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.
After 21 years working at the UN Development Programme in Gaza, Basel Nasser now faces the task of assisting his birthplace on a scale unlike anything he has ever experienced before.
Eight months into Israel‘s military offensive in the Palestinian enclave, more than 37,000 residents have been killed, nearly 85,000 injured and most of its population of more than two million displaced by strikes and a ground offensive that have destroyed more than half of its buildings.
“The numbers don’t even remotely reflect the reality,” Mr Nasser told The National before taking part in the UN emergency conference on Gaza’s humanitarian needs, hosted by Jordan at the Dead Sea on Tuesday.
As Minister of Relief Affairs in the Palestinian Authority‘s newly appointed government – a position created in light of the war in Gaza – Mr Nasser is already planning for the rehabilitation of Gaza and its people once the war ends.
Unlike previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas in the coastal strip, “virtually the entire population of Gaza will require aid” this time, he said.
He pointed out that the death toll provided by Gaza’s health authorities does not include those who have died from hunger or from the lack of proper medical care in the Strip.
Gaza’s residents have faced acute food shortages created by strict Israeli controls on the delivery of aid since the war began, with UN and aid groups warning that the territory faces the risk of famine.
There are no fully functioning hospitals after most were destroyed in raids and bombardments by the Israeli military, while the few that are still in partial service struggle with shortages of medical supplies and fuel to run their generators.
Israel dropped about 70,000 tonnes of explosives on the Gaza Strip between the start of the war on October 7 and April 24, according to the Geneva-based Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
In addition to the grim human toll, damage to infrastructure totalled more than $18.5 billion by January, according to a World Bank and UN estimate.
Mr Nasser said the Palestinian government has put together an emergency plan for Gaza which will require at least $1.13 billion in assistance over the first six months after the fighting ends, as part of a larger project for relief and recovery.
The plan includes providing food, water and cash assistance for 300,000 families, and temporary shelters and other essentials for 30,000 families, as well as treatment for the ill and injured and psychological and psychosocial support for traumatised residents.
Teachers and temporary schools will be provided to allow children to resume their education, either remotely or in person.
“The matter requires sufficient funding,” Mr Nasser said. “If every person in Gaza was fed with just $5 a day, that’s $11 million a day for the entire population.”
Unimpeded access to the territory, which has been under an Israeli blockade since Hamas seized control in 2007, will also be vital, including for machinery and materials need for reconstruction.
“The removal of rubble, which in and of itself is a mammoth task, will require intervention from private and public contractors both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and the total free movement of machinery and equipment in and out of the strip,” Mr Nasser said.
The UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, said on Monday that more than half of all buildings in Gaza had been destroyed, citing data from the UN Satellite Centre.
The task of reconstruction could take “up to 20 years”, even if funding was immediately available and with unrestricted access to the territory, said Mr Nasser.
“There is damage from the 2014 war that has not yet been repaired,” he said.
However, the question remains whether the Palestinian Authority will oversee Gaza’s postwar recovery, as both Israel and Hamas, a rival of the Fatah political faction that controls the PA, are both opposed to this.
Still, Mr Nasser takes hope from the inclusion of eight members from Gaza, including himself, in the authority’s 22-member cabinet.
“This is a strong indicator that the Palestinian Authority and the government will exert all efforts to take all the responsibilities to provide services, manage the relief, recovery and reconstruction process, and unify the Palestinian public institutions in the Gaza strip and the West Bank,” he said.
For Mr Nasser, who was trapped in Gaza for the first 40 days of the war before being allowed to leave – thanks to his Canadian passport – psychological support for Gazans will be a crucial part of the territory’s rehabilitation.
“I was traumatised after only 40 days of war – but it has now already been months. There will be a lot of work to be done on that front,” he said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Palestinian Minister of State for Relief Affairs Basel Nasser expects the reconstruction of Gaza to take up to 20 years. Nada AlTaher / The National
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.
On May 27, Israel “apologised” for the 45 Palestinian deaths resulting from its bombing raid on a “humanitarian zone” in Rafah. This backhanded apology conveyed more insult than atonement. As Israeli apologies, even insincere ones, are rare, it’s worth examining this one’s background.
The bombing occurred just two days after the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to stop its assault on Rafah, citing the dangers to civilian life and humanitarian aid delivery. The International Criminal Court prosecutor had also just declared his intent to request arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yossi Gallant on charges of war crimes committed during the assault on Gaza.
Compounding Israeli embarrassment were the decisions by Spain, Ireland and Norway to recognise the State of Palestine and supportive statements for the ICC warrant request from France and Germany. Many European countries also issued swift and firm denunciations of the Rafah attack.
Unsurprisingly, the initial Israeli response was immediate and excessive. The ICJ was called “a moral outrage”. Israeli commentators denounced the court in racist terms, noting the percentage of judges from Muslim-majority or “third world” countries. The EU countries recognising Palestine were compared to Nazis and their action termed antisemitic. The greatest torrent of abusive language came in response to the ICC request for warrants. Justice Minister Levin referred to the request as “one of the biggest moral disgraces in human history”. Netanyahu narcissistically said the charges against him were “directed against all of Israel” and “an example of the new antisemitism”. He further deflected saying:
“With what chutzpah do you dare compare Hamas…and the soldiers of the IDF who are fighting a just war that is unparalleled with a morality that is unmatched?”
Netanyahu’s foes Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid called the request “a crime of historic proportions” and “unforgivable”.
This bullying through excessive language is Israel’s traditional response to criticism, an attempt to verbally pummel critics into submission while shoring up supporters.
Then came the decision to bomb Rafah, perhaps Israel demonstrating that they were undeterred by criticism. After, Israel described the attack as using “precise munitions based on precise intelligence”. Appearing aware of the attack’s possible repercussions, Israelis seemed to test their critics’ tolerance, threading the needle of compliance with international law and bowing to US concerns about civilian casualties.
Of course, the initial bombing was not precise, with 22 deaths reported. The fires ignited by the blast ravaged an adjacent area, burning to death 45 Palestinians.
Confronted by growing international outrage, the Israelis followed their normal practice of “deny, lie, and obfuscate”. They claimed that the death toll was exaggerated and the attack precise; then said the site wasn’t in a “protected zone”, a false claim, as a few days prior they’d expanded the zone to include the area they bombed. Then they denounced Hamas targets for “hiding out” among civilians. Adding an element of confusion, they suggested that the fire might have started if the bomb blast ignited a nearby Hamas arms cache. No evidence was presented (or needed) because with that obfuscation Israel felt it had cast doubt on its responsibility, shifting the blame back to Hamas.
Failing to dampen international rage, the Israelis made a rare choice: “apologise.” They could see world opinion turning against them. Despite the Biden administration’s hesitation to condemn their crossing his ever-moving red line, they know how precarious their position is in the US. With Netanyahu hoping to address Congress and facing Democratic boycott of his remarks, action was needed.
Hence, the decision to apologise, and what a backhanded apology it was. Netanyahu announced:
“Despite our efforts not to hit them, there was a tragic mishap. We are investigating the incident.” Adding insult to injury, he continued, “For us it’s a tragedy; for Hamas it’s a strategy,”
echoing the hurtful, racist comment of former prime minister Golda Meir:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We can never forgive them for making us kill their children.”
The apology’s insincerity was demonstrated a few days later when Israel bombed another Rafah refugee encampment, killing 21 Palestinians.
As if to greenlight more such attacks, despite growing worldwide and domestic condemnation of these mass killings, the Biden administration announced it would not take any action against Israel. They are satisfied with Israel’s precautions to avoid civilian deaths and its investigation of their actions in Rafah. Netanyahu plays to an audience of one so that’s enough for the bombings to continue.
*
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.
James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
Featured image: Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Photo: Valeriano Di Domenico / WEF)
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.
Dietary protein is crucial for building and repairing body tissues, influencing everything from muscle growth to the function of enzymes and hormones
Nine essential amino acids must be obtained from the diet as your body cannot synthesize them
Animal proteins provide not only essential amino acids but also nutrients that are essential for health, such as vitamin B12, retinol and taurine, which support brain, heart, and muscle function
Adults generally need about 1 gram of protein per pound of their ideal body weight daily to support optimal muscle protein synthesis
Collagen, which makes up about 30% of your body’s protein, is essential for maintaining the strength and flexibility of tissues like skin, bones and joints, so approximately one-third of your daily protein intake should be in the form of collagen
*
Dietary protein is essential for building and repairing tissues, including muscles and organs. It’s also required for the proper functioning of enzymes, hormones, and your immune system.
Essential, Nonessential and Conditionally Essential Amino Acids
Made up of amino acids, proteins serve as the building blocks of your body. While there are hundreds of amino acids in nature, humans only use about 20 of them to make the proteins our bodies need. Those 20 proteins include:
Five of these — alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and serine — are considered nonessential amino acids because your body can make them, although you can also get them from foods.
Another six — arginine, cysteine, glutamine, glycine, proline, and tyrosine — are described as conditionally essential. This is because, while your body can make them if you’re healthy, during times of illness, stress or intense physical activity, your body’s ability to produce these amino acids may not be sufficient to meet your needs, making it necessary to get them through your diet.
There are also nine essential amino acids, which you must get from food as your body cannot make them. These include histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine. Dietary sources for these essential amino acids include meat, fish, eggs, and dairy, as well as some plant-based options like legumes.
Why You Need Protein
Muscle mass optimizes you for longevity, and dietary protein, especially animal-based protein, is essential for muscle maintenance and muscle building. The greater your muscle mass, the higher your survivability against all diseases, including cancer. Cachexia, for example — the loss of muscle mass — accounts for 20% of all cancer deaths.1
One of the reasons for this is because muscle acts as a reservoir for amino acids, which are crucial during illness when your body’s demand for them increases. Additionally, muscle regulates metabolism and is integral for glucose disposal, which helps you manage conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Your muscle also interfaces with your immune system.
The Case for Animal Protein
In terms of diet, skeletal muscle requires high-quality dietary protein, ideally animal protein, to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Skeletal muscle requires branched-chain amino acids — leucine, isoleucine and valine — which are most abundant in meat.
Unlike plant proteins, animal sources also provide nutrients like vitamin B12, retinol (vitamin A) and creatine, bioavailable iron, carnitine, and carnosine, all of which are important for muscle growth and health in general.
Animal-based protein sources also contain taurine,2 a semi-essential amino acid that is important for:
Healthy brain function3
Heart health4
Healthy muscle function5
Bile salt formation6
Antioxidant defenses7— Taurine protects your antioxidant status by neutralizing hypochlorous acid,8 diminishing the generation of superoxide by the mitochondria,9 and minimizing oxidative stress,10 including mitochondrial oxidative stress induced by toxins11
According to a 2023 study,12,13 taurine plays an important role in longevity and healthy aging. Oral supplementation with taurine increased the median healthy lifespan of mice by 10% to 12%. Taurine also helps rebuild damaged collagen fibers14 and can help ease anxiety by increasing glycine and GABA.15
Taurine is a byproduct of the sulphureous amino acids cysteine and methionine (technically a sulfonic acid), and is only found in animal foods. Examples of taurine-rich foods include seafood, organic grass fed red meat and dairy products, and organic poultry.
Finding Your Ideal Protein Intake
As a rule, protein should make up about 15% of your daily calories. More specifically, most adults need about 0.8 grams of protein per pound of ideal body weight (the weight you would ideally be, not necessarily the weight you are now), or for Europeans, approximately 1.76 grams of protein per kilo.
For example, if your ideal weight is 135 pounds, your protein requirement would be 108 grams. Divided into two meals, that would be 54 grams per meal. For reference, there’s approximately 7 grams of protein in each ounce of steak, so a 5-ounce steak would give you 35 grams of high-quality protein. For children, the average amount per meal is around 5 to 10 grams, while young adults typically can get away with 20 grams per meal.
For most normal-weight adults, 30 grams per meal is really the minimum you need to stimulate muscle protein synthesis.
Comparison with Conventional Advice
For comparison, conventional dietary advice recommends a daily intake of 1.65 to 1.76 grams of protein per pound of actual bodyweight (as opposed to ideal weight), or for Europeans, 0.75 to 0.8 grams per kilo. Using this metric, the average adult woman is said to need about 45 grams of protein per day, and men about 56 grams.16
While the gram per pound is higher, the total grams of protein recommended ends up being much lower because they’re basing it on actual weight, which in most people is primarily excess fat weight, not muscle. Basing your intake on ideal weight is more likely to bring you closer to your real needs.
Many are starting to realize that the conventional recommendation for protein may be inadequate though. As reported by The Guardian,17 this guideline is based on a studies trying to determine the minimum protein requirements needed to prevent malnutrition, which is different from the requirement to thrive:
“A new technique for establishing protein needs has been developed, catchily called the indicator amino acid oxidation method. ‘It suggests the minimum protein intake for thrive mode, not just to prevent malnutrition, is about 1g to 1.2g per kilogram of body weight per day.’
‘As a woman in my 40s,’ says [British dietitian Linia] Patel, ‘as my hormones decrease I will lose muscle mass. The 1g of protein will help me prevent that, not the 0.75g …
For bulky rugby players, the protein recommendation is ‘about 2g per kg in body weight per day, and they’re at the top of what the American College of Sports Medicine recommends’ …
[F]rom our late 70s we need a protein boost up to about 1g per kg of bodyweight, daily … [E]lderly people need a little bit more to slow the natural reduction in muscle mass. An older person who’s trying to be active might need 1.4g per kg.”
Make Sure You’re Getting Enough Collagen
Once you have calculated your overall protein requirement, make sure one-third of that is in the form of collagen. Collagen is the most common and abundant of your body’s proteins, accounting for about 30% of the total protein in your body.
One of its primary purposes is to provide structural support and strength to your tissues, such as skin, bones, tendons, ligaments, and cartilage18,19,20 by allowing them to stretch while still maintaining tissue integrity. As such, collagen is crucial for repairing soft tissue, muscle, and connective tissue.
Connective tissues include tendons, ligaments, cartilage, and fascia, which tend to get weaker and less elastic with age. Connective tissue injuries are also problematic since there’s very little blood supply in connective tissue, which slows down recovery. Other lesser-known health benefits of collagen supplementation include:
Deeper sleep due to its glycine content21
Reduced joint pain and stiffness,22 including osteoarthritis pain23
Improved gut health and digestion, thanks to the presence of glycine24
Improved blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular damage25
Improved glucose tolerance26
Reduced inflammation and oxidative damage, as glycine inhibits the consumption of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH). NADPH is used as a reductive reservoir of electrons to recharge antioxidants once they become oxidized
Collagen Is Important for Muscle Functionality
Also, while collagen does not contribute directly to muscle growth, it plays a supportive role by contributing to the overall health and functionality of muscles and connective tissues. For example, collagen:
Supports the health and strength of tendons and ligaments — By strengthening these connective tissues, collagen helps maintain the integrity and elasticity necessary for muscles to function effectively and grow.
Facilitates injury recovery — Building muscle often involves rigorous physical activity that can sometimes lead to injuries. Collagen is vital for the repair of connective tissues and can accelerate recovery from muscle injuries by promoting quicker regeneration of muscle fibers and connective tissue.
Enhances joint health — Regular strength training and muscle building can put a strain on joints. Collagen helps maintain the cartilage that cushions joints and may reduce the risk of joint deterioration and pain. Healthier joints support more consistent and intensive workouts.
Improves muscle elasticity — Collagen contributes to the elasticity and hydration of tissues. With better muscle elasticity, there is a lower risk of injuries during workouts, allowing for more effective muscle engagement and growth over time.
Aids in muscle contraction — Collagen contains several amino acids, such as glycine and proline, which are important for the synthesis of creatine in the body. Creatine is a compound that provides energy for muscle contractions and is often supplemented to increase muscle mass and improve exercise performance.
Why Red Meat Cannot Provide All the Protein You Need
The primary amino acids in collagen — glycine, proline and hydroxyproline — make up the matrix of connective tissue. As you can see in the chart below, red meat contains very little of these amino acids, so eating only muscle meat will not provide enough amino acids to allow you to build strong connective tissue and maintain bone strength.
Importantly, collagen contains higher amounts of specific amino acids with anti-inflammatory and other healing properties, while red meat is higher in amino acids that promote inflammation.
Collagen also helps protect your cells against stress. During stress, cysteine and tryptophan are released in large quantities, and these amino acids have antimetabolic effects. Glycine, on the other hand, has cell-protective, antistress effects.27 As such, many degenerative and inflammatory diseases can be ameliorated by eating more gelatin and/or collagen-rich foods.
Red meat contains far higher levels of the antimetabolic amino acids cysteine and tryptophan, which you want less of if you struggle with degenerative and/or inflammatory conditions. Life extension studies have shown that tryptophan and cysteine restriction produce a greater life extension than calorie restriction, which is rather remarkable.28
Bone Broth Is an Ideal Collagen Source
Homemade beef bone broth is an ideal source of collagen, and using a pressure cooker, you can whip up bone broth in as little as two to four hours. The devil’s in the details though.
When cooking broth, you want to make sure the bones are as organic as possible, as the bones of animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) tend to be contaminated with heavy metals, which leach out during cooking.
Some bones are also better sources of collagen than others. Chicken feet and the knuckle bones (knee joint) of cows are particularly high in collagen and are therefore excellent choices for making bone broth.
Prevent Muscle Breakdown with Carbs
On a final side note, the stress hormone cortisol drains the amino acids, the protein, from your tissues, thereby decreasing bone density and muscle mass. So, while making sure you’re eating enough protein is important, you also want to eat enough healthy carbs to prevent the destruction of muscle from excess cortisol.
Consuming carbs as part of your post workout meal will decrease cortisol and allow you to recover faster. Research has shown that including carbs in your post-workout meal decreases cortisol levels by 11% (relative to the peak cortisol level measured during exercise). Meanwhile, not including carbs can increase cortisol by 105%.29
The reason for all this is because when you don’t have enough glucose to fuel the mitochondria, when you deplete your glycogen level, then stress hormones — adrenaline and cortisol — are released to trigger endogenous production of glycogen.
Those stress hormones are pathologic, and if they’re continuously released at high levels to compensate for insufficient glucose, it will accelerate disease and premature death.
According to a recent meta-analysis, a single strength workout will decrease muscle glycogen levels by 24% to 40%.30 Just three sets of 12 reps performed to muscular failure resulted in a 26.1% decrease in muscle glycogen levels.31
So, it’s important to consume healthy carbs after your workout to replenish your glycogen stores. Your muscles rebuild when you’re in a rest and digest state, not in a state of fight or flight.
*
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.
June 12th, 2024 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
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.
A new report by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) warns that a Canadian public official tasked with countering racism has demonstrated a harmful and malicious pattern of spreading misinformation against supporters of Palestine, and is calling for her to be replaced. Titled “Defaming the Pro-Palestine Movement,” the report examines the public commentary of Deborah Lyons, Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, and finds that her office has consistently spread false information to demonize Canadians protesting Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. CJPME’s report recommends that Lyons should be replaced in her position with someone able to combat antisemitism in an intersectional manner, without reproducing anti-Palestinian racism.
“It is unacceptable for a public official responsible for anti-racism work to be consistently spreading anti-Palestinian racism,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “We have no confidence in Lyons’ ability to distinguish between criticism of Israel and genuine antisemitism, as she appears to see no difference between the two. Her actions embolden hatred and incitement against young people who are rightfully protesting genocide. It is clear that she cannot continue in this public role,” added Bueckert.
On Saturday, Canada published its renewed federal anti-racism strategy without any mention of anti-Palestinian racism, thus failing to provide resources to combat the harm caused by the Special Envoy.
CJPME’s report examines the social media commentary of Special Envoy Lyons between October 2023 and March 2024 to demonstrate how she has consistently spread false claims about pro-Palestine activists, misrepresenting protests, slogans, and pro-Palestine positions as antisemitic. For example, Lyons has often falsely alleged that pro-Palestine protests targeted Jewish individuals or institutions while ignoring the organizers’ actual goals or rationale. Similarly, Lyons has misinterpreted the Arabic term “Intifada” and popular slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to paint them as inherently and exclusively antisemitic, further suggesting that these forms of speech should be prosecuted by police. Lyons has even put forward the view that Canada’s December 2023 vote for a ceasefire at the United Nations General Assembly was antisemitic, even though it reflected a mainstream political view against war.
The report also finds that a significant part of Special Envoy Lyons’s role includes collaboration with Israeli officials. CJPME believes that this collaboration is particularly problematic at a time when Israel’s genocidal actions are being investigated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and as the International Criminal Court is about to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This collaboration includes meeting with Israeli President Herzog, whose genocidal comments were referenced by the ICJ in its initial ruling, and with Israel’s far-right Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli, who leads a covert foreign influence campaign targeting Canadians with racist and anti-Muslim content.
“As Parliament investigates foreign interference and influence, it is outrageous that the Special Envoy is simultaneously collaborating with the far-right Israeli Minister who is behind a covert op targeting Palestinian- and Muslim Canadians with racist messages and disinformation. This is completely unacceptable. Canadians are rightfully concerned that the office of the Special Envoy is using public funding to defend Israel’s interests, rather than being used to combat domestic racism and white supremacy,” said Bueckert.
CJPME’s report concludes that Special Envoy Lyons’ behaviour shows a pattern of anti-Palestinian racism. Not only has Lyons consistently conflated legitimate criticism and protest of Israel’s structurally racist policies with antisemitism, but she routinely advocates for nearly all types of protest to be shut down or even prosecuted. CJPME argues that this behaviour is reproducing harm against Palestinian Canadians and their supporters, especially the racialized young people who are the most involved in pro-Palestine protests. CJPME is also troubled about Lyons’ authorship of a pending IHRA guidebook, which threatens to further conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. As CJPME’s report concludes, “An approach to anti-racism in Canada cannot prevent Palestinians and their supporters from advocating for their own rights or naming the forms of racism and oppression that they face, whether here in Canada or within territories controlled by Israel.”
“Rather than fighting antisemitism, the Special Envoy is leading a McCarthyite push to force Canadian institutions to support Israel and Zionism, while discouraging Palestinians from speaking up about their experiences of systemic racism in Israel and Canada. Her push to force institutions to adopt IHRA is a clear threat to free expression and Charter rights in Canada,” said Bueckert.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
A new problem has emerged in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: fuel theft, writes the Ukrainian portal Strana citing military personnel. However, all the cases cited by the outlet focus on low-ranking military personnel rather than where most of the corruption is being committed – by the upper echelons of the Kiev regime.
“Fuel theft has become one of the acute problems of corruption in the Armed Forces of Ukraine at almost all levels,” the Strana article says.
It is noteworthy that fuel has become a new real currency among the military. A Ukrainian official told the portal one of the schemes used. According to him, a huge amount of fuel is stolen from the country’s Army every month and is attributed to “combat operations.”
“If the unit is in the first line, fuel is delivered to the second line by refuelers. [The vehicles] are refueled, documents are handed over. The commander is obliged to account for fuel consumption in detail after rotation. But in reality, fuel consumption on the front line during a battle with the equipment is impossible to calculate accurately. This is the basis for the schemes and falsifications,” the military explained.
The Ukrainian military also said that the command is aware of the situation and is monitoring the process. As a result of these schemes, the stolen fuel becomes a bonus to the salary, concluded the soldier.
In the court registry, Strana found dozens of cases related to the theft of fuel and revealed some of them.
One of the court cases is about how a driver of a military tanker drained 1,200 litres of diesel fuel from it, which, as he later admitted in court, he planned to sell for 50 hryvnia ($1.24) per litre. Another case describes how a soldier dumped 500 litres of diesel fuel, whilst another court case describes how the senior combat medic of an air assault battalion created an entire group that specialised in fraud.
In all the cases cited by Strana, it only concerned lower ranking military personnel, meaning that the true scope of corruption is much larger since the main perpetrators are high-ranking officials, who are expanding their real estate portfolio, including Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky. The situation is so out of control that the US, hardly itself a bastion of transparency and honesty, is directly intervening to stop, or at least try limit the amount of corruption.
Brent Neiman, deputy undersecretary for international finance who returned from a visit to Ukraine earlier this month, said in a speech that Kiev needs to “reduce the likelihood for conflicts of interest and corruption.” This is especially important for the Biden administration in the lead up to the US Presidential elections in November since Ukraine has received hundreds of billions in financial support from the US and other Western countries.
“To this end, budget assistance from the United States, Europe, and the International Financial Institutions is designed to help support Ukraine in undertaking a number of priority reforms,” Neiman added.
Zelensky was initially elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2019, but instead the former comedian has now placed himself at the top of the corruption pyramid. To distract from his own deeply entrenched involvement in corruption, Zelensky fired Ivan Bakanov, former head of the State Security Service, in July 2022, as proof of their efforts to crack down on graft, as well as other top officials, including Agriculture Minister Mykola Solsky, who recently forced to resign after being implicated in a corruption case, and Ilya Vityuk, a high-ranking official in the SBU intelligence service, who was sacked on May 1.
The West has poured hundreds of billions into Ukraine even though the country is considered one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. The reality of Ukraine’s deeply entrenched corruption has always been known by the West, but there was a naïve belief that the war would somehow magically end the issue, rather than viewing it for what it actually was, a grand opportunity to siphon even more money out of the economy and military and into private hands.
With the European Parliamentary elections over and now global attention shifting to the upcoming US presidential elections, undoubtedly the billions of dollars Washington has sent to Ukraine, which the Council on Foreign Relations believes is $175 billion, will become a major talking point and one that former President Donald Trump will use to attack President Joe Biden and his reckless policies on Ukraine since much of that money was wasted on a futile war effort or was unaccounted for. For this reason, Washington is desperately trying to push Zelensky into cracking down on all corruption, but this will not be achieved since the Ukrainian president himself is deeply involved.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
On Monday, Hezbollah announced it shot down an Israeli Drone, the Hermes 900, over southern Lebanon. The Lebanese resistance group used air defense weapons to down the drone which fell in the vicinity of al-Rehan mountain in Jezzine District.
Hezbollah poses the largest military threat to Israel, according to Israeli and regional security experts.
In 2006, Hezbollah successfully defended an all-out assault by Israel and has only grown stronger since then by greatly expanding their weapons and technologies.
Hezbollah has said the day fighting in Gaza stops will be the day fighting in southern Lebanon will stop, referring to a possible ceasefire.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse has interviewed Khalil Harb, a freelance Beirut-based journalist, former managing editor of the Lebanese daily Al-Safir, and has worked for the Associated Press and the Lebanese An-Nahar newspaper.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Israeli officials are threatening Lebanon that this summer is going to be a hot summer, and they mean war. In your opinion, can the Israeli military handle a war with Lebanon, and with the current war in Gaza?
Khalil Harb (KH): It is no secret that Israel has a huge military arsenal and exceptional destructive capacity, thanks to the continuous Western support for it for more than 70 years. Regarding the ability to launch a major strike on Lebanon, this possibility is not excluded, but it is important to point out that the ability to launch a major strike does not necessarily mean having the ability to wage a major war. Israel is literally caught in a quagmire in Gaza, and it is difficult to imagine that it can wage a war on a new front, a larger front, a front more dangerous than Gaza. As time passes, the resistance in Lebanon reveals a new qualitative weapon. In the past few days, it revealed its use, for the first time ever, of surface-to-air missiles on Israeli warplanes that were violating the skies of Lebanon.
Elbit Hermes 900 & Elbit Hermes 450 UAVs in formation (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
It is true that several advanced Israeli drones were shot down in the past months, including the Hermes 450 and Hermes 900, but this is the first time that the “Islamic Resistance in Lebanon” has announced the firing of surface-to-air missiles at Israeli aircraft, which means that a new page has been opened in the confrontation, after Israel was distinguished by its overwhelming superiority over Lebanon (and all its opponents) with its air force.
Until now, the resistance in Lebanon is still committed to the geographical extent of its military response within the Israeli entity, which does not exceed 15 kilometers. It is not clear whether a comprehensive war will break out, but what is certain is that the resistance has the necessary missile capabilities to inflict significant damage on the Israeli interior in what is known as the “Gush Dan” area, which is considered the economic and financial nerve and human concentration. The question is: Is Israel willing to risk such possibilities?
SS: Lebanon is going through a massive economic crisis, which could be helped by a regional peace agreement. If there was a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, such as the two-state solution, would Lebanon be included?
KH: I am not a supporter of those who say that “peace” with Israel brings economic prosperity. If the question means the economic gains that Lebanon could reap from a peace settlement like this, then I prefer to describe them as crumbs of benefits. The repeated American promises to Lebanon to obtain electricity through arranging cooperation with Egypt and Jordan in this context have been heard by the Lebanese for years… that is, before October 7, 2023, and Washington has been obstructing for years any cooperation in the field of energy with China, Iran and others. Keeping the Lebanese people in need, and shortages in the field of electricity allows officials of successive American administrations to make empty promises like these, or to portray them as if they were great gains that would come from the promised peace.
SS: The European Union and the United States are putting massive pressure on Lebanon over the Syrian refugees. In your opinion, how will Lebanon solve this problem, and will it affect the political crisis in Lebanon?
KH: The best, easiest and logical way to address the issue of displaced Syrians in Lebanon is through direct communication and coordination between the governments of Beirut and Damascus. There is no alternative to that. They are the two countries directly concerned with this issue, which is turning into an internal crisis in Lebanon and raising tensions. But the problem is that Washington and some European Union countries want two things: first, to try to keep Damascus isolated and prevent communication and cooperation with it in its geographical surroundings, and second, to continue exploiting the card of the displaced Syrians to weaken and aggravate the internal situation in Lebanon, but without causing it to explode, and also to keep Syria and its regime in the appearance of a unsecure and unstable state, thus obstructing the return of the displaced to their homeland.
SS: Lebanon has been without a president for over two years. In your opinion, what will it take for they various Lebanese political parties to elect a president, and what is the role of the West in this process?
KH: From afar, the best way to resolve the issue of the vacuum in the presidency in Lebanon is to prevent the American “conditions” and some Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, from imposing them on Lebanon to determine the criteria for the new president. The fear of some Lebanese leaders of angering the Americans and Saudis, who enjoy humiliating influence in Lebanon, by reaching a settlement on the issue of the presidency, prevents progress on this issue. The pretext is always the “Iranian scarecrow.” Some in Washington, Riyadh, and Beirut are betting on a president who will be hostile to Hezbollah, or perhaps less friendly with the party.
