom. Imagine a lone voice shouting dissent in a crowded room – without a well-reasoned argument, their message risks being dismissed as mere noise. Effective contrarians navigate this challenge by meticulously evaluating their dissent. This requires rigorous research and critical thinking to ensure their counter-arguments are grounded in sound reasoning and supported by credible evidence. They must distinguish between genuine counter-narratives with the potential to illuminate blind spots, and mere contrarianism – the pursuit of a dissenting view for the sake of being different. This discernment is essential, for unsubstantiated dissent can not only fail to challenge the status quo but also erode trust in legitimate contrarian voices. The true power of contrarian analysis lies in its ability to inject well-reasoned skepticism and alternative perspectives into the conversation, ultimately strengthening our collective pursuit of truth.
Conclusion
Contrarian analysis, with its intellectual heritage firmly planted in skepticism, the marketplace of ideas, and dialectical reasoning, emerges as a powerful philosophical tool. This approach, akin to swimming against the current, serves a critical function in the pursuit of truth. By challenging the comfortable dominance of prevailing narratives, it exposes potential biases and blind spots that might otherwise go unnoticed. This very act of dissent fosters the emergence of new perspectives, enriching the overall understanding of an issue. Imagine a stagnant pond – the surface appears clear, but unseen murk festers beneath. Contrarian analysis acts like a churning current, stirring up the depths and bringing hidden elements to the surface for examination. In today’s world, rife with echo chambers and confirmation bias, the contrarian voice remains a vital force. It prevents intellectual stagnation and ensures that our grasp of the world around us is not a shallow reflection of popular opinion, but a robust and well-examined tapestry woven from diverse threads of inquiry. This critical examination, this willingness to challenge the status quo, is the very essence of intellectual progress, and contrarian analysis stands as a vital tool in that ongoing endeavor.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Book IX [A classic text on the lives of Greek philosophers, containing information on Pyrrho of Elis]
[2] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) [A foundational text in liberal philosophy, advocating for freedom of expression]
[3] Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo (early dialogues) [These classic Platonic dialogues showcase Socrates’ use of dialectical reasoning]
[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886) [A foundational text in Nietzsche’s philosophy, exploring themes of perspectivism and morality]
[5] Irving L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (1972) [A seminal work exploring the concept of groupthink and its historical consequences]
The Framers of the United States Constitution understood several things very clearly from their experience as a colonial vassal state with only limited legislative or self-governing authority under the rule of Britain’s King George III. That principle lesson learned, justifying a revolution, was that the leader or ruler of a nation must not be allowed to unilaterally initiate armed conflicts because war is the greatest calamity that can afflict a nation and its people. That was why the US president under the balance of powers had no ability under the Constitution to initiate a war on his or her own authority. It required an act of war approved by Congress with the legislature also providing the funding and most of the manpower through voluntary levies from the state militias as the national army was deliberately small.
And why might a revolution be needed apart from negating the propensity of kings to go to war? A constitutional government in this case was devised as a mechanism to protect fundamental rights and liberties, which at least some of the Founders considered to be inalienable and granted by the Creator to all human beings. The most important of those rights was freedom of speech, which rightly was featured as the First Amendment to the Constitution leading off the ten liberties that comprised the Bill of Rights. That American citizens should have the right to speak their minds was considered essential to their concept of freedom, particularly when it encompassed the right to protest at what the government was doing.
We all know how attempts to institutionalize the type of centralized control evident in eighteenth century Britain began to creep into the American democracy soon after the Revolutionary War ended, leading to a set of four federal laws called collectively the Alien and Sedition Acts enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and free speech throughout the United States. The Naturalization Act required immigrants to obtain citizenship, the Alien Friends Act granted to the president the power to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act empowered the president to detain and even imprison non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act criminalized false and malicious statements about the federal government, ending free speech. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act expired after a set number of years, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were inevitably at that time controversial and the debate lined up along political lines. They were supported by the President John Adams’ Federalist Party which argued that the bills strengthened national security during the undeclared naval war with France from 1798 to 1800. Interestingly, the acts were denounced by the minority Democratic-Republicans as violations of free speech under the First Amendment as they were used to suppress publishers affiliated with the opposition, and several publishers were indeed arrested for criticism of the President and his party. Does that justification to strip citizens of their rights sound familiar? Substitute “war on terror” and Patriot Act plus the undeclared wars in Ukraine and Gaza that Washington appears to believe have something to do with national security.
The lessons to be learned ever since 1798 is that if you want to subvert the restraints on war and individual liberties you have to do it with a whole lot of lies coupled with penalties designed to make possible “complainers” shut up and go away.
I would point to the recent treatment of Scott Ritter, Dimitri Simes and Tulsi Gabbard by the Joe Biden Administration involving using “foreign agent” legislation drafted in 1938 to stretch the government’s ability to make claims of foreign interference in the upcoming election that it can hardly back up with facts.
The suggestion of criminality also at the same time sought to threaten and intimidate public figures who were critical of policy. And the government is not shy about what it has been doing. In 2022 the Biden Administration sought to establish a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security and on Monday September 16th Hillary Clinton told her ideological soulmate Rachel Maddow that Americans who share political misinformation, which she called propaganda, should face potential civil – or even criminal – legal consequences.
Another even more powerful example of what will happen by continuing down the road that the United States is proceeding on comes from Britain, where the government has more tools in terms of terrorism, treason and “hate speech” type legislation. The relatively new Keir Starmer national government is as deeply embedded with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s band of war criminals as in President Joe Biden and his gang of war enablers.
Lest there be any confusion about what the government is prepared to do to protect that relationship, there have been several arrests of journalists on “terrorism” charges whose only crime is being too outspoken about the genocide that is taking place openly day by day by the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in Gaza. On August 29th 16 police officers, including some from the UK’s elite and armed counter-terrorism unit, arrested pro-Palestinian journalist Sarah Wilkinson under the Terrorism Act 2000, charging her with “terrorist” content she had written and posted online. Her initial bail conditions included not being allowed to use any electronic devices or any form of public transportation. Wilkinson had been advocating for Palestine long before October 7th, but many believe that over the past eleven months the pressure to penalize voices like hers in the UK has increased. Other well-known outspoken figures such as freelance journalist Richard Medhurst and co-founder of Palestine Action Richard Barnard were also arrested in August under the same legislation.
Likewise, no matter who wins the election in the US in November, the Israeli tie that binds will continue to be in place controlling many policies and actions of the federal government as well as of many state and municipal administrations. And there are clear signs that those who choose to criticize Israel and the nation’s obsession with going to war will be targeted.
Critics of federal government policies defending the wars and specifically Israel will be under attack like never before, most particularly at the universities. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League will also be using “lawfare” to criminalize as antisemitism any complaints about the behavior of the Jewish state under the Antisemitism Awareness legislation that will undoubtedly finish moving smoothly through Congress before being signed off on by either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
As has been true for the past eleven months, America’s universities have been the epicenter of the protests against both Israeli and US policies vis-à-vis Gaza, leading to mass arrests and demands led by billionaire Jewish donors that severe penalties against “antisemites” should be in place. Many universities, now that they are back in session, are adopting “institutional neutrality,” which means that they will not be taking a position on issues that do not impact directly on their educational mission. Alan Garber, the Harvard President to replaced Claudine Gay after her abrupt resignation declared that the university would no longer “issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.”
Jewish groups aren’t necessarily pleased at the change of course. Mark Yudof, chair of the pro-Israel Academic Engagement Network and former president of the University of California system, objected saying that what happens regarding Israel does directly affect Jewish members on campus.
“If Jewish students can’t cross campus safely, I expect presidents to speak out about that and I don’t want institutional neutrality to say they can’t look out for the best interests of students, faculty and staff.”
Many pro-Palestinian campus voices, meanwhile, are also opposed to institutional neutrality as it will continue to allow protesters to be arrested and expelled while denying them any voice on campus. Some argue that universities have already declared themselves not to be neutral on Israel because of their refusal to divest from it.
“It has enabled college presidents to foreclose public debate, while draping themselves in the mantle of a lofty moral principle,” Anton Ford, a University of Chicago professor who has urged U of C to divest from Israel, wrote in May. He added “In the midst of a national protest movement, nothing could be more convenient.”
Universities not embracing “institutional neutrality” are generally taking traditional harder lines against protesters which will pander to Israel and repress pro-Palestinian sentiment. University administrators across the United States have declared an indefinite state of emergency on college campuses. Schools are reshaping regulations and even the physical layouts of campuses in a process intended to suit this new normal. Nearly all recent university policy updates have intensified the already numerous bureaucratic hurdles for student organizations to gain approval to host an event. Some have gone further to capture complete administrative control of campus activities. Long before the Student Intifada, both private and public universities began to remove Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from their campuses. Last year, George Washington University and Rutgers University suspended their SJP chapters under the pretext of restoring order on campus. This year both universities have again targeted SJP. Other universities are following suit.
And then there is the Antisemitism Awareness Act which is now in the Senate after passing through the House by an overwhelming 320 to 91 vote in May. In a recent discussion at Columbia University, Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey said that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has “assured” him that he plans to bring the Act to the Senate floor for a vote “before the end of the year.” The legislation directs the federal Department of Education to use the extremely controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which considers any criticism of Zionism/and/or/Israel as antisemitic, when investigating claims of discrimination against Jews. In other words, any criticism of Israel will be ipso facto an act of antisemitism and subject to criminal penalties under hate speech and similar legislation.
If free speech ends in America there will be no mechanism to attack illegal or unconstitutional actions by the Federal government like the current wars being fought without a declaration of war or evidence of any imminent threat.
If criticism of Israel becomes criminalized then the cause of the most horrific war currently taking place on the planet will become normal practice any time when the Jewish state wants to expand its lebensraum at the expense of one of its neighbors. Neither situation should be tolerable in a constitutional democracy but there you have it and it will only get worse since the people have little enough voice as it is and the madmen in Washington are blithely speaking of a two-front war against Russia and China, both of which are nuclear powers and are prepared to use them in their own defense. Is there something gone seriously wrong here in this country? The answer is surely “Yes!”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Workers World Party delegation at Democratic National Convention, Aug. 19, 2024. WW Photo
On Tuesday and Wednesday, thousands of mobile communication devices rigged with explosives by Israel detonated throughout Lebanon, killing dozens of people, including members of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization, and wounding thousands.
The mass terror bombings by Israel against the people of Lebanon are a flagrant war crime. They violate the laws of war regarding assassination, treachery and the prohibition of indiscriminate bombing.
“International humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps—objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use—precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon,” said Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.
The New York Times described the death of a nine-year-old victim of the attack:
“Fatima was in the kitchen on Tuesday when a pager on the table began to beep,” her aunt said. “She picked up the device to bring it to her father and was holding it when it exploded, mangling her face and leaving the room covered in blood,” she said. “Fatima was trying to take courses in English,” Ms. Mousawi said. “She loved English.”
While these crimes were committed by the Israeli government and military, they were orchestrated with the help of the limitless financial, military and political support of the United States and other imperialist powers for Israel as part of their drive to subjugate and dominate the Middle East.
At Wednesday’s White House press briefing, the usually composed White House spokesman John Kirby could not help visibly sneering as he denied US responsibility for or foreknowledge of the terrorist attack. “We were not involved,” Kirby said, grinning from ear to ear.
Meanwhile, officials of the Democratic Party openly gloated about this act of mass murder.
“I fully support efforts to target and neutralize any existential threat like Hezbollah,” wrote Democratic US Senator John Fetterman on X, after sharing a screenshot of the news report of the attack.
Israel’s attack on Lebanon aims to massively escalate its war with the country, in which hundreds of people have been killed since October of last year. Just hours before the start of the bombings, Israel’s security cabinet met to declare that it had “updated the objectives of the war” to include returning Israeli residents to northern Israel, a euphemism for escalating Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reported that the Army’s 98th Division, which includes commandos and paratroopers, is being transferred from Gaza to northern Israel.
“The ‘center of gravity’ is moving north, meaning that we are allocating forces, resources and energy for the northern arena,” Gallant said.
The transfer of Israeli forces to the north does not mean any let-up in the suffering of Gaza’s population, who are totally besieged and being systematically starved and denied access to water, electricity and medical care. Since October, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, according to the official death toll, while a study published in The Lancet suggested the real death toll could be 186,000 or more.
The attack on Lebanon is the latest in a series of provocations by Israel, supported by the United States, with the aim of provoking war not only against Lebanon but also against Iran.
In April, an Israeli strike killed a group of Iranian military officers meeting in Damascus, to which Iran responded with a strike on Israel with 300 missiles and drones, nearly all of which were intercepted. In July, Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, senior member of Hezbollah, with a strike in Beirut, followed by the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh at a military guesthouse in Iran.
Israel’s terrorist attacks throughout Lebanon mark a new stage in the criminalization of imperialist foreign policy and set a precedent for the legitimization of terrorist attacks on both political leaders and the broader civilian population.
Hezbollah is one of the largest political parties in Lebanon and until 2022 held the dominant position in the country’s parliament. Many of those targeted were not soldiers but politicians, professionals and administrators. And with thousands of bombs detonating throughout the country, many bystanders with no connection to Hezbollah to begin with, including two children, were killed in the blasts.
A precedent is being set, by means of which the definition of war is being expanded to include what was previously defined as terrorism. The effect is to legitimize such prohibited methods as the booby-trapping of everyday objects with the aim both of assassinating individual members of the civilian population and causing mass indiscriminate killing and maiming.
This has implications far beyond the Middle East. Throughout the past 50 years, actions by the state of Israel have been used to set a precedent for US global policy. The most significant example is the doctrine of “targeted killing,” that is, state-sanctioned assassination.
In November 2000, Israel became the first state in the world to “openly acknowledge that it operated a policy of targeted killing,” wrote Nils Melzer, who served as United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, in 2009. Soon after, the United States moved “to openly adopt the method of targeted killing.”
The US conducted its first known drone strike outside a war zone, in Yemen, in 2002. In 2011, US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, both US citizens, were killed in separate drone strikes in Yemen. In 2020, a US drone strike in Iraq killed Qassem Soleimani, a high-ranking Iranian military official, while on an official visit to Iraq.
As with the adoption of “targeted killing,” the war crimes now being committed by Israel will become the new baseline for even greater crimes by the United States and other imperialist powers.
Israel’s terrorist attack was denounced, entirely hypocritically, by the pseudo-left enablers of the Gaza genocide.
“This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict,” wrote Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Far from conflicting with US policy in the Middle East, as Ocasio-Cortez claimed, Israel’s offensive against Lebanon is proceeding with the full support of the Biden-Harris administration.
In July, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an address to both houses of Congress in which he vowed to expand the genocide in Gaza into a war against Lebanon and Iran. Following Netanyahu’s address to Congress, he met with Vice President Kamala Harris, who vowed,
“I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself, including from Iran and Iran-backed militias, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
American imperialism is expanding its war throughout the Middle East as part of a global military offensive targeting Russia and China. At the very moment when thousands of explosives were going off throughout Lebanon, the US was finalizing plans, expected to come into effect later this month, to allow Ukraine to carry out virtually unlimited strikes on Russia using NATO weapons, threatening an escalation into global nuclear war.
The US-Israeli terrorist attack against Lebanon is a warning. As the US embarks upon wars all over the world in order to defend its global hegemony, it is willing to use the methods of mass murder and terrorism to achieve its aims.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
About Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg now says: “I welcome these developments and these decisions but it’s for individual allies to make the final decisions.” He means Europe. With US-led NATO, a pattern has clearly been emerging – one about shifting the burden (and blame) to Europe.
Some context is needed. I’ve written a number of times on how the Euro-American partnership and friendship consists of a rather strange alliance to the point of resembling a veiled enmity. Just consider this:
Washington does not refrain from openly employing terrorist operations against a major European power such as Germany, with no consequences – I am of course talking about the blowing up of Nord Stream, as promised by Joe Biden himself, a huge act of sabotage which, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, was Washington’s doing.
The US wages a “subsidy war” against Europe’s industry via the Inflation Reduction Act, while advancing its own energy interests to the detriment of the continent.
Even though this betrayal of Europe is in line with Washington’s historical record pertaining to partners, considering all the above, one can argue it is not far-fetched at all to describe the relationship between the United States and its transatlantic European “allies” as bearing a colonial character.
Hal Brands (Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies) describes the role played by an American “benign hegemon” by imagining the European continent “without Washington’s embrace” and then reverting to an “anarchic and illiberal past”. He describes such a scenario thusly:
“Which is the real Europe? The mostly peaceful, democratic, and united continent of the past few decades? Or the fragmented, volatile, and conflict-ridden Europe that existed for centuries before that? If Donald Trump wins… we may soon find out… A post-American Europe… might even revert, eventually, to the darker, more anarchic, more illiberal patterns of its past… Many people—Americans especially—have forgotten how hopeless the continent once seemed…. Europe was the land of “eternal wars” and endless troubles… [a] cursed continent…. U.S. military protection broke the doom loop of violence by safeguarding Western Europe from Moscow—and from its own self-destructive instincts…. Americans are the “best Europeans,” West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer remarked in 1949… [The] transformation began with the forced democratization of West Germany under the Allied occupation. It involved using Marshall Plan aid to revitalize and stabilize fragile democracies…This was a uniquely U.S. solution to Europe’s problems… U.S. intervention helped turn a “dark continent”… into a post-historical paradise at the heart of an expanding liberal order”
It does sound almost like a defense of the American man’s burden, doesn’t it? It goes way beyond Pax American. Those European barbarians simply can’t get their act together and will naturally revert to their old illiberal ways, it seems.
It would be rather tempting to compare Brands’ rhetoric with European colonialist discourses on Eastern or New World peoples (I’ve commented on Hal Brands’s apocalyptic reasoning elsewhere). I believe that the point that I am trying to make by quoting Brand’s exercise of exceptionalism is quite self-evident. While some Western Europeans picture their civilization as a “garden” (and the rest of the world as a “jungle”), many figures within the American regime’s Establishment and Intelligentsia perceive Europe instead as a “dark continent”.
Again, this is not merely an exercise of rhetoric. Once one starts to understand the American hegemony over Europe as colonial in character, in a literal way, one can thus make much more sense of today’s world. For example, with regards to US actions pertaining to Georgia and Ukraine, we know that key European leaders such as former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned against it for several reasons – but ultimately then US President George W. Bush had his way, and American interest prevailed, as often happens.
The Atlantic Alliance 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration then stated that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO” (23). The outcome back then was the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict – one can argue 2014 and 2022 are also part of the outcomes of an ongoing trend, namely NATO expansion. And yet, paradoxically, strategic Russo-European energy cooperation kept going, as recently as 2021.
How can Europeans allow such a disaster? Why won’t they stand against the Americans? The answer can be quite simple. As John Mearsheimer, the renowned University of Chicago political scientist, put it, in quite blunt terms: “the United States runs NATO and the Europeans do what we tell them” (see video here, at around 1h59min).
Make no mistake – there shall be no real American “withdrawal” from Europe. All talk about European “strategic autonomy” aside, what is happening now is that Washington is skillfully shifting the Ukrainian crisis’ burden onto the shoulders of the European bloc (which will have an impact on European welfare and standard of living), while still benefiting from it – by having ever-more dependent European NATO members purchasing American weaponry to comply with NATO standards (alas, even Trump’s rhetoric is really about it).
It has become clear by now that the political, economic, and moral costs pertaining to the Ukrainian effort are becoming too high – not to mention the risk of uncontrolled escalation potentially leading to nuclear war. It is thus time to further “proxify” the American proxy attrition war against Russia (as Former US ambassador to Finland, Earle Mack described it), by turning Europe itself into a full-fledged American proxy. It is not just about “pivoting to the Pacific”.
Realizing that the European bloc today is a de facto American colony is part of the theoretical effort to come up with an accurate description of the current state of affairs. Reflecting on what to do about it, upon realizing this, would be the next logical step, especially from a European perspective. Such reflection is a kind of forbidden discourse in Europe today, and it has become a monopoly of the Populist camp and the so-called “far-right”. It doesn’t need to be this way. It is about time to decolonize Europe.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ryan Routh has been all over the news since Sunday after his arrest for attempting to assassinate Donald Trump.
The media has emphasized Routh’s previous criminal record and social media posts that echoed Democratic Party talking points regarding the 2024 election and Donald Trump.
Routh’s quixotic efforts to raise an Afghan mercenary force to fight in Ukraine were also spotlighted and fact that other mercenaries dismissed him as a “whack job” because of his “delusions of grandeur” and “messiah complex” combined with a lack of military training.
Routh recently published a book with his wife, Kathleen Shaffer, entitled Ukraine’s Unwinnable War: The Fatal Flaw of Democracies, World Abandonment and the Global Citizen: Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea, World War III and the End of Humanity, whose content has escaped media notice
It is among the most bizarre books that I have ever read that appears to be written by a CIA asset.
The reason I suspect the latter is because the author employs flowery rhetoric one would expect from an idealistic, hippie-type political activist mixed with glowing praise for CIA backed mercenary forces.
Routh furthermore takes political positions that directly align with the interests of the U.S. government and CIA.
Throughout the text, Routh warns about a growing U.S. isolationism and the lack of will of U.S. citizens and leaders in standing up to “Russian barbarian invaders.” He openly calls for Vladimir Putin’s assassination along with Belarusian socialist leader Alexander Lukashenko, whom the U.S. government and CIA have sought to overthrow.
Routh generally does not appear at all to be well informed about world politics. He provides no context for the outbreak of war in Ukraine or discussion of U.S. policies that helped to provoke the war and no larger analysis of world political developments.
Instead he offers pages of moralistic homilies that one might expect to read in a self-improvement book mixed in with Russophobia, valorization of the free enterprise system, denunciation of communism and other CIA talking points.
Along this latter vein, Routh calls Hillary Clinton a “gutsy leader,” and claims that NATO “stole Ukrainian nuclear warheads” after the collapse of the Soviet Union—alluding to the Lugar-Nunn initiative that got Ukraine to dismantle its nuclear weapons.
Blaming U.S. leaders for allowing “Hong Kong to be imprisoned” by the Chinese, Routh advocates for bombing all residences and burning every structure in Russian border towns and encircling Taiwan with military ships to protect it from the Chinese.
Lamenting how the Biden administration “left the Afghans to be beaten and killed by terrorists,” Routh defends Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s canceling of elections, writing that “Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian parliament will have to put reelection out of the picture and make the hard decision that makes the general public mad for the benefit of the whole.”
This latter statement is one that a CIA or State Department flunky would make rather than an independent citizen or political analyst, even one who is pro-war. Apart from the above statement, Routh never otherwise mentions Zelensky, or attempts to analyze political developments within Ukraine.
Towards the end of the book, Routh heaps praise on Peruvian President Dina Boularte, calling her a “pioneer for democracy” who supposedly “stood with fellow Peruvians against Pedro Castillo” whose “wish to derail democracy was unsuccessful.”
Castillo, however, was overthrown in a right-wing coup led by Boularte after he had attempted to reassert Peruvian control over its natural resources. With U.S. backing, Boularte in turn ordered the violent suppression of anti-government protesters, resulting in over 70 deaths.[1]
So why is Routh invoking her as a great leader? Does anybody independent of the U.S. government think this is the case?
Routh issues praise for another dubious Latin American politician; Juan Guiadó, a right-wing extremist who backed a series of coups against the socialist government in Venezuela.
Guiadó had limited support within Venezuela but was championed by the Trump administration and CIA who anointed him Venezuela’s president-in exile. His organization was found to be thoroughly corrupt and the coup attempts that he launched miserably failed.
Yet Routh writes
“I would suggest to Juan Guiadó that he seize the leadership role that he won….When all is said and done with Putin, together you both can also eliminate Maduro from power, as it should be.”
These comments appear to have been written by someone in the CIA or State Department.
What private citizen—even one who may be conditioned to support U.S. foreign policy—thinks in this way? Why single out Maduro when the U.S. supports many tyrannical governments—like the Saudis, or Rwandans or Ugandans? Of course its because Maduro is socialist and a target of regime change by the U.S. government since Hugo Chavez died of cancer.
Elsewhere in his book, Routh praises the Syrian Free Army and Myanmar rebels; CIA backed forces that few Americans know much about.
Since Routh offers no special insights into these groups, it appears he is just regurgitating CIA talking points. Almost nobody champions the cause of these groups outside of Washington and their dubious record can be easily researched.
Manchurian Candidate?
If I am correct, and Routh’s book is CIA disinformation, what would its purpose be in light of Routh’s involvement in the Trump assassination attempt?
I do not know the answer, however, can come up with a theory based on my study of past assassinations and CIA history.
That theory, far fetched as it may sound, is that Routh is a Manchurian candidate[2] who was groomed and programmed by CIA psychiatrists to commit political violence and to write a book that would at once a) cast him as a critic of Trump’s Ukraine/Russia policy, giving him a motive for his crime; and b) advance Democratic Party/CIA talking points on foreign policy.
When the CIA sets up patsies, they invariably need to create a personae for that patsy which will match the crime and make him look crazy which they have clearly done with Routh. And since Routh is now famous, people will actually read his book.
The purpose of the political violence in his case may not have been to kill Trump as it is unlikely Routh could have successfully shot him from the bushes where he was found.
The purpose rather would have been to advance a “strategy of tension” whereby people are continuously put on edge by the threat of violence and prone to suspend rational judgment and support ever greater police state measures.
Some people might dismiss the above theory as “conspiracy theory” and it possibly is. However, these are historical precedents and the CIA has groomed Manchurian candidates before.
One was Sirhan Sirhan who was programmed to shoot at Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968 on command after seeing a woman with a polka dot dress. Sirhan’s shots diverted attention while the real assassin who worked for a CIA contractor, Thane Eugene Cesar, shot Kennedy from behind his ear.
Relevant to Routh’s case, Sirhan was programmed not only to shoot a Kennedy but to write a rambling and often incoherent diary in which he recorded his anger about Kennedy’s support for Israel—establishing a motive for him.
Another known example of the CIA creating Manchurian candidates is the Symbionese Liberation Afrmy (SLA), a radical group in the 1970s whose leader Donald DeFreeze was subjected to behavior modification and programming under the CIA’s MK-ULTRA at the California medical facility at Vacaville in the 1970s.
Brad Schreiber’s book, Revolution’s End: The Patty Hearst, Mind Control, and the Secret History of Donald DeFreeze and the SLA (Skyhorse Publishing 2016) shows that DeFreeze was programmed to commit violent criminal acts that would undermine left-wing movements in California. As part of the cover, he and his comrades wrote political manifestos whose aim was to spread public disinformation.
These and other historical precedents raise suspicion about Routh that he could very well be part of a covert operation of sinister intent.[3]
Adding to the suspicion is the fact that Routh was something of a “Forrest Gump of CIA paramilitary operations,” in the words of Mike Benz, a former State Department official.
Routh admits to having been in numerous countries where the CIA operated supporting paramilitary groups the CIA was backing and admits to being in contact with the U.S. embassy in Kyiv where he was involved in getting visas for jihadists terrorists who were brought in to fight the Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
Additionally Routh is known to have visited Fort Bragg, head of the U.S. Special Forces in North Carolina numerous times, somehow could afford a first-class plane ticket from Hawaii to Florida despite claiming to earn a limited income, and was given only misdemeanor charges for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.
All of this raises red flags about his background adding plausibility to the theory that he is a tool of the intelligence services.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[1] These actions have resulted in a genocide inquiry being launched against Boularte. Peruvian security forces invaded the University of San Marcos and forced female students to strip naked in front of them.
[2] The term Manchurian candidate is a reference to a 1959 political novel by Richard Condon that was made into an award winning film by John Frankheimer about an American POW in the Korean War who was groomed by Communist China to carry out a coup in the U.S. and assassinate the President.
[3] Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson pointed out that Donald Trump’s schedule is not made public so someone on the inside must have tipped Routh off, raising further suspicion of some kind of covert operation designed either to kill Trump or advance a “strategy of tension” as discussed.
With each ludicrously diabolical move, Israel’s security and military services are proving that they will broaden the conflict ignited when Hamas breached the country’s vaunted security defences on October 7. Notions such as ceasefire and peace are terms of nonsense and babble before the next grand push towards apocalyptic recognition.
The pager killings in Lebanon and parts of Syria on September 17 that left almost 3000 people injured and 12 dead were just another facet of this move. On September 18, a number of walkie-talkies used by members of Hezbollah were also detonated, killing 14. (The combined death toll continues to rise.)
In keeping with the small script that always accompanies such operations, the coordinated measure to detonate thousands of deadly pagers had Mossad’s fingerprints over it, though never officially accepted as such. It featured the use of the Apollo AR924 pager, adopted by Hezbollah as a substitute for smartphone technology long compromised by Israeli surveillance.
The group had ordered 5,000 beepers made by the Taiwanese Gold Apollo manufacturer in the early spring, most likely via BAC Consulting, a Hungarian-based company licensed to use the trademark. According to a Reuters report, citing a “senior Lebanese source”, these had been modified “at the production level.” Mossad had “injected a board inside the device that has explosive material that receives a code. It’s very hard to detect it through any means. Even with a device or scanner.”
The manner of its execution stirred sighs of admiration. Here was Israel’s intelligence apparatus, caught napping on October 7, reputationally restored. French defence expert Pierre Servent suggested that, “The series of operations conducted over the last few months marks their big comeback, with a desire for deterrence and a message: ‘we messed up but are not dead.’” A salivating Mike Dimino, former CIA analyst and plying his trade at Defense Priorities, a US-based think tank, admired the operation as one of “classic sabotage” that would have taken “months if not years” to put into play and proved to be “[i]ntelligence work at its finest.”
While admired by the security types as bloody, bold machismo, this venture remains politically stunted. However stunning a statement of power, it only promises temporary paralysis. It’s true that Hezbollah is in disarray regarding its communications, the extent of the compromise, and pondering the nightmarish logistics of it all. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has every reason to feel rattled. But the pretext for an escalation, the temptation to reassert virility and strength, has been set, thereby creating the broader justification for a move into Lebanon.
The broader war, the death, and the calamity, beckons, and an excited DiMino proposes that, “If you were planning a ground incursion into Lebanon to push Hezbollah N[orth] of the Litani, this is exactly the sort of chaos you’d sow in advance.” An unnamed former Israeli official, speaking to Axios, confirmed that the modified pagers had been originally intended as a swift, opening attack “in an all-out war to try to cripple Hezbollah.” Their use on September 17 was only prompted by Israeli concerns that their operation might have been compromised.
Nasrallah, in his September 19 speech, complemented the dark mood. “Israel’s foolish Northern Command leader talks about a security zone inside Lebanese territory – we are waiting for you to enter Lebanese territory.” He also promised that the only way 120,000 Israelis evacuated from the North could return safely “is to stop the aggression on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.”
Every resort to force, every attempt to avoid the diplomatic table, is another deadly deviation, distraction and denial. It is also an admission that Israel remains incapable of reaching an accord with the Palestinians and those who either defend or exploit their dispossession and grief.
On a granular level, the wide flung nature of the operation, while audacious in its execution, also suggests an absence of focus. The target range, in this case, was violently expansive: not merely leaders but low-level operatives and those in proximity to them. The result was to be expected: death, including two children, and broadly inflicted mutilations. In humanitarian terms, it was disastrous, demonstrating, yet again, the callousness that such a conflict entails. Bystanders at marketplaces were maimed. Doctors and other medical workers were injured. Lebanon’s hospital system was overwhelmed.
Human Rights Watch notes that international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby-traps precisely because such devices could place civilians in harm’s way. “The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known,” opined Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa Director at HRW, “would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction.”
Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which both Lebanon and Israel are parties, offers the following definition of a booby-trap: “any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.”
Quibbling over matters of international humanitarian law is never far away. Over the dead and injured in rarified air, disputatious legal eagles often appear. While the use of such devices “in the form of harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material” is prohibited by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II, the legal pedants will ask what constitutes specific design and construction. Ditto such issues as proportionality and legitimate targeting.
Jessica Peake of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, is mercifully free of quibbles in offering her assessment: “detonating pagers in people’s pockets without any knowledge of where those are, in that moment, is a pretty evident indiscriminate attack” and also a violation of the rule of proportionality.
The calculus of such killings and targeting enriches rather than drains the pool of blood and massacre. Its logic is not one of cessation but replication. No longer can Israel’s military prowess alone be seen as a reassurance against any retaliation and whatever form it takes. October 7 continues to cast its dispelling shadow. Deterrence through sheer technological power, far from being asserted, has been further weakened.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
A Geórgia está a atravessar um ponto de viragem na sua história. O país resistiu recentemente a uma série de tentativas de sabotagem e mudança de regime devido à sua posição neutra no conflito entre a Rússia e a OTAN. Um grande grupo de sabotadores internos está a ser mobilizado pelo Ocidente para desestabilizar a política nacional, apesar dos esforços do parlamento para conter a ameaça. Agora, os políticos georgianos temem que o Ocidente interfira no processo eleitoral para fazer avançar os seus planos no país.
O primeiro-ministro georgiano, Irakli Kobakhidze, disse recentemente que teme a ação de agentes internacionais nas próximas eleições parlamentares georgianas, em 26 de outubro. No entanto, ao contrário do que afirma o Ocidente, não se espera que este intervencionismo venha de Moscou, mas de “outras forças” – o que parece ser uma forma velada de se referir ao Ocidente coletivo.
Obviamente, o líder georgiano não poderia fazer uma declaração abertamente hostil ao Ocidente, uma vez que a Geórgia ainda é um país alinhado com a UE e os EUA. No entanto, dados recentes deixam claro que a Geórgia está à beira de uma operação de mudança de regime orquestrada pelos seus próprios “aliados”. Por exemplo, em Julho, a agência de inteligência russa SVR publicou um relatório afirmando que os EUA e a UE estão a preparar um golpe de Estado no país, com o presidente georgiano nascido em França, Salome Zourabichvil, como principal agente.
O conflito entre Zourabichvil e o parlamento – atualmente controlado pelo partido “Georgian Dream” – tem sido comentado por vários especialistas. Zourabichvil tentou vetar a lei de restrição de agentes estrangeiros – o que é natural já que ela própria é agente estrangeira – mas foi derrotada pela coligação parlamentar, que aprovou a medida mesmo sem autorização presidencial.
A lei restringiu as atividades de grupos estrangeiros, especialmente de ONG ocidentais que investiram milhões no fomento da militância pró-Ocidente na Geórgia. Embora a posição internacional do país não tenha mudado, a coligação parlamentar no poder está a tentar limitar a influência estrangeira, principalmente para evitar que a Geórgia seja usada pela OTAN para abrir uma segunda frente contra a Rússia. Por esta razão, o Ocidente está a tentar retaliar tomando medidas para enfraquecer o governo.
A lei contra agentes estrangeiros não foi a única medida tomada pelo partido Georgian Dream para controlar a influência ocidental no país. Têm sido feitos esforços significativos para acabar de uma vez por todas com o conflito civil e restaurar a paz com as repúblicas separatistas – e, consequentemente, com a Federação Russa. Por exemplo, a antiga Primeira-Ministra Bidzina Ivanishvili, que também é membro do partido, sugeriu recentemente que Tbilisi pedisse desculpas publicamente por ter iniciado as hostilidades em 2008, admitindo o seu papel no início da guerra.
Além disso, Ivanishvili também recomendou a criação de um “Nuremberg georgiano” para condenar os crimes políticos e militares cometidos durante o regime do ex-presidente Mikhail Saakashvili – um político educado nos EUA que, depois de falhar na guerra com a Rússia na Geórgia, entrou em auto-exílio e iniciou uma carreira política na Ucrânia. Mais tarde, ele retornou à Geórgia e foi preso por suas atividades anteriores. Obviamente, tais medidas acabariam com as tensões no país, o que preocupa o Ocidente, incentivando medidas intervencionistas.
A paz no Cáucaso é uma das coisas que o Ocidente mais deseja evitar. Depois de não ter conseguido promover protestos e pressão popular, Washington ameaçou impor sanções à Geórgia e planeja agora sabotar as eleições. Deve ser mencionado que há também muitos militantes georgianos armados que poderiam ser mobilizados a favor dos interesses ocidentais em caso de conflito civil.
Muitos neonazistas georgianos estão atualmente lutando no conflito contra a Rússia. Recentemente, a milícia fascista ucraniana “Legião Caucasiana” foi relatada em combate na região de Kursk, onde foi vista cometendo crimes de guerra contra prisioneiros e civis russos. É claro que estes criminosos georgianos poderiam regressar ao seu país de origem se os seus patrocinadores ocidentais lhes ordenassem que o fizessem. Na verdade, se os EUA falharem mais uma vez em promover uma mudança “pacífica” de regime, é possível que comecem a apostar no uso da violência armada.
A única forma de a Geórgia evitar este destino é dar mais um passo na sua viragem soberanista. Não basta restringir as ações das ONG ocidentais e evitar a participação no conflito com a Rússia. Se Tbilisi quiser realmente preservar a sua soberania nacional, terá de mudar completamente a sua política externa, rompendo os laços com o Ocidente e aproximando-se estrategicamente da Rússia.
O cálculo é simples: a Rússia quer a paz no Cáucaso porque os territórios pós-soviéticos fazem parte do seu ambiente estratégico. O Ocidente, por outro lado, quer que a guerra no Cáucaso desestabilize as fronteiras da Rússia. Como a Geórgia é um país caucasiano, apenas a amizade com a Rússia parece interessante.
O medo de uma guerra nuclear está aparentemente a afetar alguns Estados europeus, apesar das ações profundamente irresponsáveis tomadas pelos seus governos. Um importante jornal francês publicou recentemente um artigo afirmando que os políticos franceses estão preocupados com a possibilidade de uma “terceira guerra mundial”. É curioso ver este tipo de “preocupação” entre os franceses, dado que Paris tem sido um dos agentes mais beligerantes no conflito por procuração em curso entre a OTAN e a Rússia.
O artigo expõe as razões pelas quais os políticos franceses temem uma escalada global de violência. Citando diplomatas anónimos, o Le Monde afirma que os franceses não querem ver um confronto aberto entre Moscou e a OTAN, alegadamente procurando tomar medidas para evitar uma escalada. Diplomatas disseram que a Rússia poderia expandir as suas ações militares em retaliação a certas ações tomadas pelo Ocidente, o que significaria o início de uma guerra global.
Obviamente, a principal medida de escalada ocidental seria autorizar ataques contra alvos russos longe da zona de conflito. Os receios europeus de uma guerra mundial são especialmente intensificados neste momento devido ao debate generalizado sobre se deve ou não autorizar a Ucrânia a usar mísseis de longo alcance contra alvos na “Rússia profunda”, o que explica a narrativa do Le Monde.
“[Permitir ataques contra a ‘Rússia profunda’] significaria que os países da OTAN, os EUA e os países europeus estão em guerra com a Rússia (…) Tudo deve ser feito para evitar uma terceira guerra mundial (…) Não se pode simplesmente descartar a possibilidade de os russos expandirem o âmbito da guerra”, disse uma das fontes diplomáticas do Le Monde.
Por enquanto, todos os países ocidentais recusam-se a permitir tais ataques. Havia expectativas entre os militantes pró-ucranianos de que a autorização fosse anunciada durante a recente visita conjunta de responsáveis americanos e britânicos a Kiev, mas isso não aconteceu. No que diz respeito aos europeus, parece haver um medo ainda maior de uma escalada, razão pela qual os franceses e os alemães (que são supostamente os “líderes” conjuntos da União Europeia) não planejam mudar a sua posição em relação aos ataques profundos. .
“Pensamos que deveríamos permitir-lhes neutralizar os locais militares a partir dos quais os mísseis são disparados, e basicamente os locais militares a partir dos quais a Ucrânia está a ser atacada, mas não devemos permitir que atinjam outros alvos na Rússia, capacidades civis naturalmente, ou outros alvos militares”, disse Macron durante uma recente declaração conjunta com Scholz na Alemanha.
É curioso ver esse tipo de medo por parte dos franceses. Por um lado, o receio parece absolutamente racional, uma vez que a Europa seria o lado mais afetado numa guerra direta entre a Rússia e a OTAN. É natural que os europeus queiram fazer todo o possível para evitar que o conflito avance para uma guerra total. Com a possível excepção da Polônia e dos Bálticos, que são Estados extremamente afetados pela loucura anti-russa, todos os países europeus temem tornar-se alvos numa situação de conflito global.
Contudo, até recentemente, a própria França era o maior agente desestabilizador do conflito. Macron foi o líder ocidental que mais intensificou a retórica anti-russa, prometendo mesmo enviar tropas oficiais francesas para lutar ao lado de Kiev. Foi precisamente o medo de uma guerra direta que fez Macron reduzir as suas atitudes anti-russas nos últimos meses, quando Moscou deixou claro que todos os militares franceses em solo ucraniano seriam alvos legítimos e prioritários. Agora, Macron já não depende das suas próprias decisões para evitar uma guerra direta – está à mercê da consciência dos americanos, que lideram a OTAN.
É importante que os analistas e responsáveis ocidentais compreendam que a Terceira Guerra Mundial já começou “de facto”. Há uma coligação internacional liderada pelo Ocidente que ataca a Federação Russa há dois anos. A natureza do conflito atual é absolutamente internacional, e existem até outras frentes fora da Ucrânia – como é o caso dos terroristas apoiados pelo Ocidente que atacam cidadãos russos em países africanos. Temer o início de uma fase aberta do conflito é razoável, mas é importante compreender que esta “guerra mundial” já é uma realidade – precisamente por causa das ações irresponsáveis dos países ocidentais, incluindo a França.
Dado o receio de uma escalada, os europeus deveriam romper com os EUA e a OTAN, procurando libertar-se das consequências do conflito, restabelecendo os laços com a Rússia. Infelizmente, porém, a subserviência europeia é maior do que o seu medo. Se os EUA autorizarem ataques profundos, é provável que, apesar do seu receio, todos os países europeus aprovem imediatamente a medida.
On Sunday, the Pact for the Future will be signed by world leaders at the Summit of the Future in New York. The pact aims to “upgrade the multilateral system” (i.e. the UN system) and make it more adapted to “future challenges” (i.e. give it more power) with the help of technology and AI systems (which will give it “foresight capabilities”).
Despite the world-changing significance of this historic Summit, reporting on the Pact has been non-existent in Swedish media. In our leading daily papers such as Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet—not a word. Nor from our public broadcasting company SVT.
(The same silence surrounded the adoption of Agenda 2030 at the UN Summit in September 2015—until after the fact, when there has been no escape from the Sustainable Development Goal propaganda. The historic signing of the strategic partnership between the UN and the World Economic Forum in June 2019 also managed to slip completely under the radar.)
What about in the political arena?
The only reference that can be found on the Swedish parliament’s website is a meeting of the European Union Committee (EU-nämnden) where State Secretary Diana Janseinformed the members that the preparations for the Summit of the Future would be discussed by the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borell, during a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 7 May.[1]
At this meeting, the Swedish government was expected to give an account of its priorities. The Swedish representative was the Swedish diplomat Mikaela Kumlin Granit, head of Sweden’s EU representation in Brussels since 2023.[2]
In other words, foreign affairs are not dealt with by any of our ministers, but by the diplomatic corps.
We can therefore assume that there are probably very few of our elected politicians who have any knowledge of the Pact.
Even on the government’s website, there is a surprising lack of information about the Pact and the Summit. This, despite the fact that Sweden (together with Zambia) has had the main responsibility for negotiating the text of the annex Global Digital Compact. Sweden’s task has been led by UN diplomat Anna Karin Eneström.[3]
.
.
A few days ago, our Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson gave a short speech during the UN Summit of the Future Global Call where he read from the teleprompter that:
The Pact for the Future represents our joint commitment to ensuring an inclusive, equitable, and effective multilateral system that is fit for purpose and for the future.
The speech contained all the standard platitudes and buzzwords repeated by the puppets acting as our “leaders”. According to Kristersson’s speechwriter, the pact should “promote an inclusive, sustainable, fair and secure digital future for everyone” with the aim of protecting us from climate disasters and achieving the sustainability goals.
Ironically, Kristersson also mentioned that democracy is in decline across the world, but probably does not reflect on the fact that he himself is a representative of the undemocratic world order that will be cemented by the signing of the Pact. This is also illustrated by him addressing his speech to “excellences and colleagues” and not to the people he has been chosen to represent. The speech has not been published in any of the government’s official channels and there is no information about whether Kristersson will participate at the Summit in New York this weekend.
As the leader of the (formerly conservative) Moderate Party, Kristersson was invited to the Bilderberg meeting in 2019, while his predecessor as prime minister, Magdalena Andersson, participated in the meeting in Portugal in 2023 (together with, among others, the previously mentioned Josep Borell).[4] It is these interests that our leaders ultimately serve. They are the actual originators of the Pact.
The Swedish electorate has not been asked what they think about this Pact but has been kept completely in the dark. This, in an era where information can be spread at lightning speed across the world. Instead, we are flooded with nonsense and scaremongering while slowly being transformed into controllable units under the watchful eye of the digital world brain.
And now a question for my readers. How is the situation in your country? Has there been any media coverage and/or political debates about the Pact? Please share your information in the comment section.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In a dramatic twist, pro-Russia posters have flooded Italy, bearing messages like “Russia is not our enemy.”
These posters, seen across major cities, call for peace and an end to weapons funding for Ukraine and Israel.
The Ukrainian government is outraged, urging Italy to take action.
Watch to find out more.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
We realized that there was indeed a plan to cull the population and to diminish it genetically and in every other way and compress it into transit villages, take away property rights, parental rights, human rights, the right of informed consent, judicial rights, the age of consent concept, and so on.
The UK has criminalized dissent. A new Public Order Act makes it illegal to hold a rally or demonstration if it “inconveniences” anyone. This gives the state unlimited power to clamp down on any demonstration.
On Tuesday afternoon, thousands of pagers exploded in Lebanon killing at least nine and injuring 2,800, including Iran’s Ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani. More details will emerge in time, but it appears Israel, through their intelligence services, had planted explosives in the hand held communication devices used by the Lebanon resistance group Hezbollah.
From the outset on October 7, 2023, “A Tissue of Lies” has served to justify the killings in the Gaza Strip of more than 30,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children. The atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will insist on refusing to allow Kiev to use long-range weapons received from Germany to attack targets on Russian territory, German newspaper Welt reported on September 14. At the same time, Berlin has continued to ignore Israel’s weapons purchase request since last year.
The approach by the western capitalist news sources labels the resistance forces operating inside Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen as being only the proxies of the Islamic Republic of Iran which is accused of being an aspiring nuclear weapons power with the intent to eliminate the State of Israel and its backers in the West Asia and North Africa regions.
Those who know some basics about Russia – China relations, understand US sanctions are not doing anything to Russia anymore – as Russia is fully dedollarized by now.
Aspirin, traditionally used for pain relief, shows promising anticancer properties. Recent research highlights its potential in cancer prevention and treatment, with a more potent analog, 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid, showing even greater promise
Combining aspirin with vitamin C demonstrates superior results in shrinking tumors and extending survival times compared to either compound alone or conventional chemotherapy drugs, while being gentler on healthy cells
Long-term, low-dose aspirin use (75 mg+ daily for several years) can significantly reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, with benefits most pronounced for proximal colon cancers and after 20+ years of use
Aspirin’s cancer-fighting potential extends beyond colorectal cancer, showing promise in reducing risks for esophageal, stomach, lung, prostate and breast cancers, with overall cancer incidence potentially reduced by 20% to 30% after three to five years of use
For maximum benefit, choose immediate-release aspirin without additives. Optimal dosage ranges from 82 mg to 325 mg daily, taken with meals. Genetic testing may help personalize aspirin use for cancer prevention in the future
*
Aspirin is a staple in medicine cabinets worldwide, known primarily for its pain-relieving and anti-inflammatory properties. However, recent research is shedding light on a potentially game-changing role for this common medication: cancer prevention and treatment.1
While aspirin’s anticancer properties have been hinted at in various studies over the years,2 this function has largely been overlooked in favor of newer, more expensive drugs. Now, groundbreaking experiments are not only reaffirming aspirin’s potential in fighting cancer but also uncovering a more potent analog that could revolutionize our approach to cancer treatment.
This forgotten function of aspirin, and its even more powerful cousin, may offer new hope in the battle against one of humanity’s most persistent health challenges. Let’s explore the exciting developments that are causing researchers to take a fresh look at this familiar drug.
Aspirin and Cancer: Introducing 2,6-Dihydroxybenzoic Acid
In my interview with Georgi Dinkov, above, he discusses his experiments with mice using a combination of B vitamins — B1, B3 and B7 — and aspirin to combat a highly lethal form of human mantle cell lymphoma. He found that while the vitamins alone stopped tumor growth, adding aspirin at a human-equivalent dose of about 1.5 grams per day led to complete tumor regression in all three test subjects.
Building on the success with aspirin, Dinkov introduced a more potent analog of aspirin known as 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid. Not only is it much stronger, it’s also much more lipophilic, meaning it has a greater affinity for lipids (fats) than water. Lipophilic compounds tend to be more easily absorbed through cell membranes.
Dinkov explains the theoretical basis for using this compound, which is based on lowering intracellular pH to induce cancer cell death:3
“One of Ray [Peat]’s main theories was that … cancer cells … [are] metabolically dysfunctional, we all know that, and typically a cell like that commits apoptosis. But in order to commit apoptosis, that mechanism is controlled almost entirely by the intracellular pH. And in order for apoptosis to occur, it needs to be in the acidic range.
But the cancer cells are alkaline due to exporting lactate and hydrogen ions. So, if anything can drop the intracellular pH, those cancer cells, because they’re deranged, should actually disappear by themselves.
And one of Peat’s suggestions at the time was, ‘Why don’t you use the drug acetazolamide?’ which as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, increases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acidic, and then that should allow cancer cells to commit apoptosis.
There are some studies in vitro and in vivo showing that acetazolamide may work, but it didn’t really cure the tumors. It was a slower growth, partial regression, but it showed that the idea was on the right track.
So, I said, ‘Let’s find something that’s much more acidic than carbon dioxide.’ And that is this 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid, which is just one extra hydroxyl group on top of aspirin. Salicylic acid, really, which is 2-hydroxybenzoic acid. And then this thing is about 10 times more potent than aspirin.”
Follow-up studies have yielded promising results, with tumors regressing after one week. Dinkov notes that 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid is, “Freely available. No patent, nothing on it. Quite a few studies back in the day, but really a very generic molecule … Dirt cheap, too. Cheaper than aspirin.”4
Just as aspirin was developed from a natural source (willow bark), other natural compounds, including those derived from the leaves of the medicinal plant Lithraea molleoides,5 also show cytotoxic effects, adding to the growing body of evidence that plant-derived compounds can have significant anticancer potential. Compounds isolated from Mangifera zeylanica, a species of mango tree native to Sri Lanka, also have cytotoxic and apoptotic effects.6
Aspirin-Vitamin C Combination Treats Solid Tumors Better Than Chemo
While research suggests 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid could be a promising tool against cancer, aspirin also shows immense promise. Your body may benefit even more when aspirin is combined with vitamin C, which also has antitumor effects. Recent studies have shown that this combination can be more effective against cancer cells while remaining gentler on healthy cells compared to conventional chemotherapy drugs like doxorubicin.7
In laboratory tests, the aspirin-vitamin C combination showed a strong cytotoxic effect on liver cancer cells but was much less harmful to normal lung cells.8 This selectivity is crucial for reducing the side effects associated with cancer treatments. The synergy between these two common substances appears to enhance their individual anticancer properties, offering a safer alternative to harsh chemotherapies.
The potential of aspirin and vitamin C extends beyond the lab, with encouraging results in animal studies. When tested on rats with chemically induced liver cancer, the combination therapy showed remarkable results.9 After 90 days of treatment, the livers of treated rats had significant improvement in both appearance and function.
Importantly, most of the liver tissue appeared normal under microscopic examination. This combination therapy outperformed doxorubicin in restoring liver health and reducing tumor markers.
Aspirin Works Synergistically with Vitamin C
In another study, the combination of aspirin, also known as acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and vitamin C, or ascorbate (AS), showed superior results in shrinking tumors compared to either compound alone.10 When mice with solid tumors were treated with the combination, their tumor volume decreased by 46%, versus 40% with ASA alone and 36% with AS alone.
This synergistic effect likely stems from combining aspirin’s anti-inflammatory properties with vitamin C’s potent antioxidant capabilities. The two compounds appear to work together to create a more hostile environment for cancer cells, impeding their growth and proliferation.
By attacking tumors through multiple mechanisms simultaneously, the aspirin-vitamin C combination may overcome some of the adaptations cancer cells typically develop to evade single-compound treatments.
Beyond just shrinking tumors, the aspirin-vitamin C combination significantly extended survival times and appeared to improve overall health in the tumor-bearing mice. Mice treated with the combination survived an average of 93.5 days, compared to just 54 days for untreated tumor-bearing mice — a 73% increase in lifespan.11
The combination also outperformed either compound alone in normalizing various biomarkers of liver, kidney and heart function that had been disrupted by the cancer. Notably, the combination was able to increase hemoglobin levels, potentially alleviating the anemia often associated with cancer.
These improvements in organ function and blood parameters suggest the aspirin-vitamin C treatment may have wide-ranging benefits for overall health and quality of life, beyond just its antitumor effects.
A key mechanism behind the aspirin-vitamin C combination’s effects appears to be its powerful modulation of oxidative stress and inflammation in the body. The study found that tumor-bearing mice had significantly elevated levels of oxidative stress markers like malondialdehyde (MDA) and nitric oxide (NO), along with depleted antioxidant defenses.
Treatment with aspirin and vitamin C dramatically reversed these imbalances, decreasing MDA and NO while boosting total antioxidant capacity, glutathione and catalase activity. By creating a less inflammatory, less oxidative environment in the body, the combination may make it harder for cancer cells to thrive and spread.
This rebalancing of the redox state could have far-reaching effects throughout the body, potentially explaining the improvements seen in multiple organ systems. The study’s findings underscore the importance of addressing chronic inflammation and oxidative stress as part of a comprehensive approach to cancer treatment and prevention.
Aspirin’s Promising Role in Colorectal Cancer Prevention
Aspirin may also significantly reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Studies have shown that taking at least 75 milligrams (mg) of aspirin daily for several years can decrease both the incidence and mortality of CRC.12
Interestingly, the beneficial effect appears to be most pronounced for proximal colon cancers, which are typically harder to prevent through standard screening methods like colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. Long-term aspirin use, particularly for over 20 years, has been associated with a remarkable 35% reduction in CRC incidence.13
These findings suggest that incorporating low-dose aspirin into your long-term health strategy could offer significant protection against this common form of cancer.
Beyond its preventive effects, aspirin may also improve outcomes for those already diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Research indicates that regular aspirin use after a CRC diagnosis is linked to reduced risks of both overall and CRC-specific mortality. This benefit appears to be particularly pronounced in tumors that overexpress cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2).14 Moreover, aspirin’s protective effects aren’t limited to colorectal cancer alone.
Studies have shown that long-term aspirin use can reduce the 20-year risk of death from any cancer by 20%, with an even more substantial 35% reduction in gastrointestinal cancer deaths.15These findings suggest that if you’re at increased risk for cancer or have already been diagnosed, aspirin use could be a valuable part of your treatment and prevention strategy.
Studies suggest aspirin may help suppress tumor growth, reduce metastasis and even enhance the effectiveness of other cancer treatments.16 This multi-pronged approach makes aspirin a particularly promising agent in the fight against colorectal cancer. For individuals at higher risk of CRC, such as those with a history of colorectal neoplasia or genetic predisposition, aspirin may offer even more promise.