SS: There is increasing pressure on the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah internationally, and domestically, because of their operations against the Israelis. What is your take on the situation on the ground, and what might happen later?
KH: As long as Israel wages its war in this way against Gaza and against the Palestinians in general, the front on which Hezbollah is fighting will not calm down. This is at least what the party says in whispers and in public. Hezbollah is convinced that Israel’s victory in the Gaza war means that the entire region will enter a more dangerous and bloody phase. This party considers that its entry into this battle to relieve pressure on Gaza as much as is available, is practically a defense of Lebanon itself. This conviction has not changed in 8 months, and I do not imagine it will change soon.
With the reckless lunatic Netanyahu in power in Israel, there is no hope of either goodness or peace. As for the internal situation in Lebanon, Hezbollah realizes, as many do, that no resistance throughout history has enjoyed popular consensus around it. Look at how there was division in some European societies even in the face of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Through the experiences of Hezbollah and the resistance factions before it in Lebanon, the Lebanese were never united around the resistance. Hezbollah also realizes this, and therefore, I believe, there is no choice for Lebanon.
The theory of “Swiss neutrality” does not hold true here, and is not applicable. We are next to the last dangerous occupying state in the world, ruled by extremists who want to “exterminate” the Palestinians and Arabs in general and view them with clear racism. Watch their political and ideological discourse in the words of their senior officials, theoreticians and religious leaders.
The dilemma facing Israel now, in my opinion, is that it realizes that igniting a major war in the region means that it will be the Hundred Years War.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
After the assassination attempt on Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico, authors at InfoBRICS (myself included) argued that this certainly wasn’t a “lone gunman” type of thing, but something far more sinister and (geo)political. Expectedly, such hypotheses were immediately rejected as supposed “conspiracy theories” and nearly all Western social media platforms would “fact-check” these views into oblivion, resulting in “negative points” (i.e. banning and shadow banning) for anyone who “dared” promoting them. And yet, soon after the EU/NATO-sponsored assassination attempt on PM Fico, the troubled bloc’s Enlargement Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi called Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze to tell him, in no uncertain terms, that he’s next if Tbilisi doesn’t change its anticolonial stance. I wonder how Facebook and the likes will “fact-check” that.
And yet, if you thought this was bad, just wait ’till you hear about the most recent threats that are now appearing in various outlets of the mainstream propaganda machine. But before we delve deeper into this, I’d like to remind our respected readers of a very similar “fact-checking” that happened back in late March, when another NATO-sponsored act of terror took place. Namely, we all remember the monstrous Crocus City Hall massacre, when hundreds of Russian civilians were ruthlessly murdered by Islamic radicals. However, soon after the terrorist attack, I argued that, even if we don’t take the abhorrent glee of the Neo-Nazi junta into account, evidence suggested its involvement was virtually guaranteed. And once again, this view was also exposed to endless “fact-checking”. This is where we get to the latest threats to Russia, yet another smoking gun of who was behind the Crocus City Hall massacre.
Namely, the Daily Express is now reporting that the Kiev regime could “launch terror campaign, bombing schools if Russia wins the war”. Quoting an “expert”, the British tabloid says that “Ukraine’s plan is more terrifying for Vladimir Putin than a conventional war because he could lose power very quickly in Russia”. The very first thing any sensible reader would notice is that the word “terror campaign” is thrown quite casually, as if it were the most “normal thing ever”. Then this plan is presented as “terrifying for Vladimir Putin”, as he could “lose power”. In other words, the Daily Express wants us to just forget about the fact that bombing schools and murdering civilians (in this case schoolchildren, obviously) is a monstrous act of terrorism that cannot possibly be justified by anything and focus entirely on deposing “evil” Putin. Who in their right mind would even think to “rationalize” such disturbing views?
However, that’s precisely what the infamous British tabloid is effectively trying to do. The “expert” it interviewed, Nicholas Drummond, says that “Ukraine is planning terrorist activity which would see Russian schools and other civilian infrastructure targeted”.
The Daily Express also tried justifying this by using the mainstream propaganda machine’s usual trope about Russia supposedly “targeting Ukraine’s residential areas consistently in the war”, while “Ukraine has been limited to striking Russian territory close to the border”, with “Belgorod, a city just 25 miles from the border, has seen the most Ukrainian attacks in the last year”. Obviously, the British tabloid is completely ignoring the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta has been murdering the people of Donbass for over a decade at this point and that its forces are now also targeting even the areas they lost in the initial stages of the special military operation (SMO).
“But Ukraine is planning much more damaging attacks. Ukrainians could launch terrorist activity in Russia, including the bombing of schools. I think any strikes will be restricted to the border regions because strikes deep into Russia would be a big escalation. Ukraine will want to conduct terrorist activity in Russia… if Russia wins in Ukraine or is given any kind of victory, I think Ukraine will conduct a counterinsurgency campaign inside Russia, and that would be much more devastating than anything we have seen on the frontlines. It will be really unpleasant. The terrorist activity would include bombing schools, bombing infrastructure… that would begin in earnest if any peace deal was imposed on Zelensky”, Drummond told the Daily Express, adding: “They are absolutely planning these kinds of attacks now. No question. I think this is more terrifying for Putin than a conventional war, because if Ukrainians unleash this terror campaign in Russia, he will lose power very quickly because people will say ‘you are not doing enough to stop it’.”
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The results of the EU elections are causing despair among liberal activists around the world. Irresponsibly, some biased analysts claim that Europe is becoming “fascist” or “going far right”, without taking into account that it is precisely the nationalist and conservative parties that are showing an alternative to the European wave of Nazi-backing in Ukraine.
Millions of Europeans recently voted in their parliamentary elections. Preliminary results show a huge growth of conservative and nationalist right-wing groups. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party received more than 30% of the vote, while Macron’s party got 15% only – which led the president to act dictatorially in response to the result, dissolving the National Assembly.
Similarly, in Germany, Scholz’s Social Democratic Party received only 14%, while the AfD reached around 15% and the CDU-CSU coalition, which is also right-wing, reached about 30%. According to liberal analysts, the rise of the European right is a symptom of “fascism”. With biased opinions, liberal experts claim that there is a far-right phenomenon in Europe, threatening democracy across the continent. However, the explanation for the results may be different.
Right-wing parties almost always show a more “patriotic” stance and concern for national interests. This aspect often makes them critical of real problems currently affecting all of Europe, such as mass immigration and the economic and energy crisis resulting from sanctions. Some of these right-wing parties, such as Germany’s AfD, also show an interesting geopolitical understanding, advocating for an end to military support for Ukraine and for European neutrality in the conflict, as well as resuming relations with Russia.
In practice, rather than a “fascist wave”, the Europeans’ choice for the right seems to indicate a real reaction to fascism – which has been growing stronger in Europe for a long time. In their Russophobic madness and subservience to the US and NATO, European states agreed to participate in a plan to promote neo-Nazism in Ukraine, the consequences of which have reached unacceptable levels. Currently, Europe is in a serious economic and energy crisis, undergoing an advanced process of deindustrialization, just because the EU decided to adhere to irrational sanctions imposed by the US against Russia. Obviously, ordinary people do not want to participate in this madness and so they react in the only way they can: by voting in opposition to the governments.
Strange as it may seem, the self-proclaimed “liberal” and “democratic” parties are the political groups that are currently most fomenting fascism in Europe. These parties have fully embraced the pro-NATO establishment, while maintaining a stance in favor of the EU’s full alignment with the US. The result is the reactive growth of Euroskepticism and the adoption of the conservative right as a political alternative.
In fact, conservatism itself is an important point to emphasize. The US and NATO control not only EU’s politics, but also its culture. Currently, liberal, democratic and left-wing parties in the EU are fully aligned with the American cultural agenda – the so-called “woke agenda”. Topics such as LGBT, queer and others have become central to the hegemonic parties in Europe, which obviously causes outrage among ordinary people with a conservative mindset. In practice, traditional values have become an important political key to the growth of the right in Europe.
It is not difficult to understand what ordinary Europeans want. Their intentions can be summed up in a mix of social justice and traditional values. Ordinary people do not care about what is happening in Ukraine – they just want to have enough energy and food to live well, without financial difficulties. In the same vein, European workers want a reform of the migration policy, since the native workforce of the continent is being massively replaced by cheap, sometimes semi-slave, labor of immigrants and refugees.
It is also necessary to remember the situation in rural areas. Since last year, almost all of Europe has been experiencing a serious wave of protests due to the EU’s irresponsible policy of importing Ukrainian grains. In order to “help” the Kiev neo-Nazi regime, European countries have been buying cheap Ukrainian agricultural products, leading the native European farmers out of business. Of course, as a reaction, peasants tend to vote for opposition parties, which often criticize the support for Ukraine and the similarly unpopular “green agendas”.
In the end, the rise of the right in Europe must be seen in light of the crisis in the EU establishment. The hegemonic parties have irrationally decided to adhere to NATO’s plans, going so far as to foment Nazism in Ukraine and participate almost directly in a war against Russia. The turn of ordinary people to the right is not a popular embrace of extremism, but a reaction to NATO fascism.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
U.S. efforts to dismember Russia appear to have utterly failed. Economic sanctions, price caps, the protracted war on Russia’s border and tens of billions of dollars, along with hundreds of U.S. and other NATO member troops sent as trainers, plus mercenary contractors can’t hold the corrupt Ukrainian military machine together.
As Russia sees its window to Europe walled up, the country has been turning eastwards. The press conference took place on the margins of the Saint-Petersburg Economic Forum, a major event that used to attract scores of world leaders, including those of Finland, France, Germany and Japan, as well as UN Secretaries Generals and Presidents of the European Commission.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is planning to install a permanent special envoy to Kyiv as a new envoy post. This has to do with “institutionalizing” some of “the bilateral support that has flowed to Ukraine”, says US ambassador to Kyiv, Julianne Smith. At the same time, last week, Biden made it (again) abundantly clear that Ukraine is not to become a NATO member.
During the previous years, and more specifically the last few months, the intensity of a putrid smell of war has increased to the point where apocalypse could be just around the corner. More and more talks of war, a fear-mongering discourse, the projection of a hot (nuclear) WWIII – hitting Central Europe the third time in just over hundred years, is dominating the mainstream and even non-mainstream media.
The 500 million souls left on Earth following the great depopulation will not only be easily controlled, according to Gates, they will also yearn for the level of control that the elites can currently only dream about. With total control of the food supply, farm land, seed banks, and genetically modified soil microbes, Gates has positioned himself to carry out a false flag worse than 9/11.
According to the Daily Mail, the Sydney hospital treating Dazelle said, her lack of a Covid vaccination was a factor in her not being put on the lung transplant waiting list. A hospital spokesperson told the Daily Mail, their ‘policies and guidelines wouldn’t support transplantation’ of an unvaccinated person.
It can’t be ruled out that Zelensky might task one of his pilots with carrying out a mission directly from NATO territory without first stopping at a Kiev-controlled airfield in order to provoke Russia into striking the base from which it departed in self-defense.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The EU elections over June 6 to June 9 have presented a chaotically merry picture, certainly for those on the right of politics. Not that the right in question is reliably homogeneous in any sense, nor hoping for a single theme of triumph. A closer look at the gains made by the conservative side of politics, along with its saltier reactionary wings, suggests difficulty and disagreement.
In any case, papers such as The Economist were hopelessly pessimistic about the post-Eden fall, which may suggest that democracy, in all its unpredictable nastiness, is working. The lingering nature of the Ukraine War, the obstinate, enduring presences of such nationalists as Marine Le Pen in France and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, all pointing to “a period of political rudderlessness”. In truth, the rudders are being replaced.
In France, Le Pen has managed to point the gun of discontent at the centre of bureaucratic control and (hideous word) governance. The two prominent targets: President Emmanuel Macron and Paris. She has been aided by the fact that Macron has been inclined to pack key positions in government with loyal, reliable Parisians. Last February, François Bayrou, an early Macron enthusiast and Justice Minister, found it hard to accept that 11 of the 15 important ministers in the government were from the Paris area. This revealed a “growing lack of understanding between those in power and the French people at the grassroots level”.
On June 9, Le Pen proved had every reason to gloat, with the gains made by her party sufficiently terrifying French President Emmanuel Macron to dissolve parliament and call an election. Parties of the far-right came first in Austria, tied for top billing in the Netherlands and came in as runners-up in Germany (where Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats were savaged) and Romania.
The party of Italian Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, also did well, winning 28.9% of the country’s vote in the elections. Predicted to get 24 seats in the European Parliament, the Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) have done a shedding act on neo-fascism in favour of a smoother image, while still insisting that Europe’s identity had to be defended “from every cultural subjugation that sees Europe renounce its history to adopt that of others.” Such messaging has come with slick shallowness on social media, including such posts as those featuring “L’Italia cambia l’Europa” (“Italy changes Europe”), or the voter instruction to “scrivi Giorgia” (“write Giorgia”) on their ballot.
Meloni’s march was so significant as to compel EU Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, to become a salivating groupie for the right – of sorts. Her sharp policies on migration have drawn the approval of Meloni. Speaking at April’s Maastricht Debate, organised by POLITICO and Studio Europa Maastricht, von der Leyen openly expressed her interest in linking arms with Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).
The Italian PM has found herself to be an object of much political interest, indispensable to the chess pieces of Europe’s political manoeuvrings. Italy’s reactionary flame has become, for instance, a matter of much interest to Le Pen. To the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, Le Pen emphasised her insistence that a hard-right bloc of parties in the European Parliament could be formed, overcoming the current division between her Identity and Democracy (ID) group and that of Meloni’s ECR.
That said, any union of faux liberal types such as von der Leyen with those of the hard right of Europe is unlikely to be a fragrant one. Von der Leyen has taken heavy shots at Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (National Rally), excoriating its pro-Russian position along with those of Germany’s AfD and Poland’s Konfederacja. “They are Putin’s puppets and proxies and they are trampling on our values.” The promise to Meloni: if you want my dour, camouflaged conservatism, forget the otherreactionaries.
What was telling was that the young, having voted in 2019 for parties of the left such as the Greens, had had a change of heart. In May an Ipsos poll revealed that 34% of French voters under the age of 30 were keen to vote for the 28-year old leader of the National Rally in the European Parliamentary elections. In Germany, the 22% of Germans between 14-29 were keen to plump for Alternative for Germany (AfD), just under double from what was registered in 2023.
For Albena Azmanova of the University of Kent, this presents a curious predicament for those on the progressive side of politics (is there such a thing anymore?). Dissatisfaction that would normally be mined by progressives for political advantage is being left over to the opposite wing of politics. “The left is failing to harness that discontent, although its trademark issues – poverty and unemployment – are now more salient for voters than the far right’s flagship of ‘immigration’.”
An unanticipated phenomenon has manifested: younger voters in France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Finland folding at the ballot box for parties of the right and far right. The pendulum has well and truly swung. Europe’s right, bulked by the young, is on the march.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
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.
There has been ample coverage of a marathon press conference held by Vladimir Putin for heads of foreign and Russian press agencies earlier this month. Predictably, most attention was drawn to his answer to a British journalist as to possible use of nuclear weapons in the current tug-of-war with the West. What attracted less notice was the setting: the world’s northernmost skyscraper built on the outskirts of Saint-Petersburg by the Gazprom, Russia’s prime hydrocarbons conglomerate. Both the site and the time of the event can tell us much about the country and its evolving place in the world.
The skyscraper is named Lakhta Centre, after the former village where it is built. It was from Lakhta that a gigantic granite rock was hauled eight kilometres to the centre of the city in 1769-70 to become the pedestal of the majestic statue of Peter the Great, the city’s founder. Poet Alexander Pushkin called it the Bronze Horseman in his eponymous poem, and this is how the monument has since been referred to by locals and visitors alike.
Straight from the press conference, Putin went to visit Pushkin’s lycée as part of the celebration of the poet’s 225th birthday. During the visit, Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s former culture minister, showed his boss a 19th century map of the Russian Empire, with the Ukraine as its integral part. Medinsky, one may recall, headed the Russian delegation in peace negotiations in 2022, the process abruptly aborted by the Ukrainian side, reportedly under British and American pressure.
It is in the same poem that Pushkin coined another expression, which became a current idiom: “a window to Europe”. Indeed, Peter founded the city as an opening to European ideas, culture, science, and technology. The Bronze Horseman was conceived by Étienne Maurice Falconet, recommended to the then empress Catherine the Great, by Denis Diderot, who spearheaded the French Enlightenment. In fact, much of the city was originally built by French, Italian and Swiss architects.
The 462-meters-high skyscraper was also built by a European architect, Tony Kettle of Scotland. The tower overlooks the Gulf of Finland and symbolizes the city’s creative vocation as a window to Europe. But thousands of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 have severed most links with the rest of Europe. Nowadays, a plane trip to Helsinki, Finland, that used to take 52 minutes lasts nearly ten hours, with a transfer in Istanbul. The new iron curtain is a lot more solid than its cold war predecessor. Under Stalin, at the height of the Korean War, trains connected Russia to most European countries. Under Brezhnev, while Americans fought Soviet-equipped Vietnamese soldiers, regular flights were inaugurated between Moscow and New York.
As Russia sees its window to Europe walled up, the country has been turning eastwards. The press conference took place on the margins of the Saint-Petersburg Economic Forum, a major event that used to attract scores of world leaders, including those of Finland, France, Germany and Japan, as well as UN Secretaries Generals and Presidents of the European Commission.
This year, the forum attracted as many participants as before, over 21 000 from 139 countries, but mostly from the Global South, or the world majority. Fewer Western participants took part, as Western sanctions disrupted normal economic relations and Western governments discouraged participation. In one so far unique case, three armed uniformed Customs and Border Protection officers stopped an American en route to Istanbul and Saint-Petersburg from boarding the plane in New York and seized his passport, apparently on the order of the U.S. Department of State.
The forum in Saint-Petersburg embodies the current evolution of the world. What was initially meant as a means of punishing Russia by cutting it off from its usual partners in the West, has turned out to be a blessing in disguise. According to the World Bank, Russia’s economic growth this year is higher than in the rest of Europe. Moreover, economic dynamism can be found in the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, while its western lands, most of them members of the European Union, experience economic slowdown.
It is ironic that this pivot to the East is highlighted by an event taking place in Saint-Petersburg, a city almost as far from Russia’s eastern borders as it is from Montreal and New York. An erstwhile window to Europe has become an enticing gateway to Asia.
*
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 Pressenza.
Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université of Montréal. His publications include over 300 articles and a few books: Science between Superpowers, A Threat from Within: a Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, What is Modern Israel?, Demodernization: A Future in the Past and Judaïsme, islam et modernité. He did consulting work for, inter alia, OECD, NATO, UNESCO and the World Bank. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.yakovrabkin.ca
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Lakhta Center at night (Image by Wikipedia)
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.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is planning to install a permanent special envoy to Kyiv as a new envoy post. This has to do with “institutionalizing” some of “the bilateral support that has flowed to Ukraine”, says US ambassador to Kyiv, Julianne Smith. At the same time, last week, Biden made it (again) abundantly clear that Ukraine is not to become a NATO member.
One should keep in mind that back on 21 December 2022, during a joint press conference in Washington, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the US, Biden had already been clear enough on the limits of Washington’s willingness to be there for Ukraine. The American’s replies must have been a cold shower to his Ukrainian counterpart: when asked about sending more powerful weapons to Kyiv, Biden said that doing so “would have a prospect of breaking up NATO”, and “breaking up the EU and the rest of the world.” Moreover, according to him, his Atlantic Alliance allies were “not looking to go to war with Russia. They’re not looking for a third world war.” Then, he went on to “reassure” the Ukrainian president right next to him, by telling that “as I said, Mr. President, you don’t have to worry — we are staying with Ukraine as long as Ukraine is there”, in an unintendedly amusing remark that inadvertently almost paraphrased the famous cruel joke about Americans being willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian”.
One could perhaps add “to the last European.” It is true that the US has reportedly secretly sent long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, which has made use of them, but one should not make that much of it – according to Mark Galeotti, head of the consultancy Mayak Intelligence and honorary professor at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, this is no game-changer. The overall American attitude is increasingly one about “let the Europeans spend more, and do the fighting.” Many voices within the American establishment have indeed been calling for European troops (“not NATO”) being deployed in Ukraine – which is more than just rhetoric.
In an interview to TIME last week, Biden claimed that Washington did spend “a lot of money in Ukraine”, but, trying to downplay it, he argued “Europe has spent more money than the United States has, collectively. Europe has spent more money in taking on Russia.” According to TIME’s own fact-checking, the EU has provided Kyiv with more than $107 billion dollars in assistance (military, humanitarian, financial etc). The US congress, in comparison, has authorized Washington to send Ukraine up to $175 billion (much more than $107 billion, therefore) – however, thus far, has sent only about $81 billion, which, in any case, is already, for a single country, close enough to what the European Union has sent collectively.
In the same interview, asked about what the “endgame” for Ukraine looks like, the US President had this to say:
“Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO, it means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future. But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”
One might remember that, in December 2023, Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of Rada (the Ukrainian parliament), in a series of Telegram posts, claimed that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was pressuring European diplomats to cease any talks about Ukraine joining NATO. His allegations could not be verified, but are in line with Biden’s latest remarks on the matter.
Much has been made of former US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric point about not going to rescue European nations who fail to meet the Alliance’s defense spending duties. During a February rally, he did say “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.” Rhetoric aside, Biden has a similar attitude in terms of making clear that the American role should, to some extent, limit itself to funding and arming its allies. Such funding in any case has also become the target of much criticism domestically, amid corruption accusations.
In the same TIME interview Biden added, quite surprisingly, that
“I spent a month in Ukraine when I was a Senator and Vice President. There was significant corruption. There was a circumstance that was really difficult.”
Indeed, according to TIME, Biden has traveled six times to the Eastern European country as a Vice President, which is more than any previous President or Vice President. His out of the blue mentioning of corruption there (a true problem) is quite ironic, considering that the issue has a lot to do with him and his family personally – something which had been deemed by some a “conspiracy theory” before but, more recently, has been covered by major media outlets across the political spectrum. In fact it’s been an issue since at least 202, with scandals surrounding the American President’s special envoy to (now gone) Nord Stream 2. Biden’s supposed signs of senility have become, quite openly, a hot political issue, not to mention an embarrassment to his Democrat Party (this was even a topic touched upon during his interview with TIME itself). Those corruption remarks perhaps could be interpreted while keeping that context in mind.
To sum it up, the West’s plan for Ukraine seems to be something like: “not NATO – but kind of NATO”. I wrote before on how French President Emmanuel Macron is on record saying deploying European forces (“not NATO”) to Ukraine is a possibility. In a way, this is already a reality, as admitted by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who stated that “several NATO allies have men and women in uniform at the embassies” (in Ukraine), while claiming they are merely “giving advice.”
Stoltenberg also announced that NATO countries have air defense systems ready to be sent to the Eastern European country. He stressed NATO members have the “right” to “help” Ukraine, however, according to him, this does not make the Alliance itself a party to the conflict.
I’ve described this logic as a Schrödinger’s cat kind of reasoning: it is all about coming up with a coalition of NATO members which, however, is not NATO, somehow. In this context, installing a new NATO special envoy to Ukraine is not just a consolation prize, but adds to this ambiguous approach that is about giving it to Kyiv without giving too much (in any case giving enough to trigger Moscow national security concerns) – and of course adds to tensions, thereby increasing the risk of conflict escalation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Front lines are collapsing for the Ukrainian army, whole units surrendering. Top commanders are fired. Faced with complete disarray of the U.S.-NATO instigated war in Ukraine, U.S. militarists are doubling down.
According to the Ukrainian constitution, President Volodymir Zelensky’s term in office is over. But he remains in power by martial law. This has led Ukrainian workers to hold strikes and work stoppages. But this news is ignored in the Western media.
A national truckers’ work slowdown inside Ukraine moved traffic to a 5-mile-an hour crawl and halted grain exports based on national anger at the expanded draft mobilization made by Zelensky, now an unelected president. (yahoonews.com, May 18)
Ukraine’s combat units are so severely understaffed that the government would have to triple its mobilization in order to continue the current level of fighting, according to Eric Ciaramella, former U.S. National Intelligence Council official. The draft can’t fill the current gap, nor can even kidnapping men off the streets.
U.S. Failure on Two Fronts
U.S. efforts to dismember Russia appear to have utterly failed. Economic sanctions, price caps, the protracted war on Russia’s border and tens of billions of dollars, along with hundreds of U.S. and other NATO member troops sent as trainers, plus mercenary contractors can’t hold the corrupt Ukrainian military machine together.
At the same time, on the world stage the one strategic ally of the U.S. in Western Asia, Israel, has utterly failed in its genocidal war on Gaza. Both setbacks mean that U.S. political dominance is being challenged in fundamental ways.
U.S. strategy toward Russia aimed to partition and dismember the country, destabilize the border and block China’s Belt and Road development plans in Central Asia.
U.S. strategists considered all these steps crucial in preventing People’s China from surpassing the U.S. economically. The opposite has happened. What imperialist strategists have warned about for decades and sought to prevent is now the reality.
China and Russia’s relations of intense cooperation and a merge of common interests is unfolding steadily. This was further cemented during the very warm state meeting between China’s President Xi Jinping and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on May 16.
That means U.S.-NATO plans are in total disarray. Rather than reconsider their strategy, which has brought setbacks and defeats in Ukraine and for Israel in Gaza, this has led to an ominous escalation in U.S. military threats.
The threat to dangerously escalate the war in Ukraine arises from the plans to give Ukraine high-speed missiles and allow the Kyiv regime to use the weapons to strike inside Russia. This threat is not just from a single statement or one delivery of weapons.
The statements promoting strikes with the U.S.-supplied weapons to targets inside Russia are being made directly by President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who is a former prime minister of Norway, but acts as if he were a U.S. official.
Ukraine at Center of 75th Anniversary NATO Summit
NATO officials are frantic that Ukrainian defense lines of Kharkov, the second-largest city in Ukraine, located in the northeast of the country, are about to fall.
Kharkov is a majority Russian-speaking city. It is the industrial, energy, science, rail and transport hub. It lies east of the Dnieper River on the Donetsk-Donbass Canal. Kharkov is the key industrial center still under Ukrainian control east of the Dnieper River.
According to a May 16 New York Times article, fear of Kharkov’s imminent collapse is what is driving U.S. threats. This loss is decisive in any control of Ukraine’s east, including the entire Donbass industrial region.
Adding to the urgency is that at the 75th Anniversary NATO Summit, July 9-11 in Washington, D.C., NATO plans to unveil a “Security Package” for Ukraine involving 32 countries’ bilateral agreements with Ukraine. These bilateral agreements would serve as a bridge for Ukraine’s entry into NATO.
Ukrainian entry into NATO would allow Kyiv to invoke the alliance’s collective defense clause, potentially triggering a broader regional conflict with Russia. During an April visit to Kyiv, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg vowed that “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.” (defensenews.com, June 3)
All these elaborate plans would be dashed if Ukrainian defense lines crumbled before the NATO Summit in Washington, D.C. This 75th anniversary NATO Summit is a grand plan to showcase U.S. and Western imperialist dominance.
NATO’s Long-range Missiles Target Russia
NATO’s dangerous escalation is galloping forward on several fronts.
Stoltenberg was explicit:
“We are giving weapons to Kyiv and consider them Ukrainian from this moment, so Ukraine can do whatever it wants with these arms, in part, strike at Russian territory where it deems necessary.” (bne IntelliNews, May 31)
Previously, the United States, Germany and other NATO members had forbidden the Ukrainian military from using the weapons delivered to them to strike targets inside Russia.
In the past, the Ukrainian military command had violated NATO’s official statements and used U.S. Stinger air defense missiles, M142 HIMARS, MLRS and other multiple launch rockets to strike the Belgorod region of Russia. The Russian Army’s air defense forces destroyed more than 10 missiles in the sky over Belgorod and displayed the U.S. stamped shells.
Weeks ago, the British government allowed Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia. Now France and Germany have taken the same position as Britain. The Storm Shadow cruise missile has a range of over 180 miles, triple the range of the missiles Ukraine has used until now.
French President Emmanuel Macron further escalated the threat by stating the West must not exclude sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine.
On May 27, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, announced that he signed an agreement to allow French military instructors into the country. He urged other Western countries to join the French initiative.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that French instructors, along with other representatives of military and special services of European countries, were already functioning in Ukraine. On June 4, Lavrov went a step further and warned that French military forces in Ukraine would be a “legitimate target for Russian forces.” (AP news, June 4)
The threats and the actual attacks are escalating. On May 26, Ukrainian drones targeted a second long-range military radar site deep inside Russia, over 900 miles from the closest territory held by Kyiv’s forces. This is an early warning radar designed to detect hypersonic ballistic missiles and aircraft up to 6,200 miles away. Russia is a major nuclear power. (Reuters, May 27)
Internationally, many voices are sounding the alarm. Such attacks are of the most extreme danger, because the slightest targeting slip up, a misinterpretation of instructions, a rogue operator on the ground, could lead to a global conflagration.
These attacks require a satellite-based military network that Ukraine does not have. Only U.S. and NATO forces under U.S. command are capable of conducting such attacks against Russia.
Divisions Appear Inside NATO
Divisions within the U.S. commanded and dominated NATO military alliance are appearing. Frustration and failure are intensifying the infighting even among members of the G7 and major NATO participants.
Many NATO countries’ leaders, reacting to mass pressure from below, have already sharply expressed opposition to U.S. total support of Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestine.
Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini objected to Stoltenberg’s call for allies to lift restrictions on using Western-supplied weapons against targets in Russia. “It is out of the question to lift the ban on Kyiv to strike military targets in Russia. … We want peace, not the antechamber of World War III” (Ukrainian Pravda, May 27)
Italian Foreign Minister Antonia Tajani reinforced this position:
“We will send no Italian soldier to Ukraine, and the military tools that Italy sends are used inside Ukraine. We are working for peace.” (Italian news agency Ansa, as reported by European Pravda, May 25)
On May 28, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo told Biden during talks in Washington, D.C., that he rules out the use of Belgium’s weapons, including F-16 fighter jets, outside Ukraine. To reinforce his point, De Croo reminded the reporters that the bilateral security agreement Belgium signed with Ukraine means,
“We are sending 30 F-16s, and we will thus become the biggest supplier of fighter aircraft for the Ukrainian air force. But the agreement is very clear. It is about fighter aircraft that can be used by the Ukrainians on Ukrainian territory.” (belganewsagency.eu, May 31)
Phony ‘Peace Summit’
Zelensky’s effort to call a “Peace Summit” on June 15 and 16 in Lucerne, Switzerland, exposes Ukraine’s dwindling support. The “Peace Summit” bars Russian participation. The effort is so flimsy that not even Biden is bothering to attend.
In desperation, Zelensky has blamed China’s decision not to participate as the reason other countries are ignoring the phony event.
Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the Lucerne summit, saying, “This conference in Switzerland has no meaning. The only meaning it can have is to try to preserve this anti-Russian bloc which is in the process of crumbling.”
Silence continues to prevail in Western corporate media regarding the four negotiation offers made by President Putin in the past two weeks.
RAND Corporation: ‘Pour it on’
The Rand Corporation, a powerful think tank for the major military industries, confirms the cynical calculations that justify war profits, regardless of the danger.
U.S. escalation will push the Europeans to ante up, the Rand article said. Even more ominous: “From a narrow U.S. perspective, greater U.S. involvement is an opportunity to test new capabilities and gain experience helping a partner facing a numerically superior foe. Such experience could be very relevant for helping Taiwan resist Chinese aggression.” (Rand, May 22, defenseone.com, “How to win in Ukraine: pour it on, and don’t worry about escalation”)
Russia Warns NATO
President Putin delivered Russia’s strongest warning to date against the NATO escalation. He chose a meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, with top Uzbek officials. With 37 million people, Uzbekistan is the second most populous country of the former Soviet Union.
The Russian delegation to Tashkent included nearly half of the key Russian government ministers, heads of regions and Cabinet ministers from both Russia and Uzbekistan. It was held to move forward with joint plans of industrial cooperation, energy and infrastructure.
At a large press conference following the meetings, Putin said,
“Long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. … Final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this technical reconnaissance data. It can happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military.
“Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example,” Putin continued, “also relies on space reconnaissance data. Targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews. … The mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military. This unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell.
“Presidential election is coming soon, and the current authorities want to confirm their status as an empire. Many in the United States do not like this, do not want to be an empire and bear the imperial burden.” (For the entire news conference, seeen.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/74132)
General Ivan Timofeev, Director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), warned:
“NATO is spending ten times as much as Russia — if not more — on defense. It’s certainly a dangerous scenario.” (Tass, May 30)
This enormous expenditure is not sufficient to save the Ukrainian government, built on a U.S. orchestrated coup in 2014, from total collapse.
Rather than reassess their deteriorating global position, U.S. strategists seem determined to put the fate of the world at risk.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Citing the “principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution” that international humanitarian law demands military forces obey, the United Nations’ top human rights office on Tuesday said the raid conducted at Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces over the weekend may amount to a war crime.
The IDF conducted the operation at the camp in the central Gaza Strip in order to free four Israeli hostages who were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, and Jeremy Laurence, spokesperson for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told reporters their release was “clearly very good news.”
But the OHCHR, Laurence said, is “profoundly shocked at the impact on civilians of the Israeli forces’ operation,” which killed at least 274 Palestinians, including 64 children and 57 women, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society.
“The manner in which the raid was conducted in such a densely populated area seriously calls into question whether the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution—as set out under the laws of war—were respected by the Israeli forces,” said Laurence in a statement.
Actions by both the IDF and Hamas, he added, “may amount to war crimes.”
As it has since beginning its bombardment of Gaza in October in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, the IDF blamed the civilian casualties on Saturday on the militant group, saying the hundreds of deaths were the result of Hamas operating in the densely populated Nuseirat camp.
But while Laurence said the OHCHR was “deeply distressed” by Hamas’ capture of hostages and its operating in densely population areas, Rutgers Law School professor Adil Haque concurred with the office that Israel is obligated to protect civilian lives in Gaza regardless of Hamas’ conduct.
“The fact that your adversary is breaking international humanitarian law does not change your obligations,” Haque told The Washington Post. “The foreseeable harm to civilians was disproportionate to the legitimate aim of rescuing the four hostages.”
Eyewitnesses and aid groups have said the attack began in broad daylight and started after IDF soldiers entered the camp in a humanitarian aid truck. The operation was carried out with jets, drones, and tanks and included strikes in the vicinity of a maternity clinic that has been converted to a hospital to help care for people wounded in Israeli attacks since October.
Paramedic Abdel Hamid Ghorab told the Post he witnessed “random and continuous bombing in the vicinity of the hospital with unprecedented intensity.”
“All they cared about was carrying out the operation, even if it was at the expense of all these lives,” said Ghorab.
Israeli lawyer Michael Sfard told the Post that the 274 casualties “is enough to raise questions about whether the use of fire was indiscriminate,” which would be a violation of international humanitarian law.
“Was the air power used on a prospected military objective, or was it a random, indiscriminate use of bombardment in a very densely populated area?” he asked.
As the OHCHR made its statement, Writers Against the War on Gaza condemned The New York Times‘ publication of “a whitewashed puff piece on the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre,” authored by former IDF soldier Ronen Bergman, which they said was aimed at dehumanizing Palestinian civilians while including no context about potential war crimes by the IDF.
“The framing of this article, typical of New York Times coverage of the massacre, foregrounds four (alive) Israelis over hundreds of dead Palestinians, and presents the IDF as swashbuckling heroes,” the group wrote on the X account of its project, The New York War Crimes. “This prefigures the reader to accept the justification for IDF butchery.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Featured image: Palestinians survey the debris after Israeli warplanes attacked the Nuseirat camp [Ashraf Amra/Anadolu]
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.
Following the dismissal earlier this year of a federal lawsuit accusing senior Biden administration officials of failing to prevent Israel’s U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Monday began hearing an expedited appeal by Palestinian plaintiffs in the case.
Arguing that U.S. leaders “have a legal duty to prevent, and not further,” genocide, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) first filed a lawsuit last November in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland on behalf of the rights groups Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P) and al-Haq, as well as a group of individual Palestinians in Gaza and the United States.
“Genocide can never be a legitimate foreign policy choice,” CCR senior staff attorney Katie Gallagher argued during Monday’s proceedings.
The suit—which names President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin as defendants—seeks to force the U.S. administration to stop “providing further arms, money, and diplomatic support to Israel” as it wages a war of annihilation in which more than 132,000 Palestinians have been killed, maimed, or left missing; nearly 90% of Gaza’s population has been forcibly displaced; and at least hundreds of thousands of people are starving.
Palestinian American writer Laila al-Haddad, a plaintiff in the case, lost her aunt and three of her cousins to a November Israeli airstrike on a United Nations school in the Jabalia refugee camp that killed more than 30 people.
“I promised my surviving family members in Gaza that I would do everything in my power to advocate on their behalf,” al-Haddad wrote in an article published Monday by The Nation.
“Although I knew the case would be an uphill battle, I testified to make a record of Israel’s horrific slaughter of my family, the displacement and dispossession and starvation of the surviving members, the deliberate destruction of my hometown and everything that sustains life there, and ethnic cleansing of my people,” she continued.
“As a Palestinian, I struggle to balance the disgust and impotence I feel knowing that my tax dollars are being used to kill my family members in Gaza with an urgency to do everything in my power to demand an end to this administration’s complicity in genocide,” al-Haddad added.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Whiteruled on January 31 that the case fell “outside the court’s limited jurisdiction” and rejected the suit on technical grounds—even as he wrote that “the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.”
On February 27, the 9th Circuit Court granted a motion by CCR and co-counsel at Van Der Hout LLP to expedite plaintiffs’ appeal amid soaring Palestinian civilian casualties and destruction wrought by Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Last week, 9th Circuit Judge Ryan Nelsonrecused himself from the new case following pressure from plaintiffs who questioned his impartiality after he visited Israel in March with 13 other federal judges on a trip sponsored by the World Jewish Congress meant to convince U.S. jurists of the legality of Israel’s Gaza onslaught.
Genocide is defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention as killing or causing serious physical or psychological harm to members of a group, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” or “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
At least hundreds of jurists and genocide experts around the world concur that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The International Court of Justice is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel brought by South Africa and backed by more than 30 nations and regional blocs. Last month, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khansaid he is seeking to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for alleged crimes including extermination.
Numerous Israeli government leaders have expressed clear genocidal intentions and deployed dehumanizing characterizations of Palestinians, including “human animals.” At the same time, the Israeli military has bombed civilian areas and infrastructure, including by using chemical weapons, and deprived Palestinians of everything necessary for human life, including water, food, electricity, fuel, and medicine. Those statements of intent—when combined with mass killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, and the total siege and closure creating conditions of life to bring about the physical destruction of the group—reveal evidence of an unfolding crime of genocide.
The Biden administration has provided Israel with billions of dollars in military aid and arms and ammunition sales, as well as diplomatic cover in the form of United Nations Security Council vetoes and genocide denial, as its forces continue to obliterate Gaza 248 days after the Hamas-led attacks on October 7 that left more than 1,100 Israelis and foreign nationals dead—at least some of whom were killed by so-called “friendly fire“—and over 240 others taken hostage.
Click here to watch the video on X
“The U.S. courts have an opportunity in front of them: Judges can choose to take a minimal step towards allowing DCI-P and the other plaintiffs to have a chance at holding the Biden administration accountable for its role in the genocide of Palestinians, or they can sit back and refuse to carry out checks on the executive branch,” DCI-P advocacy officer Miranda Cleland wrote in an opinion piece published Friday by Middle East Eye. “It is a choice, quite literally, between life and death.”
“Israeli forces, emboldened by the so-called ironclad support of the Biden administration, have killed on average more than 60 Palestinian children every day since October 7,” she continued. “That’s more than 15,000 children who won’t go back to school, or play with their friends, or hug their parents ever again. Those 15,000 children will not grow up and live in a free Palestine.”
“If the U.S. courts continue to green-light Biden’s impunity, more Palestinian children and their families will pay the price,” Cleland added. “It is a price that I, alongside many other voters in the U.S., are not willing to accept.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Os resultados das eleições na UE estão a causar desespero entre os ativistas liberais de todo o mundo. Irresponsavelmente, alguns analistas tendenciosos afirmam que a Europa está a tornar-se “fascista” ou a “indo para a extrema-direita”, sem ter em conta que são precisamente os partidos nacionalistas e conservadores que estão a mostrar uma alternativa à onda europeia de apoio nazista na Ucrânia.
Milhões de europeus votaram recentemente nas suas eleições parlamentares. Os resultados preliminares mostram um enorme crescimento de grupos conservadores e nacionalistas de direita. Em França, o partido Reunião Nacional de Marine Le Pen recebeu mais de 30% dos votos, enquanto o partido de Macron obteve apenas 15% – o que levou o presidente a agir de forma ditatorial em resposta ao resultado, dissolvendo a Assembleia Nacional.
Da mesma forma, na Alemanha, o Partido Social Democrata de Scholz recebeu apenas 14%, enquanto a AfD atingiu cerca de 15% e a coligação CDU-CSU, que também é de direita, atingiu cerca de 30%. Segundo analistas liberais, a ascensão da direita europeia é um sintoma do “fascismo”. Com opiniões tendenciosas, os especialistas liberais afirmam que existe um fenômeno de extrema-direita na Europa, que ameaça a democracia em todo o continente. No entanto, a explicação para os resultados pode ser diferente.
Os partidos de direita mostram quase sempre uma postura mais “patriótica” e preocupação com os interesses nacionais. Este aspecto torna-os frequentemente críticos em relação aos problemas reais que afetam actualmente toda a Europa, como a imigração em massa e a crise econômica e energética resultante das sanções. Alguns destes partidos de direita, como a AfD da Alemanha, também mostram uma compreensão geopolítica interessante, defendendo o fim do apoio militar à Ucrânia e a neutralidade europeia no conflito, bem como a retomada das relações com a Rússia.
Na prática, em vez de uma “onda fascista”, a escolha dos europeus pela direita parece indicar uma reação real ao fascismo – que tem vindo a fortalecer-se na Europa há muito tempo. Na sua loucura russofóbica e subserviência aos EUA e à OTAN, os estados europeus concordaram em participar num plano para promover o neonazismo na Ucrânia, cujas consequências atingiram níveis inaceitáveis. Atualmente, a Europa está numa grave crise econômica e energética, passando por um avançado processo de desindustrialização, só porque a UE decidiu aderir às sanções irracionais impostas pelos EUA contra a Rússia. Obviamente, as pessoas comuns não querem participar nesta loucura e por isso reagem da única forma que podem: votando contra seus respectivos governos.
Por mais estranho que possa parecer, os partidos autoproclamados “liberais” e “democráticos” são os grupos políticos que mais fomentam atualmente o fascismo na Europa. Estes partidos abraçaram plenamente o establishment pró-OTAN, mantendo ao mesmo tempo uma posição a favor do alinhamento total da UE com os EUA. O resultado é o crescimento reativo do euroceticismo e a adoção da direita conservadora como alternativa política.
Na verdade, o próprio conservadorismo é um ponto importante a enfatizar. Os EUA e a OTAN controlam não só a política da UE, mas também a sua cultura. Atualmente, os partidos liberais, democráticos e de esquerda na UE estão totalmente alinhados com a agenda cultural americana – a chamada “agenda woke”. Temas como LGBT, queer e outros tornaram-se centrais para os partidos hegemônicos na Europa, o que obviamente causa indignação entre as pessoas comuns com uma mentalidade conservadora. Na prática, os valores tradicionais tornaram-se uma importante chave política para o crescimento da direita na Europa.
Não é difícil compreender o que querem os europeus comuns. As suas intenções podem ser resumidas numa mistura de justiça social e valores tradicionais. As pessoas comuns não se importam com o que está acontecendo na Ucrânia – elas apenas querem ter energia e alimentos suficientes para viver bem, sem dificuldades financeiras. Na mesma linha, os trabalhadores europeus querem uma reforma da política de migração, uma vez que a mão-de-obra nativa do continente está a ser massivamente substituída por mão-de-obra barata, por vezes semi-escrava, de imigrantes e refugiados.
É também necessário recordar a situação nas zonas rurais. Desde o ano passado, quase toda a Europa tem vivido uma grave onda de protestos devido à política irresponsável da UE de importação de cereais ucranianos. Para “ajudar” o regime neonazista de Kiev, os países europeus têm comprado produtos agrícolas ucranianos baratos, levando à falência os agricultores europeus nativos. É claro que, como reação, os camponeses tendem a votar nos partidos da oposição, que frequentemente criticam o apoio à Ucrânia e as igualmente impopulares “agendas verdes”.
No final, a ascensão da direita na Europa deve ser vista à luz da crise no establishment da UE. Os partidos hegemônicos decidiram irracionalmente aderir aos planos da OTAN, chegando ao ponto de fomentar o nazismo na Ucrânia e de participar quase diretamente numa guerra contra a Rússia. A viragem das pessoas comuns para a direita não é uma adesão popular ao extremismo, mas uma reação ao fascismo da OTAN.
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.
Globalist billionaire Bill Gates has been caught telling his inner circle that a devastating “global famine” is the next step in the elite’s indomitable march towards total global domination.
The 500 million souls left on Earth following the great depopulation will not only be easily controlled, according to Gates, they will also yearn for the level of control that the elites can currently only dream about.
With total control of the food supply, farm land, seed banks, and genetically modified soil microbes, Gates has positioned himself to carry out a false flag worse than 9/11.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
It’s a completely synthetic nation created without any regard for the organic sociopolitical movements of the land and its people, slapped rootless atop an ancient pre-existing civilization with deep roots.
Everything about Israel is fake. It’s a completely synthetic nation created without any regard for the organic sociopolitical movements of the land and its people, slapped rootless atop an ancient pre-existing civilization with deep roots. That’s why it cannot exist without being artificially propped up by nonstop propaganda, lobbying, online influence operations, and mass military violence.
Israel is so fake that its far right minister of national security Itamar Ben-Gvir has been stoking religious tensions by encouraging militant Zionists to pray on the Temple Mount — known to Muslims as Al-Aqsa. This is an illustration of how phony Israel and its political ideology are because Jews were historically prohibited from praying at the Temple Mount under Jewish law; a sign placed there in 1967 and still upheld by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate reads, “According to Torah Law, entering the Temple Mount area is strictly forbidden due to the holiness of the site.” It’s just this weird, evangelical Christian-like thing that Zionists have started doing in contravention of their own traditions and religious texts to advance their nationalist agendas.
“‘Prayer’ on the Temple Mount is 100% a Zionist invention in total contravention of Jewish law. Jews don’t step foot onto the Temple Mount, let alone ‘pray’ there. That’s why the sign below is posted at the entrance non-Muslims use.
“Ben Gvir publicly announced this in order to provoke a reaction to use as a pretext to restrict and expel Muslims from the site, explode Jerusalem and the West Bank, and expand the regional war.
“Ben Gvir holds Netanyahu hostage. Together, they’re leading Israel to self-destruction.”
There’s no authentic spirituality in such behavior. It has no roots. No depth. No connection. It’s the product of busy minds with modern agendas, with nothing more to it than that.
Israel is so fake that Zionists artificially resurrected a dead language in order for its people to have a common “native” tongue for them to speak, so that they could all LARP as indigenous middle easterners together in their phony, synthetic country.
Israel has no real culture of its own; it’s all a mixture of (A) organic Jewish culture brought in from other parts of the world by the Jewish diaspora, (B) culture that was stolen from Palestinians (see “Israeli food”), and (C) the culture of indoctrinated genocidal hatred that is interwoven with the fabric of modern Zionism. The way Israel has become a Mecca of electronic dance music points clearly to an aching cultural void that its people are trying desperately to fill with empty synthetic pop fluff.
Even international support for Israel is fake, manufactured astroturf that has to be enforced from the top down, because it would never organically occur to anyone that Israel is something that should be supported.
The phenomenally influential Israel lobby is used to push pro-Israel foreign policy in powerful western governments like Washington and London. Just yesterday US Representative Thomas Massietold Tucker Carlson that every Republican in Congress besides himself “has an AIPAC person” assigned to them with whom they are in constant communication, who he describes as functioning “like your babysitter” with regard to lawmaking on the subject of Israel.
The Israel lobby exists with the full consent of the western imperial war machine and its secretive intelligence cartel, because western military support for Israel is also phony and fraudulent. The western empire whose strategic interests directly benefit from violence and radicalism in the middle east pretends it’s constantly expanding its military presence in the region in order to promote stability and protect an important ally, but in reality this military presence simply allows for greater control over crucial resource-rich territories whose populations would otherwise unite to form a powerful bloc acting in their own interests. The Israel lobby is a self-funding consent manufacturer which helps the empire do what it already wants to do.
Support for Israel in the media is also phony and imposed from the top down. Since October outlets like The New York Times, CNN and CBC have been finding themselves fighting off scandals due to staff leaks about demands from their executives that they slant their Gaza coverage to benefit the information interests of Israel. Briahna Joy Gray was just fired by The Hill for being critical of Israel as co-host of the show “Rising”, a fate that all mass media employees understand they will share if they are insufficiently supportive of the empire’s favorite ethnostate.
Israel’s support from celebrities is similarly forced. A newly leaked email from influential Hollywood marketing and branding guru Ashlee Margolis instructs her firm’s employees to “pause on working with any celebrity or influencer or tastemaker posting against Israel.” As we discussed recently, celebrities are also naturally disincentivized from criticizing any aspect of the western empire by the fact that their status is dependent on wealthy people whose wealth is premised upon the imperial status quo.
Support for Israel on social media is likewise notoriously phony. For years Israel has been pioneering the use of social media trolls to swarm Israel’s critics and promote agendas like undermining the BDS movement. After the beginning of the Gaza onslaught Israel spent millions on PR spin via advertising on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, and The New York Timeshas just confirmed earlier reports that Israel has been targeting US lawmakers with fake social media accounts to influence their policymaking on Israel.
In truth, nobody really organically supports Israel. If they’re not supporting it because their lobbyists and employers told them to, they’re supporting it because that’s what they were told to support by the leaders of their dopey political ideologies like Zionism, liberalism and conservatism, or by the leaders of their dopey religions like Christian fundamentalism. It’s always something that’s pushed on people from the top down, rather than arising from within themselves due to their own natural interests and ideals.
Israel is not a country, it’s like a fake movie set version of a country. A movie set where the set pieces won’t even stand up on their own, so people are always running around in a constant state of construction trying to prop things up and nail things down, and scrambling to pick up things that are falling over, and rotating the set pieces so that they look like real buildings in front of the camera. Without this constant hustle and bustle of propagandizing, lobbying, online influence ops, and nonstop mass military violence, the whole movie set would fall over, and people would see all the film crew members and actors and cameras for what they are.
Clearly, no part of this is sustainable. Clearly, something’s going to have to give. Those set pieces are going to come toppling down sooner or later; it’s just a question of when, and of how high the pile of human corpses needs to be before it happens.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dazelle Peters, a 17-year-old Leukemia-sufferer who was reportedly denied a life-saving lung transplant after refusing to receive FIVE Covid vaccines, has died.
According to the Daily Mail, the Sydney hospital treating Dazelle said, her lack of a Covid vaccination was a factor in her not being put on the lung transplant waiting list.
A hospital spokesperson told the Daily Mail, their ‘policies and guidelines wouldn’t support transplantation’ of an unvaccinated person.
‘Vaccination status against various infections is a critical part of this assessment in order to ensure optimal prospects of survival post-transplant,’ a St Vincent’s hospital spokesperson said. (source)
Despite saying she was ‘sorry’ to learn of Dazelle’s situation Assistant Health Minister Ged Kearney had advised ‘the Australian Government is unable to intervene in clinical decisions’.
Mr Kearney’s response was in reply to a letter sent to her by outspoken Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who raised both the plight of Dazelle and Victorian mum Vicki Derderian, who is being denied a heart transplant for refusing the jabs.
‘The priority and treatment given to an individual is ultimately a clinical decision made by the treating hospital and transplant teams involved,’ Ms Kearney’s letter stated.
However, it clarified there is no official mandate barring the unvaccinated from getting transplants.
The Guidelines do not prevent a patient who has not received a Covid-19 vaccination from being placed on a transplant waitlist,’ Ms Kearney stated.
Ms Kearney said the states are ultimately responsible for transplant practices.
‘Each state and territory is responsible for the delivery of the jurisdictional health services, including hospital and transplantation services,’ it read.
Dazelle’s family say that while the consulting surgeon described Dazelle as a ‘complex’ case he also said she needed to ‘do the right thing’ and get the vaccines, which take nine months to administer, to keep other patients and staff safe.
Australia joins Canada in a race to the bottom as 2 unvaccinated Canadians were murdered by local health officials in 2023 for being unvaccinated:
May 22, 2023 – Sudbury, Ontario – 35 year old Garnet Harper died after being denied a kidney transplant for being unvaccinated, leaving behind wife and five children. (click here)
Aug. 25, 2023 – Sheila Annette Lewis was denied access to the lung transplant list by corrupt Alberta Health Services Executives and Judges in Alberta, Canada.
My Take…
I work in a large Cancer Centre (Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta) and I have been involved in many life and death decisions.
Make no mistake, Dazelle was murdered in a premeditated manner via a decision that was made all the way up the bureaucratic ladder. This was not a decision made by her treating doctor, Dr. Mark Benzimra (who was guaranteed protection by his bureaucratic bosses including the medical board).
The decision to murder Dazelle was made at the highest bureaucratic levels – the policians simply gave the green light and a promise they wouldn’t intervene.
In Canada, Lung Transplant patient Sheila Annette Lewis was murdered by Alberta’s top health officials: Alberta Health Services Executives Dr.Verna Yiu and Dr.Francois Belanger, their lawyer Mark Jackson and four Alberta Judges – Justice Paul Belzil, Justice Frederica Schutz, Justice Michelle Crighton and Justice Dawn Pentelechuk.
“Lewis’s lawyer said her client was informed in June 2021 that she had to be vaccinated in order to remain on the transplant list. Pejovic said that forced Lewis to make an agonizing decision. “
The top healthcare bureaucrat in Alberta at the time was AHS CEO Dr.Verna Yiu.
AHS CEO Dr.Verna Yiu also implemented an illegal COVID-19 Vaccine mandate on all of Alberta’s 105,000 healthcare workers on Aug.31, 2021.
Dr.Verna Yiu is also directly responsible for murdering many of my 2456 Alberta Cancer patients at Cross Cancer Institute from 2016 to 2022.
As a reward for all her crimes against humanity (and all the vulnerable Cancer patients, COVID patients and Transplant patients she helped murder), she was appointed Vice President of University of Alberta on Jan. 1, 2024.
Unvaccinated patients are murdered to serve as an example of non-compliance.
These decisions have nothing to do with medicine or science.
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines are already causing Lung Transplant rejection in some cases. From 2022 paper by Alsunaid et al:
So why would health officials take the risk of murdering an unvaccinated patient?
Well, first, there is NO RISK. Everyone involved in the murder is guaranteed protection. Dr.Benzimra was guaranteed protection. He will never have to worry about his job or license. He will be taken care of very well.
Every doctor and nurse who killed unvaccinated patients in the hospitals, with lethal protocols including Remdesivir, was guaranteed protection ahead of time.
Every health worker who euthanized a Long Term Care resident with Midazolam and Morphine and recorded it as a COVID death, was guaranteed protection.
In Canada, and now in Australia, murder is legal.
But it has to be in the service of an ideology or narrative.
In these cases, these murders of unvaccinated patients are carried out deliberately, in a premeditated manner, in order to send a message that the penalty for non-compliance IN THE FUTURE, is DEATH.
The objective of the murder is to send a message to the rest of the population: comply or die. And by getting Judges involved, they make it clear to us that they can get away with this any time. And do it to anyone.
This is one of many reasons why it is not possible to “move on” from COVID.
Not only has justice not been served, there has been a complete perversion and inversion of Justice.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
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
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.
Zimbabwean President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, during a special meeting on the sidelines, St. Petersburg International Economic Forum held on 5 to 8 June, with President Vladimir Putin, underscored the development of relations between Russia and Zimbabwe, highlighted possible spheres of bilateral cooperation and, most importantly, Zimbabwe’s position within the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
According to Mnangagwa,
“the West has just begun consolidating its power in Zambia, our next neighbour. You know, there was a time when Zambia and Zimbabwe were one; it was called Northern and Southern Rhodesia. It was made one by the British, but they are now separate. And the Americans are consolidating their power in that country, both in terms of security and in terms of financial support to Zambia.”
Within the context of the great power competition, Mnangagwa further explained that its neighbours, Zambia and Malawi, are very heavily supported by the West. But in spite of that, Zimbabwe’s economic growth is the fastest growing economy in the region, in spite of being isolated by the Americans.
“We feel we have better relations with the people who respect us, not the persons who look down upon us. We are anxious to have more comprehensive and concentrated relations with Russia. And there is a lot that we can open for the Russian Federation to participate in our economy, especially in the mining sector and agriculture,” emphasized Mnangagwa.
That Zimbabwe is one of the few countries in Southern Africa that is regarded as anti-West. It was previously “disregarded as an isolated island in Southern Africa,” the Zimbabwean leader informed Putin. Mnangagwa suggested that as the relations are critically important, it is necessary to make them more comprehensive and share its emerging challenges.
“We received food allocations last year, and we have received cooperation in the military and security sector. That alone, as you continue to do so, we continuously become isolated in our region,” he underlined.
Image: President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa
Mnangagwa referred to President Vladimir Putin as “my dear brother” and said Russia was a consistent ally of Zimbabwe. Mnangagwa rained praises on Putin for defending the independence and territorial integrity of Russia.
“It is regrettable and unacceptable that the collective West continues to peruse hegemonic tendencies that blatantly violate the sovereign equality of nations, justice and fairness,” Mnangagwa later told the business forum. Still Zimbabwe was “open for business”, he maintained frankly.
Mnangagwa’s speech in St. Petersburg has sparked criticisms across the media in southern Africa. For instance, Tendai Ruben Mbofana, a social justice advocate and research writer, in an article, wrote that the southern African region has, by and large, been regarded as a peaceful place.
It came as a huge shock watching a video of Zimbabwe President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa moaning to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, over what he perceived as Zambia’s close alliance with the United States.
In his remarks – which I am sure have sent shockwaves not only across the region but the entire African continent (if not the world) – Mnangagwa appeared to be begging for military support for Putin to ostensibly counter ‘Zimbabwe’s loneliness’ in the region.
In his pitiful display, he seemed to paint a picture of a Zimbabwe under possible threat from the United States using Zambia as a launching pad. Surely, on what ridiculous basis would Mnangagwa assume or even conclude that the United States would want to attack Zimbabwe?
Save for a few conflict zones – such as Mozambique, Angola, and the DRC – we have avoided stoking the flames of war. This is particularly so as it pertains to inter-nation conflict. Of course, countries such as Rwanda and Burundi (although not southern African states) have repeatedly been fingered in sponsoring cross-border wars in SADC member DRC.
Southern African region has been known for maintaining peace and stability by any means necessary – even if that meant states turning a blind eye to gross injustices perpetrated in their neighbors against their populations. As a matter of fact, Zimbabwe is one of those countries that has benefited immensely from this ‘see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil’ policy of SADC.
Granted, the United States, on April 26, 2022, established its military Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Zambia. However, it should be noted that this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a military base.
AFRICOM in Zambia is merely an office set up in the US Embassy in Lusaka to assist the Zambian forces in the United Nations Multidimensional Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). As can he clearly determined this is neither a military base nor Zimbabwe the target. Similarly, Zambia itself has never indicated a desire to engage with Zimbabwe in any military hostilities.
This then poses a crucial questions. Why did Mnangagwa say what he said to Putin? For what reason did he make it appear as though Zimbabwe was under threat from the US using Zambia? Does he now hate Hichilema so much that he will do anything to ‘punish’ him for his bold stance – including launching a military attack against Zambia?