A systematic review of studies involving people with previous colorectal neoplasia found a non-statistically significant reduction in advanced neoplasia with low-dose aspirin use.17 Additionally, for carriers of Lynch syndrome genes, high-dose aspirin for two years was associated with a decreased risk of colorectal cancer.18
Individuals with Lynch syndrome have a significantly higher lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends patients diagnosed with Lynch Syndrome begin daily aspirin therapy to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.19
Aspirin’s Broad Cancer-Fighting Potential
Analyses of long-term cardiovascular trials have also revealed aspirin’s unexpected power in fighting cancer across multiple sites.20 Studies show significant reductions in deaths from esophageal and stomach cancers among long-term aspirin users, and data indicate it may also lower your risk of lung, prostate and breast cancers.
Perhaps most exciting is the potential for a 20% to 30% reduction in overall cancer incidence after just three to five years of daily low-dose aspirin use.21 Further, studies consistently show that low doses — as little as 75 mg to 100 mg daily — are just as effective as higher doses in reducing cancer risk.22
The effectiveness of low-dose regimens also points to a unique mechanism of action. Rather than directly affecting tissues throughout your body, aspirin may work by inhibiting platelets, which play a crucial role in both early cancer development and later metastasis.23 While some benefits of aspirin use may appear within a few years, other reductions in cancer risk emerge with long-term use.
Studies tracking participants for 20 years or more have found that aspirin’s protective effects against gastrointestinal cancers become more pronounced over time. For colorectal cancer, significant reductions in incidence and mortality were observed 10 to 20 years after the start of aspirin use.24 This long-lasting effect suggests that aspirin may be altering fundamental processes in cancer development, offering enduring protection against this disease.
Aspirin’s potential as a repurposed drug for cancer therapy is another exciting area of research.25Aspirin works by inhibiting COX enzymes, particularly COX-1 and COX-2. This mechanism not only helps prevent heart attacks but may also combat cancer in multiple ways. By inhibiting COX-1, aspirin reduces platelet aggregation around tumor cells, making these malignant cells more visible to your immune system.26 This could help prevent cancer from spreading throughout your body.
Additionally, aspirin’s effect on COX-2 may directly impact tumor growth. COX-2 produces prostaglandin E2, which stimulates tumor cell growth. By reducing prostaglandin E2 production, aspirin could slow or prevent tumor development.27
The future of aspirin in cancer prevention may lie in personalized medicine. Emerging research has identified several genetic markers that could help predict who will benefit most from aspirin therapy. For example, certain variations in genes like UGT1A6 and ALOX12 have been associated with enhanced aspirin efficacy in reducing colorectal cancer risk.28
Additionally, your expression levels of enzymes like 15-PGDH may influence how well you respond to aspirin’s cancer-fighting properties.29 These genetic insights open up exciting possibilities for tailoring aspirin use to your individual genetic profile. In the coming years, genetic testing could become a routine part of determining whether aspirin is right for you and at what dose.
Willow Bark: Nature’s Time-Tested Pain Reliever
For those with aspirin sensitivity, salicylic acid or willow bark supplements may be alternatives worth considering. When you consume aspirin, your body converts the acetylsalicylic acid into salicylic acid, which is responsible for aspirin’s anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antithrombotic properties. Willow bark naturally contains this compound.
This ancient medicinal plant carries with it centuries of therapeutic wisdom, offering a compelling alternative to modern pharmaceuticals. Willow bark’s efficacy stems from its long-standing relationship with human physiology. Unlike laboratory-created drugs, the active compounds in willow bark have been interacting with our biochemistry for thousands of years.
This extended coexistence has fostered a natural compatibility that many synthetic medications struggle to achieve.
Our ancestors’ consistent, albeit minimal, consumption of these compounds over generations has allowed our bodies to develop an efficient means of processing and utilizing them. This evolutionary adaptation underscores the potential advantages of natural remedies over their synthetic counterparts. Further, research suggests that some of willow bark’s therapeutic properties are due to synergistic effects,30 offering benefits beyond those of salicylic acid alone.
The pharmaceutical industry’s development of aspirin in the 19th century marked a significant shift from nature-based to laboratory-derived medicine.31 While this transition led to the creation of a patentable product, it didn’t necessarily improve upon the original source material. In fact, the enduring popularity of willow bark serves as a testament to the power of plant-based remedies.
For those considering willow bark as an alternative to aspirin, particularly individuals with aspirin sensitivity, understanding proper dosage is important. While willow bark and aspirin share similar active compounds, their metabolism and bioavailability differ, necessitating distinct dosing strategies.
So, while 240 mg to 600 mg of willow bark extract (15% salicin) is often estimated to provide a salicin dose that is roughly equivalent to 325 mg of aspirin, the total amount of willow bark extract needed is typically larger:
To approximate the effects of 81 mg of aspirin, a dose of 400 mg to 800 mg of willow bark extract (standardized to 15% salicin) is typically required.
For effects similar to 111 mg of aspirin, a dose of 500 mg to 1 gram of willow bark extract (standardized to 15% salicin) is generally needed.
Tips for Aspirin Dosage and Duration
When selecting aspirin, choose immediate-release formulations rather than coated extended-release versions to avoid unnecessary additives. Immediate-release aspirin is available on Amazon. Examine the inactive ingredients list carefully; ideally, corn starch should be the only additive listed.
After extensive research, I identified a product meeting these specifications. The appropriate dosage ranges from 82 mg to 325 mg daily, taken with your largest meal, depending on your individual needs.
Based on my research into aspirin’s preventive benefits, I personally take 111 mg daily using Health Natura’s USP grade 60 gram aspirin powder, which costs less than $20. This 99% pure USP aspirin powder appeals to me due to its prometabolic, antilipolytic, anti-inflammatory, anticortisol and anti-estrogen effects. Its safety profile is well-established.
When it comes to cancer prevention, the dosage and duration of aspirin use appear to be crucial factors. Low doses of aspirin (75 to 300 mg/day) have been shown to be as effective as higher doses in reducing CRC-related mortality,32 suggesting that you don’t need to take large amounts to reap the potential benefits. However, consistency and long-term use seem to be key.
Studies indicate that the benefits of aspirin increase with duration of use, with the most significant reductions in cancer risk observed after five to 7.5 years of regular use.33 As research progresses, aspirin may prove to be a powerful new tool in your cancer prevention and treatment arsenal — one that’s been in your medicine cabinet all along.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On Tuesday afternoon, thousands of pagers exploded in Lebanon killing at least nine and injuring 2,800, including Iran’s Ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani.
More details will emerge in time, but it appears Israel, through their intelligence services, had planted explosives in the hand held communication devices used by the Lebanon resistance group Hezbollah.
Some experts feel this may be Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s attack on August 25, which targeted the elite ‘cyber-spy’ unit 8200 in Glilot, which killed 22 operatives and wounded 74, according to a Lebanese news agency, which was confirmed by European security sources.
The Israeli Intelligence Corps Unit 8220 of the Israel Defense Forces is responsible for spy operations, including collecting signal intelligence.
Israel refuses to publically address the attack at their most sensitive spy center. However, in a telling public announcement, the commander of 8200, Yossi Sariel, resigned on September 10. He will be the scapegoat needed for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have valued killing Hamas and Palestinian civilians in Gaza, over the safe return of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Dr. Ali Hamie, a strategic analyst, concerning various issues facing Lebanon today.
Dr. Hamie mentioned the destruction of Israel’s unit 8200, and the fact that since Hezbollah makes their own weapons, the old land route through Syria is no longer necessary, although the Israeli airstrikes on Syria continue. Hamie also exposed how the US has prevented Lebanon from recovering from the worst economic crisis in the world, by standing in the way of Lebanon’s development of their rich off-shore oil resources.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Lebanon is in one of the worst economic crisis in modern history. In your opinion, would a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have a role in recovering the Lebanese economy?
Ali Hamie (AH): The whole world is heading towards recession and economic depression, and Lebanon is subject to a devastating economy as a result of mismanagement and internal corruption; however, the greater devastation comes by means of American sanctions by penal laws. This means the internal corruption is backed by American policy that protects the corrupt up to the point they no longer serve their purpose before exposing their corruption and plays the part of ‘protector against the corrupt’. The direct imposition of sanctions on some Lebanese figures and indirect sanctions, are suffocating Lebanon. Such as those imposed on Syria through the Caesar Act which harms Lebanon more than it does Syria. Just as the United States prevents Lebanon from benefiting from international donations regarding oil and food, the foolish American control of economic policies against most countries that reject it, it’s as if the United States crossed into the sea borders and oil-rich Lebanese beaches, and placed obstacles to stall Lebanon from extracting their oil.
Today we have an additional, sensitive, and essential factor that has entered the economic equation. War and offensive by the Zionist entity against the occupied Gaza Strip. This factor, however, has an impact on both sides of the conflict, and everyone wants to get out of it. Even as an achievement, it comes after the Israeli economy has been devastated just as our economy has endured. Therefore, call for a ceasefire, withdrawal from Gaza, and stopping the fighting to call for a temporary truce may give breathing space to restore the collapsed economy for everyone.
SS: Israeli is threatening a full-scale war against the resistance in South Lebanon. In your opinion, will Benjamin Netanyahu take this kind of action, even though he is unable to achieve military victory in Gaza?
AH: Until now, the Israeli enemy has not been able to achieve any goal or military objective on the Gaza front, apart from the destruction of the infrastructure of hospitals, schools, retirement homes. So, how can they open a new expanded front with Lebanon while they are aware that the Northern front has been tried with some of the most powerful air force in the Middle East, with the largest squadron of 100 fighter jets, and carried out sixty raids, but could not destroy any major targets? Meanwhile, Hezbollah has responded to the Israelis and destroyed unit 8200 Security Division Serial Mektel North of Tel Aviv. Therefore, despite the military might of the Israeli forces, they have proven unable to expand the circle of war on the Northern front except by foolish strategies that could cost them the demise of their entity.
SS: Amos Hochstein visited the Middle East on Monday. In your opinion, was his visit to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu to not start a war with Lebanon?
AH: As usual, Hochstein visits the region once again bearing ideas and conditions of the Israeli enemies to impose on us. But, that is no longer useful because the superiority of the military security of the Israelis is no longer as it was, now 12 months since the war began.
SS: According to Israeli media, the IDF is planning to do a military operation to cut the road between Lebanon and Syria, to prevent Hezbollah from getting weapons. In your opinion, is that possible, and what would be the consequences?
AH: It’s the same old story of offensives against Syria with the excuse of transporting weapons and ammunition to Hezbollah, and Israel knows that the resistance in Lebanon develops their own weapons and does not need to use that route to obtain them. And, in the case that there was a need for arms, after the announcement of the facility ‘Imad 4’ and that ‘our mountains are our storage’, then perhaps there are enough routes through the tunnels.
SS: Media reports say that the UNIFIL troops in south Lebanon are giving information to the Israelis. In your point of view, is this accusation correct, and if so, what is the response of the Lebanese military and government?
AH: Many of the eyewitnesses have reported suspicious cases in areas where some UNIFIL units have entered and exited, and a few minutes afterwards the areas have been targeted and bombed by the Israelis which has given some people the impression that some of those UNIFIL units had provided the enemy with coordinates for areas that drones could not reach. But, this report remains under speculation, it could be true or not.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Here is a summary of the speech (in the video below) of former British Ambassador Craig Murray describing the transition of Britain and the West in general into Tyranny.
The UK has criminalized dissent.
A new Public Order Act makes it illegal to hold a rally or demonstration if it “inconveniences” anyone. This gives the state unlimited power to clamp down on any demonstration.
A new National Security Act makes it illegal to accept funding if it comes from “a hostile state” (there is no definition of what qualifies as a “hostile state”).
A new Public Safety Act makes it a criminal offense to publish “misinformation” (there is no definition of “misinformation” — the government decides).
It is all about control of the narrative. Zionist lobbies have great influence on official narratives across the West.
Citizens of the West are not allowed to accuse Israel of genocide; this is increasingly being equated with being a “terrorist”.
Anti-terrorism powers are being used to prevent any criticism of Israel.
Murray, a former British Ambassador, was arrested at the airport under the “Terrorism Act” for attending a pro-Palestine demonstration in Iceland.
Under the Terrorism Act, if you are arrested at an airport, you have no right to remain silent, no right to a lawyer, you must turn over all your electronic devices with the passwords.
If you refuse to turn over your electronic devices, it is two years in prison.
Two years in prison for refusing to answer a question.
Many people are being detained under anti-terrorist legislation, including a professor from Paris and several independent journalists, who all have been detained as was Murray.
There is a continual attempt to connect people to Russia. The FBI detained an American professor who spoke with Murray at a pro-Palestine demonstration and had all his electronic devices confiscated.
Crackdowns on free speech, freedom of assembly, and any form of dissent are happening all across the Western world in an increasing frequency.
As the West trumpets the importance of “freedom and democracy”, it simultaneously limits the freedoms of its own peoples and moves towards complete totalitarianism.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 18 2024
Video: Former British Ambassador Craig Murray
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
In recent days the chances of a direct war between Russia and NATO/USA have increased like never before since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
This has happened due to a series of red lines being crossed culminating with increased possibility of long range weapons supplied by the USA and close allies to Ukraine being used to strike targets in mainland Russia, and Russia declaring this to be the weapon supplying countries like the USA and the UK in particular engaging in warfare against Russia.
While at the time of writing it is still possible that better sense may prevail and the weapon supplying countries may still convey a clear message, more or less, that they are not going to cross this red line (by restraining Ukraine from using these long-range weapons against mainland Russia), nevertheless the enormity of the dangers should not be underestimated at a time when such serious transgressions of safety are taking place.
Further, direct confrontation between Russia and USA/NATO implies World War 3 and nuclear war. Instead of merely, and perhaps falsely, hoping for better sense to prevail, let humanity realize that we are in fact closer to nuclear war compared to any other time since 1962.
Any confrontation between Russia and USA/NATO means a confrontation involving countries which have close to 12,000 nuclear weapons, the actual use of just 5 per cent of which is enough to destroy the world from its direct and indirect (including ‘nuclear winter’) impacts.
One reason why such possibilities have not received the kind of enormous public attention and concern, ironically, is that people tend to believe that such unthinkable horrors will never be allowed to happen by the world’s top leaders, particularly western leaders.
However, quite apart from the fact that some of these leaders have been acting in extremely irresponsible and dangerous ways in matters relating to wars and weapons, we need to realize that in certain conditions if some countries remain in danger and high tension zones for a long enough time, it is possible that misunderstandings, high levels of suspicions and technological flaws relating to weapon and surveillance systems can result in starting a nuclear war that no one actually wants.
A nuclear war that no one actually wants can also start, and once it starts very extreme harm can be done to our beautiful, full of life but also highly targeted and vulnerable world in a matter of minutes and hours, not days or weeks.
This is why the advice of wisdom and caution in the context of nuclear weapon countries is—don’t ever step into the danger zone, and if you have entered get out as early as possible.
This is the voice of caution that the USA-led West in particular has neglected in recent times. Instead they have chosen foolishly to play very dangerous games and to practice brinkmanship. This can prove to be a huge, unprecedented disaster for humanity and in fact for all forms of life.
Imagine a family that suddenly finds that there is a bomb in a part of their home. The family comes to know that if the bomb explodes near them they all will die, but the actual chance of this bomb exploding is only about one per cent or so.
On the basis of that one per cent risk, it is considered wise for the family not to remove the bomb on their own but to evacuate from the house till a specialized bomb defusing squad with all the specialist equipment is called to defuse and remove the bomb. All this trouble is taken on the widely accepted and respected principle that when there is risk of ‘everyone dying’, even a one per cent risk is unacceptable. But in the course of brinkmanship and recklessness to enter and stay in the danger zone for too long, western leaders have already raised the risk of a nuclear war in which ‘everyone dies’ to at least 5 to 10 per cent.
This is not an alarmist view; this may well be an understatement. Kindly also consider that one of the important actors involved in the decision making, the President of Ukraine, has given several indications that he is actually keenly interested in making this a wider war involving his western supporters more directly, and he has some even more hawkish persons and forces (like neo-Nazi elements) on his side who may press for even deeper or more frequent strikes beyond the permissions given by the weapon supplying countries.
In such a situation, of course, the best option is to end the Ukraine war as early as possible, without any further destruction. But if this does not happen, then other means of preventing escalation to a level of third world war or nuclear war certainly need to be considered. Such a high level of possibility of such a big danger as exists today is unacceptable.
One immediate possibility is for several eminent statesmen, diplomats and war veterans, particularly of leading western countries, to emerge from their retirement and get together to prepare a number of appeals, one after the other, to move away from the high danger zone. They should form committees and take out delegations to meet senior policy makers and to help public campaigns till the desired results can be achieved. Secondly, there should be a big surge in the peace movement all over the word, but more particularly, in leading western countries, till the desired results of avoiding the escalation towards a nuclear war and WW3 can be achieved. Thirdly, the United Nations should be involved much more actively in reducing the possibilities of a major escalation towards WW3 and nuclear war.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Earth without Borders and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Scroll down to read the article in Arabic. AI translation
قم بالتمرير لأسفل لقراءة المقال باللغة العربية
لماذا تقوم إسرائيل بجرف المقابر في غزة؟ مايك ويتني
According to CNN:
The Israeli military has desecrated at least 16 cemeteriesin its ground offensive in Gaza,… leaving gravestones ruined, soil upturned, and, in some cases, bodies unearthed…
In Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, where fighting escalated earlier this week, Israeli forces destroyed a cemetery, removing bodies in what the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN was part of a search for the remains of hostages seized by Hamas during the October 7 terror attacks. CNN
Why are they doing this?
The IDF has produced no evidence of hostages, land mines, tunnels, weapons-caches or Hamas militants. It’s all an excuse to destroy the plots of land where people bury their loved ones. But, why? These graveyards pose no security threat to the IDF or to the Israeli state. They’re just cemeteries.
CNN has reviewed satellite imagery and social media footage showing the destruction of cemeteries and witnessed it firsthand while traveling with the IDF in a convoy. Together the evidence reveals a systemic practice where Israeli ground forces have advanced across the Gaza Strip.
The intentional destruction of religious sites, such as cemeteries, violates international law, except under narrow circumstances relating to that site becoming a military objective, and legal experts told CNN that Israel’s acts could amount to war crimes. CNN
You can tell that the journalist covering this story is disturbed by what he’s seen. He’s disturbed because plowing up the withered remains of loved ones –and leaving them to rot in the sun among clods of dirt and broken headstones– is a shockingly callous and evil thing to do. We don’t expect humans to behave this way. We expect them to show some small amount of respect for the dead. But, here, we see the exact opposite. Here, we see corpses treated like garbage that must be disposed of so the settlement project can move ahead.
Here’s CNN‘s televised report:
The israelis have destroyed 16 cemeteries in Gaza, & unearthed dozens of bodies, under the pretext they were looking for the remains of israelis pic.twitter.com/1LZMxyE4oy
It’s worth noting, that other cemeteries in Gaza, that contain the bodies of Christians and Jews, have not been disturbed, which suggests that the policy is directed at a particular ethnicity, Arabs.
It’s also worth noting that the destruction of cemeteries is a clear violation of international law under the Rome Statute. This reinforces the claim that Israel is conducting a genocide, in fact, South Africa has referred to the IDF’s destruction of cemeteries in Gaza as evidence of genocide in its case at the International Court of Justice. Keep in mind, the definition of genocide goes beyond the mass killing of a particular ethnic group. It refers to “a policy to destroy a group, in whole or in part.” Raphael Lemkin’s Definition of Genocide helps to clarify this point:
… genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation…. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves….
The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups…. The formulation of the crime may be as follows:
“Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.” Raphael Lemkin’s Definition of Genocide, genocidewatch.com
Does the deliberate destruction of Palestinian cemeteries “signify a coordinated plan (aimed) at the destruction of essential foundations of the life….. with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves?
It does.
And is the destruction of cemeteries “an attack against life, liberty or property” of the Palestinians with the intention of “destroying the group in whole or in part”?
Yes, it is.
Then Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide. This is from an article at The Atlantic Council:
When the IDF razes Gazan cemeteries, it also razes Palestinian heritage, culture, and claims to the land…..
white settlers in the United States frequently desecrated Indigenous burial grounds in a centuries-long campaign of cultural destruction and ethnic cleansing. Likewise, Nazis desecrated and destroyed countless Jewish cemeteries during the Holocaust, often using headstones as construction materials in a blatant effort to excise both Jewish people and Jewish heritage from occupied German territories….
the IDF’s alleged treatment of cemeteries outside of direct conflict with Hamas is also noteworthy, given cemetery desecration’s well-established place in the history of genocide. Cemetery desecration and genocide are so intimately linked that Raphael Lemkin, coiner of the term “genocide,” even recommended outlawing the practice in early drafts of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Razing the dead: Contextualizing IDF cemetery desecration in Gaza, The Atlantic Council
The desecration of cemeteries is such a malignant act, it’s hard to fully grasp. What sinister impulse motivates a nation’s leaders to direct their troops to obliterate their adversary’s burial grounds? It’s an act of pure barbarism bordering on criminal psychoses. The only conclusion we can draw is that Israel is not satisfied with merely obliterating the schools, hospitals, universities, mosques and vital infrastructure. They are not satisfied with merely slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians who are not connected in any way to the attacks of October 7. No. They are determined to eradicate any trace of the people who have occupied the land for the last two thousand years in order to concoct a fabricated history in which Zionist Jews are at the center of the narrative. This is from an article titled Necroviolence in Palestine:
….Jason De Leon brought forward the concept of necroviolence ..He defines it as:
“Violence performed and produced through the specific treatment of corpses that is perceived to be offensive, sacrilegious, or inhumane by the perpetrator, the victim (and her or his cultural group), or both.” – Jason De Leon in The Land of Open Graves, p.69[2]
…
The Zionist regime’s use of necroviolence…. Demolition of historic gravesites
The Zionist regime has made the demolition of cemeteries a key arena for necroviolence to facilitate colonial expansion and historical erasure…. The regime has not only prevented the burial of Palestinian bodies, it has also gone to the extent of attacking the already buried, violating their bodies for further territorial expansion.
This also marks a step towards the complete erasure of the Palestinian experience, as many of these grave sites are centuries old, holding within them not only a history of Palestinian belonging, but one of resistance through the presence of martyrs who resisted decades of occupation. The Zionist regime thus denies Palestinians agency in one of the few forms it has left to exercise; that is, the traces of their heritage, identity, and history on ground.
Conclusion
Here, we gain insight into the logic of Zionist colonialism, which necessitates full control over every aspect of the Palestinian individual, both in life and death; in all forms of existence…., the regime’s exercise of necroviolence is a confirmation that Zionist colonialism continues long after death… Erasing all traces of Palestinian culture, heritage, and identity works as an attack on the legitimacy of the Palestinian experience…. Necroviolence in Palestine, Words of Solidarity
That pretty-well sums it up. Israel’s destruction of Palestinian cemeteries is a critical part of the ethnic cleansing campaign the goal of which is not simply to physically remove the native population but to expunge any trace of their historic existence.
It would be hard to imagine a more diabolical plan.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: One of the hundreds of ‘targets’ bombed by Israel during its latest war on Gaza. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)
Why Is Israel Bulldozing Cemeteries in Gaza?
by Mike Whitney
لماذا تقوم إسرائيل بجرف المقابر في غزة؟ مايك ويتني
وفقًا لشبكة CNN:
لقد قام الجيش الإسرائيلي بتدنيس ما لا يقل عن 16 مقبرة في هجومه البري على غزة، مما أدى إلى تدمير شواهد القبور، وقلب التربة، وفي بعض الحالات إخراج الجثث من تحت الأرض…
ولم يقدم جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي أي دليل على وجود رهائن أو ألغام أرضية أو أنفاق أو مخابئ أسلحة أو مسلحين من حماس. وكل هذا مجرد ذريعة لتدمير قطع الأراضي التي يدفن فيها الناس أحباءهم. ولكن لماذا؟ إن هذه المقابر لا تشكل أي تهديد أمني لجيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي أو للدولة الإسرائيلية. إنها مجرد مقابر.
وقد قامت شبكة CNN بمراجعة صور الأقمار الصناعية ومقاطع الفيديو على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي التي تظهر تدمير المقابر، وشاهدت ذلك بنفسها أثناء السفر مع جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي في قافلة. وتكشف الأدلة مجتمعة عن ممارسة منهجية حيث تقدمت القوات البرية الإسرائيلية عبر قطاع غزة.
إن التدمير المتعمد للمواقع الدينية، مثل المقابر، ينتهك القانون الدولي، إلا في ظروف ضيقة تتعلق بتحويل هذا الموقع إلى هدف عسكري، وقال خبراء قانونيون لشبكة CNN إن تصرفات إسرائيل قد ترقى إلى جرائم حرب.
إن الصحافي الذي غطى هذه القصة منزعج مما شاهده. فهو منزعج لأن حرث بقايا أحبائه الذابلة ـ وتركها تتعفن في الشمس وسط كتل من التراب وشواهد القبور المكسورة ـ هو فعل قاسٍ وشرير إلى حد صادم. ونحن لا نتوقع من البشر أن يتصرفوا بهذه الطريقة. بل نتوقع منهم أن يظهروا قدراً ضئيلاً من الاحترام للموتى. ولكننا نرى هنا العكس تماماً. فنحن نرى هنا جثثاً تُعامل وكأنها قمامة يجب التخلص منها حتى يتسنى لمشروع الاستيطان أن يمضي قدماً.
وهنا تقرير تلفزيوني لشبكة CNN :
ومن الجدير بالذكر أن المقابر الأخرى في غزة، التي تحتوي على رفات المسيحيين واليهود، لم يتم المساس بها، مما يشير إلى أن السياسة موجهة ضد عرقية معينة، وهي العرب.
ومن الجدير بالذكر أيضاً أن تدمير المقابر يشكل انتهاكاً واضحاً للقانون الدولي بموجب نظام روما الأساسي. وهذا يعزز الادعاء بأن إسرائيل تمارس إبادة جماعية، بل إن جنوب أفريقيا أشارت إلى تدمير جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي للمقابر في غزة كدليل على الإبادة الجماعية في قضيتها أمام محكمة العدل الدولية. ولنتذكر أن تعريف الإبادة الجماعية يتجاوز القتل الجماعي لجماعة عرقية معينة. فهو يشير إلى “سياسة لتدمير مجموعة، كلياً أو جزئياً”. ويساعد تعريف رافائيل ليمكين للإبادة الجماعية في توضيح هذه النقطة:
… إن الإبادة الجماعية لا تعني بالضرورة التدمير الفوري لأمة ما… بل إنها تهدف إلى الإشارة إلى خطة منسقة من الإجراءات المختلفة التي تهدف إلى تدمير الأسس الأساسية لحياة الجماعات الوطنية، بهدف القضاء على الجماعات نفسها…
ويجب أن يُعترف بجريمة الإبادة الجماعية في هذه المادة باعتبارها مؤامرة لإبادة جماعات وطنية أو دينية أو عرقية… ويمكن صياغة الجريمة على النحو التالي:
“كل من يقوم، أثناء مشاركته في مؤامرة لتدمير جماعة وطنية أو عرقية أو دينية، بالهجوم على حياة أو حرية أو ممتلكات أعضاء هذه الجماعات يكون مذنبًا بجريمة الإبادة الجماعية.” تعريف رافائيل ليمكين للإبادة الجماعية ، genocidewatch.com
هل يشير التدمير المتعمد للمقابر الفلسطينية إلى “خطة منسقة تهدف إلى تدمير الأسس الأساسية للحياة… بهدف إبادة المجموعات نفسها؟”
إنه كذلك.
وهل يعتبر تدمير المقابر “اعتداء على حياة أو حرية أو ممتلكات” الفلسطينيين بقصد “تدمير المجموعة كلياً أو جزئياً”؟
نعم إنه كذلك.
إن تصرفات إسرائيل تتفق مع التعريف القانوني للإبادة الجماعية. وهذا مقتطف من مقال في المجلس الأطلسي:
عندما يقوم جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي بهدم مقابر غزة، فإنه يهدم أيضاً التراث والثقافة الفلسطينية ومطالبات الفلسطينيين بالأرض .
في الولايات المتحدة، دنس المستوطنون البيض مقابر السكان الأصليين في حملة استمرت قرونًا من التدمير الثقافي والتطهير العرقي. وعلى نحو مماثل، دنس النازيون ودمروا عددًا لا يحصى من المقابر اليهودية أثناء الهولوكوست، وغالبًا ما استخدموا شواهد القبور كمواد بناء في محاولة صارخة لاستئصال الشعب اليهودي والتراث اليهودي من الأراضي الألمانية المحتلة.
إن معاملة جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي المزعومة للمقابر خارج الصراع المباشر مع حماس جديرة بالملاحظة أيضًا، نظرًا للمكانة الراسخة لتدنيس المقابر في تاريخ الإبادة الجماعية. إن تدنيس المقابر والإبادة الجماعية مرتبطان ارتباطًا وثيقًا لدرجة أن رافائيل ليمكين، صاغ مصطلح “الإبادة الجماعية”، أوصى بحظر هذه الممارسة في المسودات الأولى لاتفاقية الإبادة الجماعية لعام 1948. هدم الجثث: سياق تدنيس جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي للمقابر في غزة ، المجلس الأطلسي
إن تدنيس المقابر عمل خبيث إلى حد يصعب معه استيعابه بالكامل. فما الدافع الشرير الذي يدفع زعماء أمة إلى توجيه قواتهم لتدمير مقابر أعدائهم؟ إنه عمل همجي خالص يقترب من الذهان الإجرامي. والاستنتاج الوحيد الذي يمكننا التوصل إليه هو أن إسرائيل لا تكتفي بتدمير المدارس والمستشفيات والجامعات والمساجد والبنية الأساسية الحيوية. ولا تكتفي بقتل عشرات الآلاف من المدنيين الذين لا علاقة لهم بأي شكل من الأشكال بهجمات السابع من أكتوبر. بل إنها عازمة على محو أي أثر للشعب الذي احتل الأرض خلال الألفي عام الماضية من أجل اختلاق تاريخ ملفق يكون فيه اليهود الصهاينة في مركز السرد.وهذا مقتطف من مقال بعنوان “العنف ضد الموتى في فلسطين”:
…. طرح جيسون دي ليون مفهوم العنف ضد الموتى .. وهو يعرفه على النحو التالي:
“العنف الذي يتم تنفيذه وإنتاجه من خلال المعاملة الخاصة للجثث والتي يُنظر إليها على أنها مسيئة أو تدنيسية أو غير إنسانية من قبل الجاني أو الضحية (ومجموعتها الثقافية) أو كليهما.” – جيسون دي ليون في أرض القبور المفتوحة، ص 69 [2]
…
استخدام الكيان الصهيوني للعنف ضد الموتى….هدم القبور التاريخية
لقد جعل الكيان الصهيوني من هدم المقابر ساحة رئيسية للعنف من أجل تسهيل التوسع الاستعماري ومحو التاريخ … ولم يمنع الكيان الصهيوني دفن جثث الفلسطينيين فحسب، بل وصل الأمر إلى حد الاعتداء على الجثث المدفونة بالفعل وانتهاك حرماتها من أجل المزيد من التوسع الإقليمي.
وهذا يمثل أيضًا خطوة نحو المحو الكامل للتجربة الفلسطينية، حيث أن العديد من هذه المواقع القبورية عمرها قرون، وتحمل في طياتها ليس فقط تاريخ الانتماء الفلسطيني، بل وتاريخ المقاومة من خلال وجود الشهداء الذين قاوموا عقودًا من الاحتلال. وبالتالي، فإن النظام الصهيوني يحرم الفلسطينيين من القدرة على التصرف في أحد الأشكال القليلة المتبقية له لممارستها؛ أي آثار تراثهم وهويتهم وتاريخهم على الأرض.
خاتمة
وهنا نتعرف على منطق الاستعمار الصهيوني الذي يستلزم السيطرة الكاملة على كل جانب من جوانب الفرد الفلسطيني، سواء في الحياة أو الموت؛ في كل أشكال الوجود … إن ممارسة النظام للعنف ضد الموتى هي تأكيد على أن الاستعمار الصهيوني يستمر لفترة طويلة بعد الموت… إن محو كل آثار الثقافة والتراث والهوية الفلسطينية يعمل بمثابة هجوم على شرعية التجربة الفلسطينية… العنف ضد الموتى في فلسطين ، كلمات تضامن
إن هذا يلخص الأمر بشكل جيد. إن تدمير إسرائيل للمقابر الفلسطينية يشكل جزءاً أساسياً من حملة التطهير العرقي التي لا تهدف إلى إزالة السكان الأصليين جسدياً فحسب، بل إلى محو أي أثر لوجودهم التاريخي.
ومن الصعب أن نتخيل خطة أكثر شيطانية من هذه.
*
انقر على زر المشاركة أدناه لإرسال هذه المقالة عبر البريد الإلكتروني أو إعادة توجيهها إلى أصدقائك وزملائك. تابعنا على Instagram و Twitter واشترك في قناة Telegram الخاصة بنا . لا تتردد في إعادة نشر ومشاركة مقالات Global Research على نطاق واسع.
مايكل ويتني هو محلل جيوسياسي واجتماعي مشهور يقيم في ولاية واشنطن. بدأ حياته المهنية كصحفي مواطن مستقل في عام 2002 ملتزمًا بالصحافة الصادقة والعدالة الاجتماعية والسلام العالمي.
وهو باحث مشارك في مركز أبحاث العولمة (CRG).
الصورة المميزة: أحد مئات “الأهداف” التي قصفتها إسرائيل خلال حربها الأخيرة على غزة. (تصوير: محمود عجور، كرونيكل فلسطين)
The following text was first published on February 9, 2024
.
Part II
.
The Criminalization of International Law
A “False Flag” Operation to Justify
The Israel-U.S. Genocide against the People of Palestine
.
by
Michel Chossudovsky
Introduction
From the outset on October 7, 2023, “A Tissue of Lies” has served to justify the killings in the Gaza Strip of more than 30,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children. The atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At the time of writing, at least 13,000 children have been killed:
Military operations are invariably planned well in advance.
Had Hamas’ “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been spontaneously carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023. The “State of Readiness” etiquette (revealed on October 7) points to a carefully prepared plan.
It is now well established that Israel’s Operation “State of Readiness for War” which consisted in “Wiping Gaza Off the Map” was carefully coordinated with U.S. military and intelligence. It is part of a broader joint Israel-U.S. military agenda.
Washington not only supports the Genocide, it oversees the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Although South Africa’s legal initiative was directed against the State of Israel, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-U.S. project, with U.S. military and intelligence operatives collaborating directly with their Israeli counterparts.
This collaboration is also supported by an extensive flow of military aid.
The Criminalization of International Law
What is at stake is the criminalization of the international judicial process. The ICJ not only refused to propose a “Cease Fire”, which was part of South Africa’s demand, its January 26, 2024 Judgment failed to question the role of the Netanyahu coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive military agenda directed against Palestine, with the support of Washington.
Although the Republic of South Africa’s ICJ accusation was directed against the State of Israel, it is now confirmed, amply documented that the Genocide against the People of Palestine was a joint Israel-U.S. operation.
WhileArticle 2 of the ICJ Statute (p.212) “provides that the court should be comprised of independent judges”, the practice of recusal of a judge, specifically with regard to the President of the ICJ is almost impossible. Nonetheless, the issue of “conflict of interest” must be raised. Judge Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington.
“Escalate the Genocide”
The ICJ has granted Israel –with the full endorsement of the Biden Administration– with a de facto “green light” (carte blanche) to continue and“escalate the genocide”.
The ICJ’s January 26, 2024 Judgment has set in motion a new wave of atrocities directed against the People of Palestine.
On that same day (January 26), Netanyahu confirmed that the genocide was ongoing and would continue.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
While rhetorical condemnations against Israel prevail, what the peace movement fails to acknowledge is that no legal obstruction or hindrance was formulated by the World Court in its January 26, 2024 Judgment.
The Occupied West Bank, Jewish Settlements in Gaza
Criminal acts are now being committed in the occupied West Bank, coupled with an increase in the deployment of IDF forces.
In Gaza, IDF commanders have ordered soldiers to “Setting fire to homes belonging to non-combatant civilians, for the mere purpose of punishment”.
Moreover, barely a few days after the January 26, ICJ Judgment, plans were announced to establish a cohesive network of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
Israel’s Plan: Mass Starvation
The Biden administration responding to Netanyahu has ordered to cut funding to theUN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is indelibly slated to result in famine and the total collapse of social services:
UNRWA provides food, shelter, health care, education … for the 5.7 million UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
The curtailment of UNRWA funding is an integral part of the Netanyahu government’s carefully designed project to trigger mass starvation throughout the Gaza Strip.
“Gaza is experiencing mass starvation like no other in recent history. Before the outbreak of fighting in October, food security in Gaza was precarious, but very few children – less than 1% – suffered severe acute malnutrition, the most dangerous kind. Today, almost all Gazans, of any age, anywhere in the territory, are at risk.
There is no instance since the second world war in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed. And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”
These facts underpinned South Africa’s recent case against Israel at the international court of justice. The international genocide convention, article 2c, prohibits “deliberately inflicting [on a group] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Guardian)
Documentation of the Atrocities Committed against the People of Palestine
The atrocities are carefully documented in Sarah Abushaar’s courageous video production entitled
“How much persecution and human cruelty Palestinians have suffered for generations — for the inalienable right to life.
Since israel’s establishment through the ethnic cleansing and massacre of Palestinians from Palestine — persisting in its massacre, mass expulsion, abduction, torture and terror of indigenous Palestinians.
The theft of land, life and human rights.
Israel’s unconscionable slaughter of 13,000 children, extermination of 30,000 civilians, destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system as it wounds 60,000 and mass starvation of 2.3 million, part of what it’s been committing on Palestinian life for decades – continuing its ongoing genocide now on hyperdrive.
Palestinians massacred and held hostage in the hundreds of thousands, terrorized in the millions under illegal siege, violent occupation and vicious apartheid. A person’s stance on Palestine says everything about their moral compass.
You are either for or against genocide. For or against ethnic cleansing. For or against violent illegal occupation and vicious apartheid.
For or against systems of supremacy – the persecution of human life.. the denial of millions of people their life, freedom, and fundamental human rights.
There is no middle ground. It’s not complicated. In the same way the Holocaust is not complicated. Slavery or Apartheid are not complicated.
But they persisted because of those who didn’t see.
There’s a horrific persecution and oppression that has lasted for 8 decades.
An oppressor and an oppressed. It’s impossible for human beings of conscience or morals to know the truth on Palestine and to uphold this for human life.
It goes against all law, morality and our very humanity.
What we condemn in history and in every other context, what’s been committed on Palestinian life for decades…
As with all systems built on human persecution and oppression, this will not survive. All the inhumanity in the world in this, Palestine is fighting for all of our humanity and for all the world’s justice.” (Sarah Abushaar)
The authenticity and purpose of this report remain to be confirmed. It was released a week after October 7, 2023. It nonetheless confirms the military actions which are currently being implemented against the People of Palestine. Was it intended to be in the public domain?
What the intelligence document recommends is:
“The forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”,
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023 assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip …
“It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. …”
“… assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. …”
“1. The State of Israel is required to bring about a significant change in the civilian reality in the Gaza Strip in light of the Hamas crimes that led to the “Iron Swords” war, therefore it must decide on a political objective regarding the civilian population in Gaza, which should be pursued concurrently with the overthrow of the Hamas regime.
2. The objective defined by the government requires intensive action to harness the United States and other countries to support this goal.
3. Fundamental guidelines for every policy [A, B, C]:
a. Overthrow of Hamas’ rule.
b. Evacuation of the population outside of the combat zone for the benefit of the citizens of the Gaza Strip.
c. It is necessary to plan for and channel international aid to reach the area in accordance with the chosen policy.
d. In every policy, it is necessary to carry out a deep process of implementing an ideological change (de-Nazification).
e. The selected policy will support the state’s political goal regarding the future of the Gaza Strip and the final picture of the war.
In this document, three possible options [A, B, and C] will be presented as a policy of the political echelon in Israel regarding the future of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip.
[Option C below is the recommended and chosen Option of the Memorandum which is currently being implemented.]
The Memorandum’s “Option C”: The Evacuation of the Civilian Population from Gaza to Sinai.
“Option C – The option that will yield positive,long-term strategic outcomes for Israel, and is an executable option.
It requires determination from the political echelon in the face of international pressure, with an emphasis on harnessing the support of the United States and additional pro-Israeli countries for the endeavor.
At first glance, this option, involving significant population displacement, may present challenges in terms of international legitimacy.
Operational
1. A call for the evacuation of the non-combatant population from the combat zone of the Hamas attack.
2. In the first stage, operations from the air with a focus on the north of Gazato allow a ground invasionin an area that is already evacuated and does not require fighting in a densely populated civilian area.
3. In the second stage, a gradual ground invasion of the territory in the north and along the border until the occupation of the entire Strip and cleansing of the underground bunkers of Hamas fighters.
4. The ground invasion stage will be less time-consuming compared to options A and B and therefore will reduce the exposure time to opening the northern front simultaneously with the fighting in Gaza.
5. It is important to leave the travel routes to the south open to enable the evacuation of the civilian population toward Rafah.
International/legal legitimacy
In our assessment, post-evacuation combat is likely to result in fewer casualties among the civilian population compared to the expected casualties if the population remains (as presented in options A and B).
a. This is a defensive war against a terrorist organization that conducted a military invasion into Israel. [false flag justification]
b. The demand for the evacuation of the non-combatant population from the area is a widely accepted method that saves lives, and it was the approach used by the Americans in Iraq in 2003.
c. Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the population.
6. Israel must act to promote a broad diplomatic initiative aimed at countries that will support assisting the displaced population and agree to absorb them as refugees.
7. A list of countries that are suitable for this initiative can be found in Appendix A to this document.
8. In the long run, this option will gain broader legitimacy because it involves a population that will be integrated within a state framework with citizenship.” (emphasis added)
Video: “Wiping Gaza Off the Map”
This Interview was produced on October 16, 2023
Was It A False Flag Operation?
“As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.
In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case. (Philip Giraldi, October 2023)
U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.
“One would have to be almost hopelessly naïve to buy the corporate state media line that the Hamas invasion was an Israeli “intelligence failure”. Mossad is one of, if not the, most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet.”
Israel’s plan to wage an all out war against Palestine had beenenvisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”.
This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite.
Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Al Aqsa Hamas attack.
“Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews … The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people. (emphasis added)
According to the NYT, “Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings”. Nonsense. Israel’s intelligence apparatus was fully cognizant of what was going on, well in advance. It was part of their “False Flag” Agenda.
Let us be under no illusions, Israel’s “false flag” operation is a complex military-intelligence undertaking, carefully planned, in liaison and coordination with US intelligence and the Pentagon. Israel is a de facto member of NATO (with a special status) since 2004, involving active military and intelligence coordination as well as consultations pertaining to the occupied territories.
In this section we will provide evidence pertaining to the False Flag Operation waged by the Netanyahu government.
We will focus on the following topics:
The History of Israeli False Flags
Corroborating Mea Culpa Statements by Netanyahu
Testimonies by Members of Israel’s IDF
1. The History of Israeli False Flags
Numerous Israeli False Flags have been carried out in the course of the last 25 years. They are on record: carefully documented. While they are of a criminal nature, resulting in the deaths of innocent Israelis, they have barely been acknowledged by Western governments and the media. The historical record confirms that the intent of these false flags is to trigger Israeli deaths as a means to justify attacks against Palestinians. See below:
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda”
The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)
“…Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (emphasis added)
Israeli False Flags, which consist in deliberately triggering Israeli casualties as a means to justify a broader attack against Palestine are DÉJÀ VU
I should mention that the October 7, 2023 “False Flag” is more sophisticated than those outlined above.
Israeli Casualties
Israel’s False Flag Operation is a criminal endeavor engineered by the Netanyahu government (with the support of its intelligence apparatus) against innocent Israeli men, women and children.
Official Israeli IDF sources confirm 1,200 Israeli deaths of combatants and civilians (including “friendly fire” by the IDF). Approximately 50% of the casualties are Israeli civilians.
In contrast, the number of deaths of Palestinians (at the time of writing) is of the order of 30,000 of which at least 10,000 are children.
2. Corroborating Statements by Netanyahu: “Money to a Faction within Hamas” As Part of an Intelligence Op?
It is worth noting thatNetanyahu has acknowledged that Money had been Transferred to a pro-Israeli Intelligence Faction within Hamas:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (Times of Israel, October 8, 2023 emphasis added)
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”[Netanyahu] (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“I served in the IDF 25 years ago, in the intelligence forces. There’s no way Israel did not know of what’s coming.
A cat moving alongside the fence is triggering all forces. So this??
What happened to the “strongest army in the world”?
How come border crossings were wide open?? Something is VERY WRONG HERE, something is very strange, this chain of events is very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system.
To me this suprise attack seems like a planned operation. On all fronts.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that this feels like the work of the Deep State.
It feels like the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold, once again, to the higher powers that be.
(Statement byEfrat Fenigson, former IDF intelligence, October 7, 2023, emphasis added)
3.2 Commander of the Kerem Shalom Battalion
“Something here doesn’t add up to me!!! This is a mystery that I can’t find an answer to.
I happen to know how things work in Gaza and on the border.
I was the commander of the Kerem Shalom sector (Rafih), I was in charge of the Kissuf sector, I know the perimeter fence very well, I know how the army works there. I was in the Shatti refugee camp in Gaza, I was in charge of the Jibaliya refugee camp, I would make ambushes on the fence and deep in the area. I met Gazans, ate and breathed Gaza.
The obstacle is built so that even a fox cannot pass it:
Set alerts according to 3 levels of pressure. She must alert when she is cut. There are 24/7 forces that are responsible for arriving within a few minutes, if not seconds, to the point where there is an alert in the fence.
Every day do at least one penetration practice. Each subdivision has a standby squad whose role is to increase the force in an emergency situation. Observations scattered along the border cover every inch of it. The female observers are champions in identification. They don’t miss. They detect movement even before it even approaches the obstacle – day and night.
At problematic points (dead areas) they place a tank with observation and detection capabilities, and a terrifying firepower. In some cases snipers are deployed in the field.
Every day before dawn there is a “dawn alert” procedure. At this hour all the forces are awake (in this case also the hour when hundreds of terrorists entered Israel). The night shift alternates with the day shift. The commander of each force inspects the axis to make sure there were no infiltrations during the night. Trackers that move on the axis know how to recognize traces. They know who crossed the fence, how much and even when.
So how the hell does a Palestinian tractor move towards the fence without anyone reacting to it?
How did the tractor manage to sabotage the fence for a long hour and open access to Israel without anyone reacting to it?
How did all this happen under our noses? Where did an entire division go? Where did 3 brigades go?
Who swallowed 9 battalions? What happened to 36 companies? Where did an entire regular infantry brigade go that usually outnumbers the elite?
Where were all the reserve battalions that augment the regular army? Where did thousands of soldiers go???
The declared objective is to Wipe Gaza off the Map through mass killings and total destruction thereby creating conditions for the exclusion of Palestinians from their homeland: A ‘Second Nakba”.
The implementation of Netanyahu’s “War of Readiness” requires the support of Egypt with a view to triggering the exodus of Palestinians from Gaza to the Sinai, where the installation of extensive refugee camps is contemplated.
There is evidence of bilateral meetings between Cairo and Tel Aviv to that effect. The C Option Plan drafted by Israeli Intelligence (see above) states that “Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the [Palestinian] population”.
What is contemplated by the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence (Option C above) is:
“the forced and permanent relocation of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai desert peninsula” with tent refugee camps.” (See Manlio Dinucci)
The Plan includes a list of countries “which agree to absorb [The Palestinians ] as refugees”.
Bilateral Israel-Egypt Intelligence Agreement?
In 2021-22, Egypt and Israel were involved in “secret bilateral talks” regarding “the extraction of natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip”.
The media reports point to “Egyptian Mediation”.
Were these negotiations contingent upon Egypt playing a key role in establishing refugee camps in the Sinai, which would facilitate the mass deportation of Palestinians from Gaza.
It is worth noting that the Palestine Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas was also involved.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government had been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
Was the issue of refugee camps in the Sinai Desert discussed behind closed doors?
It is worth noting that the agreement with Egypt was reached one year prior to the onslaught of Israel’s Genocidal Attack against Gaza.
Look at the proposed Timeline: “Beginning of 2024”
Following the completion of the Israel-Egypt consultations pertaining to economic and security issues, A Memorandum of Understanding was signed, which had the rubber-stamp of the Palestinian National Authority (PA):
“The Egyptian [intelligence] official explained that Israel required the start of practical measures to extract gas from the Gaza fields at the beginning of 2024, to ensure its own security. (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
May the Truth Prevail in Reversing the Course of History.
Those Western Politicians Who Unequivocally Endorse The Atrocities Directed against the People of Palestine are Complicit in the Conduct of Crimes against Humanity
In Solidarity with the People of Palestine.
Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a grass-roots campaign encouraging:
Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield” both in Israel as well as in ALL U.S.-NATO War Theaters.
Abandoning the Battlefield as a Means to Criminalizing War is based on Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “
الإبادة الجماعية الإسرائيلية الأمريكية ضد شعب فلسطين
.
بواسطة
ميشيل شوسودوفسكي
مقدمة
منذ البداية في السابع من أكتوبر 2023، عملت رواية “منديل من الأكاذيب” على تبرير عمليات القتل في قطاع غزة لأكثر من 30 ألف مدني، 70% منهم من النساء والأطفال. إن الفظائع التي ارتكبت ضد شعب فلسطين لا يمكن وصفها. وفي وقت كتابة هذه السطور، قُتل ما لا يقل عن 13 ألف طفل:
” يقتل طفل فلسطيني كل 15 دقيقة … وهناك آلاف آخرين في عداد المفقودين تحت الأنقاض، ويعتقد أن معظمهم في عداد الأموات.”
إن العمليات العسكرية عادة ما يتم التخطيط لها مسبقًا.
لو كانت عملية “عاصفة الأقصى” التي شنتها حماس “هجوما مفاجئا” كما رددت وسائل الإعلام، لما كان من الممكن تنفيذ “حالة الاستعداد للحرب” التي أعلنها نتنياهو بشكل عفوي (في وقت قصير) في نفس اليوم، أي 7 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2023. وتشير آداب “حالة الاستعداد” (التي تم الكشف عنها في 7 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول) إلى خطة تم إعدادها بعناية.
لقد بات من المعروف الآن أن عملية “حالة الاستعداد للحرب” التي شنتها إسرائيل والتي كانت تهدف إلى “محو غزة عن الخريطة” كانت تتم بالتنسيق الدقيق مع الجيش والاستخبارات الأميركية. وهي تشكل جزءاً من أجندة عسكرية مشتركة أوسع نطاقاً بين إسرائيل والولايات المتحدة.
إن واشنطن لا تدعم الإبادة الجماعية فحسب، بل تشرف أيضًا على محكمة العدل الدولية.
ورغم أن المبادرة القانونية التي اتخذتها جنوب أفريقيا كانت موجهة ضد دولة إسرائيل، فإن تنفيذ الإبادة الجماعية هو مشروع مشترك بين إسرائيل والولايات المتحدة، حيث يتعاون العسكريون والمخابراتيون الأميركيون بشكل مباشر مع نظرائهم الإسرائيليين.
ويدعم هذا التعاون أيضًا تدفق واسع النطاق للمساعدات العسكرية.
تجريم القانون الدولي
إن ما هو على المحك هو تجريم العملية القضائية الدولية. لم ترفض محكمة العدل الدولية اقتراح “وقف إطلاق النار” فحسب ، وهو ما كان جزءًا من مطلب جنوب إفريقيا، بل فشل حكمها الصادر في 26 يناير 2024 في التشكيك في دور حكومة نتنياهو الائتلافية، التي كانت مسؤولة إلى حد كبير عن التخطيط قبل 7 أكتوبر لأجندة عسكرية شاملة موجهة ضد فلسطين، بدعم من واشنطن.
ورغم أن الاتهام الذي وجهته جمهورية جنوب أفريقيا إلى محكمة العدل الدولية كان موجها ضد دولة إسرائيل، فقد تأكد الآن، وبالتوثيق الكافي، أن الإبادة الجماعية ضد شعب فلسطين كانت عملية مشتركة بين إسرائيل والولايات المتحدة.
وفي هذا الصدد، فإن رئيسة محكمة العدل الدولية جوان دونوهيو ـ المستشارة القانونية السابقة لوزيرة الخارجية هيلاري كلينتون أثناء إدارة أوباما ـ تواجه تضارباً في المصالح. وتثير هذه الأخيرة قضية تنحيها بشكل لا يمحى . (انظر: تنحي المحكمين والقضاة في المحاكم الدولية، كيارا جيورجيتي ).
في حين تنص المادة 2 من النظام الأساسي لمحكمة العدل الدولية (ص 212) على أن “المحكمة يجب أن تتألف من قضاة مستقلين”، فإن ممارسة تنحي القاضي، وخاصة فيما يتعلق برئيس محكمة العدل الدولية، أمر يكاد يكون مستحيلاً. ومع ذلك، يجب إثارة مسألة “تضارب المصالح” . تتلقى القاضية جوان دونوهيو تعليماتها من واشنطن.
“تصعيد الإبادة الجماعية”
لقد منحت محكمة العدل الدولية إسرائيل – بتأييد كامل من إدارة بايدن – “الضوء الأخضر” بحكم الأمر الواقع ( الشيك المفتوح ) لمواصلة “تصعيد الإبادة الجماعية” .
لقد أدى حكم محكمة العدل الدولية الصادر في 26 يناير/كانون الثاني 2024 إلى إطلاق موجة جديدة من الفظائع الموجهة ضد الشعب الفلسطيني.
وفي اليوم نفسه (26 يناير/كانون الثاني)، أكد نتنياهو أن الإبادة الجماعية مستمرة وستستمر.
“لن نتنازل عن أي شيء أقل من النصر الكامل. وهذا يعني القضاء على حماس …”
في حين تسود الإدانات الخطابية ضد إسرائيل، فإن ما فشلت حركة السلام في الاعتراف به هو أن محكمة العدل الدولية لم تضع أي عائق أو عائق قانوني في حكمها الصادر في 26 يناير/كانون الثاني 2024.
الضفة الغربية المحتلة والمستوطنات اليهودية في غزة
وتتواصل الآن ارتكاب الأعمال الإجرامية في الضفة الغربية المحتلة، بالتزامن مع زيادة انتشار قوات جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي.
وفي غزة، أمر قادة جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي جنودهم ” بإشعال النار في منازل المدنيين غير المقاتلين، لمجرد العقاب”.
وعلاوة على ذلك، بعد أيام قليلة من صدور حكم محكمة العدل الدولية في 26 يناير/كانون الثاني، تم الإعلان عن خطط لإنشاء شبكة متماسكة من المستوطنات اليهودية في غزة.
خطة إسرائيل: المجاعة الجماعية
ردًا على نتنياهو، أمرت إدارة بايدن بخفض التمويل لوكالة الأمم المتحدة لإغاثة وتشغيل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين (الأونروا) ، وهو ما من شأنه أن يؤدي بشكل لا يمحى إلى المجاعة والانهيار التام للخدمات الاجتماعية:
توفر الأونروا الغذاء والمأوى والرعاية الصحية والتعليم … لـ 5.7 مليون لاجئ فلسطيني مسجل لدى الأونروا في القدس الشرقية والضفة الغربية وغزة والأردن ولبنان وسوريا.