Nonetheless, there were never signs of any desire on Zambia’s part to wage war or take any other action against Zimbabwe. Yet we have hardly lifted a hand against the kleptomaniac oppressive regime. Here we have, though, our head of state seemingly pleading with the Russians to offer military assistance to the regime in apparent readiness with a war with Zambia, according to Tendai Ruben Mbofana.
Mnangagwa’s statement has potentially positioned Zimbabwe as a regional security threat. This may demand the immediate intervention of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defense, and Security – which is, interestingly, currently chaired by Zambia. In fact, this may also require an extraordinary summit of the SADC heads of state to discuss this possible danger to the region.
Russia-Zimbabwe relations were established a long time ago when it was struggling for political independence which it finally gained on 18 April 1980. Zimbabwe, with roughly 15 million people as per 2022 census, is a landlocked country in southern Africa. In southern African region, it is the biggest trading partner of South Africa. Zimbabwe is one of the members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
*
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.
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.
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.
It can’t be ruled out that Zelensky might task one of his pilots with carrying out a mission directly from NATO territory without first stopping at a Kiev-controlled airfield in order to provoke Russia into striking the base from which it departed in self-defense.
Ukrainian Air Force head of aviation Sergey Golubtsov told US state-run Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in an interview over the weekend that Kiev plans to store some of its F-16s in NATO states for reserve and training purposes. While this might sound like a pragmatic policy, particularly since it would deter Russia from destroying its entire fleet since President Putin recently mocked speculation about him plotting to attack NATO as “bullshit”, it actually raises the risk of World War III.
To explain, although US Air Force chief Frank Kendell claimed last summer that the F-16s are “not going to be a game-changer” for Ukraine and Golubtsov himself confirmed in his latest interview that they’re “not a panacea and we do not wear rose-colored glasses”, both downplay the nuclear dimension. President Putin brought it up earlier this spring when he noted that “F-16 aircraft can also carry nuclear weapons, and we will also have to heed this while organising our combat operations.”
The Russian leader also warned that “we would see them as legitimate targets if they operate from the airfields of third countries, no matter where they are located.” Mutual mistrust between Russia and the US is at a record low and continues falling by the week, made all the worse by Ukraine’s recent attack(s) against Russia’s early nuclear warning systems that might have been tacitly approved by America. This comes as the US is playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia.
It’s with all this in mind that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovsaid last month that
“We cannot help but consider the supply of these (F-16) systems to the Kiev regime as a deliberate signaling action by NATO in the nuclear sphere.”
He added though that his country’s recent tactical nuclear weapons exercises might “bring some sense” to NATO and deter them from crossing the ultimate red line. Judging by what Golubtsov just said, however, the US wants to up the ante in its game of nuclear chicken.
What’s meant is that Russia can’t know whether any attacking F-16 are nuclear-equipped, especially if one of them from Ukraine’s “reserve” based in NATO states takes off from there and carries out a mission without first stopping at a Kiev-controlled airfield. From the Kremlin’s viewpoint, it could appear that a nuclear-equipped and NATO-piloted F-16 is preparing to carry out a first strike. In response, Russia might preemptively destroy the base from which it departed, with or without a tactical nuke.
The New York Times already cited an unknown number of Biden’s unnamed advisors to report that the US and Ukraine’s priorities are diverging, warning that “Ukraine has nothing left to lose from escalating with Russia” while “Mr. Biden does”. It therefore can’t be ruled out that Zelensky might task one of his pilots with carrying out a mission directly from NATO territory without first stopping at a Kiev-controlled airfield in order to provoke Russia into striking the base from which it departed in self-defense.
Seeing as how Denmark approved of Ukraine using their donated F-16s to strike inside of Russia’s universally recognized territory, which followed its NATO peers approving of Ukraine using other arms to do the same, this is a frighteningly real scenario that the US might be powerless to stop. The only way to prevent it is for the US to force its partners not to allow Ukraine to store its F-16s on their territory, but Biden likely doesn’t have the political will since he fears accusations that he’s afraid of President Putin.
The West’s most ideologically radicalized anti-Russian hawks and their media proxies could also claim that coercing Ukraine to store all of its F-16s inside the country runs the risk of Russia destroying them and therefore making a total waste of NATO’s months-long preparations for this latest escalation. This could be seized upon by his political opponents at home ahead of November’s elections so it’s unlikely that he’d want to take the chance of turning more voters against him with this so-called “stupid policy”.
Of course, the knife also cuts both ways, and his opponents could also claim that the most “stupid policy” is actually him letting Ukraine store F-16s in NATO states since that raises the risk of World War III as was explained in this analysis. Seeing as how these the US and Ukraine’s leading Air Force officials don’t even consider these arms to be a “game-changer” or a “panacea” by their own respective admissions, they shouldn’t even be fielded in the first place due to this irresponsible risk.
Nevertheless, the F-16s will now inevitably be used after all the time and investment that went into training Ukrainian pilots, not to mention the media hype over all these months. The decision has already been made to store some of them in NATO states so it remains to be seen whether Zelensky is truly willing to risk it all by authorizing a mission for attacking Russia directly from one of those bases. He has the motive and opportunity, which is why it wouldn’t be surprising if he gave it a shot in desperation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
France appears increasingly isolated in its decision to intervene directly in the Ukrainian conflict. Not even major Western powers are willing to openly confront Moscow on the battlefield, given the high likelihood of a catastrophic war arising as a result of such a move. Now, Berlin is already signaling that it will not support the French move.
According to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, the German government is preparing to publicly refuse its support for France’s anti-Russian military initiative. The outlet, citing sources familiar with state affairs, claims that French officials are pressuring several NATO members to cooperate in sending troops to Ukraine. Reports show that the French army’s chief of staff, General Thierry Burkhard, wrote a letter calling on the US and at least 10 other NATO countries to join Paris in intervening in Ukraine.
Germany, however, was not included in the French general’s letter, the sources say. This means that German officials have most likely already made it clear, in secret, to their French counterparts that they are not interested in directly participating in the conflict with Russia. According to the sources, during negotiations in Brussels, Germany, along with other countries such as Italy and Spain, ruled out the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine. If the pressure continues, Germany is expected to make a public statement denying aid to France.
In fact, the French proposal does not seem to be popular within NATO. Few countries have shown interest in cooperating with the sending of troops. Initially, the French soldiers would not be allocated to actual combat units, but to training and command centers. In addition, the French would have the mission of “protecting” strategic areas in key cities such as Odessa and Kharkov, trying to dissuade Russia from advancing in these regions.
However, none of this is enough to disguise the serious escalation initiated by France. Putting troops on the ground is officially entering the war, regardless of which unit the troops are deployed to. In practice, Paris is trying to reconcile two irreconcilable scenarios: going to war with Russia and avoiding a harsh response from Moscow. Obviously, Paris does not want to face the consequences of a direct war with Russia, but at the same time Macron wants to continue propagandizing his image as “leader and defender of Europe.” This scenario could easily end in tragedy.
Indeed, Macron is not acting naively. He certainly has a plan behind his dangerous idea of sending troops. Given the high number of French mercenaries killed by Russian forces in Ukraine, it is very likely that there is pressure in French society to provide an explanation for the losses. Many of these soldiers are not exactly mercenaries, but regular French commandos who fight for NATO’s interests in Ukraine, using the label of “mercenaries” to disguise Western interventionism. The French government needs to give society an explanation to why so many French citizens are dying on the front lines – and apparently, Macron has made the worst possible decision to “explain” these deaths.
It is possible that the real purpose of sending troops is to “legalize” the deaths of mercenaries. Thus, Macron could simply say that the losses occurred during direct hostilities between the French Army and Russian forces, providing an explanation for the families of the dead soldiers. There is, however, nothing rational or strategic about such a move. By disguising the already existing French involvement, Macron would be provoking an all-out war, putting the global security architecture at risk. Nevertheless, he appears increasingly isolated in his proposal, with the initiative being rejected by other states.
The only hope of preventing French interference from turning into open war lies with Russia itself. The Russians have repeatedly proven to be the rational side in the conflict, as Moscow is actually willing to avoid escalation. Russia does not want to go to war with NATO directly, even though the Atlantic alliance is already taking steps towards direct intervention – not only with Macron’s initiative, but also with other recent moves, such as authorizing cross-border strikes. Clearly, there is a scenario in which NATO wants war and Russia avoids it.
Of course, the Russians will do their best once again to avoid the worst-case scenario, but it is important for the West to understand that at some point Russian patience may run out. Moscow is not interested in starting an open conflict, but it has already made it clear that any French soldier in Ukraine is a legitimate target.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
Nourish Cooperative is a farm cooperative that provides fresh, whole foods, such as low-PUFA eggs, raw milk, and “needle-free” grass fed and/or corn- and soy-free meat
On November 3, 2023, 15 of their corn- and soy-free, low-PUFA hogs were seized due to a misunderstanding on processing
On May 28, 2024, the cooperative was raided, and over $90,000 worth of product was put under “cease and desist” by the state of Michigan
The raid took place over the course of about four to five hours, and started with four government employees arriving in a government marked car, including a human food inspector, an animal food inspector and two dairy inspectors
Nourish Cooperative is fighting back to protect traditional foods and the right to access these healing products from small farms
*
There is a lot of fearmongering circulating in mainstream media about the “Avian Influenza”. In parallel to the fearmongering, there has been a large increase in the number of inspections and surveillance. Creating fear would certainly help better maintain control of the food system, wouldn’t it?
On Tuesday, May 28th, our farm co-op was randomly “inspected” (raided), and over $90,000 worth of product was put under “cease and desist” by the state of Michigan, including all raw dairy. As this is an evolving story, I will share what we know to be true thus far.
Nourish Cooperative is a farm cooperative that my sister, Sarah, and I started with a few other first generation regenerative farmers in September 2023. After several years of a steadily increasing demand for our farm fresh products (such as our raw milk, sourdough, and “needle-free” grass fed and/or corn- and soy-free meat), we simply could not keep up with the demand ourselves, which led us to create a “cooperative” (co-op) of several small, local regenerative farms.
Our goal is to produce the highest quality food possible while working with Mother Nature through the use of regenerative agriculture practices. This cooperative grew faster than we could ever imagine, and with that, I suppose, more problems arose, inevitably. If interested, you can read more about Nourish Cooperative here.
First, 15 Hogs Stolen — ‘Their Lives Went to Waste’
Our first stint with the government happened last fall on November 3, 2023 when 15 of our corn- and soy-free, low-PUFA hogs were seized right before my eyes due to a misunderstanding on processing. I was forced to put the 15 hog carcasses in the back of our pickup truck, pour used motor oil on them, and then drive them to a nearby landfill and pay to dispose of 2000+ pounds of hog carcasses.
I will never forget the smell at the top of that landfill! This was devastating — not only was thousands of dollars worth of product *literally* destroyed, but the lives of these animals went to waste. We could have used them ourselves, donated them, or fed them to our animals.
That’s a huge issue for us — we take pride in the methods in which we (and all of our farm partners) farm — rotationally grazing our animals to fresh pasture near daily, living as Mother Nature intended so they can express their innate instincts ensuring they have the closest to “natural” lives they can possibly live during their time on earth.
To know that they lived and died for no reason other than to sit in a landfill so the government could make a point — that hurt. And it hurt our spirit for a period of time, too. Thinking: Is this even worth it? Are we in over our heads?! There seems to be a block at every step of the way, when you’re trying to raise food traditionally, organically, and unadulterated.
But we persevered, which is how Nourish Cooperative expanded to carry not only various different types of meat and unique products (such as gelatin-rich bone broths and traditionally made sourdough products), but various types of raw dairy as well, including sheep, goat, and A2A2 cow dairy products such as raw milk, cheese, kefir, cream, butter, yogurt, and so on.
Most of us in the health space are familiar with the troubling laws around raw dairy, and we’re aware that raw dairy sales are heavily regulated, even illegal, in most if not all states.
This is where things get super confusing, as the laws differ by state, and in Michigan, where our co-op is located, the law states that one way to sell raw dairy is to establish a herd-share and require customers to pick up their dairy from your farm. Another option in Michigan is to sell your raw dairy as a pet food supplement, which is the route we decided to take.
All Raw Dairy — $90,000 Worth of Product — Seized
Raw cheese is actually a little simpler. One thing all states do have in common is that raw cheese, made in a legitimate, inspected facility, that’s aged for at least 60 days, is legal to sell and buy (7 CFR § 58.439). This is why you can buy raw cheese in stores such as Walmart and Meijer. It’s not illegal, yet, on May 28th, around 1 PM EST, all of this came into question for us.
During the raid of our cooperative, all raw dairy was placed under seizure — in total, over $90,000 worth of product. What this means is that these products (all milk, cheese, butter, etc.) were counted and tagged, and that we are not allowed to sell, use or even move these products without a government official present.
So no using these products for our personal use, no giving these products to our animals — simply put, these products have to remain where they were, unless we choose to discard of them, and in that case, a government official would need to be present to ensure we discarded of them appropriately, to their standards (which basically means, they’d need to go to literal waste). Remember the pig situation I mentioned …? Talk about deja vu, in the worst way possible.
Keep in mind, this was a Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, and business was going as usual. We had over 350 orders to pack up and ship out to our cooperative members and their pets, the majority of which included raw dairy (sold as a pet food supplement).
The raid took place over the course of about four to five hours, and started with four government employees arriving in a government marked car, including a human food inspector, an animal food inspector, and two dairy inspectors.
The inspectors spoke to the highest in the chain of command available at our farm, which was Brandon, our head of operations (and Sarah’s fiancé). Brandon informed the government employees that he did not feel comfortable showing them around the facility since it was not his place, and gently pointed towards the farm’s “NO TRESPASSING” signs.
However, since Nourish Cooperative has a “Food Warehouse License” in Michigan, they notified us that they’re allowed to show up and inspect at any time, and requested to be shown around our facility.
Five-Hour ‘Inspection’ Leads to Cease and Desist Letter
What began to unfold over the next four to five hours was these four inspectors, going through our fridges and freezers, tossing products around, and deciding that all of our raw dairy and a few other products were placed under seizure. Including the raw cheese.
The issue they had with the raw cheese was that the plant number was “not identifiable” on the label. However, Brandon read off the plant number to the inspectors directly from the label in front of them, and this information was also given to the main human food inspector the week prior verbally during a phone call.
So, we provided the plant number where our cheese is made … but they said they couldn’t read it on their own. Even if the font size was too small, why did the product have to be put “UNDER SEIZURE”?
Figure 1. Nourish Cooperative cheese label.
UPDATE = the cheese was released from seizure eight days later on Thursday, June 6th after the plant number was again communicated and the legality of raw aged cheese for human consumption was proven through 7 CFR § 58.439.
As for the other raw dairy products (like milk and butter) sold as a pet food supplement, we were told that the entire situation started as a label miscommunication. We were told that there were some issues with our labels since we did not specify what pet the product was for, and did not include serving suggestions. (For example, for dogs, feed two tablespoons.)
Our labels were submitted in March and our check was cashed for a pet food license. But, instead of going back and forth with us to help us get our labels approved, there was the surprise inspection, and immediate seizure of all products.
We have made the suggested changes, and resubmitted the labels for approval the evening of the inspection, but now we are all of a sudden being told that it is illegal to sell raw dairy as pet food.
“Michigan does not permit the sale of raw milk for human or animal consumption, therefore relabeling the products will not fully correct the (label) violations cited.”
Hmmm I am not so sure about this. For example, in the past week I have called over 10 pet food stores throughout the state of Michigan who sell raw goat milk for pets.
Talk about selective enforcement? Despite this being an unannounced “regular inspection,” this group of government officials arrived with a pre-prepared Cease and Desist letter (unless they printed it in their car), and asked Brandon to sign this letter. Brandon declined saying he was not in the position to sign.
Truthfully, we are kind of in limbo right now and have no information on how to proceed forward (despite making the suggested label changes).
We cannot touch any of the products (raw milk, raw butter, raw cream, raw cottage cheese, etc.) that are still under seizure (only the raw cheese cease and desist order was removed). We can’t eat it ourselves. And we can’t feed it to our animals. All of this product will go to waste!
The most unfortunate part of all of this is that for many of our farm partners, our co-op is their only market — they rely on our market to make a living. So, how are they supposed to pay their bills? What do they do with all of the product?
We’ve been able to help dozens of small farmers improve their farming practices, expand their operations, and make enough income to actually be farmers and quit their off-farm jobs. (Did you know that 96% of farm households derived some of their income from off-farm sources in 2019?1Meaning, many farmers require other jobs to support their farm.)
You Have a Right to Access Real, Healing Foods
As a co-op, we shouldn’t have to black market real, healing foods (which, to be clear, we are not doing — we have attempted to comply with the law and regulations every step of the way) or, as consumers, have to bend over backwards to try to source these products. Starting Nourish allowed these farmers to focus on farming (the right way), and actually make a living doing so. We hope to continue to provide this opportunity to other small farmers as the co-op continues to grow.
Just as unfortunate, our co-op members rely on us for these foods. Many of our members have food allergies or sensitivities, or other health conditions, that require them to source pure, unadulterated foods. Or they just choose to source the highest quality food available because it makes them feel good, and they want to support regenerative agriculture and small farmers.
While these members are buying the raw dairy for their pets, they obviously can do as they please with these products. It is not up to us to decide what someone does with their dairy.
Our members are upset, and they’re fired up at the same time. The support that’s rolled in from members of Nourish and beyond is incredible to see; more and more people are choosing to source their foods from small farmers, raising food the traditional way, and we don’t see why there should be so many obstacles to do so.
(Well, we do understand, as Big Ag spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying to ensure the rules and regulations make it so that it is very hard to be a small farmer or co-op in their centralized system.)
Regardless, we must work within the framework we are given, and even though it may not make sense to us, or to our co-op members, there are ways in which we can move forward — and we are hopeful we will be able to fully back in business soon.
Since May 28th, we’ve had to stop selling all raw dairy products (except raw cheese which is again available for sale) and other products seized by the government, but we are still providing grass fed meats (beef, yak, lamb), and corn- and soy-free, low-PUFA chicken and pork, as well as raw pet food chubs, pure Michigan maple syrup, raw honey, and a few other products on our website.
Fight for Your Right for Nourishment
We ship these products all across the United States. While the website shows we are currently closed and not taking new members, we are diligently working on opening up more spots for incoming members, so if you would like to join Nourish, please reach out to our customer service by clicking here with a request to make your membership active, or with any other questions you may have.
If you would like to support our co-op during this challenging time, to help us recover from the $90,000 product loss, and help us cover our mounting legal fees, we have an ongoing GiveSendGo fundraiser in which you can support us by clicking below.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ashley Armstrong is the cofounder of Angel Acres Egg Co., which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states (join waitlist here), and Nourish Cooperative, which ships low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states.
Kazuhiro Haraguchi, the former Japanese Minister for Internal Affairs, has become the first major politician to apologize to the unvaccinated for the tsunami of deaths occuring among the vaccinated population.
In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.
After 1948 the US had “lost China to communism” and policies were undertaken in Washington to reinstate their authority over China, with territories like Tibet identified as target areas. The CIA and to a lesser extent the US military helped to instigate anti-Chinese insurrections in Tibet, such as occurred from 1956 in the Kham and Amdo areas in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau.
Israel is often described by analysts in the Arab media as an army that has a state rather than a state that has an army. Support for military measures designed to entrench and expand Zionist political and territorial control of historic Palestine has been a characteristic of the Israeli public since the entity’s violent establishment on 78 percent of Palestine in 1948.
On March 24th, this journalist exposed how London was at the forefront of efforts to launch a ground invasion of Yugoslavia, during NATO’s illegal March-May 1999 bombing campaign.
We were born into a soul-killing system – a matrix of institutional political and financial control. Consider the events of recent times: a fake pandemic, orchestrated wars, communism under a cloak of climate change policy and UN Agenda 2030, etc.
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.
In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.
The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.
The case, brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals, argues that the LAUSD’s vaccination mandate interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines merely mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which they claim does not align with the traditional definition of a vaccine.
In its decision, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the district court had misapplied the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations due to their effectiveness in preventing disease spread. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims, taken as true at this stage, suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, thereby warranting further consideration of their allegations.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of “vaccine” to include the mRNA shots.
So, look at what the CDC did. Here’s the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:
Vaccine– “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Vaccination– “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
’85 years of glacier growth & stability in East Antarctica’, the study states. ‘Ice-sheet wide mass balance estimates start[ed] in late 1970s…have exhibited either an overall mass gain or been relative unchanged’
Climatedepot.com reports: Nature Communications: Our results demonstrate that the stability and growth in ice elevations observed in terrestrial basins over the past few decades are part of a trend spanning at least a century, and highlight the importance of understanding long-term changes when interpreting current dynamics. … However, in Antarctica, the scarcity of historical climate data makes climate reanalysis estimates before the 1970s largely uncertain10,23, and observed trends cannot clearly be distinguished from natural variability24,25.
Currently, the earliest ice-sheet wide mass balance estimates start in the late 1970s3,6,7, and since then all the sub-regions examined in this study have exhibited either an overall mass gain or been relative unchanged.
…
Regardless of potential climatic changes, our results indicate that the glacier in Kemp and Mac Robertson Land and along Ingrid Christensen Coast, have accumulated mass during the past 85 years which inevitably have mitigated parts of the more recent mass loss from the marine basins in East Antarctica and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). This positive accumulation trend and positive mass balance is anticipated to persist as snowfall is expected to increase over the entire EAIS in the next century54,55, and ice sheet modeling studies project positive mass balance estimates in all three sub-regions across all future RCP scenarios56. Lastly, we determine frontal changes of 21 glaciers from 1937 to 2023 (Table S1 and Fig. S11). From the 85 years of observations, we find two distinct regional patterns; one of constant glacier surface elevations and one of ice thickening.
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.
Having cut his teeth in the mainstream media, including stints at the BBC, Sean witnessed the corruption within the system and developed a burning desire to expose the secrets that protect the elite and allow them to continue waging war on humanity. Disturbed by the agenda of the elites and dissatisfied with the alternative media, Sean decided it was time to shake things up. Knight of Joseon (https://joseon.com)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The ongoing Israeli war on Gaza has extended its devastation beyond the immediate human toll, reaching a state of “ecocide” that impacts the environment in often overlooked ways.
The relentless bombings and military operations have not only obliterated infrastructure but also wreaked havoc on Gaza’s ecosystem.
The first four months of the war have inflicted $18.5 billion in damage to Gaza’s infrastructure, destroying up to 66 per cent of buildings and half of the besieged strip’s trees, and resulting in the deaths of more than 36,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Gaza, the World Bank and the UN.
Pollution in Gaza spans water, debris, and air, creating severe environmental impacts that pose long-term threats to the health and livelihoods of its inhabitants. Over 100,000 cubic metres of sewage and wastewater are being discharged daily onto land or into the Mediterranean Sea, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The UNEP spokesperson told euronews.green in March that past marine pollution incidents in Gaza have led to elevated levels of chlorophyll and suspended organic matter in coastal waters, as well as gastrointestinal parasites. The current war is likely exacerbating these problems.
Simultaneously, solid waste is being disposed of in informal sites, where hazardous substances can seep into the porous soil and potentially contaminate Gaza’s primary water source, the aquifer. The rise in communicable diseases is alarming, driven by water scarcity, overcrowding, and a healthcare sector on the verge of collapse.
In the most overcrowded shelters in the south, there is only one toilet available for every 600 internally displaced persons, and access to running water is minimal, as reported by the American Near East Refugee Aid.
Debris and hazardous waste present a significant issue. As of January 7, UNEP estimated that the total amount of debris had reached 22.9 million tonnes, a number that has likely risen substantially since. This vast accumulation of rubble, combined with hazardous waste, is contaminating land and water sources, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) estimated that by mid-April, the Gaza Strip contained approximately 37 million tonnes of debris, equating to 300 kilogrammes per square metre.
“Gaza has more rubble than Ukraine, and to put that in perspective, the Ukrainian front line is 600 miles [nearly 1,000 kilometres] long, and Gaza is 25 miles [40 km] long,” according to Mungo Birch, head of the UNMAS programme in the Palestinian territories.
“This rubble is likely heavily contaminated with UXO [unexploded ordnance], and its clearance will be further complicated by other hazards in the rubble,” Birch was quoted as saying in international press.
“There’s estimated to be over 800,000 tonnes of asbestos alone in the Gaza rubble.”
The war on Gaza is estimated to have produced between 420,265 and 652,552 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, comparable to burning over 1.5 million barrels of oil, according to British-American study, which also found that the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the first two months of the Gaza war exceeded the annual carbon footprint of over 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. The study estimates that the climate impact of the Israeli war in the first 60 days is equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tonnes of coal.
The use of white phosphorus by the Israeli army has further contributed to environmental contamination. White phosphorus is harmful to humans through all routes of exposure, and the smoke it produces contains phosphoric acids and phosphine, which are harmful to the eyes and respiratory tract, as stated by the World Health Ogranisation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: A view of Palestinians as they try to continue their daily life amid Israeli attacks at the Jabalia Refugee Camp in Jabalia, Gaz on February 17, 2024 [Dawoud Abo Alkas – Anadolu Agency]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Obviously, this is nothing “out of the ordinary”, as the Neo-Nazi junta has been doing it for over a decade at this point. However, this is “not enough”. It can be argued that the worse the situation on the frontlines is, the bigger the PR “victories” need to be.
Namely, the Kiev regime is now claiming that it allegedly “took out” a Russian Su-57 next-generation fighter jet. According to its military intelligence (GUR), the supposed attack was launched on June 8 and struck the aircraft parked on the runway of the Akhtubinsk airbase in the country’s southern Astrakhan oblast (region), located over 700 km from the frontlines. It remains unclear whether the drones used in the supposed attack were really launched from Ukraine or if this was done by sabotage groups operating within Russian territory. In fact, we don’t even know whether this attack ever happened.
The GUR released what it claims are satellite images showing some damage to the part of the runway where the Su-57 was parked. However, the very low resolution of the footage makes it quite a challenge to assess the level of potential damage to the aircraft itself. What’s more, the image quality (or the lack thereof) indicates that this could easily be a rather simple fake. The timing is just perfect, in every sense of the word. Firstly, what are the chances of a satellite taking photos of the airbase at such a “perfect” moment? And if it was simply damaged, why haven’t the Russians removed the jet from the area and prevented further damage? In other words, there are way too many holes in this story. And while some Russian sources are also reporting that an attack took place, the extent of the damage to the Su-57 remains uncertain.
It’s unclear whether the aircraft will still be flyable or if there’s the possibility of disruption to the operations of other jets in the airbase or elsewhere in the wider region. The footage itself doesn’t show any significant damage to the Su-57, although there are claims that shrapnel might’ve damaged it. Both the Neo-Nazi junta and the mainstream propaganda machine are exhilarated about a “destroyed Russian stealth jet”, even though some seem to be a bit cautious with all the inconsistencies in the story. On the other hand, as is customary for the Kiev regime, it’s now claiming that a second Su-57 was “also destroyed”. This is a standard procedure in its PR “victories” approach, where rather unconvincing “evidence” of one is used to amplify the propaganda effect of others (virtually always non-existent ones).
Ukrainian forces said they successfully destroyed one of Russia’s most advanced combat jets, SU-57, in a drone strike on a military base deep inside Russia. (Source: GUR/via CNN)
However, even if the claim is true, it doesn’t change the strategic aspects of the conflict. It would certainly be a setback for Russia, as the country operates around two dozen of these advanced jets, but once again, apart from a propaganda effect, it doesn’t make things any better for the Neo-Nazi junta. The Su-57 is a significant asset for launching covert airstrikes on heavily defended targets in Ukraine, particularly areas where foreign mercenaries and NATO personnel are located. However, it’s hardly the only platform the VKS can use for this purpose, as its MiG-31K strike fighters armed with 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missile systems can do the same, only faster and from much greater distances. Unlike the United States and NATO, Moscow doesn’t really place as much emphasis on stealth.
On the other hand, the Su-57 is a prized target for the political West and its Kiev regime puppets. The jet has been used in a plethora of missions since the beginning of the special military operation (SMO), flying in highly contested airspace guarded by approximately one-third of the former Soviet Union’s world-class air defenses. It has been used to launch various types of precision-guided munitions (PGMs), particularly in SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) missions, while it has also proven itself in air-to-air combat against advanced Soviet-era fighter jets. And while Russia fields a small fleet of Su-57s (particularly when compared to its counterparts in US/NATO and China), all this makes them by far the most thoroughly combat-proven next-generation aircraft. This gives Moscow’s enemies a lot of reasons for envy.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Sukhoi Design Bureau, 054, Sukhoi Su-57 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The land area called Tibet, in south-western China, is a vast and strategically important part of the Chinese nation, resting on the borders of India, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar. The size of Tibet, if including most of the sparsely inhabited Tibetan Plateau as part of its territory, amounts to 970,000 square miles which is almost 4 times bigger than France.
The Chinese authorities, however, recognise the part of Tibet located on the western side of the plateau, and in 1965 the area was formally established as the Tibet Autonomous Region by Beijing. The Tibet Autonomous Region consists of 472,000 square miles which is still much larger than nearly every European country.
Tibet is the highest region on earth with an average altitude above sea level of nearly 4,400 metres. The overall temperature in winter remains below freezing. In the winter of 2018/2019, the coldest in Tibet for two decades, the average temperature was minus 4.3 degrees Celsius which was almost half a degree lower than in usual years.
Many Tibetans live outside of cities and towns. Sixty-nine percent of inhabitants in the central part of the Tibet Autonomous Region were living in rural areas by 2017. There they have farmed yaks and sheep on the high altitude, semi-arid grasslands and valleys, while they grow crops such as barley.
\With the introduction by Beijing of healthcare programmes in Tibet since 1951, the average life expectancy of Tibetan residents has grown significantly. At the start of 2020 the typical life expectancy in Tibet was 70.6 years, whereas in 1950 it had only been 35.5 years. Because of its elevation and challenging land, the population of the Tibet Autonomous Region in 2022 consisted of a still modest 3.64 million people; but this is a population increase of around 15 percent since 2012.
Asia’s biggest rivers can be traced to Tibet such as the Yangtze, the Mekong, and the Yellow, which are a vital water source for many people living in nations like China, India, Pakistan and Thailand.