إن خفض تمويل الأونروا يشكل جزءا لا يتجزأ من المشروع الذي صممته حكومة نتنياهو بعناية لإحداث مجاعة جماعية في جميع أنحاء قطاع غزة.
“إن غزة تشهد مجاعة جماعية لم يشهدها التاريخ الحديث من قبل. فقبل اندلاع القتال في أكتوبر/تشرين الأول، كان الأمن الغذائي في غزة محفوفاً بالمخاطر، ولكن عدداً قليلاً للغاية من الأطفال ــ أقل من 1% ــ عانوا من سوء التغذية الحاد الشديد، وهو النوع الأكثر خطورة. واليوم، أصبح كل سكان غزة تقريباً، من أي عمر، وفي أي مكان في القطاع، معرضين للخطر.
“ولم تحدث حالة منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية حيث تدهورت حالة شعب بأكمله إلى حد الجوع والفقر المدقع بهذه السرعة. ولم تحدث حالة أخرى حيث كان الالتزام الدولي بوقف هذا الأمر واضحاً إلى هذا الحد”.
وقد دعمت هذه الحقائق القضية التي رفعتها جنوب أفريقيا مؤخرا ضد إسرائيل أمام محكمة العدل الدولية. وتحظر المادة 2ج من اتفاقية الإبادة الجماعية الدولية “فرض ظروف معيشية متعمدة [على مجموعة] بهدف تدميرها المادي كليا أو جزئيا”. ( الغارديان )
توثيق الفظائع المرتكبة بحق الشعب الفلسطيني
وقد تم توثيق الفظائع بعناية في إنتاج الفيديو الشجاع لسارة أبو شعر بعنوان
“كم من الاضطهاد والقسوة الإنسانية عانى منها الفلسطينيون لأجيال – من أجل الحق غير القابل للتصرف في الحياة.
منذ إنشاء إسرائيل، ومن خلال التطهير العرقي والمذابح ضد الفلسطينيين من فلسطين، استمرت في المذابح والطرد الجماعي والخطف والتعذيب وإرهاب الفلسطينيين الأصليين.
سرقة الأرض والحياة وحقوق الإنسان.
إن المذبحة التي ارتكبتها إسرائيل بحق 13 ألف طفل، وإبادة 30 ألف مدني، وتدمير نظام الرعاية الصحية في غزة حيث أصابت 60 ألف شخص، والتجويع الجماعي لـ 2.3 مليون شخص، هي جزء مما ارتكبته في حق حياة الفلسطينيين لعقود من الزمن – مواصلة الإبادة الجماعية المستمرة الآن بسرعة فائقة.
لقد تعرض مئات الآلاف من الفلسطينيين للمذابح والأسر، كما تعرض الملايين منهم للإرهاب تحت الحصار غير القانوني والاحتلال العنيف والفصل العنصري الوحشي. إن موقف أي شخص من فلسطين يعكس كل شيء عن البوصلة الأخلاقية التي يتبناها.
أنت إما مع أو ضد الإبادة الجماعية. أو مع أو ضد التطهير العرقي. أو مع أو ضد الاحتلال غير الشرعي العنيف والفصل العنصري الوحشي.
مع أو ضد أنظمة التفوق – اضطهاد الحياة البشرية .. حرمان الملايين من الناس من حياتهم وحريتهم وحقوقهم الإنسانية الأساسية.
لا يوجد حل وسط. الأمر ليس معقدًا. تمامًا كما أن المحرقة ليست معقدة. العبودية أو الفصل العنصري ليست معقدة.
لكنهم استمروا بسبب أولئك الذين لم يروا.
هناك اضطهاد وقمع مروع استمر لمدة 8 عقود.
ظالم ومظلوم، ومن المستحيل على أي إنسان ذي ضمير أو أخلاق أن يعرف الحقيقة بشأن فلسطين وأن يحافظ عليها من أجل حياة الإنسان.
إنه يتعارض مع كل القوانين والأخلاق وإنسانيتنا.
ما ندينه في التاريخ وفي كل سياق آخر، وما ارتكب بحق الحياة الفلسطينية على مدى عقود من الزمن…
“كما هو الحال مع كل الأنظمة المبنية على الاضطهاد والقهر البشري، فإن هذا لن يدوم. كل اللاإنسانية في العالم في هذا، فلسطين تقاتل من أجل إنسانيتنا كلها ومن أجل عدالة العالم أجمع.” (سارة أبو شعر)
«مذكرة سرية» لارتكاب الإبادة الجماعية
في حين أن الوثائق السابقة -التي قد تكشف عن التخطيط التفصيلي للهجوم الإسرائيلي الإبادي على قطاع غزة، بما في ذلك تلك التي تم التفاوض عليها مع الولايات المتحدة- لا تزال سرية، فقد تم الكشف عن مذكرة “سرية” رسمية كتبها وزارة الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية في 13 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2023.
لا يزال من غير المؤكد صحة هذا التقرير وهدفه. فقد صدر بعد أسبوع من السابع من أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2023. ومع ذلك، فإنه يؤكد العمليات العسكرية التي تُنفَّذ حاليًا ضد الشعب الفلسطيني. فهل كان من المقصود أن يكون هذا التقرير متاحًا للعامة؟
ما توصي به الوثيقة الاستخباراتية هو:
” النقل القسري والدائم لسكان قطاع غزة البالغ عددهم 2.2 مليون فلسطيني إلى شبه جزيرة سيناء في مصر”،
وتتضمن الوثيقة المكونة من 10 صفحات، والمؤرخة في 13 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2023، تقييما لثلاثة خيارات بشأن مستقبل الفلسطينيين في قطاع غزة…
“إنها توصي بنقل السكان بالكامل كخيار مفضل للعمل …”
“1. إن دولة إسرائيل مطالبة بإحداث تغيير جوهري في الواقع المدني في قطاع غزة في ضوء جرائم حماس التي أدت إلى حرب “السيوف الحديدية”، ولذلك يتعين عليها أن تقرر هدفاً سياسياً يتعلق بالسكان المدنيين في غزة، والذي ينبغي السعي إلى تحقيقه بالتزامن مع الإطاحة بنظام حماس.
2. إن الهدف الذي حددته الحكومة يتطلب عملاً مكثفاً لحشد الولايات المتحدة ودول أخرى لدعم هذا الهدف.
3. المبادئ التوجيهية الأساسية لكل سياسة [أ، ب، ج]:
أ.إسقاط حكم حماس.
ب. إخلاء السكان خارج منطقة القتال لصالح مواطني قطاع غزة.
ج. من الضروري التخطيط لإيصال المساعدات الدولية إلى المنطقة وفقًا للسياسة المختارة.
د. في كل سياسة، من الضروري القيام بعملية عميقة لتطبيق التغيير الأيديولوجي (إزالة النازية).
هـ. السياسة المختارة ستدعم الهدف السياسي للدولة فيما يتعلق بمستقبل قطاع غزة والصورة النهائية للحرب.
وفي هذه الوثيقة سيتم طرح ثلاثة خيارات محتملة [ أ، ب، ج ] كسياسة للمستوى السياسي في إسرائيل فيما يتعلق بمستقبل السكان المدنيين في قطاع غزة.
[الخيار ج أدناه هو الخيار الموصى به والمختار من مذكرة التفاهم والذي يجري تنفيذه حاليًا.]
الخيار ” ج” في مذكرة التفاهم : إخلاء السكان المدنيين من غزة إلى سيناء.
“الخيار ج – هو الخيار الذي من شأنه أن يحقق نتائج استراتيجية إيجابية طويلة الأمد بالنسبة لإسرائيل، وهو خيار قابل للتنفيذ.
ويتطلب هذا الأمر تصميماً من المستوى السياسي في مواجهة الضغوط الدولية، مع التركيز على حشد دعم الولايات المتحدة والدول الإضافية المؤيدة لإسرائيل لهذا المسعى.
للوهلة الأولى ، قد يفرض هذا الخيار ، الذي ينطوي على نزوح كبير للسكان، تحديات من حيث الشرعية الدولية.
تشغيلي
1. الدعوة إلى إخلاء السكان غير المقاتلين من منطقة القتال التي تعرضت لهجوم حماس.
2. في المرحلة الأولى، عمليات من الجو مع التركيز على شمال غزة للسماح بغزو بري لمنطقة تم إخلاؤها بالفعل ولا تتطلب القتال في منطقة مدنية مكتظة بالسكان.
3. في المرحلة الثانية، الغزو البري التدريجي للأراضي في الشمال وعلى طول الحدود حتى احتلال القطاع بأكمله وتطهير المخابئ تحت الأرض لمقاتلي حماس.
4. ستكون مرحلة الغزو البري أقل استهلاكا للوقت مقارنة بالخيارين (أ) و(ب) ، وبالتالي ستقلل من وقت التعرض لفتح الجبهة الشمالية في وقت واحد مع القتال في غزة.
5. من المهم ترك طرق السفر باتجاه الجنوب مفتوحة لتمكين إخلاء السكان المدنيين باتجاه رفح.
الشرعية الدولية /القانونية
وفي تقييمنا ، من المرجح أن تؤدي عمليات القتال بعد الإخلاء إلى عدد أقل من الضحايا بين السكان المدنيين مقارنة بالضحايا المتوقعين إذا بقي السكان (كما هو موضح في الخيارين أ و ب).
أ. هذه حرب دفاعية ضد منظمة إرهابية نفذت غزوًا عسكريًا لإسرائيل. [تبرير العلم الكاذب]
ب. إن المطالبة بإجلاء السكان المقاتلين من المنطقة هي طريقة مقبولة على نطاق واسع لإنقاذ الأرواح، وقد كانت هذه هي الطريقة التي استخدمها الأميركيون في العراق في عام 2003.
ج. يقع على عاتق مصر التزام بموجب القانون الدولي بالسماح بمرور السكان .
6. يتعين على إسرائيل أن تعمل على تشجيع مبادرة دبلوماسية واسعة النطاق تستهدف البلدان التي ستدعم مساعدة السكان النازحين وتوافق على استيعابهم كلاجئين.
7. يمكن العثور على قائمة البلدان المناسبة لهذه المبادرة في الملحق (أ) لهذه الوثيقة.
8. وفي الأمد البعيد ، سوف يكتسب هذا الخيار شرعية أوسع لأنه ينطوي على سكان سيتم دمجهم في إطار الدولة مع المواطنة. ( التشديد مضاف)
“كضابط استخبارات سابق، أجد أنه من المستحيل أن أصدق أن إسرائيل لم يكن لديها عدد كبير من المخبرين داخل غزة، فضلاً عن أجهزة تنصت إلكترونية على طول الجدار الحدودي والتي كانت ستلتقط تحركات المجموعات والمركبات.
بعبارة أخرى، قد يكون الأمر برمته مجرد نسيج من الأكاذيب كما هي الحال في كثير من الأحيان . ( فيليب جيرالدي ، أكتوبر 2023)
وتقول أجهزة الاستخبارات الأميركية إنها لم تكن على علم بالهجوم الوشيك الذي تخطط له حماس.
“إن المرء لابد وأن يكون ساذجاً إلى حد اليأس إذا ما صدق خط وسائل الإعلام الحكومية التي تزعم أن غزو حماس كان بمثابة “فشل استخباراتي” إسرائيلي. إن الموساد هو أحد أقوى أجهزة الاستخبارات على وجه الأرض، إن لم يكن أقوىها على الإطلاق”.
كانت خطة إسرائيل لشن حرب شاملة ضد فلسطين قد تم وضعها قبل إطلاق حماس لعملية “عاصفة الأقصى”.
ولم يكن هذا فشلاً للمخابرات الإسرائيلية، كما نقلت وسائل الإعلام، بل على العكس تماماً.
هل كان نتنياهو وأجهزته العسكرية والاستخباراتية الضخمة (الموساد وآخرين) على علم مسبق بهجوم حماس على الأقصى؟
“حصل المسؤولون الإسرائيليون على خطة حماس القتالية للهجوم الإرهابي الذي وقع في السابع من أكتوبر/تشرين الأول قبل أكثر من عام من وقوعه ، وثائق ورسائل إلكترونية ومقابلات… الوثيقة التي تبلغ حوالي 40 صفحة، والتي أطلقت عليها السلطات الإسرائيلية اسم “جدار أريحا” ، وصفت نقطة بنقطة بالضبط نوع الغزو المدمر الذي أدى إلى مقتل حوالي 1200 شخص. (التأكيد مضاف)
وبحسب صحيفة نيويورك تايمز، فإن “المسؤولين الإسرائيليين رفضوا الخطة باعتبارها طموحة وتجاهلوا تحذيرات محددة”. وهذا محض هراء. فقد كانت أجهزة الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية على علم تام بما كان يجري، قبل وقت طويل من وقوعه. وكان ذلك جزءاً من أجندتهم “الزائفة”.
لا ينبغي لنا أن نستسلم للأوهام، فالعملية التي تشنها إسرائيل تحت “الراية الزائفة” هي مشروع عسكري استخباراتي معقد، تم التخطيط له بعناية، بالتنسيق والاتصال مع الاستخبارات الأميركية والبنتاغون. وإسرائيل عضو فعلي في حلف شمال الأطلسي (مع وضع خاص) منذ عام 2004، وهو ما ينطوي على تنسيق عسكري واستخباراتي نشط فضلاً عن المشاورات المتعلقة بالأراضي المحتلة.
في هذا القسم سوف نقدم الأدلة المتعلقة بعملية العلم الكاذب التي شنتها حكومة نتنياهو.
وسوف نركز على المواضيع التالية:
تاريخ الأعلام الإسرائيلية المزيفة
تأكيد تصريحات نتنياهو حول الاعتراف بالذنب
شهادات من أفراد من جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي
1. تاريخ الأعلام الإسرائيلية المزيفة
لقد تم تنفيذ العديد من عمليات رفع الأعلام الكاذبة الإسرائيلية على مدار السنوات الخمس والعشرين الماضية. وقد تم توثيقها بدقة. ورغم أنها ذات طبيعة إجرامية، وتؤدي إلى مقتل إسرائيليين أبرياء، إلا أن الحكومات الغربية ووسائل الإعلام لم تعترف بها تقريبًا. ويؤكد السجل التاريخي أن نية هذه الأعلام الكاذبة هي التسبب في مقتل الإسرائيليين كوسيلة لتبرير الهجمات ضد الفلسطينيين. انظر أدناه:
“الضوء الأخضر للإرهاب”
وقد أكدت البروفيسورة الراحلة تانيا راينهارت صياغة أجندة كاذبة في عام 1997 بعنوان “الضوء الأخضر للإرهاب” والتي تتألف من الترويج (والهندسة) للهجمات الانتحارية ضد المدنيين الإسرائيليين، مستشهدة بـ “سفك الدماء كمبرر” لشن الحرب على فلسطين:
“إن هذا هو موضوع “الضوء الأخضر للإرهاب” الذي روجت له الاستخبارات العسكرية منذ عام 1997، عندما ترسخت خطها المناهض لأوسلو. ومنذ ذلك الحين، تكرر هذا الموضوع مراراً وتكراراً في الدوائر العسكرية، وأصبح في نهاية المطاف شعار الدعاية الإسرائيلية”
وقد قدم رئيس الأركان شاؤول موفاز الخطة التي تحمل عنوان “تدمير السلطة الفلسطينية ونزع سلاح جميع القوات المسلحة” إلى الحكومة الإسرائيلية في الثامن من يوليو/تموز [2001].
“إن الهجوم سوف يتم، بناء على تقدير الحكومة، بعد وقوع هجوم انتحاري كبير بالقنابل في إسرائيل، مما يتسبب في سقوط قتلى وجرحى على نطاق واسع، مع الاستشهاد بإراقة الدماء كمبرر لذلك.”( تانيا راينهارت، 22 ديسمبر/كانون الأول 2001)
“إن خطة الغزو الإسرائيلية ـ والتي يطلق عليها على ما يبدو اسم “الانتقام المبرر” ـ سوف تبدأ فوراً في أعقاب التفجير الانتحاري التالي الذي سوف يسفر عن سقوط أعداد كبيرة من الضحايا، وسوف تستمر لمدة شهر تقريباً، ومن المتوقع أن تسفر عن مقتل مئات الإسرائيليين وآلاف الفلسطينيين. (التأكيد مضاف)
الأعلام الكاذبة الإسرائيلية، والتي تتمثل في التسبب عمداً في وقوع ضحايا إسرائيليين كوسيلة لتبرير هجوم أوسع نطاقاً ضد فلسطين، هي أحداث متكررة.
ينبغي لي أن أذكر أن “الراية الكاذبة” في 7 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2023 أكثر تطوراً من تلك الموضحة أعلاه.
خسائر إسرائيلية
إن عملية العلم الكاذب التي تقوم بها إسرائيل هي مشروع إجرامي خططت له حكومة نتنياهو (بدعم من أجهزتها الاستخباراتية) ضد الرجال والنساء والأطفال الإسرائيليين الأبرياء.
وتؤكد مصادر رسمية في جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي مقتل 1200 إسرائيلي من المقاتلين والمدنيين (بما في ذلك “النيران الصديقة” التي أطلقها جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي). ونحو 50% من الضحايا هم من المدنيين الإسرائيليين.
وفي المقابل، يبلغ عدد القتلى الفلسطينيين (في وقت كتابة هذه السطور) نحو 30 ألف قتيل، منهم 10 آلاف طفل على الأقل.
2. تصريحات مؤكدة لنتنياهو: “أموال لفصيل داخل حماس” كجزء من عملية استخباراتية؟
ومن الجدير بالذكر أن نتنياهو اعترف بتحويل أموال إلى فصيل استخباراتي موالي لإسرائيل داخل حماس:
“لقد تم التعامل مع حماس كشريك على حساب السلطة الفلسطينية لمنع عباس من التحرك نحو إنشاء دولة فلسطينية. وتم ترقية حماس من جماعة إرهابية إلى منظمة أجرت إسرائيل معها مفاوضات عبر مصر، وسُمح لها بتلقي حقائب تحتوي على ملايين الدولارات من قطر عبر معابر غزة.” ( تايمز أوف إسرائيل ، 8 أكتوبر 2023، التأكيد مضاف)
وقال نتنياهو في اجتماع لأعضاء الكنيست من حزبه الليكود في مارس/آذار 2019: “أي شخص يريد إحباط إقامة دولة فلسطينية عليه أن يدعم تعزيز حماس وتحويل الأموال إليها. وهذا جزء من استراتيجيتنا – عزل الفلسطينيين في غزة عن الفلسطينيين في الضفة الغربية”. ( هآرتس ، 9 أكتوبر /تشرين الأول 2023، التشديد مضاف)
3. شهادات أفراد من جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي
3.1 إفرات فينيجسون ، ضابطة استخبارات سابقة في جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي
“لقد خدمت في جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي منذ 25 عامًا، في قوات الاستخبارات. من المستحيل أن تكون إسرائيل غير مدركة لما هو قادم .
قطة تتحرك بمحاذاة السياج مما يؤدي إلى تحريك كافة القوى. إذن هذا هو السبب؟؟
ماذا حدث لـ “أقوى جيش في العالم”؟
كيف تم فتح المعابر الحدودية على مصراعيها؟ هناك خطأ كبير هنا، هناك شيء غريب للغاية، هذه السلسلة من الأحداث غير عادية للغاية وليست نموذجية لنظام الدفاع الإسرائيلي.
يبدو لي أن هذا الهجوم المفاجئ كان بمثابة عملية مخططة على كافة الجبهات.
لو كنت مؤمنًا بنظرية المؤامرة، فسأقول إن هذا يبدو وكأنه من عمل الدولة العميقة.
يبدو الأمر كما لو أن شعب إسرائيل وشعب فلسطين قد تم بيعهما، مرة أخرى، للقوى العليا.
(تصريح صادر عن إفرات فينجسون ، ضابطة استخبارات سابقة في جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي، 7 أكتوبر 2023، التشديد مضاف)
3.2 قائد كتيبة كرم أبو سالم
“هناك شيء هنا لا يتوافق معي!!! هذا لغز لا أستطيع إيجاد إجابة له.
أنا أعلم كيف تسير الأمور في غزة وعلى الحدود.
كنت قائد قطاع كرم أبو سالم (رافح)، وكنت مسؤولاً عن قطاع كيسوف، وأعرف السياج المحيط جيداً، وأعرف كيف يعمل الجيش هناك. كنت في مخيم الشاطئ للاجئين في غزة، وكنت مسؤولاً عن مخيم جباليا للاجئين، وكنت أقوم بنصب الكمائن على السياج وفي عمق المنطقة. التقيت بغزيين، وأكلت وتنفست غزة.
تم بناء العائق بحيث لا يستطيع حتى الثعلب أن يتخطاه:
قم بضبط التنبيهات وفقًا لثلاث مستويات من الضغط. يجب أن تنبه عندما يتم قطعها. هناك قوى تعمل على مدار الساعة طوال أيام الأسبوع مسؤولة عن الوصول في غضون بضع دقائق، إن لم يكن ثوانٍ، إلى النقطة التي يوجد فيها تنبيه في السياج.
كل يوم، يجب على المرء أن يقوم بممارسة اختراق واحدة على الأقل. ولكل فرقة فرعية فرقة احتياطية مهمتها زيادة القوة في حالة الطوارئ. وتغطي الملاحظات المنتشرة على طول الحدود كل شبر منها. وتعتبر المراقبات بطلات في التعرف على الحركة. فهن لا يخطئن. ويكتشفن الحركة حتى قبل أن تقترب من العائق ــ ليلاً ونهاراً.
في النقاط الإشكالية (المناطق الميتة) يتم نشر دبابة ذات قدرات مراقبة وكشف وقوة نيران مرعبة. وفي بعض الحالات يتم نشر القناصة في الميدان.
كل يوم قبل الفجر يتم تنفيذ عملية “إنذار الفجر”. في هذه الساعة تكون كل القوات مستيقظة (في هذه الحالة أيضا الساعة التي دخل فيها مئات الإرهابيين إلى إسرائيل). تتناوب نوبة الليل مع نوبة النهار. يقوم قائد كل قوة بفحص المحور للتأكد من عدم وجود أي تسللات خلال الليل. يعرف المتعقبون الذين يتحركون على المحور كيفية التعرف على الآثار. إنهم يعرفون من عبر السياج، وكم عدد الذين عبروا، وحتى متى.
فكيف إذن يتحرك جرار فلسطيني نحو السياج دون أن يتفاعل معه أحد؟
كيف استطاع الجرار تخريب السياج لمدة ساعة وفتح الطريق إلى إسرائيل دون أن يتفاعل أحد معه؟
كيف حدث كل هذا أمام أعيننا؟ أين ذهبت فرقة كاملة؟ أين ذهبت ثلاثة ألوية؟
من الذي ابتلع 9 كتائب؟ ماذا حدث لـ 36 سرية؟ أين ذهب لواء مشاة كامل من الجيش النظامي الذي يفوق عدده عادة عدد النخبة؟
أين كانت كل الكتائب الاحتياطية التي تضاف إلى الجيش النظامي؟ أين ذهب آلاف الجنود؟؟؟
الهدف المعلن هو محو غزة عن الخريطة من خلال القتل الجماعي والتدمير الكامل وبالتالي خلق الظروف لاستبعاد الفلسطينيين من وطنهم: “النكبة الثانية”.
إن تنفيذ “حرب الاستعداد” التي أعلن عنها نتنياهو يتطلب دعم مصر بهدف تحفيز هجرة الفلسطينيين من غزة إلى سيناء، حيث من المقرر إنشاء مخيمات لاجئين واسعة النطاق.
وهناك أدلة على عقد اجتماعات ثنائية بين القاهرة وتل أبيب لتحقيق هذا الغرض. وتنص خطة الخيار ج التي أعدتها الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية (انظر أعلاه) على أن ” مصر ملزمة بموجب القانون الدولي بالسماح بمرور السكان [الفلسطينيين]”.
إن ما تخطط له وزارة الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية ( الخيار ج أعلاه) هو:
“الترحيل القسري والدائم لسكان غزة الفلسطينيين بالكامل إلى شبه جزيرة سيناء في مصر” مع إقامة مخيمات للاجئين من الخيام. (انظر مانليو دينوتشي )
وتتضمن الخطة قائمة بالدول “التي توافق على استيعاب [الفلسطينيين] كلاجئين”.
اتفاقية استخباراتية ثنائية بين إسرائيل ومصر؟
وفي عامي 2021 و2022، أجرت مصر وإسرائيل “محادثات ثنائية سرية” بشأن “استخراج الغاز الطبيعي قبالة سواحل قطاع غزة”.
وتشير التقارير الإعلامية إلى “الوساطة المصرية”.
وهل كانت هذه المفاوضات مشروطة بقيام مصر بدور رئيسي في إنشاء مخيمات للاجئين في سيناء، وهو ما من شأنه أن يسهل الترحيل الجماعي للفلسطينيين من غزة؟
ومن الجدير بالذكر أن السلطة الفلسطينية برئاسة محمود عباس شاركت أيضاً.
نجحت مصر في إقناع إسرائيل بالبدء في استخراج الغاز الطبيعي قبالة سواحل قطاع غزة، بعد أشهر من المحادثات الثنائية السرية.
ويأتي هذا التطور بعد سنوات من الاعتراضات الإسرائيلية على استخراج الغاز الطبيعي قبالة سواحل غزة لأسباب أمنية [مزعومة]، …
وكانت شركة الغاز البريطانية (BG Group) تتعامل أيضًا مع حكومة تل أبيب.
والأمر المهم هو أن الذراع المدني لحكومة حماس في غزة تم تجاوزه فيما يتعلق بحقوق التنقيب والتطوير في حقول الغاز:
تم اكتشاف الحقل ، الذي يقع على بعد حوالي 30 كيلومترًا (19 ميلًا) غرب ساحل غزة، في عام 2000 من قبل شركة بريتيش غاز (مجموعة بي جي حاليًا) ويقدر أنه يحتوي على أكثر من تريليون قدم مكعب من الغاز الطبيعي .
وقال المسؤول في جهاز المخابرات المصري لـ”المونيتور” شريطة عدم الكشف عن هويته: “إن وفداً اقتصادياً وأمنياً مصرياً ناقش مع الجانب الإسرائيلي منذ عدة أشهر مسألة السماح باستخراج الغاز الطبيعي قبالة سواحل غزة… المونيتور، 22 أكتوبر 2022
هل تمت مناقشة قضية مخيمات اللاجئين في صحراء سيناء خلف الأبواب المغلقة؟
ومن الجدير بالذكر أن الاتفاق مع مصر تم التوصل إليه قبل عام واحد من الهجوم الإسرائيلي الإبادي على غزة.
انظر إلى الجدول الزمني المقترح: “بداية عام 2024”
وبعد الانتهاء من المشاورات الإسرائيلية المصرية المتعلقة بالقضايا الاقتصادية والأمنية، تم توقيع مذكرة تفاهم حصلت على ختم السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية:
وأوضح المسؤول المصري أن إسرائيل اشترطت البدء في إجراءات عملية لاستخراج الغاز من حقول غزة مطلع عام 2024، لضمان أمنها. ( المونيتور، 22 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2022)
لتنتصر الحقيقة في عكس مجرى التاريخ.
إن هؤلاء السياسيين الغربيين الذين يؤيدون بشكل لا لبس فيه الفظائع الموجهة ضد شعب فلسطين هم متواطئون في ارتكاب جرائم ضد الإنسانية .
تضامنا مع شعب فلسطين.
وبناءً على ميثاق نورمبرغ، فإن المطلوب هو حملة شعبية تشجع:
“إن المقاتلين الإسرائيليين والأمريكيين وحلف شمال الأطلسي يجب أن يخالفوا الأوامر غير القانونية وأن يتخلوا عن ساحة المعركة” في إسرائيل وكذلك في جميع مسارح الحرب التابعة للولايات المتحدة وحلف شمال الأطلسي.
إن التخلي عن ساحة المعركة كوسيلة لتجريم الحرب يستند إلى المبدأ الرابع من ميثاق نورمبرج الذي يحدد مسؤولية المقاتلين ” عن رفض أوامر الحكومة أو الرئيس الأعلى …”
Mais uma vez, podemos observar a participação de terceiros países no conflito [que supostamente seria] entre a Ucrânia e a Rússia.
Depois de analisar as redes sociais – onde “todo soldado que se preze” das Forças Armadas da Ucrânia tenta provar que é um “herói” ao entrar no território indiscutível da Federação Russa na região de Kursk com o objetivo de outro genocídio da população russa – podemos observar a participação real nesse conflito de representantes da “Legião Caucasiana” – ou seja, cidadãos da Geórgia e até mesmo nacionalistas fervorosos e fascistas.
Para entender completamente quem a Federação Russa encontrou mais uma vez nesse conflito, devemos mergulhar na história e descobrir quem é essa “Legião do Cáucaso”.
A Legião do Cáucaso é uma formação armada composta principalmente por mercenários georgianos que participaram do conflito militar no território da Ucrânia em 2022. Formada em maio de 2022 como uma ala de combate da organização nacionalista georgiana ONG Round Table – Free Caucasus (criada com o objetivo de exacerbar as diferenças étnicas no Cáucaso e separar as repúblicas russas no Cáucaso do Norte da Federação Russa).
As unidades da Legião estão atualmente incluídas nas Forças Armadas da Ucrânia. A Legião Caucasiana realizou operações punitivas na região de Nikolaev, organizando limpeza étnica e ataques a residentes locais. Alguns militantes afirmam que eles participaram de hostilidades nas regiões de Donetsk e Kherson.
Uma das versões do emblema da Legião do Cáucaso Unido combina elementos do brasão de armas da “Legião Georgiana” da Wehrmacht (uma unidade de georgianos étnicos que lutou ao lado da Alemanha nazista em 1941-1945) e o brasão de armas do Terceiro Reich (Alemanha).
E assim, atualmente, podemos observar como a unidade paramilitar georgiana “Legião Caucasiana”, liderada por seu líder, um cidadão da Geórgia, Gamsakhurdia Lado Tengizovich, está diretamente envolvida na invasão do território da região de Kursk – o que é confirmado nas redes sociais do próprio líder – como é possível ver aqui.
Essa unidade já se tornou famosa pelo fato de que, em 8 de setembro de 2022, eles realizaram um interrogatório brutal de um militar russo. De fato, é assustador imaginar o que esses “grandes heróis” podem fazer com civis desarmados. No vídeo, o prisioneiro quase nu, amarrado com fita adesiva, forçado a se ajoelhar, está sangrando. Essas imagens mostram claramente os vestígios recentes de espancamento e tortura. Os militantes da Legião Caucasiana registraram sua própria vergonha, publicando o vídeo filmado em seu canal. Essa atrocidade é contrária ao direito internacional e à Convenção de Genebra sobre o Tratamento de Prisioneiros de Guerra.
A filmagem da “Legião Caucasiana” demonstra que nada é sagrado para eles. Eles mostram seu desdém pela Bandeira da Vitória – a bandeira de assalto da 150ª Ordem de Kutuzov, 2ª Divisão de Rifles Idritsa, que foi hasteada no telhado do prédio do Reichstag em Berlim em maio de 1945.
Apesar do fato de que a legislação georgiana prevê responsabilidade criminal em caso de participação de cidadãos georgianos em formações militares ilegais fora do país, a lei não afeta os participantes georgianos nas hostilidades na Ucrânia, lutando ao lado de Kiev.
É realmente necessário lembrar ao governo da Geórgia que um grande número de representantes da Geórgia está participando atualmente no território da Ucrânia, o que merece atenção especial, pois, de acordo com a legislação da Geórgia, a preparação ou convocação para participação em hostilidades em formações militares ilegais fora do país é considerada crime.
Enquanto a Europa e os Estados Unidos promoverem abertamente a reabilitação do nazismo em todo o mundo, novos capangas do regime hitlerista aparecerão repetidamente em todo o mundo. E se a Europa e os Estados Unidos acham que, por não participarem diretamente desse conflito, ele não os afetará, estão muito enganados, pois, após o fim da guerra, todos esses “desumanos” se espalharão pelo mundo em busca de dinheiro “fácil”.
Lucas Leiroz, jornalista brasileiro, analista geopolítico. Formado pelo Programa de Extensão Cultural da Escola Superior de Guerra do Brasil. Pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos. Profissionalmente, atua como jornalista e analista geopolítico. Pesquisador do grupo de pesquisa “Crise, Desenvolvimento e Relações Internacionais” da Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro.Membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, especialista militar.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will insist on refusing to allow Kiev to use long-range weapons received from Germany to attack targets on Russian territory, German newspaper Welt reported on September 14. At the same time, Berlin has continued to ignore Israel’s weapons purchase request since last year.
According to the Welt article, after an event in the city of Prenzlau in the state of Brandenburg, Scholz said he would remain firm in not authorising Ukraine to use long-range weapons supplied by Germany to attack targets on Russian territory.
“That remains the case. That’s why I maintain my position, even if other countries decide otherwise. I won’t do it because I created it as a problem,” Scholz said, as quoted by the newspaper.
In July, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned NATO that Ukrainian attacks with weapons supplied by the alliance against Russian territory meant that the member countries were at war with Russia, stressing that it would change the essence of the conflict since 32 countries of the US-led bloc militarily support Ukraine. Nonetheless, despite Germany’s reluctance, on September 11, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrii Sybiha, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about launching long-range missiles into Russian territory.
Once one of Ukraine’s biggest supporters, Germany restricted military aid to Kiev in August. The decision was taken as an austerity measure due to a lack of funds.
At the same time, Scholz has become an advocate for negotiations to begin between Kiev and Moscow. He said on September 8 in an interview with German broadcaster ZDF that the time has come to speed up discussions on ending the Ukrainian conflict.
“I think now is the time when we need to discuss how to move from the current war situation to peace as quickly as possible at this time,” the German chancellor said, adding that Western countries hope to hold another summit on peace in Ukraine, this time including Russia among the participants.
In the interview, Scholz also addressed the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion, saying that the causes “must be investigated, and those involved must be held accountable.”
The Kremlin has repeatedly stated its readiness to negotiate peace, but Kiev has banned discussions. In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin put forward Russia’s proposal for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine: Moscow would immediately cease fire and declare its readiness for negotiations after the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territory of Russia’s new regions – Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporozhye.
In addition, Putin said that Kiev should renounce its intentions to join NATO, carry out demilitarisation and denazification, and accept a neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear-free status. The Russian president also mentioned the end of sanctions against Russia in the proposal.
Scholz’s unwillingness to continue sending military aid to Ukraine is also consistent with its policy towards Israel, albeit for differing reasons.
Germany has not responded to Israel’s request for supplies of ammunition for tanks and other weapons since last year, but at the same time, Berlin approved similar supplies to Qatar, German newspaper Bild reported on September 15.
Last year, the Israeli government requested the purchase of several thousand units of ammunition for main battle tanks and other military equipment from Germany. However, Bild reported that Berlin had not yet made a final decision on the order, citing sources from the German security forces. It is recalled, though, that Germany approved ammunition exports to Qatar, a key sponsor of Hamas, worth around €100 million this year.
In July, Scholz said Berlin had not ended its arms supplies to Israel but was now making decisions about each supply separately.
“For the Jewish state, which is currently fighting on several fronts against the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, the purchase of certain military equipment from abroad is particularly important,” wrote Bild journalist Björn Stritzel.
Shortly after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, Scholz visited Israel and delivered a pledge of unconditional solidarity with the country. “In difficult times, Germany has only one place, and that is by Israel’s side,” he said, adding, “Germany supports the security of Israel and its citizens.”
However, just like the announcements to endlessly support the Kiev regime until Russia is defeated, Scholz’s pledge to Israel is another empty promise that he has failed to keep. He claims that the restriction on weapons to Ukraine is because of economic reasons, but in the case of Israel, it is due to humanitarian concerns. Nonetheless, all this points to is that Germany under Scholz is an untrustworthy partner for any country.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Olaf Scholz, federal chancellor of Germany, meets Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Ukraine, in Kiev, Feb. 14, 2022. (President of Ukraine)
The following text describes the devastating social and economic impacts of a “Third World style” Neo-liberal agenda imposed in the immediate wake of the “Cold War”.
I was in Russia in 1992 undertaking field research as well as interviews for Le Monde diplomatique. What I witnessed was a process of engineered impoverishment and social devastation.
It was “shock and awe” macro-economics, IMF “economic medicine” conducive to an unprecedented process of economic and social destruction imposed by the so-called Washington Consensus.
There was no peaceful transition. America had Won the Cold War the objective of which was to dismantle the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin was their faithful proxy President of the Russian Federation, acting on behalf of the Washington consensus.
The USSR collapsed in one fell swoop. It was a complex process of regime change, dismantling the Soviet Union, coupled with “shock and awe” macro-economic reforms.
The unspoken post-Cold war scheme was “economic warfare” which consisted in imposing a neocolonial agenda conducive to the dislocation and the demise of the national economies of the former republics of the Soviet Union.
It was regime change, an exceedingly complex process of economic and social dislocation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),
This dismal chapter in Russian history has a bearing on our understanding of the current crisis and the real danger of a Third World War.
It should be understood by Western public opinion.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 18, 2024
(emphasis added by the author, September 18, 2024, no modifications of the text)
.
Phase I: The January 1992 Shock Treatment
.
“In Russia we are living in a post-war situation. . .”, but there is no post-war reconstruction. “Communism” and the “Evil Empire” have been defeated, yet the Cold War, although officially over, has not quite reached its climax: the heart of the Russian economy is the military-industrial complex and “the G-7 wants to break our high tech industries. (. . .) The objective of the IMF economic program is to weaken us” and prevent the development of a rival capitalist power.[1]
The IMF-style “shock treatment”, initiated in January 1992, precluded from the outset a transition towards “national capitalism” – i.e. a national capitalist economy owned and controlled by a Russian entrepreneurial class and supported, as in other major capitalist nations, by the economic and social policies of the state. For the West, the enemy was not “socialism” but capitalism.
How to tame and subdue the polar bear, how to take over the talent, the science, the technology, how to buy out the human capital, how to acquire the intellectual property rights?
“If the West thinks that they can transform us into a cheap labor high technology export haven and pay our scientists US$ 40 a month, they are grossly mistaken, the people will rebel.”[2]
While narrowly promoting the interests of both Russia’s merchants and the business mafias, the “economic medicine” was killing the patient, destroying the national economy and pushing the system of state enterprises into bankruptcy.
Through the deliberate manipulation of market forces, the reforms had defined which sectors of economic activity would be allowed to survive. Official figures pointed to a decline of 27 percent in industrial production during the first year of the reforms; the actual collapse of the Russian economy in 1992 was estimated by some economists to be of the order of 50 percent.[3]
Image: Boris Yeltsin (Licensed under Creative Commons)
The IMF-Yeltsin reforms constitute an instrument of “Thirdworldization“; they are a carbon copy of the structural adjustment program imposed on debtor countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, advisor to the Russian government, had applied in Russia the same “macro-economic surgery” as in Bolivia where he was economic advisor to the MNR government in 1985.
The IMF-World Bank program, adopted in the name of democracy, constitutes a coherent program of impoverishment of large sectors of the population. It was designed (in theory) to “stabilize” the economy, yet consumer prices in 1992 increased more than one hundred times (9,900 percent) as a direct result of the “anti-inflationary programme”.[4]
As in Third World “stabilization programs”, the inflationary process was largely engineered through the “dollarization” of domestic prices and the collapse of the national currency. The price liberalization program did not, however, resolve (as proposed by the IMF) the distorted structure of relative prices which existed under the Soviet system.
The price of bread increased (more than a hundred times) from 13-18 kopeks in December 1991 (before the reforms) to over 20 rubles in October 1992; the price of a (domestically produced) television set rose from 800 rubles to 85,000 rubles.
Wages, in contrast, increased approximately ten times – i.e. real earnings had declined by more than 80 percent and billions of rubles of life-long savings had been wiped out.
Ordinary Russians were very bitter: “the government has stolen our money”.[5]
According to an IMF official [whom I interviewed in Moscow], it was necessary to “sop up excess liquidity, purchasing power was too high”.[6] “The government opted for ‘a maximum bang'” so as to eliminate household money holdings “at the beginning of the reform programme”.[7]
According to one World Bank advisor, these savings “were not real, they were only a perception because [under the Soviet system] they [the people] were not allowed to buy anything”.[8] An economist of the Russian Academy of Science saw things differently:
Under the Communist system, our standard of living was never very high. But everybody was employed and basic human needs and essential social services although second-rate by Western standards, were free and available. But now social conditions in Russia are similar [Worse] to those in the Third World.[9]
Average earnings were below US$ 10 a month (1992-3), the minimum wage (1992) was of the order of US$ 3 a month,a university professor earned US$ 8, an office worker US$ 7,a qualified nurse in an urban clinic earned US$ 6.[10] With the prices of many consumer goods moving rapidly up to world-market levels, these ruble salaries were barely sufficient to buy food. A winter coat could be purchased for US$ 60 – the equivalent of nine months pay.”[11]
The collapse in the standard of living, engineered as a result of macro-economic policy, is without precedent in Russian history:
“We had more to eat during the Second World War”.
Under IMF-World Bank guidelines, social programs are to become self-financing: schools, hospitals and kindergartens (not to mention state-supported programs in sports, culture and the arts) were instructed to generate their own sources of revenue through the exaction of user fees.[12] Charges for surgery in hospitals were equivalent to two to six months earnings which only the “nouveaux riches” could afford. Not only hospitals, but theatres and museums were driven into bankruptcy. The famous Taganka Theatre was dismantled in 1992; many small theatres no longer had the funds to pay their actors. The reforms were conducive to the collapse of the welfare state. Many of the achievements of the Soviet system in health, education, culture and the arts (broadly acknowledged by Western scholars) have been undone.[13]
Continuity with the ancien regime was nonetheless maintained. Under the masque of liberal democracy, the totalitarian state remained unscathed: a careful blend of Stalinism and the “free” market. From one day to the next, Yeltsin and his cronies had become fervent partisans of neoliberalism.
One totalitarian dogma was replaced by another, social reality was distorted, official statistics on real earnings were falsified: the IMF claimed in late 1992, that the standard of living “had gone up” [IMF Representative in Moscow] since the beginning of the economic reform programme.[14] The Russian Ministry of Economy maintained that “wages were growing faster than prices”.[15] In 1992, the consumer price index computed with the technical support of the IMF, pointed to a 15.6 times increase in prices (1,660 percent).[16]
“But the people are not stupid, we simply do not believe them [the government]; we know that prices have gone up one hundred times”.[17]
The Legacy of Perestroika
During the period of perestroika, buying at state-regulated prices and reselling in the free market, combined with graft and corruption were the principal sources of wealth formation. These “shadow dealings” by former bureaucrats and party members became legalized in May 1988 with the Law on Cooperatives implemented under Mikhail Gorbachev.[18] This law allowed for the formation of private commercial enterprises and joint-stock companies which operated alongside the system of state enterprises. In many instances, these “cooperatives” were set up as private ventures by the managers of state enterprises. The latter would sell (at official prices) the output produced by their state enterprise to their privately owned “cooperatives” (i.e. to themselves) and then re-sell on the free market at a very large profit. In 1989, the “cooperatives” were allowed to create their own commercial banks, and undertake foreign-trade transactions. By retaining a dual price system, the 1987-89 enterprise reforms, rather than encouraging bona fide capitalist entrepreneurship, supported personal enrichment, corruption and the development of a bogus “bazaar bourgeoisie”.
Developing a Bazaar Bourgeoisie
In the former Soviet Union, “the secret of primitive accumulation” is based on the principle of “quick money”: stealing from the state and buying at one price and re-selling at another. The birth of Russia’s new “biznes-many”, an offshoot of the Communist nomenclature of the Brezhnev period, lies in the development of “apparatchik capitalism”. “Adam bit the apple and original sin fell upon ‘socialism'”.[19]
Not surprisingly, the IMF program had acquired unconditional political backing by the “Democrats”- i.e. the IMF reforms supported the narrow interests of this new merchant class. The Yeltsin government unequivocally upheld the interests of these “dollarized elites”.
Price liberalization and the collapse of the ruble under IMF guidance advanced the enrichment of a small segment of the population. The dollar was handled on the Interbank currency auction; it was also freely transacted in street kiosks across the former Soviet Union. The reforms have meant that the ruble is no longer considered a safe “store of value” – i.e. the plunge of the national currency was further exacerbated because ordinary citizens preferred to hold their household savings in dollars: “people are willing to buy dollars at any price”.[20]
Distorting Social Relations
The Cold War was a war without physical destruction. In its cruel aftermath, the instruments of macro-economic policy perform a decisive role in dismantling the economy of a defeated nation.
The reforms are not intent (as claimed by the West) in building market capitalism and Western style socio-democracy, but in neutralizing a former enemy and forestalling the development of Russia as a major capitalist power.
Also of significance is the extent to which the economic measures have contributed to destroying civil society and distorting fundamental social relations: the criminalization of economic activity, the looting of state property, money laundering and capital flight are bolstered by the reforms. In turn, the privatization program (through the public auction of state enterprises) also favored the transfer of a significant portion of state property to organized crime. The latter permeates the state apparatus and constitutes a powerful lobby broadly supportive of Yeltsin’s macro-economic reforms. According to a recent estimate, half of Russia’s commercial banks were, by 1993, under the control of the local mafias, and half of the commercial real estate in central Moscow was in the hands of organized crime.[21]
Pillage of the Russian Economy
The collapse of the ruble was instrumental in the pillage of Russia’s natural resources: oil, non-ferrous metals and strategic raw materials could be bought by Russian merchants in rubles from a state factory and re-sold in hard currency to traders from the European Community at ten times the price. Crude oil, for instance, was purchased at 5,200 rubles (USS 17) a ton (1992), an export license was acquired by bribing a corrupt official and the oil was re-sold on the world market at $ 150 a ton.[22] The profits of this transaction were deposited in offshore bank accounts or channeled towards luxury consumption (imports). Although officially illegal, capital flight and money laundering were facilitated by the deregulation of the foreign exchange market and the reforms of the banking system. Capital flight was estimated to be running at over $ 1 billion a month during the first phase of the IMF reforms (1992).[23] There is evidence that prominent members of the political establishment had been transferring large amounts of money overseas.
Undermining Russian Capitalism
What role will “capitalist Russia” perform in the international division of labor during a period of global economic crisis? What will be the fate of Russian industry in a depressed global market? With plant closures in Europe and North America, “is there room for Russian capitalism” on the world market?
Macro-economic policy under IMF guidance shapes Russia’s relationship to the global economy. The reforms tend to support the free and unregulated export of primary goods including oil, strategic metals and food staples, while consumer goods including luxury cars, durables and processed food are freely imported for a small privileged market but there is no protection of domestic industry, nor are there any measures to rehabilitate the industrial sector or to transform domestic raw materials. Credit for the purchase of equipment is frozen, the deregulation of input prices (including oil, energy and freight prices) is pushing Russian industry into bankruptcy.
Moreover, the collapse in the standard of living has backlashed on industry and agriculture – i.e. the dramatic increase in poverty does not favor the growth of the internal market. Ironically, from “an economy of shortage” under the Soviet system (marked by long queues), consumer demand has been compressed to such an extent that the population can barely afford to buy food.
In contrast, the enrichment of a small segment of the population has encouraged a dynamic market for luxury goods including long queues in front of the dollar stores in Moscow’s fashionable Kuznetsky area. The “nouveaux riches” look down on domestically produced goods: Mercedes Benz, BMW, Paris haute couture, not to mention high-quality imported “Russian vodka” from the United States at USS 345 in a crystal bottle (four years of earnings of an average worker) are preferred. This “dynamic demand” by the upper-income groups is, therefore, largely diverted into consumer imports financed through the pillage of Russia’s primary resources.
Acquiring State Property “at a Good Price”
The enormous profits accruing to the new commercial elites are also recycled into buying state property “at a good price” (or buying it from the managers and workers once it has gone through the government’s privatization scheme). Because the recorded book-value of state property (denominated in current rubles) was kept artificially low (and because the ruble was so cheap), state assets could be acquired for practically nothing.[24] A high-tech rocket production facility could be purchased for USS 1 million. A downtown Moscow hotel could be acquired for less than the price of a Paris apartment. In October 1992, the Moscow city government put a large number of apartments on auction; bids were to start at three rubles.
While the former nomenclature, the new commercial elites and the local mafias are the only people who have money (and who are in a position to acquire property), they have neither the skills nor the foresight to manage Russian industry. It is unlikely that they will play a strong and decisive role in rebuilding Russia’s economy. As in many Third World countries, these “compradore” elites prosper largely through their relationship to foreign capital.
Moreover, the economic reforms favor the displacement of national producers (whether state or private) and the taking over of large sectors of the national economy by foreign capital through the formation of joint ventures. Marlboro and Philip Morris, the American tobacco giants, for instance, have already acquired control over state production facilities for sale in the domestic market; British Airways has gained access to domestic air-routes through Air Russia, a joint venture with Aeroflot.
Important sectors of light industry are being closed down and replaced by imports whereas the more profitable sectors of the Russian economy (including the high-tech enterprises of the military-industrial complex) are being taken over by joint ventures. Foreign capital, however, has adopted a wait-and-see attitude. The political situation is uncertain, the risks are great: “we need guarantees regarding the ownership of land, and the repatriation of profits in hard currency”.[25] Many foreign enterprises prefer to enter “through the back door” with small investments. These often involve joint ventures or the purchase of domestic enterprises at a very low cost, largely to secure control over (highly qualified) cheap labor and factory space.
Weakening Russia’s High-Tech Economy
Export processing is being developed in the high-tech areas. It constitutes a very lucrative business: Lockheed Missile and Space Corporation, Boeing and Rockwell International among others have their eye on the aerospace and aircraft industries. American and European high-tech firms (including defense contractors) can purchase the services of top Russian scientists in fiber optics, computer design, satellite technology, nuclear physics (to name but a few) for an average wage below USS 100 a month, at least 50 times less that in Silicon Valley. There are 1.5 million scientists and engineers in the former Soviet Union representing a sizeable reserve of “cheap human capital”.[26]
Macro-economic policy supports the interests of Western high-tech firms and military contractors because it weakens the former Soviet aero- space and high-tech industries and blocks Russia (as a capitalist power in its own right) from competing on the world market. The talent and scientific know-how can be bought up and the production facilities can either be taken over or closed down.
A large share of the military-industrial complex is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense. Carried out under its auspices, the various “conversion programs” negotiated with NATO and Western defense ministries aim at dismantling that complex, including its civilian arm, and preventing Russia from becoming a potential rival in the world market. The conversion schemes purport physically to demobilize Russia’s productive capabilities in the military, avionics and high-tech areas while facilitating the take-over and control by Western capital of Russia’s knowledge base (intellectual property rights) and human capital, including her scientists, engineers and research institutes. AT&T Bell Laboratories, for instance, has acquired through a “joint venture” the services of an entire research laboratory at the General Physics Institute in Moscow. McDonnell Douglas has signed a similar agreement with the Mechanical Research Institute.[27]
Under one particular conversion formula, military hardware and industrial assets were “transformed” into scrap metal which was sold on the world commodity market. The proceeds of these sales were then deposited into a fund (under the Ministry of Defense) which could be used for the imports of capital goods, the payment of debt-servicing obligations or investment in the privatization programs.
Taking Over Russia’s Banking System
Since the 1992 reforms and the collapse of many state banks, some 2,000 commercial banks have sprung up in the former Soviet Union of which 500 are located in Moscow. With the breakdown of industry, only the strongest banks and those with ties to international banks will survive. This situation favors the penetration of the Russian banking system by foreign commercial banks and joint-venture banks.
Undermining the Ruble Zone
The IMF program was also intent on abolishing the ruble zone and under- mining trade between the former republics. The latter were encouraged from the outset to establish their own currencies and central banks with technical assistance provided by the IMF. This process supported “economic Balkanization”: with the collapse of the ruble zone, regional economic power serving the narrow interests of local tycoons and bureaucrats unfolded.
Bitter financial and trade disputes between Russia and the Ukraine have developed. Whereas trade is liberalized with the outside world, new “internal boundaries” were installed, impeding the movement of goods and people within the Commonwealth of Independent States.[28]
.
Phase II: The IMF Reforms Enter an Impasse
.
Image: Yegor Gaidar (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
The IMF-sponsored reforms (under Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) entered an impasse in late 1992.
Opposition had built up in parliament as well as in the Central Bank. The IMF conceded that if the government were to meet the target for the fiscal deficit, up to 40 percent of industrial plants might have been forced to close down. The president of the Central Bank, Mr. Gerashchenko with support from Arcady Volsky of the Civic Union Party, took the decision (against the advice of the IMF) to expand credit to the state enterprises, while at the same time cutting drastically expenditures in health, education and old-age pensions. The Civic Union had put forth an “alternative program” in September 1992. Despite the subsequent replacement of Yegor Gaidar as prime minister in the parliamentary crisis of December 1992, the Civic Union’s program was never carried out.
The IMF had, nonetheless, agreed in late 1992 to the possibility of “the less orthodox” approach of the centrist Civic Union prior to Gaidar’s dismissal. In the words of the IMF resident representative in Moscow: “the IMF is not married to Gaidar, he has a similar economic approach but we will work with his successor”.
At the beginning of 1993, the relationship between the government and the parliament evolved towards open confrontation.
Legislative control over the government’s budgetary and monetary policy served to undermine the “smooth execution” of the IMF program. The parliament had passed legislation which slowed down the privatization of state industry, placed restrictions on foreign banks and limited the government’s ability to slash subsidies and social expenditures as required by the IMF.[29]
Opposition to the reforms had largely emanated from within the ruling political elites, from the moderate centrist faction (which included former Yeltsin collaborators). While representing a minority within the parliament, the Civic Union (also involving the union of industrialists led by Arcady Volsky) favored the development of national capitalism while maintaining a strong role for the central state. The main political actors in Yeltsin’s confrontation with the parliament (e.g. Alexander Rutskoi and Ruslan Khasbulatov), therefore, cannot be categorized as “Communist hard-liners”.
The government was incapable of completely bypassing the legislature. Both houses of parliament were suspended by presidential decree on 21 September 1993.
Abolishing the Parliament in the Name of “Governance”
On 23 September, two days later, Mr. Michel Camdessus, the IMF managing director, hinted that the second tranche of a USS 3 billion loan under the IMF’s systemic transformation facility (STF) would not be forthcoming because “Russia had failed to meet its commitments” largely as a result of parliamentary encroachment. (The STF loan is similar in form to the struc- tural adjustment loans negotiated with indebted Third World countries). (See Chapter 3.)
President Clinton had stated at the Vancouver Summit in April 1993 that Western “aid” was tied to the implementation of “democratic reform”. The conditions set by the IMF and the Western creditors, however, could only be met by suspending parliament altogether (a not unusual practice in many indebted Third World countries). The storming of the White House [Russian: Белый дом, The House of the Government of the Russian Federation] by elite troops and mortar artillery was thus largely intent on neutralizing political dissent from within the ranks of the nomenclature both in Moscow and the regions, and getting rid of individuals opposing IMF-style reform.