In modern history Tibet was reintegrated to China just over 300 years ago.
The Qing dynasty of China assumed control over the region in 1720, when Chinese soldiers that year defeated and expelled the Mongol forces of the Dzungar Khanate from Tibet. Yet the history of Tibet as being part of China dates much further back, to the mid-13th century, when the region was incorporated to China under the Yuan dynasty. China’s authorities have strongly argued that Tibet continued to be a Chinese territory during the Ming dynasty which lasted until 1644.
Over elapsing centuries one of the greatest challenges to China’s control over Tibet occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, in the immediate years after the successful culmination of the Chinese revolution in 1949. The revolution re-established China’s independence after many years of meddling in the country by the Western powers, such as from the United States.
After 1948 the US had “lost China to communism” and policies were undertaken in Washington to reinstate their authority over China, with territories like Tibet identified as target areas. The CIA and to a lesser extent the US military helped to instigate anti-Chinese insurrections in Tibet, such as occurred from 1956 in the Kham and Amdo areas in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau.
The CIA directly intervened in Tibet and following 1956 went so far as to fly hundreds of Tibetan militants to the US, where they underwent training by CIA personnel at a facility in the state of Colorado. This military training centre, called Camp Hale, was built for US mountain troops in 1942 and was positioned high up the Rocky Mountains. In the latter stages of World War II, some Wehrmacht troops captured by the US Army in North Africa were sent to Camp Hale where they were kept prisoner.
After completion of training at Camp Hale the “Tibetan freedom fighters” were flown in planes belonging to a CIA airline, called the Intermountain Aviation and Intermountain Airways, and also by the US Air Force, to a secret base for operations against China constructed in the town of Aspen, a Colorado skiing hotspot.
The failed 1959 rebellion in Tibet against Beijing’s authority was most heavily encouraged by Washington. As early as May 1957 armed Tibetan groups were created with CIA support. The following year (June 1958) an anti-Chinese guerrilla army, the Chushi Gangdruk Volunteer Defense Force, was established and its members were subsequently armed and trained by the Americans. The 1959 rebellion was supported not only by the CIA but by intelligence agents from India and Nepal, countries that were staunch US allies at the time.
Image: The 14th Dalai Lama in 1956 (From the Public Domain)
The 14th Dalai Lama, an influential religious leader who is alive today, managed to evade Chinese government troops in March 1959 during the insurrection. Through wearing a disguise, on 17 March he fled Tibet southwards to India having been escorted to the border by CIA-trained Tibetan militants. Beijing’s soldiers were understandably enraged when they discovered the Dalai Lama was nowhere to be seen.
The Dalai Lama’s older brother, Gyalo Thondup, also still living, had a leading role in the 1959 revolt. Thondup was in contact with the Americans for years. He had visited Washington in 1951 and provided intelligence details and local knowledge about Tibet to senior American officials.
Thondup insisted the Dalai Lama was not told about CIA assistance to the Tibetans which is obviously untrue. US State Department documents, released in August 1998, outlined that the Dalai Lama himself received from the CIA $180,000 every year from the late 1950s to 1974. This means the Dalai Lama was already being furnished with large amounts of American money at the time of the 1959 rebellion. The sum of $180,000 in 1959 is currently worth almost $2 million.
The Dalai Lama was previously receiving a financial allowance from the CIA dating to at least the early 1950s, and maybe as far back as 1949, at the end of the revolution. The CIA budget, relating to Tibet, was multiple times larger than the funds that were allocated for the British and US-led coup against the Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.
The Dalai Lama has backed the unification of separatist groups in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, with the ultimate aim of these Chinese regions seceding altogether from China. The Dalai Lama said,
“Geography, history and currently Chinese occupation is connecting our three peoples. I remain optimistic that the true aspirations of the peoples of East Turkestan [Xinjiang], Inner Mongolia and Tibet will be fulfilled in a not too distant future”.
American media later acknowledged the covert CIA training of Tibetan militants in Colorado. The CIA was also involved in funding “Tibet Houses” in cities like New York and Geneva, while the CIA’s budget extended to providing “educational opportunities” to Tibetans at Cornell University in New York, and supplying the insurgents with military equipment.
On 6 January 1960 for example, unmarked CIA aircraft flying over Tibet dropped to the militants below 650 pallets containing weapons, medical supplies, and food. In the weeks before that, CIA planes had dropped military hardware such as hundreds of American M1 Garand rifles, grenades, mortars, and machine guns.
Two more CIA air drops consisted of a further 1,170 M1 Garand rifles, 200 cases of ammunition for the rifles, and 20 cases of grenades. The M1 Garand was the firearm most commonly used by the US Army in World War II and the Korean War, but by 1957 the rifle was considered obsolete by the Americans.
Another CIA air drop in early 1960 amounting to 430 pallets, which contained weapons and other supplies, was sent to 4,000 Tibetan insurgents below. Their position was identified by China’s military pilots and heavily bombed. Occasionally, Chinese warplanes dropped leaflets ordering the militants to surrender and to ignore the Americans.
The Chinese aircraft often attacked enemy positions in the morning, at about noon, and then at around 3 pm or 4 pm. Fifteen warplanes would arrive in groups of five with each carrying between 15 to 20 bombs. Once the enemy forces were located, it was not a hard task for China’s pilots to execute their combat mission. Across the Tibetan Plateau there is scarcely any cover in which to conceal men and equipment. For the Chinese airmen the most difficult job was finding the enemy due to the vastness of the land.
According to a retired CIA officer living in the eastern United States, the Americans wanted to inflict injury on the Chinese in Tibet, and were aware they would be unlikely to drive Beijing’s divisions out of the area.
Image: Tsarong in captivity (From the Public Domain)
Tibetan guerrilla forces, with logistical support provided by the US, attacked China’s lengthy supply lines in Tibet and attempted to tie down Chinese soldiers and make life difficult for them. These attacks, although they inflicted damage, could not succeed over time because of the greater size of China’s military; and the fact that, compared to the enemy, Beijing’s troops were also better equipped and had advanced weapons like the Chinese Type 56 assault rifle, which was first produced in 1956.
Control over the Tibetan Plateau is crucial for China. Robert Barnett, an author who focuses on Tibet, wrote that the Tibetan Plateau from a military viewpoint is important because it is made up of the high ground and central, south and east Asia converge around it.
From the late 1950s CIA training camps were set up in Nepal including close to Pokhara, Nepal’s second biggest city, and in the district of Mustang, where Tibetan insurgents were trained by CIA operatives. There were at least 15 camps being used which were spread over Nepal, India, and inside China itself in Tibet.
By using Nepal and India as bases, the Americans were involving those two countries in the conflict against China. In the year 1964, the CIA spent $500,000 (worth $5 million today) on the guerrillas in Nepal; $400,000 ($4 million today) for the training of Tibetans in Colorado; $225,000 ($2.2 million today) on equipment, transportation and expenses; $185,000 ($1.8 million today) for flying to India the Tibetans trained in Colorado; $125,000 ($1.2 million today) for expenses, equipment and supplies to Tibetan reconnaissance teams, and on the storage of supplies, aircraft refuelling, agents’ salaries, and formulation of traineeships for the network of agents in Tibet.
Moreover, the CIA in 1964 spent $75,000 ($744,000 today) on maintaining the Tibet Houses in New York, Geneva, and other cities; $45,000 ($446,000 today) on “educational programmes” for 20 Tibetan youths; and the Dalai Lama of course received his annual $180,000. The Dalai Lama’s entourage stressed that he never spent any of the money on himself.
A security guard for the Dalai Lama, Lobsang Tsultrim, said that he was hired by the CIA in 1964 and had no qualms about it. The insurgents could be naive and were often unable to comprehend that the Americans were using them for their own strategic purposes. The Dalai Lama, regardless, admitted that the US military aid was “entirely political” in nature.
At the end of 1962 the Americans were granted access to an airfield beside New Delhi, India’s capital city. From this airfield the Tibetan militants were flown to Colorado in groups of 40 or 50 men.
Upon finishing their training in the US they were returned to India by aircraft, and shortly thereafter north to Tibet where they jumped out of the planes and deployed their parachutes. Hundreds of other Tibetan insurgents were flown to the American-held islands of Okinawa and Guam where they received training in guerrilla warfare, and they were then sent back to Tibet to fight against the Chinese forces.
A joint CIA-Indian command centre was set up in New Delhi in the early 1960s, as relations between India and China continued to worsen during this period. The Dalai Lama’s brother, Thondup, was forefront in directing US military aid through India’s northern region of Darjeeling across the Indian-Chinese border into Tibet.
*
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 Geopolitica.RU.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Politics in China: An Introduction, edited by William A. Joseph (Oxford University Press; 3rd edition, 6 June 2019)
“Tibet experiences coldest winter in 19 years”, Xinhua, 11 March 2019
“Total population of Tibet autonomous region in China from 2012 to 2022”, Statista, 7 March 2024
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017)
“At the Highlanders’ Museum, Indian Talwar Sword, Flintlock Musket, Chinese Type 56 Assult [Assault] rifle, WWI Heavy Machine Gun, Kris Dagger”, The Highlanders’ Museum
“US Rifle Cal .30 M1 [Garand]”, Imperial War Museum
Featured image is from Geopolitica.ru
History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests
By Shane Quinn
The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.
The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.
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.
Based on real-life events, comes the corporate thriller, Protocol 7.
Alexis Koprowski, a devoted mother and small-town family lawyer, Adrian Jay, a renegade doctor exiled from the medical profession, and Steve Schilling, a virologist at a prominent vaccine laboratory turned corporate whistleblower, work together to hold a large pharmaceutical corporation accountable for allegedly fraudulent test results behind a failing mumps vaccine.
Protocol 7 takes us behind the corporate curtain, exposing a chain of command that devolves responsibility, prioritizes profits over people, and fosters an amoral mindset of “just following orders.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Even before Israel exposed its heart of darkness to the world in the aftermath of Oct 7, the term “the ugly Israeli” was already a thing. According to many reports, Israelis traveling internationally have developed a reputation for unruliness, rudeness, and assertiveness; observed instances of Israelis arguing, yelling, and disregarding rules have led to negative perceptions by airline staff and other travelers abroad, and even to a Ynet news report that wonders, “Are Israel’s tourists the worst in the world?” But such characterizations of a national stereotype are just the tip of the iceberg.
The “heart, mind and soul” of the Israeli public in general is twisted, maybe even beyond redemption. Israel is often described by analysts in the Arab media as an army that has a state rather than a state that has an army. Support for military measures designed to entrench and expand Zionist political and territorial control of historic Palestine has been a characteristic of the Israeli public since the entity’s violent establishment on 78 percent of Palestine in 1948. This mass public support of violence is the natural human condition of a “State of Terror,” one that came into being through massacres very much like those taking place in Gaza daily now, and through robbery and deceit (very much like that being exercised now by Netanyahu and his partner in crime, Joe Biden) on the backs of the mostly agrarian Palestinian people at the time. (See State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel by Thomas Suarez, “The first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement and later the state of Israel against the people of Palestine”, according to Ilan Pappé.)
The aftermath of October 7th has disrupted Israel’s success in directly influencing the perceptions of the publics of other nations and garnering tolerance for the Israeli government’s strategic objectives. But the Israeli public is still firmly in the government’s public policy grip.
The Zionist Jewish entity controls not only the content and limits of Jewish identity, but also the content and limits of Palestinian lives. My concern here with the Israelis and their grandiose and self-absorbed national character is to expose and condemn their “distance from humanity,” their “millennia-old disdain for non-Jews” (i.e., their racism), which have shaped the horrendous and unjust world in which Palestinians have lived for more than 76 years and made the Israeli public complicit in genocide.
The censorship and repression of the Palestinian, international, and Israeli media hide some of the horrors of Israel’s war on Gaza’s children. But is it really possible that the Israeli public is unaware of the story the whole world is watching with horror, a story of “famished Palestinians killed outside aid trucks on Al-Rashid Street in February; of tent-dwellers in Rafah burned alive in Israeli air strikes; of women and children subsisting on 245 calories a day?” Do they honestly believe instead what Benjamin Netanyahu describes as “the victory of Judaeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism?”
In an attempt to search the Israeli public’s heart of darkness, Eitan Bronstein Aparicio (De-Colonizer) recently published a video of himself having conversations with random Israelis in May 2024 about what Israel is doing in Gaza and the possibility that its actions will ultimately be recognized as genocide.
Aparicio asks these individuals for their opinion on the lawsuit against Israel brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice in The Hague (On February 16, the ICJ called on Israel to avoid actions that could lead to genocide and to facilitate humanitarian access for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.) Unsurprisingly, their responses show a uniform obliviousness to their government’s willful causing of great suffering to Palestinian civilians, including the “mowing” of Palestinian children. They deny it’s happening, even as the UN has put Israel on its “blacklist” for the killing, maiming, recruitment of minors, bombings of schools and hospitals, and attacks on humanitarian aid workers as well as Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war. Aparicio says:
“All the people I interviewed reject it [the idea that Israel is conducting a genocide on Palestinians] and even react to it with anger.”
At the very least, the scale and nature of Israeli military operations in Gaza, combined with policies that result in severe Palestinian suffering, suggest an intent to weaken or destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza. But Israelis are in self-absorbed denial.
Like the Nazi regime in Germany, the Zionist regime has been highly effective in its use of propaganda (hasbara), including exploitation of the Holocaust to shape public opinion, especially the Jewish-Zionist entity’s own public. It uses the Holocaust to justify military actions, occupation policies, and settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories, invoking historical suffering to justify contemporary political objectives.
Zionist leaders cooperated with Nazi Germany (the Haavara Agreement of 1933 — i.e., before the Holocaust) to allow Jewish emigration and the transfer of Jewish assets from Germany to then “British Mandatory Palestine,” thus helping to undermine the anti-Nazi boycott, which was supported by many European and American Jews and posed a potential threat to the German economy.
Under the Agreement, Jews emigrating from Germany could use their assets to purchase German-manufactured goods for export to Palestine. This created a substantial export market for German factories in British-ruled Palestine, which was beneficial for the German economy during a time of economic hardship. The largely agrarian Palestinian population was locked out, then as now, of the economic benefits of the influx of Jewish capital and labor to Palestine.
To me, the De-Colonizer interviews with Israelis are as chilling as the following excerpt from the cross-examination of Otto Ohlendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, during the Nuremberg trials, which United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca P. Albanese shared on Facebook:
Q. Will you explain to the Tribunal what conceivable threat to the security of the Wehrmacht a child constituted in your judgment?
A. I believe I cannot add anything to your previous question. I did not have to determine the danger but the order contained that all Jews including the children were considered to constitute a danger for the security of this area.
Q. Will you agree that there was absolutely no rational basis for killing children except genocide and the killing of races?
A. I believe that it is very simple to explain if one starts from the fact that this order did not only try to achieve security, but also permanent security because the children would grow up and surely, being the children of parents who had been killed, they would constitute a danger no smaller than that of the parents.
When I came across the De-Colonizer video, I was curious to hear how the Israeli respondents would handle Aparicio’s question on the Gaza genocide, especially because Israeli PR has long invoked the term “ethnic cleansing” (in reference to Israeli Jews) as a tactic to create a negative association with the Palestinian right of return, framing it as something that could lead to the displacement of Israeli Jews. (See Frank Luntz’s report, which was commissioned by The Israel Project and came to light in 2009. It suggests several fact-denying strategies for Israel’s public policy communication.) The loaded term “ethnic cleansing” resonates negatively with Western audiences, says the report, but as it turns out, the concept of genocide, especially when it is not merely rhetorical and is happening before our eyes, also does.
The Israeli respondents in the video recycle all the most familiar tropes of Zionist propaganda, making use of several strategies of PR communication in Luntz’s report, such as denial, deflection, and accusations of antisemitism. They pretend that the war on Gaza with its wholesale obliteration of neighborhoods and families, schools, hospitals and markets, is an equal struggle between an Israeli state that has the fourth most powerful army in the world (F16s, nuclear weapons, the unconditional logistical, political and diplomatic support of the most powerful state on earth: the USA, and massive trading privileges from the EU) … and Hamas. They pretend that it all started on Oct 7, 2023 and do not acknowledge that Palestinians have lived for so long, not just with the blockade of Gaza, but also with the daily threat of Israeli incursions, the kidnapping of their children by brutal Israeli soldiers, the demolition of their homes, the humiliation of men, women and children at countless checkpoints, and the daily interference with normal life at every imaginable level.
Comparing Israel and the Palestinian resistance is like comparing the rapist and the rapist’s victim. And yet, without exception, the De-Colonizer respondents do just that, with one of them saying (appallingly, since the issue being discussed is genocide) at minute 4:44— “and I say, ‘I wish they didn’t exist.’”
Another respondent says,
“It’s a war that’s sad for both sides. We on the Israeli side didn’t start it. It opened, exploded, on October 7, but there is a war, and it is sad for both Israelis and Palestinians. A war, but it’s a kind of contact between the Palestinian population, Hamas, and Israel.”
To the Israeli public, the unfolding horror in Gaza is a “kind of contact” the nature of which appears to be a mystery. It’s genocide, folks. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The report presented at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, entitled ‘Anatomy of a Genocide’, outlines specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Aparicio concludes:
“The probability that in a few years’ time it will be proven that Israel has committed a genocide must also be taken into account by the Israelis themselves. This is a potential future that will shock all those who have not lost their humanity and who have not been swept away by the prevailing racism.”
It must be exhausting, this denial and rationalization on the part of Israelis. But then, so is facing the facts. A Jewish-American friend posted on Facebook about her exhaustion as she grapples with these gruesome facts:
“I am so exhausted that ‘exhausted’ doesn’t even fully cover how I feel from having my secondary trauma as a second gen Shoah survivor triggered constantly since Israel started its genocide in Gaza. The flip-flopping from the grief, shame, empathetic pain & sheer rage toward the perpetrators & the “Good Germans” who are enabling it is pushing the limits of my sanity. I hold onto stories of courage, resistance & selfless compassion as my life rafts in this sea of hate & sheer evil.”
I wrote this blog post with this question in my mind about Israelis: Have they “lost their humanity” for good? Do they need to wait “a few years’ time” for Israel’s crimes against humanity to be “proven” before being “shocked.” One of them says, “Alas, if it comes to that!” Well, it has come to that … and more.
Through control of the media, the spread of Zionist ideology, and the hasbara portrayal of the settler-colonial Jewish Zionist state as a victim figure with “a right to exist” forcibly on someone else’s land, Israel manipulates public perception and promotes the public’s complicity with the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza. The Israeli Jews who dissent must first go through a wrenching “identity crisis” and then, like the historian Ilan Pappé, be hounded out of Israel. Pappé moved out in 2008 after appearing in an Israeli newspaper at the center of a target and receiving several death threats.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Medium.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Frame captured from a De-Colonizer 1948 video titled “Une conversation en hébreu sur le génocide”
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.
On March 24th, this journalist exposed how London was at the forefront of efforts to launch a ground invasion of Yugoslavia, during NATO’s illegal March-May 1999 bombing campaign.
Mercifully, this noxious project never came to pass, but declassified files show there was a further, secret component to Britain’s war effort in Kosovo. MI6 covertly sought to manipulate public opinion at home and within Belgrade via wide-ranging propaganda campaigns, manufacturing consent for President Slobodan Milosevic’s indictment for war crimes, removal from office, and more.
NATO’s criminal bombing of Yugoslavia was launched, and sustained, upon atrocity propaganda. Claims Belgrade’s forces were perpetrating a modern-day Holocaust abounded throughout, despite the alliance’s air assault ostensibly being launched to prevent such carnage.
Western officials’ calculations of civilians slaughtered by the Yugoslav army grew ever-wilder. At one stage, a NATO spokesperson asserted 100,000 were dead. When Yugoslav officials were prosecuted over the conflict by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the total was revised down to a vague “hundreds.”
At every step though, Western media reported as gospel whatever nonsense NATO and Western government officials asserted, while framing the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)—a sadistic, civilian-targeting CIA and MI6-backed jihadist militia with whom the Yugoslav army was truly at war—as courageous freedom fighters.
As we shall see, the BBC, working in close collaboration with British intelligence, was an eager belligerent in this information war.
This blitz included a completely bogus Panorama “documentary,” featuring false eyewitness testimony of heinous atrocities, purportedly committed by Belgrade’s forces. Its effects were devastating, by design. The sordid episode’s relevance to future U.S. and British proxy conflicts, in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, could not be clearer, or graver.
“Editorial Control”
Among the declassified British government papers reviewed for this article is an April 29, 1999, memo dispatched from Michael Pakenham, then-head of London’s Joint Intelligence Committee, to John Sawers, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “foreign policy adviser,” who in 2009 was appointed MI6 chief. It discussed clandestine “work with the media” since NATO’s aerial assault on Belgrade had already begun five weeks earlier, beginning with a section on “broadcasting to the Serb people.”
The BBC and MI6 were said to have “put substantial effort into increasing news broadcasting” to Yugoslavia, and neighboring Albania and Macedonia, since the bombing began. Due to government restrictions on foreign media during the war, the pair were investigating methods of ensuring broadcasts into Belgrade were not interrupted. U.S. propaganda outlets Radio Free Europe and Voice of America had already identified methods of doing so, and “offered to share their facilities with the BBC.”
Yet, the pair’s “heavy output” meant whatever remaining airtime was made available to the British state broadcaster—such as “the middle of the night”—“would be unattractive.” The BBC “would thus prefer to set up their own arrangements.” One option was to bombard Yugoslav audiences with propaganda via CNN and Sky News. The memo lamented that, “relatively few Yugoslavs have satellite dishes,” therefore denting the reach of British Satellite News, branded London’s “global fake news network” by academic propaganda expert David Miller.
Source: Document courtesy of Kit Klarenberg
Still, Pakenham wrote, “in times of crisis, word spreads fast,” meaning that even a small initial impact could have a resultant multiplier effect locally, due to a “thirst for news.” In any event, British Satellite News was still managing to broadcast regular news packages, over which the Foreign Office—read: British intelligence—had “editorial control,” into Belgrade via Montenegro. The Yugoslav republic was at that time led by corrupt autocratMilo Djukanovic, who covertly coordinated his political activities with MI6.
Earlier that month, a memo authored by MI6 officerJulian Braithwaite observed that Montenegrin media were ideal to “broadcast criticism of Milosevic,” as “its powerful transmitters reach deep into Kosovo and Serbia.” He urged Downing Street to express “visible and immediate support to Djukanovic,” as “we need to demonstrate that reform pays, and we look after our friends.” This could take the form of Blair giving an interview to local news outlets, explaining “why we do not hold Montenegro responsible,” while announcing “assistance” for Djukanovic.
Source: Document courtesy of Kit Klarenberg
Elsewhere in Pakenham’s memo, he noted the U.S. was broadcasting propaganda into Yugoslavia from a plane, flying low above the region. Embarrassingly, “personal contacts” in Belgrade suggested to him “it has not gone down well.”
Derisively dubbed “NATO TV” locally, it was “regarded as a joke” by viewers, “partly because the Serbian accent of the presenter is poor.” By contrast, internet-based propaganda campaigns were considered “a success story.”
Official Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence webpages publishing information on the Kosovo War, translated into Serbian, were attracting “at least 1,000 hits a day from Yugoslavia.” Pakenham suggested there would be “other hits from Yugoslavs on which we cannot put even an imprecise figure.” At the start of April, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook authored “a special internet message to the people of Serbia,” and a second was being considered.
“Clobba Slobba”
More sinisterly, a dedicated Cabinet Office “Coordination Group” was compiling a “long list” of Yugoslav internet users, and “some agencies” were “developing ways of exploiting it effectively without any British hand showing.” The Group more widely was concerned with disseminating word of “Serb brutalities” in Kosovo, and “abuse of power of the Milosevic family and his cronies,” into Belgrade, “in a way which does not show British fingerprints.”
As such, the Coordination Group tasked British embassies in Yugoslavia’s neighboring countries “to feed material into local media for unattributable publication, [which] would be read by some Serbs.” Two articles on the Group’s core propaganda themes had already been disseminated in this manner; Pakenham promised “there will be more.” The same material was furthermore “made available to NATO.” Meanwhile, the Group was “trying to arrange for an Interpol investigation to be started into Marko Milosevic.”
In addition to the Yugoslav president’s son, the Group “compiled a list of Serbs outside the Milosevic family who are regime members or supporters important to Milosevic personally, on which it is now looking for usable information on corruption and other publishable behaviour.” This hunt was foreshadowed in Julian Braithwaite’s memo, which stated that Blair’s notorious spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, wanted to brief the British press “that Interpol is about to publish an arrest warrant” for Marko.
Meanwhile, The Sun was “ready to send the paparazzi after him.” Then the crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire, it boasted a daily circulation in the tens of millions. British newspaper front pages, and reporting more generally, throughout NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, almost unequivocally cheered the illegal campaign’s success, jingoistically tubthumping for ever-greater aggression. Yet, the declassified files show that the BBC and MI6 propaganda outburst was necessary precisely because the airstrikes were an abject failure.
In Braithwaite’s missive, he complained that Britain’s efforts to “convince military commanders and public opinion to turn against Milosevic” were entirely counterproductive. Serbs were “rallying round the flag” and “a blitz mentality” had set in locally. “Anger, bitterness and betrayal” were “common emotions” among his personal contacts in Belgrade. “Many staunch opponents of Milosevic” resolved to support the President, “while their country is under attack.”
Furthermore, the destruction of a prominent bridge in Novi Sad, “Serbia’s most liberal city,” had alienated local inhabitants and “Belgrade’s pro-Western intelligentsia,” making “pro-Western policies and connections unfashionable” in Yugoslavia. “This is a problem for us,” Braithwaite lamented.
A destroyed bridge in the city of Novi Sad, April 26, 1999. More than 1,500 settlements, 60 bridges, 30% of all schools, and about 100 monuments were destroyed in the criminal NATO bombing of Serbia. MI6 agent Julian Braithwaite worried that the destruction of the bridge created a public relations problem. [Source: felix-edmond.livejournal.com]
Deadly Web of Deceit Weaved
British intelligence got the opportunity to turn Yugoslav citizens, in particular pro-Western liberals, against Milosevic—or try to—by portraying Belgrade’s forces as engaged in genocide against Kosovo Albanian civilians, at his direct order. This was provided by retransmitting an April 28, 1999, BBC Panorama “documentary” into the country, via “local television stations” in neighboring states, “whose programmes can be received in Serbia.”
The Killing of Kosovo was never repeated, and cannot be viewed online today. All that remains is an official transcript from the time. In the program, multiple interviewees, including U.S. General Wesley Clark, who oversaw NATO’s bombing as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and Kosovo Albanian refugees, accused Milosevic of personally orchestrating the violent, “wholesale expulsion” of innocent civilians from the province, deploying rampaging Yugoslav security and paramilitary forces for the purpose, who left a vast trail of massacred innocents, razed villages, and gang rape everywhere they went.
The tales of alleged atrocities reported by refugee talking heads in the program were almost invariably as lurid as they were ludicrous. One told the BBC she “heard” that Yugoslav forces “caught 20 young women and girls,” then executed “most of their husbands…in front of their eyes.” The surviving women were reportedly forced to “serve” Belgrade’s troops “as if they were their wives”—“they had to serve them during the day and sleep with them at night.”
Meanwhile, several interviewees said they personally saw “Serbs” commit rape and mass murder of their friends, relatives and neighbors. Unbelievably though, they were not only allowed to live to tell the tale, but sent safely over the border to Albania. There, as Yugoslav forces would have known, NATO, Western journalists, and rights groups waited in profusion, ready to amplify their stories to the world. Other talking heads spoke of roads soaked with blood, and littered with dozens of corpses.
Kosovo was at that time subject to intensive, daily NATO reconnaissance flights. Nothing resembling any of the scenes described has ever emerged. Strikingly, Panorama elsewhere cited grainy, barely discernible “satellite imagery” of “what appears to be” mass graves in the province, provided by the military alliance. Why the program producers did not think to ask if those satellites had detected anything to corroborate any of their interviewees’ tales is not clear.
Relevantly, while the bombing was ongoing, British journalist Audrey Gillan interviewed many Kosovo Albanians in a refugee camp in Macedonia, in search of “real evidence” for the monstrous claims of mass rape and murder in the province emanating from Western officials. She found none. An unnamed OSCE source told her they suspected the KLA “had been persuading people to talk in bigger numbers, to crank up the horror so that NATO might be persuaded to send ground troops in faster.”
Nevertheless, BBC host Jane Corbin did ask some tough questions, namely, “will Mr. Milosevic ever be brought to justice?” and “how can NATO negotiate a settlement with a man they have openly called a war criminal?” She firmly informed ICTY chief prosecutor Louise Arbour, “your credibility is on the line…people must stand trial, those at the very top, to make your job worthwhile at all.” Elsewhere, she demanded assurances from Robin Cook that the Yugoslav President would not be granted amnesty in exchange for peace.
“Patriotic Duty”
The ICTY answered the BBC’s call on May 24, 1999, indicting Milosevic for war crimes, and crimes against humanity, in Kosovo. Mysteriously, not a single “eyewitness” featured in the Panorama program appeared at his resultant trial, and the “documentary” was not entered into evidence. No wonder—proceedings would have been an even bigger disaster for NATO then. As it was, the tribunal incinerated Western narratives of what transpired in the province, and why the alliance had to “intervene.”
Multiple Yugoslav officials testified that not only was there no plan to displace, let alone carry out a genocide againt Kosovo’s Albanian population, but the army had strict instructions to prevent refugee flows, while protecting civilians from KLA attacks and conscription. In some cases, the separatist militia forcibly recruited children.
One army colonel, suffering severe health issues due to NATO’s concealed, illegal use of depleted uranium, told the ICTY he had urged citizens to stay after the bombing began, but assisted those who wished to flee.
“There is nothing sadder than watching a column of poor people who are moving from their homes on someone’s instructions,” he contemporaneously lamented in his field diary. “Soldiers are the way they are; they give juice and cookies to children in passing.”
Those “instructions” were given by the Kosovo Liberation Army itself. One of the group’s operatives, who “[filmed] the plight of displaced Albanian civilians with a video camera” for Western consumption, admitted to The Guardian in June 1999 that “KLA advice, rather than Serbian deportations” prompted the exodus.
His account is corroborated by ICTY testimony of Eve-Ann Prentice, a mainstream British journalist almost killed in a May 1999 NATO airstrike, while traveling through Kosovo:
“Ordinary civilian ethnic Albanians…had been told it was their patriotic duty to leave because the world was watching. This was their one big opportunity to make Kosovo part of Albania…NATO was there, ready to come in, and anybody who failed to join this exodus was somehow not supporting the Albanian cause…They were frightened of the bombing, they were frightened of the KLA, they didn’t really want to leave their homes.”
Fear of “being killed or injured” by NATO bombing was, per Prentice, “justified.” While in Kosovo, she “saw many civilians dead and injured, many ordinary homes that were bombed by NATO.” These anxieties were greatly amplified, she explained, by the military alliance’s illegal assault intensifying over time, its aircraft terrorizingly flying ever-lower overhead. School facilities, apartment blocks, and other civilian infrastructure were reduced to total rubble in targeted, repeat strikes along the way.
NATO member states were the ICTY’s key funders and facilitators. There was no question of the alliance being held accountable for war crimes it committed in Yugoslavia. “You’re more likely to see the UN building dismantled brick-by-brick and thrown into the Atlantic than to see NATO pilots go before a UN tribunal,” a Spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives boasted in May 1999. The total number of civilians killed by military alliance bombing that year will likely never be known.
The ICTY did investigate whether NATO’s April 23, 1999, strike on the headquarters of Belgrade’s RTS TV, which killed 16 staff and trapped 16 more in rubble for days afterward, constituted a war crime.
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters in Belgrade bombed by NATO on April 23, 1999. [Source: reddit.com]
The Tribunal concluded that, while the site was not a military target, the action aimed to disrupt the state’s communications network, so it was still legitimate. It moreover found NATO warned Yugoslav authorities weeks prior that RTS may be caught in the crossfire, unless six hours of uncensored Western news reports were broadcast daily.
This would, the alliance argued, make RTS an “acceptable instrument of public information,” thus averting its destruction. The ultimatum is rendered considerably more perverse, and duplicitous, given the declassified files reviewed here. All along, NATO and its member states—in particular Britain, leading proponent of Yugoslavia’s all-out invasion—had numerous cloak-and-dagger means to transmit whatever they wished into the country they were criminally destroying.
*
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.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg.
Recentemente, têm-se espalhado rumores sobre uma possível autorização ocidental para o regime de Kiev lançar ataques contra o território “profundo” da Federação Russa. Até recentemente, a posição oficial da OTAN era permitir ataques apenas contra alvos dentro do território que o Ocidente reconhece como “ucraniano” – o que inclui as Novas Regiões e a Crimeia. No entanto, há poucos dias Washington alterou as suas diretrizes para permitir ataques em cidades fronteiriças russas. Agora resta saber até que distância os ataques serão “permitidos”.
Aparentemente, os EUA já recuaram do seu plano inicial. Numa declaração recente, o presidente dos EUA, Joe Biden, deixou claro que a Ucrânia não está autorizada a usar mísseis fornecidos por Washington contra alvos “no interior” da Rússia. As incursões transfronteiriças já haviam sido autorizadas, mas houve discussão sobre autorizar ou não ataques mais profundos – como contra Moscou, por exemplo. Biden, porém, descartou tal hipótese.
Biden não negou que a Ucrânia pudesse atacar alvos fora da zona de conflito. Segundo o presidente dos EUA, o regime proxy tem o direito de atacar alvos em regiões fronteiriças, com restrições apenas a ataques em áreas mais distantes. A sua política parece tentar conciliar medidas escalonadoras e pacificadoras. Biden quer “permitir” os ataques, mas evitar irritar a Rússia com possíveis manobras ucranianas contra Moscou ou o Kremlin.
“[A Ucrânia pode atacar] apenas nas proximidades da fronteira quando [as armas russas] estão a ser usadas do outro lado da fronteira para atacar alvos específicos na Ucrânia (…) Não estamos a autorizar ataques a 320 quilômetros da Rússia e não estamos autorizando ataques a Moscou, ao Kremlin”, disse ele.
Na mesma ocasião, Biden também manifestou preocupação com possíveis reações russas à “autorização” de ataques transfronteiriços. Anteriormente, Moscou já havia deixado claro que tal iniciativa deveria ser considerada uma participação direta do Ocidente na guerra. Durante o Fórum Econômico de São Petersburgo, o presidente russo, Vladimir Putin, afirmou que está considerando a possibilidade de enviar armas para países inimigos dos EUA, caso o território russo seja ameaçado por mísseis ocidentais. Talvez o receio de uma possível retaliação russa tenha sido a principal razão pela qual Biden decidiu recuar na sua retórica e afirmar que “apenas” regiões fronteiriças podem ser atacadas, “evitando” incursões mais intensas.
Para compreender bem o caso, devemos considerar as circunstâncias reais nas regiões fronteiriças. Os ataques ucranianos têm ocorrido quase diariamente desde 2022. Cidades como Belgorod e Kursk são alvos frequentes da artilharia de Kiev. Estes ataques covardes a áreas civis foram a razão da recente operação da Rússia em Kharkov, que lhe permitiu expandir a zona de segurança para Belgorod. Washington afirmou que a autorização de ataques transfronteiriços foi uma “resposta” à incursão russa em Kharkov, o que é de fato irônico, dado que o Ocidente permaneceu em silêncio face a todos os crimes ucranianos na fronteira russa.
Na prática, a “autorização” não significa praticamente nada. A Ucrânia sempre atacou estas regiões e continuará a fazê-lo até que a Rússia consiga neutralizar todas as posições inimigas perto da fronteira. Contudo, o próprio aparelho de propaganda ocidental colocou os EUA numa situação desconfortável. A mídia ocidental começou a relatar as notícias como uma grande escalada. A opinião pública foi levada a acreditar que Kiev estava agora “autorizada” a atacar Moscou – como se o regime tivesse capacidade para o fazer. Os rumores tornaram-se tão graves que o próprio presidente americano teve que se manifestar e recuar, deixando claro que a “profundidade territorial” russa que pode ser atacada é a região fronteiriça.
Na verdade, Kiev já atacou Moscou em diversas ocasiões, atingindo edifícios residenciais e o próprio Kremlin. No entanto, estes foram ataques fracos de drones, sem potencial para causar grandes danos. O regime está extremamente enfraquecido e é pouco provável que consiga atingir alvos estratégicos na capital russa, uma vez que os mísseis seriam certamente neutralizados a tempo pelas forças de defesa russas. Neste sentido, as declarações de Biden parecem realmente óbvias: os ataques ucranianos permanecerão restritos às fronteiras, simplesmente porque é tudo o que a Ucrânia é capaz de fazer.
No entanto, o presidente dos EUA não está a ser eficaz em evitar a escalada ao dizer isto. Ao enfatizar a sua aprovação aos ataques ucranianos nas fronteiras, Biden está a assumir a responsabilidade pelas mortes de civis russos em cidades como Belgorod e Kursk. As consequências desta medida poderão ser extremamente graves para o Ocidente, uma vez que, como já alertaram as autoridades russas, o cenário pode ser descrito como um envolvimento direto da OTAN.
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.
The United States arms industry is not producing the basic ammunition required to sustain support for Ukraine and Israel, Bloomberg reported on June 8. This is an extraordinary situation since Russia’s armed industry is booming despite facing major Western sanctions.
According to the outlet, the US defence industry gave priority to the manufacture of high-tech ammunition and halted the production of basic artillery such as 155-millimetre ammunition, the most used in the wars that are being fought today. The US is also facing a shortage of basic products, such as gunpowder or trinitrotoluene (TNT), to produce these munitions and have had to turn to other countries, such as Poland and Turkey, to obtain supplies.
At some point an attempt was made to replace the 155-millimetre ammunition with higher-tech projectiles on the battlefront in Ukraine, but the effort failed because the new weaponry was neutralised by the Russian military.
“Higher-tech shells that were intended to replace the traditional 155mm munitions failed an early test in Ukraine, when their targeting systems were thwarted by Russia,” Bloomberg reported. “The prospect that future wars could resemble the grinding combat taking place there has stirred fears that the US arsenal could someday be stretched to the breaking point.”
“The writing has been on the wall for a while,” Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the independent and bipartisan Center for a New American Security, told Bloomberg. “It has just taken the war in Ukraine to really shock Pentagon officials and members of Congress out of their complacency.”
Since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the Pentagon has divested or neglected facilities once used to manufacture everything from projectiles to gunpowder, focusing instead on transforming warfare with high-tech weaponry.
“What’s left is crumbling infrastructure, outdated machinery and a tiny workforce that can’t keep up with growing international demand,” the outlet highlights.
Before the special military operation in Ukraine, American production was 14,400 shells per month. Now, the US is spending more than $5 billion to overhaul aging factories across the country with the goal of producing 100,000 155mm shells a month by the end of next year.
As the agency stresses, it is a mobilisation that, due to its speed and breadth, is unlike anything since World War II.
As part of this effort, Congress has appropriated $650 million for a TNT production plant that will take two years to build, according to Doug Bush, the Army’s top weapons buyer. And Washington will have to finance purchases of whatever the renovated facilities produce, possibly for many years.
But, as Bloomberg noted, getting the money may also be the easiest obstacle to overcome.
“The US must bring old buildings up to snuff, build new ones, buy updated machinery and hire and train workers. Environmental regulations stand in the way. And the Pentagon will need to ensure that plants can be run safely — munitions-making is prone to fires, explosions and other accidents,” the outlet noted.
Bloomberg concludes,
“Boosting munition production is a costly and time-consuming business, and the US is playing catch-up at a time of growing tension in Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific region.”
Washington naively believed that the sweeping sanctions against Moscow would collapse the Russian economy and therefore its military operation against the Kiev regime. Instead, Russia not only overcame the sanctions but is now producing artillery shells at a rate that the West cannot keep up with.
It is recalled that Estonian Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur admitted in November 2023 that Russia was firing 70,000 rounds a day, meaning that an equivalent of a year’s worth of European production at the time was fired by the Russian military every 10 days. The crippling shortage of artillery was also referred to by Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov in January, who revealed that Ukraine was unable to fire more than 2,000 shells per day.
Due to a severe worldwide shortage of artillery shells, Western analysts admit Ukraine will likely be outgunned by Russia for at least the remainder of the year, but even with Kiev’s allies ramping up production, realistically Russia will hold the advantage for the duration of the war.
Even though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said recently there were no reports of artillery shortages, in an interview on May 21 with Reuters, he called on Western allies to speed up aid, saying every decision they’ve made on military support for Ukraine has been “late by around one year.” Even in this most desperate stage of the war, from Kiev’s perspective, Zelensky cannot but be ungrateful and entitled, even when the West struggles to overcome its industrial failures, particularly since Russia’s military industry is a resounding success despite the sanctions.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
Saving Gaza is about more than saving Gaza. It’s also about saving ourselves.
Saving ourselves as individuals. Saving ourselves as a society. Saving ourselves as a species.
Saving ourselves from what we’ll become if we just watch this happening right in front of our eyes without doing everything we can to stop it.
Saving ourselves from what the sociopaths who rule over us are trying to turn us into.
Saving ourselves from the way the propagandists are trying to twist and train our minds.
Saving ourselves from the kind of future humanity will have if our rulers can get away with such a brazen act of extreme depravity.
Saving ourselves from the other horrors that will be unleashed upon our world if this kind of thing becomes normalized and accepted.
Saving ourselves from the dark dystopia we are plunging into at breakneck speed.
Saving ourselves from a world where journalism is dead and dissent is forbidden.
Saving ourselves from a world where the bastards will do the worst things imaginable without even having to hide it, and just stare us in the eyes daring us to do something.
Saving ourselves from a world where the powerful have decided to respond to the public’s widespread access to information and raw video footage by just committing their evil deeds right out in the open and forcing us to get used to it.
Saving ourselves from this relentless push by propagandists and politicians to amputate that sacred part of our humanity which screams “NO” to all this.
Saving our hearts.
Saving our compassion.
Saving our tenderness.
Saving our children.
Saving our humanity.
Saving our world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
The Fabricated Institutional Matrix Is a System of Deception and Domination
We were born into a soul-killing system – a matrix of institutional political and financial control.
Consider the events of recent times: a fake pandemic, orchestrated wars, communism under a cloak of climate change policy and UN Agenda 2030, etc. Meanwhile, corporate-controlled news pushes a freedom-killing agenda building a deceptive jail house for the mind. One could be forgiven for thinking we have been living on a prison planet.
The UN, the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum (also known as the Davos Group), the World Bank, the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, etc. are international unelected unaccountable organisations, and are all parts of the one politico-corporate institutional power base that was established by the financial powers that intentionally orchestrated the mass death and destruction that was World War II.
This Censored History is evidenced by over 100 historical books on the subject that you won’t find in your local bookstore or library.
These structures act as implementation and marketing tools for the agendas of a group of power-hungry financial elites that have assumed control of almost everything via control of the money creation system.
All these institutions, at the top level, are just clever political mechanisms for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system of so-called elite power and control of society, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.
Analysis in this book indicates that this entire super structure is majority owned and controlled by a cartel of privately owned mega-banks. All national governments are dependent on this international banking/financial cartel for debt-money loans, i.e., and are thus subservient to the source of debt-money creation; and are ideologically and politically subservient to the UN super-structure.
The revolving door of national politics is simply a meaningless election of who will the next manager of a ‘national corporation’ that does not have the interests of the people at heart – quite the opposite. Look at the scenes in Ireland currently where the government is actively discriminating against the people in that land, see this article. The valiant protestors are right to stand for their interests.
Many people complain about government, yet they still accept government authority as their ‘God’ thinking that the next election will change things. The harsh reality is that in 2024 all governments are simply registered corporations – parts of this world corporate-communist matrix. Therefore, protesting to government is most likely to fall on deaf ears. Government will invariably do what it has been told to by the ulteriors that control the world debt-money financial system (upon which governments function). Elected politicians are little more than temporary cogs in that system. The instructions come externally from the EU, the UN, et al.
Fake Science
Bogus godless science is also part of this ideological hegemony.
The unpalatable reality is that economic and scientific tricks, used by this new world order group to increase their own economic power/control over world society.
These scientific tricks include fake climate science; and a virology wrong turn conveniently used to launch bogus pandemics and foist vaccine mandates worldwide. Communist control ideology; monopoly capitalism; along with corporate, banking, political, and media control, and are the everyday tools of this group. They created and own this current world corporate system because they have owned the process of money creation itself for the past century, they have been funding, or defunding, whatever agenda they choose.
Meanwhile, the ulteriors, such as the families and secret societies that have historical ownership and control of the world’s mega-banks/mega-corporations and debt-money creatin process remain hidden from public view. The world private banking cartel has fashioned a dominator matrix of control and ideological subversion. In 2023, this dictatorship of words spans government, banking, corporate media, education, geo-politics, and the corporate/economic world.
Why give authority to a government or corporation that is spinning fake science and lies? The misplaced belief in government authority has replaced belief in original divine authority. There are countless ways in which free people can easily work for the mutual benefit of themselves and society without governments getting in the way. The only real authority is God, not the flawed corrupted manmade corporate and political power systems that are dominated by certain ‘groups’ to further their own power.
Democracy Will Not Make Things Better
Democracy will not make things better – it is a divide and conquer/control trick. Modern democracy itself is a joke, a divide and conquer trick, the real power lies beyond the revolving door of elected politicians with the money masters. Democracy is there to provide talking points and mirages. The world doesn’t work that way, and the ruling elites know it, that’s why they love the ‘democratic’ parties of the ‘media manufactured’ left and right fighting against each other. Divide et impera = democracy! The reality in 2022 is that representative democracy under the debt-money system, is an illusion, it is a road to nowhere – it is money that controls the world. Over the decades the financial power of the money-masters translated into political power.
The democratic system is broken and unfixable because those that control the money creation process wield the power to control the corporate media, steer international political policy and own the material world, regardless of which political party is elected, or which system is utilised, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. The left versus right divide is a divide created and fostered by the financialists who control both the so-called left and the so-called right.The real divide is not left versus right, it is between the manipulators and the manipulated – between the power seeker and the freedom lovers. The following is an interesting quote from an interview with Emanuel Pastreich[1]:
“:…the billionaires paid off a group of people to push this neo-progressive neo-Marxist ideology of identity politics… The same people at BlackRock, or Cisco, or Facebook, or Google who are funding the corrupt parts of Black Lives Matter, ordering them to push this gender blending, race-based, fake ideological struggle, are the same people who are funding the Trump people and their MAGA (Make America Great Again) groups, those who are attacking immigrants as the threat to America without identifying the real problem of global finance. The Trump people are not any more right, or wrong, than those on the other side. They’re totally right to see how immigration is used to destroy the lives of ordinary Americans. Where they’re wrong, or where they miss the point, is that they don’t see how global financial institutions are investing in Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina so as to destroy the local economies of those countries and to force people to move to the United States as part of this strategy to destroy the lives of workers in both places so that the billionaires can emerge all-powerful. Both sides, the left and the right, have become part of a puppet show these days.”– Emanuel Pastreich
In these times, democracy is just the election of the latest political figure heads, the ins-become-the-outs and the outs-become-the-ins, none of whom have any real power. Ego-driven political personalities squabble with each other like barking dogs – just like with dogs, asking them to stop barking is pretty pointless. Many are subservient to, not the people, but to ‘special financial interests’ – if they were to actually declare these interests their suits they would be chequered with multiple corporate logos.
People have been conditioned to participate in democratic elections, which amount to begging the ulterior authorities to please be nicer. As long as this remains the case, people arguing over which political party puppet should be in power is akin to shuffling the deckchairs on the titanic.
There are various politicians seeking to get elected in order to change the government or the change the system, but do they realise what are they seeking to get elected to. They are getting elected to be the newest cog in the wheel of a demonic control system – a political structure that was set up by the demons – the cogs may be replaced but the wheel keeps turning. Good people thinking they are going to change the system maybe be valiant and sincere, however, it invariably amounts to (pardon the expression used in Ireland) ‘pissing against the wind’. I spent a year as an active member of a political party in government in 2009/2010 and that was my conclusion. Yet each must follow his inclination for he is forced to by his nature.
Are Governments the Enemy of Freedom?
A government only exists in your mind – governments do not ‘actually’ exist. Sure, the buildings and people exist, and manmade rules have been written down. However, government is simply a concept, the word ‘govern’ means control, and the word ‘mental’ means your mind. The word ‘governmental’ literally means ‘control of your mind’, and governments are nothing more than an attempted ‘spell’ to control your mind via the ‘spelling’ of written rules. The following is an excerpt from an interesting online video presentation titled the ‘Myth of Authority’:
“government is the ridiculous idea that some people can have the moral right to rule everyone else and make it okay for them to boss around the sectors of population under threat of force… the idea that we need to give a group of people (governments) permission to forcibly rob us (via taxes) and control us (via government restrictions and huge police forces) so that they can protect us from those few private individuals who might possibly in the future forcibly rob and control us is ridiculous… and yet most people believe exactly that… that we need government the biggest thug and thieve around to protect us from thugs and thieves.”
There are ways to easily prove that government cannot possibly be legitimate, for example, if you do not have the right to rob your neighbour on your own or tell your neighbour what they can and cannot do, then you cannot possibly give that right to some public official, not can anyone else. Belief in government authority over others is a dangerous superstition. The presentation goes on to say that:
“The only thing that so-called authority is needed for is…to try to authorize and legitimize acts that if done by normal people would be wrong, in other words so-called authority is nothing more than permission to do bad things… every soldier, every law enforcer, every tax collector, and every bureaucrat of every country…believes that they aren’t to blame for robbing, harassing assaulting, or even murdering… because so-called authority told them to… authority is the most dangerous superstition in the world…it is only about whose agenda, opinion, and values will be forced on everyone else… to volunteer to be the slave of a political ruling class in the hope that it will do what you want and make the world what you wish it was, is simply insane.”
[Aside: There is another major flaw in majority-rules democracy i.e., why should the majority have the right to make rules for the minority? especially if the majority have been led to believe in false ideologies by a corporate owned media? This amounts to a divide and conquer system.]
A Satanic Consciousness Directing the CO2, Covid, and Other Hoaxes
For those people who have little or no spiritual knowledge or realization, and who are generally absorbed in the materialistic society, the message that a ‘satanic influence’ or ‘satanic consciousness’ is controlling the top echelons of the world’s political, corporate and economic power structures is of such magnitude that it is quickly dismissed or certainly not easily understood or accepted. In March 2020, as the entire world grinded to a halt in the face of the covid-19 scare, most people had no idea of the deep significance of the events taking place – that this was a deceptive demoniac attempt to takeover and control the entirety of world society. Yet the bulk of society having accepted ‘government’ as their God simply accepted the narrative and queued up to get jabbed with ‘experimental’ vaccines.
They Foolishly Accepted ‘Government’ and ‘Science’ as Their King – As Their God
The smokescreen of the Climate Co2 Hoax and the Covid hoax enabled the godless forces to further control the world’s people and resources. Those souls that went along with the deceptive narrative had accepted ‘government’ and ‘modern science (infused with fake science)’ as their God – only problem is these are false Gods. It follows that the actual devotees of God should not naively trust the official government narrative, or blindly accept the so-called remedial measures to the fake climate catastrophe or next fake pandemic.
In our own life-time we have lived under a political hierarchy, which though pertaining to be made of individual and autonomous nation states, is actually a one world government controlled by the world banking cartel and its mega-corporations. In 2024, all nations states are corporations and are thus simply part of the one world government superstructure.If you think you are part of a ‘nation’ then you a slave that is owned – you have been conned into living within a cage that your mind has accepted. Obviously people exist, obviously different races of people exist, and obviously different geographical locations, different lands and islands exist. Yet, nations do not exist, a nation is a political fabrication to control you via government, taxes, debt-money, and bondage to that system via the ‘registered’ birth certificate, see also this book.
This hierarchy has stealthily introduced a poisonous ideology, an artificial monetary system that has caused economic enslavement to billions of people through-out the world, and a perpetual war machine which has caused death and injury to hundreds of millions of people through-out the world; it is a system which has introduced mass abortion, mass animal killing, illicit sex, gambling, and intoxication; it is a system that has introduced genetically modified foods, chemtrails, herbicides and pesticides, fluoridated water, toxic pharmaceuticals and vaccines, widespread ecological destruction, etc.; the list goes on and on.
Though individual politicians have been replaced by others, the same system of government has continued.
Through various networks, such servants of the government matrix are placed in positions of leadership, power, and influence, and then enact laws that allow society to become degraded, weak, easily controllable, and unable to perceive the nature of their material and spiritual captivity.
Our living reality has been co-opted into a godless political world regime. However, God-conscious souls have no need to fear as the perceived power of evil does not compare to the much greater and infinite power of God Himself. It is an awakening of God-consciousness that will help each individual soul to bypass the godless aspects of society. Without God it is just the blind leading the blind.
Those souls that have neglected God have accepted what their bogus governmental or scientific king says. [Aside: The issue runs also deeper than government, for many people have also accepted bogus and corrupted religious institutions that have claimed to be representatives of God, the self-appointed middle-men between you and God, see also this book.]
The souls that have given away their God-given freedom – they will getted vaxxed,they will foolishly buy an eco-car to “save the planet”, they will take toxic pharmaceuticals, and they will tell their children the bizarre story that humanity evolved from monkeys (rather than tell them that God is our father and creator). See also this book for evidence that Darwinian evolution is another hoax that has been foisted upon the world.
They will do what their bogus king tells them to do, and if not, the demoniac king will try to force them. Living free souls know that they are children of God alone and that God is the real authority, not communist-type governments. They know they are not the legal fiction of a birth certificate cleverly bonded in tax paying servitude as collateral on unpayable national debt, whilst government tells them how to live their life.
Choose the Real God – God Protects His Devotees
You can’t prove the existence of God to someone who has chosen to believe that there is no God. Those people that choose the government, the UN, fake scientific narratives, or a corrupted ‘religious organisation’ as their God will be subject to the dictates of those demoniac forces. It is folly to give away authority over oneself to such forces – the mistake is to neglect the true eternal God for only God has real authority.
God is everywhere, God exists in the smallest atom and in the warmth of the sun, God exists as a friend and father to us all. He is in our heart and is hoping we will return to be with Him.
Crucially, God is not a manmade organisation/institution. The demoniac paedophilia that has been exposed within manmade religious institutions exemplifies this. A deeper story is how original Christianity, the original movement of Lord Jesus Christ, was hijacked and subverted by institutional political forces seeking to advance their own power and empire, see this book.
Excerpt from a poem by Red Willow (American poet)
“You breathe the air, it wasn’t made in a factory.
You feel the sunshine on your face, you feel the cold wind coming your way.
This is Life, did you forget? That you need real human interaction.
You need all these things that can’t be obtained from a screen.
The scientists and the machines can’t manufacture reality even though they foolishly try.
The virtual world is limited and will never compare to the infinite spiritual sky.
…reclaim your life. Remember what you are actually dependent on, And give thanks.”
If we really want to protect ourself then we should surrender to the controller – to God Himself. There is no other way out of all this. Demons control those who accept false gods, but they cannot control God’s devotees – that is the real law. The 5,000-year-old Vedic scripture the Bhagavad Gita[2] states the world is in Kali-yuga, an era of degradation in which the demons are in control of the planet. The solution, it is stated, in all authentic scriptures of the world, is to surrender to God, to align ourself with God, and to lead a God-conscious life. Surrender to God is an active process and an ‘internal’ process. God sees all.
All authentic scriptures of the world tell us that we are an eternal soul currently in a body. Like a person driving a car – sooner or late the car wears out and the person must get a new car, so it is with the body. Yet, an intelligent person must wonder: If I am an eternal soul, why was I placed in a body that was born and will soon enough die? Srila Prabhupada (a great saint in the tradition of Vedic Vaishnavism, a process of devotion to God and His Holy Names) asserted that this world is a kind of prison for those who do not accept God’s authority, whereas those who are not jealous of God will live in God’s spiritual kingdom.
Who thinks they are fighting the demons of the world yet does not give devotion and thanks to God? If you deny the existence of God then who is the demon?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mark Keena is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research. He is author of the following books available on amazon.com
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Interview with Professor Mearscheimer, which points towards a process of military escalation.
“It’s no question that the US has joined with Israel because of the Israeli Lobby.
So when the Israelis decided to go on a rampage in Gaza, the US fully supported the Israelis.
Many Israeli generals made it clear that they could not conduct this offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza without the material support (weaponry) that the US is providing them; and furthermore, we’re providing them with diplomatic cover. So the US is complicit with what Israel is doing in Gaza.”
***
“Let Israel Do the Dirty Work for Us”
In this regard, Israel is largely serving the strategic interests of the U.S. acting on behalf of Washington.
America delivers 3 Billion dollars worth of weapons to Israel. And “Israel does the Dirty Work for Us”.
The dirty work concept is embedded in U.S foreign policy. Let your allies do the Dirty Work for You.
Déjà Vu:
We recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, that Israel would, so to speak: be doing the dirty work for us (paraphrase) without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.
“The Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” Cheney said on Inauguration Day.
Those comments followed leaks last September [2004] that the Pentagon was selling Israel 500 bunker buster bombs, which could be used for attacking deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities. Not mentioned was that this was a routine munitions sale.”
Michel Chossudovsky, June 10, 2024
Watch the interview with Prof. Mearsheimer below.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
A Wall Street Journal article back in April 2022 called US aircraft carriers “sitting duck” targets, adding:
The inconvenient truth is that our Navy has 12 carrier groups and all are now obsolete.
The fact is that modern warfare has passed the US Navy by, with old conventional hunks of steel that cost so much and take so long to make are now relics of last century warfare. Painful proof in point is last weekend’s alleged attacks of the USS Eisenhower in the Red Sea when the Houthis in Yemen claimed they damaged the aircraft carrier with several missile hits. Though the US denies this as “terrorist propaganda” citing claims it was AI-generated, according to Gordon Duff’s inteldrop.org website’s Monday June 3rd post, the carrier may have actually suffered at least surface damage with loss of life:
Despite fake videos, and a well-orchestrated coverup across social media orchestrated by the comedy team of Musk and Zuskstein, the truth is out, the USS Eisenhower is still under float but leaving the region under serious damage now to be scrapped.
Image: USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and strike group transit the Strait of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean Sea, 28 October, 2023 (Credit: U.S. Navy)
On Hal Turner’s intel website on Wednesday June 5th, aerial photos depict what appears to be clear damage of the USS Eisenhower deck parked in port, with the added commentary:
The heretofore believed-to-be-untouchable Aircraft Carrier seems to have been touched; and by guys in the desert, wearing sandals and dirty rags on their heads!
The Houthi spokesman Yahya Saree claimed that the very real drone and missile attacks on the aircraft carrier and destroyer the USS Gravely were in retaliation for Friday May 31st US and UK airstrikes in Yemen that killed 16Yemenis and injured 42. Tensions and stakes are rising every day in both Europe and the Middle East.
The Associated Press on Saturday, June 1st reported:
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin signed the order last week to extend the four ships’ deployment [at least another month] for a second time, rather than bring the carrier, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and its three warships home. The other ships in the strike group are the USS Philippine Sea, a cruiser, and two destroyers, the USS Gravely and the USS Mason. All together they include about 6,000 sailors.
The US is pretending no harm has come to the carrier or the destroyer, hoping to simply cover up the plausible truth that missile damage to the US Navy sitting ducks never happened, that the fleet is still patrolling and intercepting enemy drones and missiles protecting both commercial and allied military vessels in the Sea of Aden and Red Sea, as if nothing happened… very typical. Out of sight, out of mind.
Braindead’s permissive, anything goes policy toward Israel’s blatant genocide continues a parallel course. In the aftermath of the nightmarish fiery attack on May 26th at the Rafah refugee camp, melting scores of both tents and human flesh, and the ensuing IDF Rafah ground invasion, the White House only acknowledges “an uptick” of Israeli military activity. Six days later Associated Press claims:
Still, Biden administration officials say Israel has avoided massive attacks on what had been thickly crowded neighborhoods of Rafah and kept strikes more limited and targeted than earlier in its nearly 8-month-old war with Hamas.