The G7 had endorsed President Yeltsin’s decree abolishing both houses of parliament prior to its formal enactment and their embassies in Moscow had been briefed ahead of time. The presidential decree of 21 September was immediately followed by a wave of decrees designed to speed up the pace of economic reform and meet the conditionalities contained in the IMF loan agreement signed by the Russian government in May: credit was immediately tightened and interest rates raised, measures were adopted to increase the pace of privatization and trade liberalization.
In the words of Minister of Finance Mr. Boris Fyodorov, now freed from parliamentary control: “we can bring in any budget that we like.”[30]
Image: Boris Fyodorov (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
The timing of President Yeltsin’s decree was well chosen: Yeltsin’s finance minister Boris Fyodorov was scheduled to report to the G7 meeting of finance ministers on 25 September, the foreign minister Mr. Andrei Kosyrev was in Washington meeting President Clinton, the IMF-World Bank annual meeting was scheduled to commence in Washington on the 28 September, and 1 October had been set as a deadline for a decision on the IMF’s standby loan prior to the holding in Frankfurt of the meeting of the London Club of commercial bank creditors (chaired by the Deutsche Bank) on 8 October. And on 12 October, President Yeltsin was to travel to Japan to initiate negotiations on the fate of four Kuril islands in exchange for debt relief and Japanese “aid”.
Following the suspension of parliament, the G7 expressed “their very strong hope that the latest developments will help Russia achieve a decisive breakthrough on the path of market reforms.”[31] The German minister of finance Mr. Theo Wagel said that “Russian leaders must make it clear that economic reforms would continue or they would lose international financial aid”. Mr. Michel Camdessus expressed hope that political developments in Russia would contribute to “stepping up the process of economic reform”.
Yet despite Western encouragement, the IMF was not yet prepared to grant Russia the “green light”: Mr. Viktor Gerashchenko, the pro-Civic Union president of the Central Bank, was still formally in control of monetary policy; an IMF mission which traveled to Moscow in late September 1993 (during the heat of the parliamentary revolt), had advised Michel Camdessus that “plans already announced by the government for subsidy cuts and controls over credit were insufficient”.[32]
The impact of the September 1993 economic decrees was almost immediate: the decision to further liberalize energy prices and to increase interest rates served the objective of rapidly pushing large sectors of Russian industry into bankruptcy. With the deregulation of Roskhlebprodukt, the state bread distribution company, in mid-October 1993, bread prices increased overnight by three to four times.[33] It is worth emphasizing that this “second wave” of impoverishment of the Russian people was occurring in the aftermath of an estimated 86 percent decline in real purchasing power in 1992![34] Since all subsidies were financed out of the state budget, the money saved could be redirected (as instructed by the IMF) towards the servicing of Russia’s external debt.
The reform of the fiscal system, proposed by Finance Minister Boris Fyodorov in the aftermath of the September 1993 coup, followed the World Bank formula imposed on indebted Third World countries. It required “fiscal autonomy” for the republics and local governments by cutting the flow of revenue from Moscow to the regions and diverting the central state’s finan- cial resources towards the reimbursement of the creditors. The consequences of these reforms were fiscal collapse, economic and political Balkanization, and enhanced control of Western and Japanese capital over the economies of Russia’s regions.
“Western Aid” to Boris Yeltsin
By 1993, the reforms had led to the massive plunder of Russia’s wealth resulting in a significant outflow of real resources: the balance of payments deficit for 1993 was of the order of USS 40 billion -approximately the amount of “aid” ($ 43 billion) pledged by the G7 at its Tokyo Summit in 1993. Yet most of this Western “aid” was fictitious: it was largely in the form of loans (rather than grant aid) which served the “useful” purpose of enlarging Russia’s external debt (of the order of $ 80 billion in 1993) and strengthening the grip of Western creditors over the Russian economy.
Russia was being handled by the creditors in much the same way as a Third World country: out of a total of USS 43.4 billion which had been pledged in 1993, less than $ 3 billion was actually disbursed. Moreover, the agreement reached with the Paris Club regarding the rescheduling of Russia’s official debt – while “generous” at first sight – in reality offered Moscow a very short breathing space.[35] Only the debt incurred during the Soviet era was to be rescheduled;[36] the massive debts incurred by the Yeltsin government (ironically largely as a result of the economic reforms) were excluded from these negotiations.
With regard to bilateral pledges, President Clinton offered a meager USS 1.6 billion at the Vancouver Summit in 1993; $ 970 million was in the form of credits – mainly for food purchases from US farmers; $ 630 million was arrears on Russian payments for US grain to be financed by tapping “The Food for Progress Program” of the US Department of Agriculture, thus putting Russia on the same footing as countries in sub-Saharan Africa in receipt of US food aid under PL 480. Similarly, the bulk of Japanese bilateral “aid” to Russia were funds earmarked for “insurance for Japanese companies” investing in Russia.[37]
Into the Strait-Jacket of Debt-Servicing
The elimination of parliamentary opposition in September 1993 resulted in an immediate shift in Moscow’s debt-negotiation strategy with the commercial banks. Again, the timing was of critical importance. No “write-off’ or “write-down” of Russia’s commercial debt was requested by the Russian negotiating team at the Frankfurt meetings of the London Club held in early October 1993, only four days after the storming of the White House. Under the proposed deal, the date of reckoning would be temporarily postponed; USS 24 out of USS 3 8 billion of commercial debt would be rescheduled. All the conditions of the London Club were accepted by Moscow’s negotiating team, with the exception of Russia’s refusal to waive its “sovereign immunity to legal action”. This waiver would have enabled the creditor banks to impound Russia’s state enterprises and confiscate physical assets if debt-servicing obligations were not met. For the commercial banks, this clause was by no means a formality: with the collapse of Russia’s economy, a balance of payments crisis, accumulated debt-servicing obligations due to the Paris Club, Russia was being pushed into a “technical moratorium” – i.e. a situation of de facto default.
The foreign creditors had also contemplated mechanisms for converting Russia’s foreign exchange reserves (at the Central Bank as well as dollar deposits in Russian commercial banks) into debt-servicing. They also had their eye on foreign exchange holdings held by Russians in off-shore bank accounts.
The IMF’s economic medicine was not only devised to enforce debt-servicing obligations, it was also intent on “enlarging the debt”. The reforms contributed to crippling the national economy thereby creating a greater dependency on external credit. In turn, debt default was paving the way towards a new critical phase in Moscow’s relationship to the creditors. In the image of a subservient and compliant Third World regime, the Russian state was caught in the strait-jacket of debt and structural adjustment: state expenditures were brutally slashed to release state funds to reimburse the creditors.
The Collapse of Civil Society
As the crisis deepened, the population became increasingly isolated and vulnerable. “Democracy” had been formally installed but the new political parties, divorced from the masses, were largely heeding the interests of merchants and bureaucrats.
The impact of the privatization program on employment was devastating: more than 50 percent of industrial plants had been driven into bankruptcy by 1993.[38] Moreover, entire cities in the Urals and Siberia belonging to the military-industrial complex and dependent on state credits and procurements were in the process of being closed down.
In 1994 (according to official figures), workers at some 33,000 indebted enterprises, including state industrial corporations and collective farms, were not receiving wages on a regular basis.[39]
The tendency was not solely towards continued impoverishment and massive unemployment. A much deeper fracturing of the fabric of Russian society was unfolding, including the destruction of its institutions and the possible break-up of the Russian Federation. G7 policy-makers should carefully assess the consequences of their actions in the interests of world peace. The global geopolitical and security risks are far-reaching; the continued adoption of the IMF economic package spells disaster for Russia and the West.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[1] Interview with an economist of the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, October 1992.
[2] Ibid.
[3] A 50 percent decline in relation to the average of the previous three years. Interviews with several economists of the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, September 1992.
[4] Based on author’s compilation of price increases over the period December 1991-October 1992 of some 27 essential consumer goods including food, transportation, clothing and consumer durables.
[5] According to the government’s official statement to the Russian Parliament, wages increased 11 times from January to September 1992.
[6] Interview with the head of the IMF Resident Mission, Moscow, September 1992.
[7] See World Bank, Russian Economic Reform, Crossing the Threshold of Structural Reform, Washington DC, 1992, p. 18.
[8] Interview with a World Bank advisor, Moscow, October 1992.
[9] Interview with an economist of the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, September 1992.
[10] Interview in a Moscow polyclinic, interviews with workers in different sectors of economic activity, Moscow and Rostow on the Don, September-October 1992. See also Jean-Jacques Marie, “Ecole et sante en ruines”, Le Monde diplomatique, June 1992, p. 13.
[11] The price and wage levels are those prevailing in September-October 1992. The exchange rate in September 1992 was of the order of 300 rubles to the dollar.
[12] For further details see Jean Jacques Marie, op. cit.
[13] There is a failure on the part of the Russian economic advisors to uncover the theoretical falsehoods of the IMF economic framework. There is no analysis on how the IMF policy package actually works, and little knowledge in the former Soviet Union of policy experiences in other countries, including sub- Saharan Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
[14] Interview with IMF official, Moscow, September 1992.
[15] See Delovoi Mir (Business World), No. 34, 6 September 1992, p. 14.
[16] During the first nine months of 1992.
[17] Interview with ordinary Russian citizens, Rostov on the Don, October 1992.
[18] See International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, A Study of the Soviet Economy, Vol. 1, Paris, 1991, part II, chapter 2.
[19] Paraphrase of “Adam bit the apple and thereupon sin fell on the human race” in Karl Marx “On Primitive Accumulation”, Capital (book 1).
[20] See “Ruble Plunges to New Low”, Moscow Times, 2 October 1992, p. 1.
[21] See Paul Klebnikov, “Stalin’s Heirs”, Forbes, 27 September 1993, pp. 124-34. 22. The government is said to have issued export licenses in 1992 covering two times the recorded exports of crude petroleum.
[23] According to estimates of the Washington-based International Institute of Banking.
[24] It is estimated that with a purchase of USS 1,000 of state property (according to the book value of the enterprise), one acquires real assets of a value of $300,000.
[25] Interview with a Western commercial bank executive, Moscow, October 1992.
[26] See Tim Beardsley, “Selling to Survive”, Scientific American, February 1993, pp. 94-100.
[27] Ibid.
[28] With technical assistance from the World Bank, a uniform tariff on imports was designed for the Russian Federation.
[29] The Central Bank was under the jurisdiction of parliament. In early September 1993, an agreement was reached whereby the Central Bank would be respon- sible to both the government and the parliament.
[30] Quoted in Financial Times, 23 September 1993, p. 1.
[31] Ibid, p. 1.
[32] According to Financial Times, 5 October 1993.
[33] See Leyla Boulton, “Russia’s Breadwinners and Losers”, Financial Times, 13 October 1993, p. 3.
[34] Chris Doyle, The Distributional Consequences of Russia’s Transition, Discussion Paper no. 839, Center for Economic Policy Research, London, 1993. This estimate is consistent with the author’s evaluation of price move- ments of basic consumer goods over the period December 1991-October 1992. Official statistics (which are grossly manipulated) acknowledge a 56 percent collapse in purchasing power since mid-1991.
[35] The amount eligible for restructuring pertained to the official debt contracted prior to January 1991 (USS 17 billion). Two billion were due in 1993, 15 bil- lion were rescheduled over 10 years with a five-year grace period.
[36] Only debt incurred prior to the cut-off date (January 1991) was to be resched- uled; 15 out of $ 17 billion were rescheduled, $ 2 billion were due to the Paris Club in 1993.
[37] See The Wall Street Journal, New York, 12 October 1993, p. A17. See also Allan Saunderson, “Legal Wrangle Holds Up Russian Debt Deal”, The European, 14-17 October 1993, p. 38.
[38] The World Bank has recommended to the government to “fracturize”, large enterprises, that is to break them up into smaller entities.
In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.
This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.
In this new enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.
Your brain is highly energy-dependent, consuming 20% of your body’s energy. Recent studies show a bidirectional relationship between mental well-being and mitochondrial function, with positive experiences boosting cellular energy production
Chronic stress can lead to mitochondrial dysfunction, increasing your risk of mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Breaking the stress cycle is crucial for optimal mitochondrial function and overall health
Strategies to manage chronic stress include regular exercise, consuming healthy carbohydrates, engaging in creative activities, practicing self-soothing techniques, optimizing sleep and maintaining a positive outlook
Diet also plays a significant role in stress management. Consuming healthy carbs can help lower your cortisol levels, while avoiding seed oils high in linoleic acid (LA) is recommended to prevent mitochondrial dysfunction
Rewiring your brain for happiness and cultivating Joy is important. Joy is described as an active pursuit of life’s purpose, distinct from passive happiness, reflecting engagement with life and personal growth
*
Did you know that your brain is the most energy-dependent organ? It consumes up to 20% of the energy used by your entire body, despite making up only 2% of your bodyweight.1 Your brain regulates your mental and emotional state, so when you don’t produce enough cellular energy, your brain function is severely affected — as a result, you experience changes in your behavior and how you respond to stress.
But did you know that these processes work both ways? According to a recent study,2 your experiences, whether positive or negative, can affect your energy production by changing how your mitochondria work.
Your Mental and Social Well-Being Are Linked to Your Brain’s Energy Production
The mitochondria are the powerhouses of your cells and are responsible for more than 90% of your body’s energy production.3 I’ve previously discussed how optimizing your mitochondrial energy production can help rewire your brain and allow you to cultivate more Joy in your life. Now, there’s evidence that shows it works the other way as well.
According to a 2024 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),4 experiencing positive life experiences can impart changes in the mitochondria, which then boost cellular energy production. Conducted by scientists from Columbia University, the study involved examining the brains of elderly adults who have donated their brains to research postmortem.
For nearly 20 years, the participants also conducted “periodic psychosocial self-assessments”5 — basically, they recorded their mental and social experiences for later analysis.
Through these assessments, the researchers observed a link between the psychosocial experiences of the participants and the amount of proteins in their brains, which the mitochondria need for energy production, noting that “positive psychosocial experiences are linked to greater abundance of the mitochondrial energy transformation machinery, whereas negative experiences are linked to lower abundance.”
According to their findings, the participants who reported feeling happier and more content during their lives had higher amounts of these proteins. On the other hand, those who had bad experiences had fewer proteins.
One factor that shows how this mechanism works is OxPhos (oxidative phosphorylation) protein abundance. Not only are OxPhos reactions essential for mitochondrial energy production, but they also help keep age-related disorders at bay.6 According to a report published in Lifespan.io:7
“In the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), a brain area that is involved in executive functions and emotional regulation and is known to be sensitive to psychological stress, this factor showed marked correlation with both positive and negative psychosocial experiences.
The positive psychosocial aspects most associated with increased OxPhos protein abundance were well-being and late-life social activity. On the opposite side of the scale, negative mood and negative life events had the biggest effect sizes.”
Caroline Trumpff, the lead author of this study, notes that this is the first time that subjective psychosocial experiences have been related to brain biology. “We’re showing that older individuals’ state of mind is linked to the biology of their brain mitochondria,” she commented.8
The Effects Could be ‘Bidirectional’
The study authors noted that there are limitations to their findings, as the specific cause-and-effect relationship is yet to be determined. It’s possible that the effect could be the other way around, and that having more proteins in the brain (and therefore better mitochondrial energy production) could be the reason why some participants report being happier and having better mood than others.
However, they noted that the effects could be bidirectional, too, and that “chronic stress exposure directly affects an individual’s mitochondrial biology and subsequently affects their perception of social events.”9 This is entirely possible; in fact, some of the researchers involved in this study also previously published an animal study10 that looked at how mitochondrial activity in different parts of the brain affected stress response.
Published in the journal Nature Communications, the researchers looked at 17 different brain areas of mice that correspond to different behaviors.11 They found that these different patterns of mitochondrial activity account for differences in behavior between individual mice and how they respond to stress.
“This study synergizes with recent work providing the technical and empirical foundation to bring mitochondrial biology into brain-wide, network-based models of neural systems in mammals … Developing a spatially resolved understanding of brain mitochondrial biology will help to resolve the energetic constraints on brain function and behavior,” they said.12
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Your Brain Can Raise Your Risk of Mental Problems
Although the cause-and-effect factor is still not confirmed, one thing is certain — there is a definite link between your mitochondrial health and stress. According to Trumpff, their findings give valuable insight into why chronic psychological stress and bad experiences can be harmful for the brain, saying, “They damage or impair mitochondrial energy transformation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC], the part of the brain responsible for high-level cognitive tasks.”13
Previous studies showed similar results; for example, a 2022 review published in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews14 found that chronic stress can lead to poor mitochondrial function and can be a risk factor for various psychiatric and mood disorders, including anxiety, depression, autism and schizophrenia.
According to the researchers, being in a state of constant stress can cause “mitochondrial allostatic overload” — this refers to the functional and structural changes that your mitochondria experience, which then leads to “oxidative stress, inflammation, mitochondrial DNA damage and apoptosis.”15
They then highlighted evidence linking mitochondrial dysfunction to mental health issues. For example, in patients with major depression, neuroimaging studies found a reduced energy metabolism in brain areas, including the prefrontal cortex, insula and basal ganglia.
“The evidence presented here suggests that alterations in mitochondrial function do impact on cognitive processes and may be causative linked to the onset of psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, stress-related disorders as well as social interaction deficits in the domain of autism and antisocial personality disorder.
Understanding the connections between mitochondria and cognitive functions could pave the way to next generation approaches targeting mitochondria to alleviate neuropsychiatric conditions, aging and cognitive decline in general,” they concluded.
Escaping the Stress Cycle Is Key to Optimal Mitochondrial Function
Stress is a “silent killer.”16 Being constantly exposed to it weakens your immune system, increasing your risk of numerous health issues like heart disease, obesity and cancer.17 In a 2022 survey by the American Psychological Association (APA), 34% of U.S. adults report feeling overwhelmed by stress brought on by multiple factors, such as work, relationships, health issues and financial concerns.18
These studies give better insight as to why stress is so detrimental to your health, as it hinders proper mitochondrial function and affects your cellular energy production. If your mitochondria are not functioning well, no doubt your risk for chronic degenerative diseases will radically increase.
Furthermore, since your brain is the most energy-dependent organ, it becomes particularly susceptible to impaired energy production due to faulty mitochondria. And when cellular energy production decreases, you have less energy overall, including for brain processing. Since your brain regulates your mental state, it can also affect your emotional well-being.
I recently wrote an article about the stress cycle and how you can break free to improve both your physical and mental health. There are three phases to this cycle:
1. Alarm phase — This is your body’s immediate reaction to a perceived threat.
2. Resistance phase — This is your body’s attempt to return to a state of balance, either by resisting or adapting to the stressors.
3. Exhaustion phase — Your body experiences reactions to the stress, including decreased immunity and fatigue. You may also become more likely to experience illnesses, due to stress hormones and cortisol taking their toll on your body.
Manage Chronic Stress with These Strategies
Everyone will experience stress in their lives — it is unavoidable. What isn’t advisable, however, is chronic and prolonged stress, as it can be highly damaging to your well-being. The good news is there are healthy and proactive strategies that can help you manage stress to keep it from wreaking havoc on your physical and emotional well-being:
Get regular exercise — Being physically active can positively contribute to your physical and emotional equilibrium, mainly because it improves your mood and helps lower cortisol levels, which is your body’s primary stress hormone. According to a 2022 study:19
“Regular physical activity has a positive effect on the central nervous system (CNS) functions, contributes to an improvement in mood and of cognitive abilities (including memory and learning), and is correlated with an increase in the expression of the neurotrophic factors and markers of synaptic plasticity as well as a reduction in the inflammatory factors.”
Being physically active can also promote longevity and reduce the risk of stress-related health complications.20 One of the best low-impact, moderate-intensity exercise you can do is walking outdoors in bright sunlight, which can multiply the benefits, as you also get to optimize your vitamin D levels.
Consume healthy, clean carbs — Your diet plays a significant role in your chronically elevated cortisol levels, and one primary reason is you may not be getting enough healthy carbs.
I’ve been following the work of the late Ray Peat, and one of the foundational health concepts that I’ve radically revised my thinking on as a result is the idea that eating a low-carb diet long-term is the best way to optimize your metabolic and mitochondrial health. It’s not. Your body needs carbohydrates for optimal function.
Your body breaks down carbs into glucose. If you don’t have enough glucose in your bloodstream, your body makes up for it by secreting cortisol. The cortisol breaks down your bones, lean muscles and brain to produce amino acids that are converted by your liver into glucose (gluconeogenesis).
However, elevated cortisol levels can increase inflammation and impair your immune function. As long as you’re metabolically flexible, consuming more carbs will help lower cortisol. But don’t be confused — don’t choose refined sugars and carbs from processed foods. Instead, go for healthy carbs like white rice and ripe fruits.
In addition, I recommend avoiding seed oils, which are loaded with linoleic acid (LA), the most destructive ingredient in our modern-day diet. LA is far worse than refined sugar and is highly pernicious to your health because it prevents your mitochondria from working properly, causing oxidation, inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction. I recommend reading my article on LA to discover why it is so damaging.
Stay creative and start new hobbies — Engage in activities and hobbies that not only encourage creative thinking, but also provide mental diversions to help rejuvenate your mind and body.21
Painting, writing or even learning how to play a musical instrument can all provide therapeutic benefits by stimulating your brain’s creativity centers and reducing stress hormones. They also increase your feelings of happiness and satisfaction.
Incorporate self-soothing techniques — If you’re dealing with difficult, heavy emotions, self-soothing techniques like meditation may help curb the intensity of stress responses. Practicing controlled nasal breathing slows down your heart rate and lowers blood pressure, activating your body’s relaxation response. To help you build better breathing habits, check out my interview with Dr. Peter Litchfield.
Autogenics is another self-soothing technique, and it involves a series of exercises in which you focus on sensations of warmth and heaviness in different parts of your body to induce a sense of deep relaxation. Developed by German psychiatrist Johannes Heinrich Schultz in the early 20th century, it’s based on the principle that physical relaxation can lead to mental calmness.22
Even crying may help soothe you, as it provides an outlet for pent-up emotions and stress. According to a randomized controlled trial published in the journal Emotions:23
“Crying may assist in generally maintaining biological homeostasis, perhaps consciously through self-soothing via purposeful breathing and unconsciously through regulation of heart rate.”
Optimize your sleep — Getting sufficient, high-quality sleep not only allows you to rest, but also helps repair and rejuvenate your mind and body, enhancing cognitive function and improving mood. It makes you more resilient toward stress.
Make sure you establish a regular sleep schedule and create a conducive sleep environment so you can maximize the benefits of sleep. Exposure to bright light during daytime and complete darkness at night is also essential, as it helps boost your melatonin production.
Practice positive thinking and laughter — Maintaining a hopeful and optimistic outlook encourages your brain to produce stress-busting chemicals. Some of the best activities include mindfulness, spending time in nature and journaling.
I also encourage you to make it a habit to laugh and smile more. Laughter triggers the release of endorphins, your body’s natural stress-relievers, making it a potent antidote to stress.
Rewire Your Brain for Happiness
Being in a state of chronic stress is like living with a dark cloud hanging above you. It casts a gloomy shadow over every aspect of your life. It strains your relationships, messes up with your decision-making skills and ultimately puts your physical and mental well-being in jeopardy. That is why instead of always giving in to stress or stressful situations, I advise you to try the strategies above to rewire your brain for happiness and cultivate more Joy in your life.
One of the key lessons from my upcoming book, “The Power of Choice,” is that life is about creating Joy. I believe there is an important distinction between Joy and happiness. While happiness can be passive, Joy is active — it’s a verb representing the ultimate pursuit and realization of life’s purpose.
You hold the ultimate authority over the experiences you encounter, as they are entirely shaped by your individual choices. If your life lacks fulfillment, then it could be your true Self telling you to make different choices that could steer you toward a more satisfying existence.
I intentionally capitalize “Self” and “Joy” to indicate their deeper, transcendent nature. Self represents unlimited, immortal consciousness, while Joy denotes a profound state of contentment that emanates from within yourself.
Choosing to rewire your brain for happiness can be considered an act of Joy because it reflects an active engagement with life, a pursuit of meaning and a commitment to personal growth. It involves making conscious decisions and taking intentional actions that ultimately lead to happiness and a more fulfilling, satisfying existence.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Family searches for answers after 12-year-old suffers heart attack, baffling doctors
By Steve Mehling and Gray News staff, KTTC, August 29, 2024
A Tennessee family says doctors have no idea why their son, who they say was in great health and active, had a heart attack at age 12 that left him hospitalized with extensive brain damage.
Sammy Silverman, now 13, should be starting the eighth grade at Blackman Middle School in Murfreesboro. Instead for the past six weeks, he and his parents, Adam and Janette Silverman, have been at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital in Nashville, WSMV reports.
Sammy’s parents say doctors still don’t know why their son, who they say was in great health and active, had a heart attack at age 12.
“You never think, ‘Hey, that’s going to happen to my kid,’” Janette Silverman said. “Then, it does.”
“Doctors are as puzzled as the parents are”. I bet they are.
.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
In this interview, Antoine SOMDAH, former ambassador of Burkina Faso to the Russian Federation, an expert in international law and nuclear law, and a member of the United Nations Security Council (2008 and 2009), critically assesses the importance of the newly created Alliance of Sahel States (AES), its implications, the challenges and future prospects in West Africa. This marked a major geopolitical turning point in the Sahel region for the three Republics of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It also signified the final withdrawal from the regional economic organization ECOWAS.
Here are the interview excerpts.
Kester Kenn Klomegah (KKK): How would you assess the potential and performance of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) since its creation?
Antoine Somdah (AS): First of all, I would like to remind you that it was following the ineffectiveness of the security response, the weak solidarity, or even the abandonment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the face of the terrorist scourge, the irresponsible economic sanctions and especially the threat of military intervention in Niger that the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) was born. It was established on September 16, 2023 with the signing of the Liptako-Gourma Charter by the States of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, three countries historically sharing the cross-border region of West Africa and the Sahel called “Liptako-Gourma” from which the symbolic name of the Charter comes.
Strategically speaking, it is a collective defense and mutual assistance bloc aimed at countering any ECOWAS military intervention or any external threat including terrorism and with the ambition of sub-regional economic integration. This strategic choice is fueled by similarities in economic data and territorial (2,781,392 km2), demographic (71.5 million inhabitants according to 2022 data), social and cultural continuity as well as a shared history, marked by colonization, which creates a feeling of rejection of the occupying power to aspire to real sovereignty. The creation of the AES marks a major geopolitical turning point in the Sahel region. It is not only a rational response to the regional environment marked by insecurity and instability but also the common desire of the three countries to strengthen their sovereignty and coordinate their efforts in the fight against terrorism. The result of growing frustration with traditional Western partners, the AES symbolizes the quest for strategic alternatives and new allies on the international scene. Several actions have already been undertaken with meetings and draft initiatives to move the Alliance towards the Statutes of a confederation and ultimately towards a federation.
It is in this regard that, on January 28, 2024, the Alliance countries announced their withdrawal from ECOWAS. Then, on February 15, a meeting of the Alliance member countries was held in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), which laid the foundations for the creation of a confederation.
On March 6, the Alliance also announced the formation of a joint anti-terrorist force and in May it finalized the draft treaty creating the Confederation of the Alliance, with the aim of completing the draft text relating to the institutionalization and operationalization of the Alliance of Sahel States. Recently, on July 6, 2024, the first summit of the Alliance of Sahel States was held in Niamey, Niger, which saw the adoption of the Treaty establishing the Confederation of Sahel States and which also addressed issues and challenges common to the three countries, including security and defense, terrorism, as well as economic, commercial and cultural exchanges.
.
Map of the member states of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) (From the Public Domain)
.
The AES also aims to create an economic and monetary union, as well as its own currency which should be based on the natural resources of the member countries of the Confederation. It must be recognized that previously a meeting of the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the member countries of the AES held in Bamako on November 25, 2023, in order to promote economic development within the AES area, had recommended, among other things, the creation of structuring projects in the fields of energy, infrastructure, transport and food security. It had also recommended the creation of a stabilization fund and an investment bank. The meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs held following the latter, on November 30 and December 1, 2023 in the same city, had recommended to the Heads of Member States the creation of a confederation.
KKK: What are the political and economic implications of the withdrawal of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)?
AS: Quite naturally, the withdrawal of the AES countries from ECOWAS necessarily has immediate political and economic implications for not only the AES itself but also for all other ECOWAS countries in terms of mobility of people and goods, trade and regional sectoral policy. It is a sovereign choice made by these three countries, even if it takes a period of one year after notification for them to cease to be members of the community, in accordance with the ECOWAS Treaty of 1993.
There will also be impacts in the areas of collective security, the regional defense force and the fight against terrorism even if they have never functioned as they should. On the other hand, the leaders of the AES reaffirmed their membership in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), one of the specific institutions of ECOWAS, in order to minimize the sudden economic shock that the AES area could undergo. Moreover, this withdrawal could lead to a redefinition of economic relations in the West African region, with significant adjustments at the national, regional and extra-regional levels. It could also offer opportunities for reform and endogenous development in this area.
KKK: From what you said above, does this mean that trade and economic cooperation with neighboring states have ceased? Do you also foresee the emergence of possible conflicts between the Alliance and ECOWAS?
AS: I don’t think so! It is true that the free movement of people and goods remains a determining factor in relations, particularly trade between states and peoples, however, the states of the region have always remained interdependent, which could force the AES countries to negotiate bilateral agreements with certain states with which they have very strong economic and friendly ties, but also with those with economic resilience or with states or organizations that share common interests and challenges outside the West African region. Also, with a view to creating its common currency, the AES should consider, in the medium term, its withdrawal from UEMOA to stimulate its endogenous economic development.
.
Alliance of Sahel States (red) (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
.
Moreover, it is not excluded that other countries in the region will be attracted by the AES federation project. In any case, it is an opportunity to start off on the right foot towards full sovereignty and free ourselves from external influence. On the emergence of possible conflicts between the Alliance and ECOWAS, I would say no, because the preservation of peace and stability in the West African region is a crucial priority and both entities are aware of this.
KKK: Do you think ECOWAS needs serious reforms in the context of current geopolitical developments?
AS: Oh yes of course! “Every cloud has a silver lining”! The current situation in ECOWAS reflects the persistent security, economic and political challenges facing the region. This situation even becomes an opportunity for ECOWAS to readjust its integration model by placing great emphasis on the creation of an ECOWAS of the people to encourage increased investment, in order to complete economic integration. Also, the need to advocate dialogue and enhanced cooperation on security with the AES and finally adapt its regional integration and cooperation policies to its changing environment.
KKK: Can you also discuss China and Russia’s current cooperation in trade, investment and security with the Alliance of Sahel States?
AS: The growing relations between China, Russia and the emerging governments of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger suggest a geopolitical reconfiguration in West Africa. But first, it must be said that China and Russia are themselves essential strategic partners. The AES Heads of State have decided to take their destiny into their own hands and move away from facade and ineffective partnerships to sincere partners such as Russia and China, but also Turkey. These partnerships with Russia, China and Turkey have enabled the AES countries to equip themselves well and effectively conduct operations against armed terrorist groups. The arrival of Turkey and Iran in the Sahel equation is part of a broader movement of diversification of international partnerships by the AES countries.
China, mainly established on the African continent thanks to large investments, seems increasingly to want to focus on the East coast where the country launched its New Silk Roads project in 2017. It is engaged in the Sahel in several areas such as agriculture, trade, security, energy and infrastructure.
Russia’s influence is also felt throughout the continent, but with a more significant presence in French-speaking Africa and the Sahel, taking advantage of the departure of all French soldiers of the Barkhane force from Malian territory in August 2022. Indeed, with nearly 3,000 soldiers engaged since 2013 in the Sahel, the French anti-jihadist force Barkhane has faced the rise of anti-French sentiment in a few years, with the Malian authorities having preferred to move closer to Russia and the help of the paramilitary troops of the Wagner Group. In September 2022, the Burkinabe authorities who had just come to power also expressed their desire to move closer to Russia despite France following the protests against the Barkhane force.
Since 2010, Russia has included the African continent in its foreign policy. Over the years, it has positioned itself as a possible alternative for African states disappointed by Western alliances, both politically and militarily, through a hybrid strategy. Russia therefore intends to provide support, as much as possible, to the Alliance of Sahel States, particularly in terms of security, training military personnel and police bodies and by developing economic cooperation.
The paramilitary group “Wagner” is present in Mali, among other places, with active military operations, participating in combat. This group is gradually being replaced by “Africa Corps” or “African Corps”. This is a new military corps that officially represents Russia on the African continent, taking over the security architecture established by Wagner under a more centralized command structure within the Russian Ministry of Defense. The first major deployment of this new military corps took place in Burkina Faso in January 2024 with 100 Russian military instructors and, since then, it has gradually taken control of operations in Mali and most recently in Niger. Turkey also offers defense and intelligence support.
KKK: What are the main economic sectors that are important for Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger? Do you consider the state of civil society, youth and the media in the development of political and economic power?
AS: I said earlier that the AES countries have similar economic challenges characterized by a strong dependence on agriculture and foreign aid, underdeveloped infrastructure, and vulnerability to external shocks such as fluctuations in commodity prices and climatic hazards. Mobility is also a crucial aspect for these landlocked countries and dependent on trade corridors through coastal states for their imports and exports.
Several development initiatives are taken in this direction to stimulate the main important economic sectors in the priority areas of agriculture, livestock, health, energy, transport and mineral resources, but also in the area of road, rail and airport infrastructure.
Mali, for example, followed by Burkina Faso with their important agricultural sector, were important contributors in terms of agricultural products in the ECOWAS region. Burkina Faso and Niger played crucial roles in the trade of goods and mineral resources such as textiles, livestock, gold and uranium. This new era for the AES countries will allow greater economic and political autonomy in order to strengthen the sovereignty of States. They will now have the opportunity to easily pursue economic policies in line with their realities and aspirations.
To the question of whether I consider the state of civil society, youth and the media to be in the construction of political and economic power, I would say that over the last two decades, the mobilization of young people has remained constant in denouncing the excesses of the powers in place and against the high cost of living. Among the components of social movements, we note in particular civil society organizations in which there are youth organizations, women’s organizations and unions with the support of social networks and the media and the internet in general. The media, in various forms, play a vital role in the fight against corruption by communicating information on the work of these organizations and by raising awareness. Freedom of expression is guaranteed at the national, continental and international levels, even if the media may sometimes be subject to restrictions. In Burkina Faso, for example, since 1998 to the present day, the demands of civil society have helped shape the management of political and economic power. Currently, the context of terrorism that the country is suffering is far from leaving civil society organizations indifferent. More than in other countries, they do not hesitate to express their support for government forces, while providing their criticisms and elements of moderation to call for action with discernment and responsibility. On February 24, 2024, the Alliance of Youth of the Sahel States held its General Assembly in Ouagadougou, in which the delegations of Mali and Niger took part to affirm the desire of young people to support the dynamics underway in the three AES countries. To do this, several activities were scheduled to discuss themes relating to the sovereignty of peoples, the promotion of the economy, culture and the inclusion of young people in decision-making. They intend, through this organization, to contribute to the achievement of the objectives pursued by the AES while promoting good collaboration between the different sections of this structure which will be created in the two other countries.
KKK: Do you see collaborations on initiatives to improve energy, science and technology also possible with external players?
AS: Absolutely! Energy, science and technology are essential to the transformation of the AES area in terms of agriculture, industry and poverty eradication. It will, therefore, be necessary to invest in these sectors while promoting innovation. In terms of energy, production is mainly thermal, but the sun is becoming one of the energy potentials increasingly exploited in the AES countries. Energy production with gas and civil nuclear power is already being considered. The diversification of strategic partners is all the more crucial with the withdrawal of the AES countries from ECOWAS. The AES countries, taken individually, are already linked by international agreements and bilateral partnerships in the field of science and technology.
At the international level, these countries already participate in the technical and scientific cooperation projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as in programs carried out within the framework of the Regional Cooperation Agreement for Africa on Research, Development and Training in the Field of Nuclear Science and Technology (AFRA) and other specialized bodies of the United Nations system. In this regard, I would like to inform you that I personally had the opportunity to actively participate with the national team responsible for laying the foundations of this technical and scientific cooperation with the IAEA from 1999 to 2007.
The STI Agenda 2026 (science, technology and innovation) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted in 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan, covers a number of urgent areas of inter-state cooperation, ranging from building a culture of science and innovation among young people to improving the employability of people, including water security, food and the environment; promoting healthy lives for all citizens and improving the quality of higher education and research, among others.
On the bilateral level, it should be noted that these countries have chosen a strategic partnership with the Russian Federation. Burkina Faso has been in partnership with Russia (Russian Agency Rosatom) since October 2023 for the construction of a nuclear power plant. On February 20, 2024, the three energy companies of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger during their meeting in Ouagadougou defined the strategies to secure the supply of electrical energy to the AES countries; this event marks the beginning of the optimization and pooling of clean energy resources by diversifying the choice of strategic partners.
KKK: Finally, what is the pathway forward in terms of democratic governance and development strategy in the three states? Are these states pursuing the principles relating to (peace and stabililty, developmentand prosperity) of the multipolar world?
AS: This question is all the more important as it deserves to be considered in depth. First of all, the AES is a confederation of states with limited capacity vis-à-vis the global system, which seeks to strengthen its autonomy to resist exploitation and reduce its dependence on this same global system dominated by Westerners, in particular the former colonial powers such as France and the international financial institutions, in a word the unipolar world order. This means that these are deep strategic issues, therefore complex. Certainly, in recent decades, economic crises, internal conflicts and the loss of confidence in traditional institutions, as well as the many failures observed in the chaotic management of certain wars in the Middle East, added to the mistakes made successively in the outbreak of the conflict in Syria and now with the provocation of that in Ukraine, and the attempts to destabilize certain African countries in order to control their wealth have weakened the capacity of Western countries to exercise a dominant influence.
While the West has long been seen as a model to follow, the rest of the world is questioning this cultural superiority and seeking to assert its own identity and voice. This is why the birth of the BRICS constitutes a more pragmatic alternative and oriented towards the multipolarity that the rest of the world aspires to, thus creating a unity of the Global South.
Obviously, the AES States are oriented towards multipolarity, which is intended to be a more inclusive and concerted approach, where different countries and regions work together to find common solutions. In any case, the AES is obliged to redefine alliances in the region and pave the way for greater influence from powers such as Russia, China and Turkey, and even other emerging BRICS countries. In this way, it will succeed in defeating terrorism and consolidating its integration to become a center of influence; diversifying its economy to become prosperous in the region, which will of course promote the strengthening of its democracy, which remains a popular democracy.
Pursuing the principles of the multipolar world, the AES countries want, in all independence, to have pragmatic win-win partnerships that advance their interests for the purposes of their development, prosperity and stability. This strategic choice made by the AES countries is in line with the new approach of the Global South in the management of global governance and undoubtedly an opportunity, finally, to rebuild a new global security architecture.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
A media conference was held in Russia during the weekend of September 14-15 as a precursor to the upcoming Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa Plus Summit to be held in October.
This gathering of journalists, editors, publishers and other media workers represented efforts to create a narrative which provides an alternative to the news reports and analyses which dominate western media outlets and their surrogates in the Global South.
The media conference was hosted by the Russian state news agency, TASS, which on September 1, celebrated its 120th anniversary. TASS and many of the other media agencies visiting Russia for the conference are presenting different views on world events than what is routinely highlighted by the corporate and governmental networks in the United States, Britain and the European Union (EU).
For example, the general thrust of the editorial positions in the capitalist and imperialist states is that the newspapers, radio and television networks in Russia are not to be trusted. The western-based media sources allege that all media outlets in Russia along with other states such as China and Iran do not have any independent views as it relates to those opinions which are ostensibly dictated by their respective governments.
Despite such assumptions by these U.S.-U.K. and EU press services, the most censured and biased reports which exist in the contemporary period emanates from the imperialist states where there are concerted attempts to justify the permanent wars of aggression and genocide as being legitimate responses to existential threats. The Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine is exclusively characterized as unwarranted attempts by Moscow to dominate Eastern Europe reminiscent of the era of the Soviet Union.
In Palestine, where over the past year more than 41,000 people have been killed in Gaza while the attacks on those living in the West Bank have accelerated, the oppressed people are typically described as “terrorists.” The Palestinians are characterized as being largely responsible for their own displacement, isolation, injuries and deaths.
The approach by the western capitalist news sources labels the resistance forces operating inside Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen as being only the proxies of the Islamic Republic of Iran which is accused of being an aspiring nuclear weapons power with the intent to eliminate the State of Israel and its backers in the West Asia and North Africa regions. These claims are utilized to provide a rationale for the ongoing imperialist and Zionist bombing operations and targeted assassinations carried out in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran.
Consequently, there are yearnings among growing numbers of people for different sources of news and political analyses in the Global South. In addition, even within the industrial capitalist states of Western Europe, the U.K and North America, more people are turning towards progressive news outlets which encompass a critical outlook towards the corporate and government-controlled media.
Leading up to the event, TASS News Agency reported on the BRICS Plus media conference noting the broad participation in the deliberations:
“The event will be attended by the heads of leading media institutions from BRICS, as well as media outlets from countries that have expressed their interest in expanding cooperation with the grouping. Panel discussions will cover the role of the BRICS media community in bolstering stability in a multipolar world, as well as technological aspects of interaction between BRICS countries in the information sphere. Among other guests, the summit will be attended by Xinhua President and Executive Chairman of the BRICS Media Forum Fu Hua General, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on International Affairs, as well as Mohammed bin Abdul Rabbo Al-Yami, Director General of the Union of News Agencies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Countries (UNA OIC).”
BRICS, which began with four countries, has now expanded to ten. Dozens of others are interested in joining the economic alliance.
At the 15th Summit held in the Republic of South Africa during August 2023, Ethiopia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Saudi Arabia were approved for membership. There was the announcement of the formation of the New Development Bank (NDB) which is led by the former President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff.
A post on the BRICS Plus website for the upcoming October 22-24 in the Russian southwest city of Kazan outlines the objectives of the Russian Federation for the summit:
“BRICS is attracting an ever-increasing number of supporters and like-minded countries that share its underlying principles, namely, sovereign equality, respect for the chosen path of development, mutual consideration of interests, openness, consensus, the aspiration to form a multipolar international order and a fair global financial and trade system, and pursuit of collective solutions to top challenges of our time. The Russian 2024 BRICS Chairmanship under the motto Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security will act precisely in this manner and focus on positive and constructive cooperation with all countries concerned.”
This formation has fueled the political insecurity of the imperialist states. BRICS countries have a combined population of 3.25 billion people, which is about 46% of the world’s population.
Economically the BRICS Plus countries represent more than a third of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). They account for 25% of global trade.
In regard to energy production, the BRICS Plus states contain 40% of the crude oil production and exports. The land mass of the BRICS Plus countries encompasses approximately 30% of the world’s surface.
FOCAC and the War Against China
This upcoming BRICS Plus Summit comes on the heels of the successful convening of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing in early September. FOCAC was formed in 2000 and has brought about greater economic and political collaboration between African Union (AU) member-states and the People’s Republic of China.
Successive U.S. administrations whether Republican or Democrat have attempted to castigate China saying its involvement in Africa represents another form of colonialism. However, China was not a participant in the Atlantic Slave Trade or the imperialist onslaught towards the continent between the 15th and 19th centuries.
China itself was a victim of British imperialism and even today its territory is divided by the U.S. and NATO efforts to use Taiwan as a territorial base for the weakening of the mainland. The legislative proposal advanced by President Joe Biden late last year during the beginning weeks of the Al-Aqsa Storm in Gaza allocated funds for the intensification of the settler-colonial war against the Palestinians and other oppressed peoples in the West Asia region; the continuation of the proxy war by Washington and NATO against the Russian Federation; a further militarization of the southern border with Mexico; and the efforts to contain China and its influence internationally.
These initiatives by Washington and Wall Street are designed to perpetuate imperialism. Yet, the failure of the U.S. and other leading capitalist states to win outright victories in their wars of conquest and exploitation is a clear indication of the shifting power dynamics on a global scale.
Pan-Africanism and Internationalism Must Result in the Decline of Imperialism
In order for the AU member-states to reach their full political and economic objectives of genuine independence, sovereignty, unification and economic development, there must be greater coordination within the continent. Several years ago, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was formed to work towards the aims of the inaugural founders of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
The OAU underwent a three-year process of transformation beginning with the Sirte Conference held in Libya under the leadership of former leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi in 1999 to the realization of the AU in 2002 in the Republic of South Africa. However, since 2002, Africa has been subjected to further economic exploitation and imperialist-militarism.
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Jr., the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established and later strengthened and enhanced by his successor President Barack Obama. Since 2011 there has been the destruction of Libya and the spreading of instability throughout the West and North Africa sub-regions of the continent.
Fortunately, anti-imperialist sentiments are growing particularly in the Sahel states within West Africa where Pan-African ideology has gained political currency through the expulsion of French and U.S. military forces and the exposure of neo-colonialism, which is facilitated through AFRICOM, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and other western-based financial institutions.
Therefore, a renewed transformation is necessary within the AU where a formal break with the western imperialist states would be indispensable. The Pan-Africanism and Internationalism of the 21st century is dependent upon the broadening alliances such as BRICS, FOCAC, the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), the Group of 77 Plus China, among others.
Eventually the decline of imperialism will pave the way towards world socialism. However, this will not come about without the intensification of the class struggle and the overthrow of the current unequal balance of economic power characterizing the relations between the international bourgeoisie and the vast majority of working and oppressive peoples.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Wall Street newspaper writes that the Ukrainian Armed Forces avoid using tanks supplied by NATO countries because they fear their destruction or capture. At the same time, the AP reports, citing US officials, that the US will lose the possibility of providing Ukraine with $5.8 billion in military aid at the end of September if Congress does not authorise the Pentagon to use funds from the PDA program.
“Tanks were once the king of the battlefield. But the proliferation of drones in Ukraine means the large, noisy vehicles can be spotted and targeted within minutes. That has seen dozens of cutting-edge Western tanks used only sparingly in the battle they were meant to shape, while others have been damaged, destroyed or captured,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
According to the newspaper, the armoured vehicles supplied to them are in the field many kilometres away from the front line, as there is a high risk of losing them in the Russian Army’s attacks.
Meanwhile, General James Rainey, who heads the US Army Futures Command and is responsible for modernisation projects, called for urgent modernisation of US armoured units.
“In the near term, we absolutely need to urgently make some adjustments to maintain the survivability of our armored formations,” Rainey told the newspaper.
In August, Military Watch magazine reported that Ukraine had lost about 20 M1A1 Abrams tanks out of 31 delivered by the US in the past six months.
“The latest loss brings the total losses of M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine close to 20, out of just 31 of the vehicles delivered, with all losses occurring within the past six months. With unconfirmed reports indicating that the Abrams was destroyed using a handheld anti-tank missile system, likely a Kornet, the destruction of the latest vehicle stands out from all other recent kills which were all achieved by drone strikes or by precision guided artillery,” the magazine revealed.
Forbes magazine reported earlier this month that Kiev lacks modern military equipment to form new brigades to replace front-line units as part of the rotation.
“In practice, these brigades are desperately short of modern weaponry. And that could become a serious problem for the Ukrainians as the new but poorly equipped brigades replace older but better equipped brigades as the latter brigades finally rotate off the line of contact—after 18 months of non-stop fighting, in some cases,” the Forbes article said.
The Kremlin, for its part, has repeatedly said that arms supplies to Ukraine prevent the achievement of a peace agreement and directly involve NATO countries in hostilities. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the US and NATO are participate in the conflict, including not only supplying weapons but also training Ukrainian military personnel on the territory of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and other countries.
However, US supplies could begin drying up since Republicans and Democrats in Congress must agree on a new budget bill before September 30. If not, the federal government could suspend work in early October, meaning there will be a shutdown.
“About $5.8 billion in presidential drawdown authority (PDA) will expire,” the report said. However, officials cited by AP expressed hope that lawmakers would extend powers to fund their programs for a year.
“Delays in passing that $61 billion for Ukraine earlier this year triggered dire battlefield conditions as Ukrainian forces ran low on munitions and Russian forces were able to make gains. Officials have blamed the monthslong deadlocked Congress for Russia’s ability to take more territory,” the report added.
Yet, even if the funding is passed and Ukraine receives a new stream of weapons, they will make little difference to the outcome of the war. The Abrams was heralded as a game-changer that would overcome the power of Russia’s T-90M tanks, but this proved to be a false dawn, just like the F-16 fighter jets and Stryker armoured vehicles, among many other weapons that have failed to stop Russian forces from capturing more territory.
Due to these weapons, including Western tanks, failing to have the expected effect against Russian forces, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on September 11 that he held talks with his Ukrainian counterparts Andrii Sybiha and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about launching long-range missiles into Russian territory. Several experts have warned that a direct clash between Russia and NATO, both of which have nuclear arsenals, would have unpredictable consequences for the world.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned NATO the very next day that Ukrainian attacks with NATO weapons on Russian territory would mean that NATO countries were at war with Russia. Direct NATO involvement, Putin stressed, changes the very essence of the conflict.
Although Ukraine launching Western long-range missiles will certainly change the nature of the war, as already stressed, it just points to the utterly desperate situation the Kiev regime finds itself in. Yet, despite this evident desperation, there are still no legitimate signs that Zelensky is prepared to begin peace negotiations with Russia.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On 6 September 2024, Russia Today (RT) published a report on how the US was sanctioning Chinese banks for receiving Yuan payments from Russia. The editor of this RT article, apparently an expert in matters of finance, must have missed something, or slipped into a western propaganda trap.
The article intimidated already in its title that the US “Finally succeeded in choking off Russia’s biggest trade lifeline”, meaning China.
Those who know some basics about Russia – China relations, understand US sanctions are not doing anything to Russia anymore – as Russia is fully dedollarized by now.
As to punishing Chinese banks for receiving payment from Russia in Yuan – that will not work either. Chinese banks are largely immune against US attempted “sanctions”, simply because the US needs them for trading with China.
If anybody knows about America’s hysteric consumerism, they know what we are talking about.
American average consumers would take to the streets, if Chinese goods, like iPhones, other electronic equipment and consumer goods would suddenly “dry up”.
Besides there are other means for transferring funds between the two countries. Russian and Chinese Central Banks have since many years SWAP Agreements. They are operated and may be expanded between the two partners without any outside interference. The Chinese banks have accounts with their central bank.
A western mind would maybe quickly respond, why does China not “sanction” back? Of course, that would be an option. China has many more leverage points to “sanction” the US than vice versa.
Chinese ethics are way above applying illegal retaliations, such as sanctioning. Sanctioning is interfering with other countries’ economic and political sovereignty – it is economic warfare. Not allowed by any measure of international law.
China’s ethics and long-term thinking are linked to an over 5000-years-old Tao principle. See this philosophical concept – “Tao 68”, called “Unite with Heaven”:
A good General doesn’t like aggression
A good warrior doesn’t know hate
If you want to conquer your enemy, don’t confront him.
Put yourself below him
This is called the power of not-fighting
This is using the ability of mankind
This is called since ancient times, to be in harmony with heaven
And it is the greatest power there is.
The West could take a lesson or two, or three – from this philosophy – and the world would be a better place, a more harmonious place, a place where Peace Talks should be possible to resolve conflicts and wars; a place where, instead of dividing to conquer, togetherness with individual sovereignty could prosper – leading to a world of common benefits for all.
China has multiple times offered her good diplomatic offices to mediate Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine. The West has rejected such offers. The West has rejected an almost signed Peace Agreement sponsored by Turkey in 2022. The West does not want Peace.
War is the economic survival of most of the West, especially the United States and soon all NATO countries. Economics based on killing must and is going to fail. A western collapse is imminent.
RT may want to take note of these details.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
In line with Global Research’s 23rd anniversary on September 9, we will be giving away a free PDF copy of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky’s book, “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”.
This special giveaway constitutes our campaign against nuclear armament, thus nuclear war.
According to Prof. Chossudovsky,
“Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.
Truth is a powerful and peaceful weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity.
Say No to Joe Biden’s $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program.
The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.
Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.
Reviews
Professor Chossudovsky’s hard-hitting and compelling book explains why and how we must immediately undertake a concerted and committed campaign to head off this impending cataclysmic demise of the human race and planet Earth. This book is required reading for everyone in the peace movement around the world. —Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War is one of the most important books currently available. The information it contains is heart rending, scary and absolutely accurate. —Helen Caldicott, Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and award-winning author.
The global anti-war movement must use this book as a counter-propaganda tool against the Military Industrial Complex’s war agenda. It should be everyone’s No. 1 priority “Must Read”. —Matthias Chang, distinguished Malaysian lawyer and author of Future Fast Forward
In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call. —Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of U.S. wars since 9-11 against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of “freedom and democracy”. —John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the 
Rethinking Srebrenica
.
.
provide evidence (based on 
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity
February 20th, 2020: At a press conference on Thursday the 
“the world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic”. The WHO had called upon countries to be “in a phase of preparedness”.
This is the new “rules-based” way of forcing an entire population into a compact of a digital straightjacket, escaping from which is almost impossible.
Governments’ choice to participate was equally blocked, as they were told it is a MUST, or else. We know what “or else” means.
developed, and how much its economy is diversified? In other words, the weight of the nation-state in the international arena is closely connected to its wealth and economic resources. We cannot forget that in practice, military power directly depends on the economic development of the actor for the very reason that economic wealth enables nation-states (and other actors in international relations) to develop large military forces, possess sophisticated weapons, pay for the mercenaries or wage costly wars (for example, the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003). Modern technology with advanced industry is as well as an expression of the economic wealth of a nation which gives political power in relation to trading and other partners. It is true particularly in those cases when national currencies are very strong and stable to the extent that other nations are using them as tools of international exchange (for instance, a petrodollar).
“A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III”. Has President Putin’s Patience Reached Its Limits?
Towards an “Oppressive Digital New World Order”. UN “World for the Future” Conference. 22-23 September 2024. Borderless “Enslavement Package”, Digital Control over 8 Billion People
Top Oncologist Raises Alarm: Every New Cancer Patient Is Under 45
Did Putin Just Issue the Most Serious Warning to Date?
It’s a “Killer” Vaccine Worldwide: Japanese researchers say side effects of COVID vaccines linked to 201 types of diseases
Russian Hypersonic Dominance Results in Hundreds of NATO Casualties in Ukraine
Another September 11th, “I Wondered Where Dick Cheney Was”. Edward Curtin
What Does the Science Say About Alcohol Consumption?
What is the Deep State? The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. Prof. Peter Dale Scott
Chemtrails and “Forever Chemicals”. Peter Koenig
Bill Gates Calls for ‘Vaccine Misinformation’ to be Censored in Real-Time by AI
French Politicians ‘Fearing’ Global Escalation. Has WWIII already Begun?
Largest BlackRock Shareholders: Who Owns the Most BLK Stock in 2024?
Biden Might Decide Today Whether or Not to Initiate WW3 Against Russia
What Happened on the Planes on September 11, 2001? The 9/11 Commission “Script” Was Fabricated
Why Is Israel Bulldozing Cemeteries in Gaza? Mike Whitney
Surviving the UN Is Exiting the UN.
Otherwise the Ways Are Charted Towards a Digital Gulag
Agenda to Depopulate the Planet Through COVID Vaccination. Revealed by Government Reports and Pfizer Documents
Japan’s Most Senior Cancer Doctor: COVID Shots Are ‘Essentially Murder’
Who is Ryan Routh? The “Ukrainian Trace” in the Trump Assassination Attempt
In this regard, the ICJ President Joan Donoghue — former Legal Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the Obama administration– is in conflict of interest. The latter indelibly raises the issue of her 
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