The whole world is appalled at the disgusting bloodthirst by the monsters in Israel, while Braindead insists no red line has been crossed. It’s despicable, deplorable and preposterous to even witness as the entire world sees the genocidal pariahs dig their heels in, pretending no international laws have been violated. Recall a month ago when Biden said he would withhold weapons and bombs if the Butcher launched an all-out assault on Rafah, On May 9th, Biden said:
If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons.
Then within several days, Braindead reneged as the coward and sent more bombs. During this election year knowing that virtually everyone in the US government is bought, bribed, blackmailed and extorted by Israel and its higher paygrade founding masters from the City of London, no one has the moral courage to stand up and do the right thing. This moment in time in my opinion stands as an all-time low point for both the United States and Israel during my lifetime. I have never seen such evil go unpunished, as if no force on the planet has the strength or courage to stop this hell being diabolically played out. And then quibbled excuses and blind face lies are feebly aired to make it okay to look the other way and pretend the bloodbath isn’t really happening, and still no real consequences. It’s almost as if a disease of weakness and cowardice has afflicted humanity to such a degree that we simply are passively awaiting God’s intervention, or more apt God’s wrathful punishment.
On Saturday June 1st, another Associated Pressarticle reported that on Friday May 31st Biden said:
Israel has offered Hamas a cease-fire and hostage release deal that would unfold over three phases, declaring it was time to end the fighting in Gaza and that Hamas is ‘no longer capable’ of carrying out another large-scale attack on Israel.
Yet this too seems like more like infantile wishful thinking, as if pretending hard enough will suddenly bring peace so Braindead can increase his election chances. This game of charades is so cynically pathetic. Braindead’s trying to apply undue pressure on both Israel and Hamas to accept a deal, do the hostage/prisoner swap and call an end to the bloody mess. But then as always, the Butcher upends Biden’s wishful thinking fantasy, claiming it’s not enough even to get whatever Israeli hostages home, the war will not end until every last Hamas militant is dead, an unrealistic, impossible task. But then by deliberate design, that’s how this wartime prime minister set it up in order to stay in power at all cost, keeping the war going. The Butcher obviously is showing his true colors and doesn’t give a shit about his hostages.
Netanyahu is receiving pressure from his rightwing Nazi war cabinet to not let up, anything less than full bore genocide is conceding to terrorists. If Netanyahu signs the ceasefire deal, his National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrichthreatened already to disband his coalition government which would be the end of Bibi’s political life. So with everything to lose, he figures he must holdout, with lots of people’s lives hanging precariously in the balance. After Biden in desperation laid out the three-phase ceasefire proposal on Monday, Bibi haltingly responded:
[Israelis] reserve the right to return to war.
Now that another ceasefire fantasy has stalled and hit the wall, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby kisses Israel’s higher paygrade ass:
This wasn’t about jamming the prime minister, the war cabinet. This was about laying bare for the public to see how well and how faithfully and how assertively the Israelis came up with a new proposal. It shows how much they really want to get this done.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador in the UN, is pressuring 14 Security Council members to sign onto the resolution, Biden is asking Qatar deal broker to pressure Hamas, national security advisor Jake Sullivan is leaning on his Turkish counterpart to pressure Hamas into the deal. Braindead is even pushing his G7 pals to endorse the deal, and they put out the statement:
We call on Hamas to accept this deal, that Israel is ready to move forward with, and we urge countries with influence over Hamas to help ensure that it does so.
When Time interviewed Biden on May 28th, asking if Netanyahu is stalling the war for his own political reasons, Biden admitted:
There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.
Then on Tuesday June 4th, again asked if Netanyahu is playing politics with the Gaza war, with Bibi still not accepting Biden’s May 31st peace proposal, Braindead walked back his earlier statement nervous to further piss off the higher paygrade Israeli Butcher, so his lame answer was:
I don’t think so. He’s trying to work out the serious problem that he has.
Now a week later still without a ceasefire, it’s make-or-break time for this lame-brain dead regime, running out of time to finally put something, anything together that doesn’t humiliatingly fall apart like everything else this imbecile batch touches. The Braindead crew know that with the Democratic Presidential Convention to nominate Biden coming up soon two months away in August, and the November election less than 5 months away, Biden knows he better have Gaza war over or his political chances are worth near zero. So maybe facing that reality, maybe he is using no more weapons to Israel as leverage to pressure the Butcher to make the deal, even with his war cabinet threatening to break up his coalition government. It’s crunch time in the Middle East.
Killing Hezbollah soldiers near the Israeli northern border in southern Lebanon with white phosphorus airstrikes, that’s the Butcher’s way of quickly expanding the war. But it’s also the Butcher’s way of setting up Israel to be wiped off the map because Hezbollah is not Hamas, it’s a much stronger military than the IDF. And has all the support and logistics from Iran… like I said, crunch time in the Middle East.
The US government has never ever appeared so weak as today. This bumbling Braindead regime can’t get anything constructive accomplished, its hairbrained humanitarian pier broke apart, every peace negotiation fails, only bringing more US bombs killing more Palestinians brings shame and disgust from the rest of the world, and with Biden’s witch hunt on his opponent backfiring, only driving up Trump support, Biden’s days may be over.
Speaking of which, a more personal lens has this 81-year old wretch of an imposter slipping on even a more slippery slope these days. Not just the fact that Biden keep taking his infamous spills falling over and tripping on stairs, or not knowing where to go after he leaves the microphone. His unavoidable, way too obvious mental decline is growing worse by the week, and that reality is doing him in now. With his team in panic and constant damage control desperately trying to prop him up from clear signs of worsening dementia fast kicking in, the White House has been claiming executive privilege to withhold an audio tape of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s classified document interview with Biden. The interview transcript had to be altered to not make him look so senile and cognitively impaired. On CNN the Time reporter’s description of Biden’s mental competence was vague and elusive, unable to dodge or deny the obvious aging effects of his mental decline.
But the latest is a Tuesday June 4th Wall Street Journal piece titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” The article cites multiple behind-the-scene close encounters this year where his undeniable senility is on full awkward display for all to see and report to WSJ. One damaging quote came from dethroned former GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy:
I used to meet with him when he was vice president. I’d go to his house. He’s not the same person.
That is not only cognitively true, but literally, physically true as well. The president is a failed actor with attached bottom ear lobes, and the real “Big Guy” VP from before he died, is with unattached bottom ear lobes, clearly a different person.
So, with less than five months left and the world fast falling apart, their 81-year old Braindead puppet geezer has no chance at all making it to the November finish line. The moneychanger controllers would prefer having a more easily pliable, robotic braindead occupying the White House as wartime president, with war breaking out not only on three warfronts. But upheaval is erupting over this coming long hot summer at home with more than one false flag planned, one to blame Russia, another one for Iran, while activating all those domestic terrorist sleeper cells to wreak havoc on the USA home-front. I’ve maintained for over a year now that I don’t believe there will even be an American election this year. A growing national emergency crisis in the coming months will usher in martial law to cancel the election on November 5th. This way the globalist agenda has full sway to destroy the US in the fastest way possible while engulfed in nuclear Armageddon on three world warfronts.
Let’s face it, all hell’s about to break loose all over this devil’s dominion planet. Without a brokered six-week ceasefire in Gaza, the current White House team appears to be on life support. With Bibi’s fractured coalition falling apart if a ceasefire deal is made, the Butcher’s own self-interests have always been his number one priority in everything this repeated war criminal has ever done. Because his war cabinet Nazis have him by the balls, this week-old deal still hanging in limbo appears to also run its course with near zero chance of success. The only option Biden has to salvage the deal Butcher agreed to is withholding US bombs. That would be the only way that Bibi might agree to halt the war. Of course, the last time a US president threatened an Israeli prime minister with cutting off the US cash cow spigot, that US president was murdered first, before US cashflow to the Jewish State would ever stop. That’s a reality check of Israel’s higher paygrade per founding Rothschild City of London power that runs the world.
This stagnating, bogged down Gaza war has gone the same way as the war in Ukraine, endlessly dragging on, looking grimmer for the IDF than the Hamas fighters. Again, the US is backing another loser in yet another immoral lost cause war of attrition. And the longer it goes on, the more detrimental impact on Israel. Resourceful Hamas cheaply produces weapons on its own underground tunneled turf, using guerilla-style warfare it can outlast Israel now flailing and failing to root out the surprisingly resilient and evasive occupation resistance. As the Palestinian civilian death toll rises to near 37,000, with graphically brutal accounts dispersed daily to the world on social media, Israel’s untenable bloodbath cannot withstand the wrath of the entire world, and for that matter, neither can the US.
So what does Bibi do? He orders more airstrikes on southern Lebanon, but once again using the outlawed chemical warfare agent, the flesh burning poison white phosphorus. Tangling with this far larger, more heavily armed, stronger military force Hezbollah at Israel’s northern border that already defeated the Jewish State once in a 2006 war, is a desperately dangerous Butcher-ous blunder intended to frantically drag the US into the wider war. Again, Israel is losing this war in Gaza and will immediately fold if the US actually ever grows the balls to stop shipping weapons to the IDF. This Middle East war is another no-win debacle just like Ukraine. The US keeps backing itself into the losers’ corner, backing the demons on the wrong side of history, both morally and militarily. Israel is the growing pariah of the world, joined by a weakening belligerent pariah, the United States. To make matters uglier and more grotesque, Israel’s bought and paid for treasonous US Congress has invited Bibi the Butcher to be their guest of honor addressing yet another joint session in the Capitol building, just like war criminal Zelensky afterglow comparison to Winston Churchill. On Saturday June 1st, the Butcher accepted, saying:
[I am] excited for the privilege to present in front of the representatives of the American people and the entire world the truth about our just war against those who wish to kill us.
The only thing that will cancel this demonic spectacle of a lauded genocidal Butcher in the Capitol Dome, is Israel cutoff from all future US weapons. A permanent ceasefire might bring him to Washington but his government would collapse before peace comes to the Middle East. Again, Satan rules this seemingly hexed earth.
*
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.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.
The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point, the pandemic hoax and kill shot genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, including Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https//jameshfetzer.org, Inteldrop.org and https://thegovernmentrag.com. As a published author of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, Joachim’s books and chapters are Amazon bestsellers in child advocacy and human rights categories. His A-Z sourcebook series fully document and expose the global pedophilia scourge and remain available free at https://pedoempire.org/content s/. Joachim also hosts the weekly Revolution Radio broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed” on Friday morning at 7AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!).
Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish
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.
Those who sacrifice lives for the sake of US interests globally. No, not their own personal lives, but the lives of others. The more the better.
Washington celebrates an especially big US hero this summer.
On 27 July, the suspected genocide criminal Benjamin Netanyahu is invited the extraordinary honor of speaking jointly to both Chambers of the US Congress.
“The bipartisan, bicameral meeting symbolizes the US and Israel’s enduring relationship and will offer Prime Minister Netanyahu the opportunity to share the Israeli government’s vision for defending their democracy, combatting terror and establishing just and lasting peace in the region,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a joint statement, which notably did not include the Democratic Congressional leaders whose approval was also needed to extend the invitation to the Israeli premier.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had delayed the invite for weeks and in March gave a speech in which he called Netanyahu an obstacle to peace and advocated early elections in Israel in order to replace him.
But Schumer — the highest ranking Jewish lawmaker in US history — ultimately acquiesced to the Republican initiative, ostensibly not wanting to be seen as obstructionist, particularly given his longstanding support for Israel.
“I have clear and profound disagreements with the prime minister, which I have voiced both privately and publicly and will continue to do so. But because America’s relationship with Israel is ironclad and transcends one person or prime minister, I joined the request for him to speak,” Schumer said in a Thursday statement.
Some comments from Democratic Senate majority leader Schumer and President Biden about Netanyahu were just to appease outrage from the world. In deeds, we see whom the US and the “do-good” Democrats consider as useful.
Ariel Sharon was also a US hero after Sabra and Shatila, where he murdered 2,000-3,500 refugees including children and women.
Shatila, a Palestinian refugee camp, and the adjacent neighbourhood of Sabra are located southwest of Lebanon’s capital city Beirut.
The refugees were victims of the 1948 Nakba, or “catastrophe” in Arabic, fleeing the violent ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias as Israel was formed.
But between September 16 and 18, 1982, the refugees, now living in Shatila and Sabra, along with Lebanese civilians, were attacked by a right-wing Lebanese militia, in coordination with the Israeli army.
For this massacre, Ariel Sharon was also awarded the peculiar US honor of speaking to both Houses of Congress.
US clearly shows whom they are proud of.
The US also demonstrates the peculiar way it views international law and dignity.
President Biden will surely also receive Netanyahu at the White House.
Americans can really be proud of standing up for themselves.
*
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.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
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.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words—and in this case, a stunning viral video that has been watched over 34 million times sums up one of the greatest lies that our country has ever perpetuated on its public better than a thousand op-eds ever could.
You remember—just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, the New York Post broke the story about how Hunter Biden’s laptop had been left at a computer repair shop and turned out to have photos and documents that showed his drug-addicted, lascivious lifestyle while its contents also revealed many dubious emails that appeared to show the Biden Crime Family illicitly profiting from all sorts of shady international dealings.
New York Post Cover Hunter Biden, “Biden Secret E-Mails” (New York Post)
Most of the nation’s media instantly joined forces with extremists in the intelligence community and other branches of government to throw their full power into discrediting—and censoring—the Post’s coverage, withholding crucial information from voters just as they were coming to their decisions.
To this day, if you say the 2020 vote was rigged, many will call you a conspiracy theorist or, worse, an insurrectionist. But what do you call such powerful forces all pulling together to lie to you other than “election interference?”
Of course, the government just admitted the laptop and its contents are, in fact, real, despite the fact that Joe Bidenlied about it during an October 2020 presidential debate with Donald Trump. Hunter is embroiled in a scandal-filled trial in Delaware, where the First Son is charged with lying on a federal form to obtain a gun—and much of the evidence federal prosecutors are using in the case comes from… you guessed it, the Laptop from Hell.
The video is long, but watch as you are lied to, over and over, by the legacy corporate media, 51 former intelligence agents, and virtually every progressive politician in the country:
The FBI just admitted in court that Hunter Biden's laptop is real.
Here are 20 minutes of Joe Biden, U.S. intelligence officials, and the American media claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation."
Absolutely amazing stuff. So much lying. Also note that you don’t need to rely on some pundit’s personal take on the matter—it’s merely a compendium of all the fraudsters in their own words.
Not surprisingly, one of the most mendacious members of Congress, the man known as “Shifty Schiff,” was at the forefront of the propaganda effort:
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said during an interview with CNN at the time that it was clear Trump and the Kremlin were behind Hunter Biden’s laptop.
“The Kremlin has an obvious interest in denigrating Joe Biden, they want Donald Trump to win, they recognize he’s a weak president,” Schiff said. “Clearly they want to help him, so they want to denigrate the vice president, the intelligence community has made that abundantly clear.”
He also called the laptop story “Kremlin propaganda.”
Schiff is clearly vying for the title of “most dishonest politician in America.” But he has competition.
Two of the other most notorious deep state liars, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan—neither of whom has faced any consequences for their election meddling—also feature prominently:
James Clapper, a former Director of National Intelligence, said on CNN at the time that the laptop was “classic, textbook Soviet, Russian tradecraft at work.”
“The Russians have analyzed the target, they understand that the president and his enablers crave dirt on Vice President Biden, whether its real or contrived, it doesn’t matter to them. And so all of a sudden, two and a half weeks before the election, this laptop appears, somehow, and the emails without any metadata, it’s all very curious,” he said.
The deep state, in cahoots with the mainstream media, used disinformation and censorship to alter the outcome of an election—and as we all know, they succeeded, and now we are subject to watching an incoherent Joe Biden lead our country into ruin. While long, this video reminds us of the powerful, corrupt forces we are up against as we head toward the November elections.
I was once innocent enough to believe my country would not lie to me. Now I know better.
*
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.
Bob Hoge—pronounced Hoge like rogue, not Hodge like lodge—is a RedState front page contributor and editor and proud father of four. He is shown sporting his COVID beard, which his wife has since forced him to shave. Follow him on Twitter @Bob_Hoge_CA.
Featured image: This caricature of Hunter Biden was adapted from in the public domain from the US Congress (PDF). The body was adapted from in the public domain from The White House’s Flickr photostream.
The clear aim of the plan is to strike the BRICS, which Russia and China are part of, and Saudi Arabia has entered together with Iran,which the USA and Israel consider their most dangerous enemy in the region. However, the fact remains – concludes Biden – that Israel will always have the right to defend itself from threats to its security and that the United States will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to protect itself.
Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).
Zionist Israel’s theft of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own country was covered up each year along the way by the West pretending to be in favor of a “two state solution.” Of course, such a solution never materialized decade after decade as Israel claimed the entire territory.
For Israeli officials, Hezbollah is a formidable enemy that will fight to the end. Since Israel lost the last war to Hezbollah in 2006, the Israelis know that with the Lebanese resistance still in the picture, they will face an unwinnable war against all their long-time adversaries including the Palestinian resistance, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran, so for them, Hezbollah needs to be taken out of the equation.
An extensive examination of Theodor Herzl’s wittings and movement shows clearly that from its very beginnings to the politics and policies of the state of Israel today, Zionism thought has permanently and resolutely embraced the dominant European discourses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including anti-Semitism.
Today’s political leaders in Israel—greatly emboldened by their perceived triumph over the civilian population of Gaza—are pushing for an invasion of Lebanon and a confrontation with their arch-enemy, Hezbollah. Most of these politicians either don’t know what transpired in 2006 or think that today’s “stronger and more capable” IDF will prevail with relative ease.
Artificial Intelligence, at least in its current form already threatens to take our jobs away from us. During the Viva Technology Conference in Paris a couple of weeks ago, billionaire Elon Musk asserted his conviction that Artificial Intelligence will ultimately eliminate the need for people to work.
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.
Important article first published by Global Research on Jun10, 2024
***
The latest voter registration numbers among noncitizens in Washington D.C. are a stark reminder of how the Democratic Party plans to use foreigners to cement their national majority.
Last year, an Obama-appointed federal judge upheld a Washington D.C. law that allows noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in local elections.
The voters include 310 who registered as Democrat, 169 independent, 28 Republican and 16 Statehood Green, said Sarah Graham, a spokesperson for the D.C. Board of Elections.
In this city, which has no voting representative in Congress, leaders have expanded voting rights to noncitizen residents. Noncitizens are eligible to vote if they are at least 18 years old as of Election Day, have been a D.C. resident for at least 30 days before the election, have not been deemed by a court legally incompetent to vote and are not claiming the right to vote in any state, territory or country.
There has been opposition, with critics arguing that the right to vote should be reserved for American citizens. The U.S. House advanced a bill last month to block noncitizen voting in D.C., though it’s unlikely this bill would move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Workers for the D.C. Board of Elections have also been fielding angry messages from callers opposed to noncitizen voting, said Monica Evans, the office’s executive director.
As reported by The Gateway Pundit, the city’s Democratic authorities are also handing out documents to illegal aliens and noncitizens explaining how they can register to vote and secure their left-wing supermajority.
As well as voting, noncitizens in D.C. are also permitted to work as police officers. The change in policy was reportedly implemented after the city realized that it was struggling to recruit and retain police officers. Successful applicants are also eligible for a massive $25,000 signing bonus to help accelerate the recruitment drive.
*
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.
Ben Kew is a writer and editor. Originally from the UK, he moved to the U.S. to cover Congress for Breitbart News and has since gone on to editorial roles at Human Events, Townhall Media, and Americano Media. He has also written for The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, and The Spectator.
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.
The Bosnian Croats’ reaction and that of their neighboring eponymous NATO-member state to Republika Srpska’s planned separation will be the most pivotal factor for determining whether the West resorts to military force to stop the Serbs.
President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik confirmed in an interview with TASS at last week’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that his state plans to separate from Bosnia but is proceeding very carefully in order to avoid any instability. He then met his Serbian counterpart Aleksandar Vucic in Belgrade during the Pan-Serbian Assembly there, which produced the “Declaration on the Protection of National and Political Rights and the Common Future of the Serbian People”.
That document importantly calls for their institutions to act in coordination with one another to further the Serbian people’s interests and essentially amounts to the beginning of their informal merger along the lines of the commonwealth model that Dodik briefly touched upon in his abovementioned interview. As he explained, this is a natural development that represents the historically justified aspirations of the Serbian people, which he compared to the unification of East and West Germany after the Old Cold War.
The problem is that the West is unlikely to abandon its three-decade-long failed political experiment in Bosnia, however, since the whole purpose behind artificially keeping that polity together all this time has been to divide-and-rule the Serbian people. Moreover, since Serbs are among the most Russian-friendly people anywhere in the world, Western anti-Russian hawks are likely to spin this long-overdue move as some sort of Russian plot to sow instability in the Balkans exactly as the Associated Press just speculated.
Accordingly, the odds of them respecting the UN-enshrined right of Republika Srpska’s majority-Serbian people to separate from Bosnia and unite with Serbia are low. In all likelihood, they’ll use every means at their disposal to oppose this peaceful process, especially since successfully obstructing it could then be presented as a faux victory over Russia to boost Western morale. This includes warmongering and possibly even acting on their threats to stop Republika Srpska in the worst-case scenario.
To that end, the West is expected to gaslight that it’s Republika Srpska and Serbia that are preparing for war with secret Russian support, not the West. In that way, they can reframe everything as the opposite of what it really is by swapping the roles of victims and villains like they always do, which is aimed at manipulating public opinion in their support. That’s not to say that the West will definitely resort to military force to stop Republika Srpska, but just that they’ll at least likely convey such threats to it.
That’ll be much more difficult to do though if Republika Srpska convinces its Bosniak and especially Croat counterparts from Bosnia’s other half, the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina, to agree to its peaceful separation. In that event, this rump state can either remain as Bosnia’s successor or bifurcate once more if the Croat part joints Croatia, thus leaving the Bosniak part as its own country. There are pros and cons to these scenarios from each of their perspectives so it’s unclear what they’ll ultimately do.
The Bosnian Croats’ reaction and that of their neighboring eponymous NATO-member state to Republika Srpska’s planned separation will be the most pivotal factor for determining whether the West resorts to military force to stop the Serbs. If they agree that this is the most pragmatic way to truly advance the best interests of Bosnia’s three constituent people and doesn’t pose a threat to the region due to the lack of Serbian claims on others, then they’re unlikely to go along with the West’s warmongering.
Another argument in favor of them letting Republika Srpska peacefully separate from Bosnia is that few want to fight a war over the future of this country. Each of its three constituent people already have their own niche where they live in safety unlike right after Yugoslavia’s dissolution. Socio-economic ties between them can therefore easily continue even in the absence of political ones. Since nobody has any claims to anyone else’s land anymore, ending this experiment wouldn’t automatically lead to instability.
Moreover, so long as the UkrainianConflict continues, the West’s military priority is to keep fighting Russia by proxy. Republika Srpska and Serbia’s armed forces are incomparable to Russia’s in the sense that they’d be easily defeated by NATO, but even so, another regional war would distract from the West’s military focus on Russia and lead to the further depletion of its already stressed stockpiles. It’s for this reason why their use of force to stop Republika Srpska can’t be taken for granted even if they threaten it.
One possibility is that Western military threats deter Republika Srpska from declaring independence and then merging with Serbia but that Dodik withdraws his state’s recognition of Bosnia just like Puntland withdrew its recognition of Somalia earlier this spring after a constitutional dispute. That African sub-national polity is still universally recognized as part of its UN-member state but it’s functionally independent in all respects and has been for a while already even before the latest development.
In Republika Srpska’s case, its withdrawal of recognition might be irreversible but stop short of outright secession, thus resulting in a compromise whereby it and the rest of Bosnia can go their own separate ways without any political red lines being crossed that risk provoking the West into an overreaction. During that time, Republika Srpska and Serbia could accelerate the implementation of their joint declaration, which would change the political facts on the ground and create a fait accompli.
At this point, it’s obvious that the West’s political experiment in Bosnia failed to divide-and-rule the Serbian people, who’ve begun to peacefully unite once more. The only way to stop them is to resort to force, but that would divert arms and attention from the Ukrainian Conflict, plus Croatia might not go along with it. For these reasons, observers shouldn’t assume that Western warmongering signifies another impending war, but they also shouldn’t ignore any tangible moves in this direction either.
*
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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict revealed the worrying servility of Western countries, which translated into the loss of decision-making power of European institutions and their total subordination to the geopolitical dictates of the United States, leaving France as an irrelevant power in the new cartography, geopolitics of the Cold War 2.0.
However, Macron’s thinking would be rigid and incorrigible since it does not take into account the contrary reasons and only collects data or signs that confirm the prejudice to turn it into conviction, so everything indicates that Macron would be determined to lead Europe by personally committing himself to unwavering support for the Ukrainian people and forcing NATO into open conflict with Putin’s Russia.
Thus, as the US is immersed in the electoral campaign for the November Presidential elections, France, Poland and the United Kingdom would be the trident chosen by the globalists to implode the Ukrainian front next summer and provoke the subsequent entry of NATO into an open conflict with the Russia of a Putin reelected until 2030.
NATO Entry Into the Ukrainian War?
The Ukrainian conflict would have meant the return to the Cold War between Russia and the United States and the return to the Doctrine of Containment, the bases of which were exposed by George F. Kennan in his essay “The Sources of Soviet Behavior”, published in the magazine, Foreign Affairs, in 1947 and whose main ideas are summarized in the quote
“Soviet power is impervious to the logic of reason but very sensitive to the logic of force.”
Thus, the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, stated that his country is “willing to accept nuclear weapons” from allied countries on its territory, which has received a harsh and forceful response from Moscow when it warned that “the placement of this type of weaponry in Poland will make this country a priority objective in Russian military planning.”
Likewise, in a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry, Russia has warned that the “arrival of the F-16 fighters in Ukraine will be seen as carriers of nuclear weapons and we will consider this step by the US and NATO as a deliberate provocation,” while at the same time which accuses the West of openly supporting Ukraine’s sabotage actions in Russian territory and of supplying Kiev with British and French long-range missiles as well as the new American ATACMS, which can reach Russian territory.
Within the action-reaction dynamic typical of the new Cold War 2.0 scenario, Putin ordered his country’s Armed Forces to carry out maneuvers with tactical nuclear weapons on the southern border with Ukraine. Likewise, Putin warned that “the use of weapons by Ukraine against Russian territory could lead to very serious problems” and in response, “Moscow could provide long-range weapons to third parties to attack Western targets.”
Ignoring these warnings, in a televised interview with the France 2 and TF1 channels, Macron announced that France “will provide Ukraine with Mirage 2000-5 fighters, and will train pilots and a brigade of 4,500 Ukrainian soldiers whom it will equip, train and will lend weapons.” He also reiterated that
“Ukraine should be allowed to use weapons provided by its Western allies to attack Russian military targets and neutralize the points from which the country is being attacked.”
Paris’ current priority, according to its Defense Minister, Sebastian Lecornu, would be to supply Zelensky with high-tech precision-guided AASM bombs and advanced artillery pieces as well as the production of 40 units of France’s powerful SCALP cruise missile.
Macron and the Nuclear Saber-Rattling
Macron, established as “a champion of the defense of Western values against Russian barbarism”, would be the only European leader willing to use the “nuclear saber” in the face of Putin’s threats to “use nuclear force in the event of being endangering the integrity of Russia.” Although responsibility for the armed forces is shared by the President and the Prime Minister according to the 1958 French Constitution, a 1962 decree only attributes to the President the ability to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
Let us remember that the “Force de Frappe” was born in 1960 as a consequence of the proclamation of the Fifth French Republic by General De Gaulle. And it was conceived as one of the key elements of the country’s economic, diplomatic and military independence from the two great powers in conflict worldwide (the US and the USSR).
Under Sarkozy, the French atomic arsenal was reduced to the current 290 nuclear warheads and bases part of its power on the use of ballistic nuclear submarines (SLBM), the M51 missile being the longest range with a range of 9 km and also including bombers. land and maritime missiles with medium-range, high-speed Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMP) nuclear cruise missiles. In this context, the French Minister of Defense, Sébastien Lecornu, confirmed that “a first test shot of a new short- and medium-range supersonic air-to-ground nuclear missile” known as ASMPA-R had been successfully launched from an aircraft. Rafale of the Strategic Air Forces (FAE) over French territory and has a range of 500 kilometers and can transport nuclear charges of 300 kilotons.
Towards a Low Intensity Nuclear War?
Given that both Macron and Putin are suffering from the so-called Pontius syndrome, which consists of “a distortion in the perception of danger that would have its origin in the excess of adrenaline of the affected person”, neither of them will be deterred by the opposite, so the conflict could culminate in a low-intensity nuclear war through the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“Non-strategic” nuclear weapons, also known as “tactical nuclear weapons”, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and of which Russia would have about 1,800 warheads and NATO would have 250 warheads deployed in Europe, would be warheads designed to used on a limited battlefield, for example to destroy a tank column or an aircraft carrier battle group if used at sea, which is why they are also known as “low performance”.
However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Princeton University simulation of a US-Russia conflict that begins with the use of a tactical nuclear weapon predicts “a rapid escalation that would leave more than 90 millions of dead and injured”, with which the beginning of a low-intensity nuclear conflict could degenerate into a large-scale nuclear conflagration with disastrous results for Humanity.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Germán Gorraiz Lopez is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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.
Lock them up. The whole bally lot. The pollsters, the pundits, the parasitic hacks clinging to the life raft of politics in the hope of earning their crust. Yet again, the election results from a country have confounded the chatterers and psephologists. India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was meant to romp home and steal the show in the latest elections. The Bharatiya Janata Party was meant to cut through the Lok Sabha for a third time, comprehensively, conclusively. Of 543 parliamentary seats, 400 were to be scooped up effortlessly.
From a superficial perspective, it was easy to see why this view was reached. Modi the moderniser is a selling point, a sales pitch for progress. The builder and architect as leader. The man of temples and faith to keep company with the sweet counting of Mammon’s pennies. Despite cherishing an almost medieval mindset, one that rejects Darwinian theories of evolution and promotes the belief that Indians discovered DNA before Watson and Crick, not to mention flying and virtually everything else worth mentioning, Modi insists on the sparkle of development. Propaganda concepts abound such as Viksit Bharat (Developed India). The country, he dreams, will slough off the skin of its “developing” status by 2047, becoming a US$30 trillion economy.
The BJP manifesto had pledges aplenty: the improvement of the country’s infrastructure, the creation of courts programmed to be expeditious in their functions, the creation of “high-value” jobs, the realisation of India as a global hub for manufacturing.
The electors had something else in mind. At the halfway point of counting 640 million votes, it became clear that the BJP and its allies had won 290 seats. The BJP electoral larder had been raided. The Modi sales pitch had not bent as many Indian ears as hoped. The opposition parties, including the long-weakened Congress Party, once the lion of Indian politics, and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, had found their bite. States such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra, had put the Hindutva devotees off their stroke.
Despite Modi’s inauguration of a garish temple to Ram at Ayodhya, occupying the site of a mosque destroyed by mob violence (the cliché goes that criminals return to the scene of their crime), the Socialist party and Congress alliance gained 42 of the 80 seats on offer in Uttar Pradesh. A rather leaden analysis offered in that dullest of publications, The Conversation, suggested that Hindu nationalist policies, while being “a powerful tool in mobilising the BJP’s first two terms” would have to be recalibrated. The theme of religious nationalism and its inevitable offspring, temple politics, had not been as weighty in the elections as initially thought.
For such politics watchers as Ashwini Kumar, the election yielded one fundamental message: “the era of coalition politics is back”. The BJP would have to “put the contentious ideological issues in cold storage, like the uniform civil code or simultaneous elections for state assembly and the Parliament.”
While still being the largest party in the Lok Sabha, the BJP put stock in its alliance with the National Democratic Alliance. The NDA, said Modi, “is going to form the government for the third time, we are grateful to the people”. The outcome was “a victory for the world’s largest democracy.”
Modi, sounding every bit a US president dewy about the marble virtues of the republic, romanced the election process of his country. “Every Indian is proud of the election system and its credibility. Its efficiency has not [sic] match anywhere else in the world. I want to tell the influencers that this is a matter of pride. It enhances India’s reputation, and people who have a reach, they should present it before the world with pride.”
For a man inclined to dilute and strain laws in a breezy, thuggish way, this was quite something. Modi spoke of the Indian constitution as being “our guiding light”, despite showing a less than enlightened attitude to non-Hindus in the Indian state. He venerated the task of battling corruption, omitting the fact that the vast majority of targets have tended to be from the opposition. The “defence sector”, he vowed, would become “self-reliant”.
In an interview with the PTI news agency, the relentlessly eloquent Congress Party grandee Shashi Tharoor had this assessment. The electorate had given a “comeuppance” to the BJP’s “overweening arrogance” and its “my way or the highway attitude”. It would “be a challenge for Mr Modi and Amit Shah who have not been used to consulting very much in running their government and I think this is going to test their ability to change their way of functioning and be more accommodative and more conciliatory within the government and also I hope with the Opposition.”
Whatever Modi’s sweet words for the Indian republic, there was no getting away from the fact Hindutva’s juggernaut has lost its shine. We anticipate, to that end, something amounting to what Tharoor predicts to be a “majboor sarkaar (helpless government)” on fundamental matters. Far better helpless in government than ably vicious in bigotry.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
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.
This map series shows the progressive theft of Palestine by Zionist Israel since 1947, with the complicity of Washington and Europe. Where did all the Palestinians who lived in the green areas of Palestine, almost the entirety of Palestine, in 1947 go? They were herded into refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon.
The UN (second map from the left) planned to give Israel half of Palestine, although no one explained the UN’s ability to give away a people’s country. The UN’s generous redistribution of Palestine to Israel did not satisfy Israel who took the rest.
Zionist Israel’s theft of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own country was covered up each year along the way by the West pretending to be in favor of a “two state solution.” Of course, such a solution never materialized decade after decade as Israel claimed the entire territory.
The “two state solution” let the West pretend it was doing the right thing while Israel stole the country and exiled the people, the remnants of which were confined to the Gaza ghetto, currently under destruction by Israel using American weapons and money.
America has been unable to do anything about this genocide of a country and a people because US presidents and members of the House and Senate are elected with the aid of Israeli campaign contributions.
The billions of dollars that US taxpayers are forced to hand over to Israel every year come back to purchase our elections. Consequently, Washington answers to the Israel Lobby, not to the American people. We see this clearly in the invitation of the US Congress to Netanyahu who is under indictments both within Israel and by the International Criminal Court. Washington is determined to show that Netanyahu’s criminal indictments notwithstanding, Netanyahu is under the protection of the United States. In contrast, we are supposed to write Trump off as a gangster based on concocted indictments resting on nothing but opinions of prosecutors determined to keep Trump from the White House.
Israel also uses its American tribute to purchase pastors of evangelical churches who indoctrinate their congregations that it is God’s will for America to support Israel and for Israel to reclaim their home of 2,000 or more years ago, from which God dispelled a sinful Jewish population. Some of the evangelical churches are so captured that they are known as “Christian Zionists.”
What the “great moral West” doesn’t understand is that by supporting and defending Israel’s genocidal policy toward Palestinians, the “great moral West” has given its approval to genocide. So how is the West moral?
Even Putin congratulates Israel for its sins and crimes. Perhaps Putin does this because the Holocaust story is a way for Putin to emphasize that Russia is fighting nazis in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Putin’s support for Israel is extraordinary as it is Israel that is pressuring its American lapdog to attack Iran, which would be a catastrophe for Russia and China. Without Iran the efforts of Russia and China to organize Asia into a coherent trading bloc independent of the dollar is impossible. Instead CIA jihadists would be flowing into the Russian Federation, Central Asia and China.
America’s disgrace from supporting genocide is diminishing the ranks of qualified personnel in the US Department of State. Two more officials have resigned rather than be associated with Washington’s complicity in the mass murder of Palestinians.
Alexander Smith prepared a report for the US Agency for International Development on the extraordinary high rate of maternal and child mortality among Palestinians suffering the Israeli attack. He was quickly fired before he could deliver the report.
He said:
“I cannot do my job in an environment in which specific people cannot be acknowledged as fully human, or where gender and human rights principles apply to some, but not to others, depending on their race.”
Another State Department official, Stacy Gilbert resigned. She said she could no longer accept the State Department lies that Israel was not deliberately obstructing the flow of food or other aid into Gaza.
So far 33 State Department officials have resigned, leaving their comfortable high-paying jobs because they cannot stomach the immorality of being a US State Department employee.
This is hopeful. It indicates that some Americans employed by Washington still have a moral conscience and will not serve Washington at the expense of their conscience.
The total evil that the Biden regime represents has the support of a large minority of American voters. That Americans will vote for evil shows how far down the drain America has gone. The question automatically arises: what is the United States other than a threat to life on earth, a threat to all civilization, to all known morality? How do we know that Satan doesn’t hold Washington in his hand?
We are faced with the possible outbreak of nuclear war, a death sentence for life on earth, and there is not a single Western leader trying to resolve the crisis. Zelensky has passed a law prohibiting negotiations with Russia to end the conflict. Washington’s response to Russia’s direct warnings is to turn the warnings into propaganda against Russia.
As Putin says, we will see what happens.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Below is a biographical summary focussing on Chossudovsky’s academic and professional activities, including publications and awards (as well as his contribution to the Encyclopedia Britannica)
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.
Citizenships
Canada, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom
Education
Ecole internationale, Geneva, Maturité fédérale suisse, type scientifique (C), 1962 BA (Econ) Honours, Department of Economics, University of Manchester, UK, 1965 Diploma in Economic Planning, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague, Netherlands, 1967, The ISS is now part of Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 1971
Chossudovsky was a student of social anthropologist Prof. Max Gluckman at the University of Manchester, of Nobel Laureate in Economics Prof. Jan Tinbergen at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague and of mathematical statistics Prof Harold Hotelling at the University of North Carolina (UNC).
Languages: Fluent in English, French, Spanish, German. Knowledge of Portuguese, Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch (Netherlands), Thai, Russian, Melanesian (Papua New Guinea).
He has undertaken field research in Latin America, China, India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality.
His recent research focusses on economic and social policy, health economics, geopolitics, globalization.
Academic, Research and Advisory positions:
University of Ottawa, Department of Economics, current position: Professor of Economics, emeritus, (First academic appointment in 1968-)
Visiting Professor, Postgraduate Program in Geopolitical Analysis, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Autonomous University of the City of Mexico (UACM) (2022)
Professor, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN), Managua, Centre for Development Studies Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann (CEDMEB), Founding Member of CEDMEB (2019- )
Visiting Professor, University of the Philippines, Cebu, Faculty of Social Sciences (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).
Directeur de recherche invité, Visiting Research Fellow, Lecturer. L’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), Paris (1993)
Associate, Saint Mary’s University, International Development Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia, (1990s)
Associate Fellow, Centre for Developing Area Studies, McGill University, Montreal, (1990s)
Visiting Research Scholar, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Economics, Bangkok, (1991, 1992)
Visiting Professor, Catholic University of Peru, Department of Economics, Lima (1989-90)
Visiting Professor and Research Scholar, Kohn Kaen University, Department of Social Sciences, Khon Kaen, Thailand (1987-88), under contract with CIDA.
Policy Adviser, Rural and Social Development, Department of Economic and Technical Cooperation (DTEC), Prime Minister’s Office, Royal Thai Government, Bangkok (1986-87), under contract with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Visiting Professor, University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG), Department of Economics. Lecturer, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, UPNG, Port Moresby, 1985
Honorary Research Fellow, University of Hong Kong (1981-82), Centre of Asian Studies (CAS), Faculty of Social Sciences, Also Lecturer, HKU Economics Department, Lecturer, Department of Extra-Mural Studies (School of Professional and Continuing Education).
Carleton University, School of International Affairs, Ottawa, Part Time Lecturer (1977)
University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Department of Economics, Part Time Lecturer (1979-80)
Visiting Professor, National University of Cordoba, Argentina (1976), Social Policy Institute. Under ILO-UNDP Contract
Visiting Scholar and Lecturer, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas (1976), Development Studies Centre (CENDES)
Research Scholar and Lecturer, UN African Institute for Economic and Social Planning (IDEP), Dakar. (1976)
Senior Economic Adviser to the Minister of State for Planning, and Research Director (Interdisciplinary project on poverty), Ministry of Planning (CORDIPLAN), Government of Venezuela, Caracas, 1975-76.
Catholic University of Peru, Department of Economics, Visiting Professor (1974)
Catholic University of Chile (1973), Institute of Economics, Visiting Professor and Teaching Fellow, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Teaching Assistant, Department of Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1967-68.
Research Assistant, Applied Experimental Design Techniques and Nonlinear Programming, Department of Economics and Department of Mathematical Statistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1966-68
Consultancies
Consultant to the UNDP and the Government of Rwanda, Analysis of Rwanda’s External Debt, Kigali. Missions in 1996, 1997.
Consultant, African Development Bank (ADB), country-level missions, economic and social analysis, post evaluation of macro-economic reforms (1991-1995), missions to Kenya, Morocco, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Botswana on behalf of ADB.
Consultant, North South Institute, Ottawa: research on country-level macro-economic reforms (Peru Research Project) on behalf of CIDA. 1990-1992.
Lecturer, World Bank, Economic Development Institute (EDI) Training Program, Workshop on Macro-Economic Reform, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1991
Consultant, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Missions to Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, 1988, 1989
Consultant, World Health Organization (WHO), Organization and Coordination of African Workshop on Health Planning, Lecturer, Dakar, Senegal. 1976
TV Ontario, Educational Television, Researcher and interviewer, Five part series on the Canadian Economy (1978-79) (interview with former PM Jean Chrétien)
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): Missions to Mali (1982-83), Peru, University Cooperation Programme (1977-79), Thailand 1986-88, Consultant to CIDA on Health and Development in Latin America, 1991, Lecturer, CIDA’s staff training programme, Economic Strategies and Development Policies, Ottawa, 1970s and 1980s.
He is a past president of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (ACELAC) and a former member of the Senate of the University of Ottawa.
Lectures and presentations at more than 100 universities, research institutions, parliamentary committees, etc.
Lecture, Committee of the European Parliament, Brussels (2002), Testimony, Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee (Canada), Economic Affairs and International Trade Committee (December 1989), Testimony, Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee (Canada), Canada’s International Relations (1984), House of Representatives, Philippines, (testimony on the impacts of the 2008 Economic Crisis) (2009), Literaturhaus, Munich (2003), The Latin American Parliament, Caracas (2008), Belgrade Forum, (2000, 2009, 2022, 2024), Stanford, UNC, Wisconsin, Yale, The International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS). Madrid, Operations Research Society of America (ORSA) New York, (1966-1967), etc.
Lectures at Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan (2013, 2017), Rosa Luxemburg Conference, Berlin (2014), Humboldt University (1999), Mexican Press Club, Malaysia Chamber of Commerce, Malaysia Academy of Sciences, Science for Peace Conference (2016), Perdana Global Peace Foundation (Kuala Lumpur) (several lectures, 2005-2017), Public Lecture chaired by Egypt’s Minister of Finance, Cairo (1991), Keynote Lecture, conference held at Korean Parliament (ROK), Seoul, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2012, 2019), Wuhan University (1982, 1984), Tsinghua University School of Journalism, Beijing, Media Conferences, People’s Daily (Beijing), Keynote Address. Firenze Peace Conference, No War, No NATO (2019). etc.
Interviews/Conversations with (former) heads of State, heads of government: Jean Chrétien (Canada), Luis Inacio da Silva (Brazil), Fernando Enrique Cardoso (Brazil), Manmohan Singh (India),Pasteur Bizimungu (Rwanda), Fidel Castro Ruz (Cuba), Ricardo Alarcon (Cuba), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysia),Atef Ebeid (Egypt), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Victor Haya de la Torre, APRA (Peru), Georgios Papandreou (Greece).
Publications
He is the author of:
Thirteen books including several international best-sellers
Is the Canadian Economy Closing Down, (1979) (co-author),
Towards Capitalist Restoration? Chinese Socialism after Mao (1986), London, Macmillan
The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (1997, 2003) (published in 13 languages),
America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005) (published in 10 languages),
The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor),
Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011) (published in 4 languages),
The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015) (published in 4 languages)
The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia (2021), Belgrade. (published in Serbian and English)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity. (2022), E-Book pdf format. Print version forthcoming. Also published (print) in Japanese (2022)
The 2015 Kuala Lumpur launching by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, PM of Malaysia of Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled The Globalization of War
Chapters in Books. Reports published by national and international organizations (ADB, UNFPA, UNDP, CIDA, UNECLAC, North-South Institute, Royal Thai Government).
Conversations with Fidel Castro Ruz: The Dangers of Nuclear War, (October 11-15, 2010, available in several languages in print and online, chapter in book).
Press interviews and TV interviews with (among others) CTV, CBC, RT, BBC, TVO, CCTV (Beijing), Global, Radio Canada, Tele Quebec, TV Ontario (Education TV) (five part series on the Canadian Economy), CNN, TV France 5, RTBF (Belgium), Press TV, TeleSur, MBC (ROK, Seoul), Malaysian TV, Peru TV, Portugal TV, Nicaragua National TV, Pacifica, WBAI, Community radio in US, Canada, etc.
His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Michel Chossudovsky is a signatory of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia
Signatories of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration. From Left to Right: Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott, Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Michel Chossudovsky was a member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) (2007- 2018) under the helm of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former PM of Malaysia.
Project Censored Award, State University of Sonoma, California, (1999- 2015, 10 awards).
Professor of the Year Award, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Social Sciences (2001). Excellence in Teaching Award
Mexican Press Club award to Michel Chossudovsky and Global Research, “Primer Premio de Periodismo”: “Premio Internacional de Periodismo por el Mejor Portal de Investigación Internacional.” “First National Prize for the best research website at the international level” (2008).
From Left to Right Prof. Y Dissou Chairman, Economics Department, HE Serbia’s Ambassador Mihailo Papazoglu, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Prof. Marcel Merette, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa (2014)
Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN), Managua (2016)
National Autonomous University, Managua, Nicaragua, 2016
Fellowships and Research Grants:
Research Fellowship, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awards. Canada Council award, Fellowship of the Netherlands University Foundation for International Cooperation (NUFFIC), Latin American Teaching Fellowship of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Fellow of Tufts University. University of Ottawa Faculty of Social Sciences Research Grants. Research grant from SSHRC- Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), field research in China, Conference Board of Canada -Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Collaborative Field Research in China with CASS Institute of Quantitative Economics.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
This report consists of three Parts:
1. Canada’s House of Commons gives standing ovation to a man introduced as a Ukrainian “war hero”, later to discover that he served in the Nazi 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS. Hindustan Times
2. Trudeau urged to Resign, Sky News
3. Is Trudeau Supportive of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Party Svoboda? Global Research
Part I
Zelensky Addresses Canada’s House of Commons
“Oversight. Major Embarrassment”
In a major embarrassment for Ottawa, the Canadian lawmakers gave a standing ovation to a man who was introduced as a war hero after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address in the House of Commons only to later realise that he had served in a Nazi unit during World War II.” (Hindustan Times)
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who was in attendance in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)
The Speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero” before the Canadian Parliament.
Hunka served in World War II as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, according to a Jewish human rights group that demanded an apology.
“In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Anthony Rota said in a statement.
Rota took responsibility for what was characterized as an oversight, calling the initiative “entirely my own.”
“The initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention,” he added, adding his “deepest apologies” to Jewish communities.
Yaroslav Hunka, right, waits for the arrival of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Ontario on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)
Following Zelenskiy’s address in the House of Commons, Rota acknowledged Hunka, who was seated in the gallery, praising him for fighting for Ukrainian independence against the Russians. Hunka received two standing ovations from those gathered.
“At a time of rising antisemitism and Holocaust distortion, it is incredibly disturbing to see Canada’s Parliament rise to applaud an individual who was a member of a unit in the Waffen-SS, a Nazi military branch responsible for the murder of Jews and others,” the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement while demanding an apology earlier Sunday.
“An explanation must be provided as to how this individual entered the hallowed halls of Canadian Parliament and received recognition from the Speaker of the House and a standing ovation,” the group added.
What this Sky News (com.au) report conveys is that PM Trudeau was fully aware of the fact that Yaroslav Hunka was a member of the Waffen SS in the course of World War II.
This was not an oversight. Trudeau met Hunka personally prior the event.
Visibly Anthony Rota did not know who Yaroslav Hunka was. And as Speaker of the House he was requested by the Liberal government to call for a standing ovation.
This was carefully planned in advance.
Who should have apologized to the Jewish community: Anthony Rota or Prime Minister Trudeau?
But there is more than meets the eye:
“Mr Hunka was applauded for fighting against the Soviet Red Army with the “first Ukrainian division” — as the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (“Galicia”),a largely Ukrainian Nazi collaborator unit, was renamed in March 1945 as Germany was on the point of losing the war.
Following the incorporation of openly Neo-nazi units like the Azov and Aidar battalions into the Ukrainian military, the incident underlines the way the war is being used to rewrite history and rehabilitate fascist collaborators while depicting the Soviet Union as the aggressor in World War II.”(Morningstar Online)
Neither Canada’s Liberal government, nor the Opposition have addressed this issue. Why? (Above Comments by Michel Chossudovsky)
Zelenskyy Addresses Canadian Parliament
Sky News Report
*
Part III
Is Trudeau Supportive of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Party Svoboda?
.
The issue of “the Ukrainian hero of the 14th Division Waffen SS Yaroslav Hunka” has opened up a Can of Worms, a Pandora’s box.
In a bitter irony, President Zelensky who is of Jewish Russian descenthas embraced Neo-Nazism. He fully endorsed (together with Trudeau and Freeland) the standing ovation in support of Yaroslav Hunka. (See image in Part I above)
According to the Leader of the Opposition:
“Trudeau personally met and honoured the veteran of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (A Nazi Division).
Liberals then arranged for this Nazi veteran to be recognized on the Floor of the House of Commons” (Pierre Poilievre, Leader the Opposition)
The leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre begs the question. Has P.M. Trudeau succumbed to Nazi ideology?
From the outset in early 2016, Trudeau’s Liberal government has been supportive of Neo-Nazi elements within the Kiev regime, including the Azov Battalion and the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party.
Amply documented, Svoboda together with the “Right Sector” (Pravy Sektor) were actively involved in the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre.
The founders of Ukraine’s Svoboda Party are Oleh Tyahnybok and Andrij Parubiy. Both individuals have played a key role in shaping the Kiev regime on behalf of their US-NATO sponsors.
Deputy Speaker and Speaker Andriy Parubiy of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament, 2016-2019) was first received by Trudeau at the House of Commons in February 2016.
Parubiy also met up with members of Trudeau’s Cabinet including Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who describes Ukraine as a “vibrant democracy”.
February 23, 2016, Parubiy, second from Left meet PM Trudeau
Chrystia Freeland’s Facebook, May 2019
Is Parubiy a “Good Guy”? Ask PM Trudeau
Parubiy describes Adolf Hitler as a true proponent of democracy:
“The speaker [Parubiy] told chat show Freedom of Speech on Ukraine’s ICTV channel (video, click to view, Ukrainian) that he had “scientifically studied” democracy and cautioned his audience “not to forget the contributions of the Fuehrer [Hitler] to the development of democracy.
“The greatest man who practised direct democracy was Adolf Hitler in the 1930s,” he said.
The founder of the Social National Party, now known as Svoboda, added that it was “necessary to introduce direct democracy to Ukraine, with Hitler as its torchbearer.” (ICTV Channel quoted in Britain’s Morningstar September 5, 2018 report, emphasis added)
With some exceptions, this controversial statement was not picked up by the Western press. Lies by omission.
Why? Because the Kiev regime (including its Armed Forces and National Guard) is integrated by Nazi elements which have been supported in bilateral agreements with both Canada and the US.
Parubiy has been given red carpet treatment by Western governments. He is casually portrayed as a right wing politician rather than an avowed neo-Nazi.
Embarrassment or Denial? The US Congress, Canada’s Parliament, the British Parliament, European Parliament, have invited and praised Andriy Parubiy.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 27, 2023
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.
Rampant corruption and the Neo-Nazi junta perfectly go hand in hand.
The political elite in Kiev is so prone to fraud and embezzlement that not even the regime’s Western puppet masters are willing to turn a blind eye anymore. Initially, the Pentagon kept quiet on the massive scope of illegal arms trade that ended up costing it tens of billions in US/NATO weapons smuggled out of Ukraine.
At the time, building the image of “Zelensky the hero” who keeps wearing a military T-shirt and fatigues as if he just came back from the trenches was the priority, which is why the United States swept it all under the rug.
The US Embassy in Kiev is now openly raising the issue of corruption in the country. In addition, even the mainstream propaganda machine is reporting about it. According to NBC News, this has been a “source of repeated disagreement as well, with US diplomats and officials demanding decisive action from Zelensky’s government”.
Expectedly, the Neo-Nazi junta is quite unhappy with this turn of events, both because they won’t be able to steal as much as they’re accustomed to and because their already horrible reputation among the people in the political West is going to take yet another nosedive. NBC News says that “Ukrainian officials are particularly irritated by [American Ambassador] Bridget Brink”, because they believe that “Zelensky has made significant progress in countering corruption, funding a special prosecutor’s office and anti-corruption court”.
The Kiev regime believes that Bridget Brink supposedly “created unnecessary tensions and lost sight of the overarching priority — winning on the battlefield”.
The troubled Biden administration supported its top-ranking envoy in the former Soviet republic and called for “further reform, transparency and accountability as necessary steps for Ukraine to undertake for joining the European Union, as well as NATO”. The resulting rift over these issues (as previously mentioned, ignored all these years for (geo)political reasons) is creating additional problems between Washington DC and the usually compliant Neo-Nazi junta. According to NBC News, a US official “acknowledged the tensions with Ukraine over Washington’s efforts on corruption”, but also insisted that “a recent shakeup within Kyiv’s top anti-corruption agency represented an example of the continued need for reform”.
The NBC News report further states that “number two at Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau was reportedly suspended last month after a leak within the agency compromised a high-profile investigation into a road-building project involving government money”.
This development led to condemnation by Ambassador Brink, who now “receives the brunt of the Ukrainian government’s frustration”, although she “remains focused on reform and anti-corruption measures in Kyiv”, which, as previously mentioned, “has the full backing and support of both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and [President Joe Biden]”. Congress also supported this, with “key US lawmakers also strongly backing the administration’s campaign for reforms to combat corruption”, stressing the need to “keep [the Kiev regime’s] feet to the fire on corruption and democratic governance”.
Ambassador Brink is expected to disclose more details about these issues in an upcoming briefing before Congress, much to the chagrin of corrupt politicians in Kiev. However, this certainly isn’t the first time that American officials are raising the issue with its Neo-Nazi puppets. Namely, during his visit last month, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also stressed “the importance of tackling corruption within the Ukrainian government”. At a joint press conference held the next day, the Kiev regime’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba had to answer questions about Washington DC’s concerns, but he insisted that “Zelensky has been consistently tackling issues of corruption since his first days in office and achieved serious results on this track”. And indeed, Zelensky certainly “achieved results”, particularly when it comes to expanding his real estate portfolio.
“There is a perception of the level of corruption and there are facts about the level of corruption,” Kuleba stated, adding: “There is always a very simple criteria: If we were as corrupt as the perception says, they simply wouldn’t be giving us any money; they wouldn’t be opening accession talks with Ukraine to accede the European Union, and the United States wouldn’t have trust in Ukraine.”
Now that you’ve finished catching your breath, here’s another joke. Namely, Kuleba claims that “the EU and IMF had commended Ukraine for undertaking anti-corruption measures and for introducing reforms”. These mythical reforms have been “so successful” that the Kiev regime has an entire “complex of massive fortifications” in the Kharkov oblast missing, as it exists only on paper.
The money that NATO provided to build such facilities must’ve “vanished into thin air”, because it’s not in the state treasury. So much for “undertaking anti-corruption measures and for introducing reforms”. On the other hand, Washington DC oligarchs and plutocrats are the last who should try to teach others about “anticorruption” (to say nothing of “democracy”). Their system has degenerated into literal persecution of political opponents, while the incumbent’s corruption is obvious pretty much to the entire world.
In fact, the Biden crime family helped facilitate corruption in former Ukraine decades ago, including during Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president in the Obama administration.
The current US president’s family used the already rampant fraud and embezzlement in the country to get rich(er), with the infamous Burisma scandal being the most prominent example of this.
And yet, in a weird way, it seems that the Neo-Nazi junta’s corruption is saving lives. Namely, although this is an entirely unintentional consequence, every dollar that the Kiev regime hyenas spend on buying villas, penthouses, seaside resorts, supercars, etc. doesn’t end up getting more weapons to the frontlines, where hundreds of thousands have already perished. This is precisely why the US is “so worried about corruption”, as it effectively undermines its monstrous “to the last Ukrainian” strategy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
For technical, social, and morale reasons, Israel will not win another war. At every level, it has become far weaker. It can inflict frightful damage on its enemies but it cannot change the fundamental balance of all forces that leads to victory. —Gabriel Kolko, 2007
Towering brushfires raged across northern Israel on Tuesday following drone and rocket attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli settlements and military bases. The fires represent the latest escalation in the ongoing cross-border war that has persisted for the last 8 months. According to the Times of Israel, roughly “60,000 residents of towns and villages along Israel’s northern border have been displaced from their homes since October due to the near-daily cross-border rocket and anti-tank missile attacks by Hezbollah…” The recent uptick in violence has prompted an angry response from Israel’s political leaders who are now threatening to invade Lebanon if the attacks don’t stop immediately. This is from an article at CNN:
On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the northern city of Kiryat Shmona near the Lebanese border, saying that Israel is prepared for “very intense action” in the north.
“Whoever thinks that they can hurt us and that we will sit idly by is making a big mistake,” the prime minister said. “One way or another, we will restore security to the north.”
Netanyahu’s comments come after Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi said the Israeli military is ready to attack targets in the north.
Netanyahu is feeling pressure from the far-right members of his war cabinet who want to invade Lebanon and eliminate the threat at its source. But that course of action would open a second front and likely divert resources from the operation in Gaza. It could also turn into a bloody killing fields like Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in July 2006 that backfired badly and left the IDF running for cover. Here’s a short recap of the debacle by historian Gabriel Kolko:
The 34-day war, starting July 12, Israel fought in Lebanon in 2006 was a disastrous turning point. .... The Israelis did not lose the war because of orders given or not given to various officers. It was a war of choice, and it was planned as an air war with very limited ground incursions in the expectation that Israeli casualties would be very low. …. (Chief of Staff) Halutz wanted to “shock and awe” the Hezbollah and their allies with Israeli power and establish a marker-all within a few days. It was to be a very short war based on the application of power. … Halutz wanted to make a critical point. Instead, he made the opposite and revealed Israel’s vulnerability based, in large part, on the fact the enemy was far better prepared, motivated, and equipped. It was the end of a crucial myth, the harbinger of yet more bloody but equal armed conflicts or a balance of power conducive to negotiations. Olmert and his generals very likely expected to have a great victory within five days, thereby increasing his popularity with the hawkish Jewish population that is a growing majority of the voters, to reverse his abysmally low poll ratings-he received three percent popularity in a TV poll in early March–thereby saving his political career….
There are many reasons the Israelis lost the war in Lebanon, but there is general agreement within Israel that the war ended in disaster and the deterrent value of the once unbeatable, super-armed IDF gravely diminished in the entire Arab world for the first time...
The Lebanon War is only a harbinger of Israeli defeats to come. For the first time there is a rough equivalence in military power … Technology is now moving far faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences-not to mention traditional strategic theories. This is true everywhere and the Middle East is no exception. Hezbollah has far better and more rockets-over 10,000 short-range rockets is one figure given–than it had a few years ago, and Israel’s military intelligence believes it has more firepower than it had last spring, before it was attacked…
In the past, wars produced victories and more territory for the Jews; now they will only produce disasters for everybody. The Lebanon War proved that…. Israel’s Last Chance, Gabriel Kolko, Counterpunch
Today’s political leaders in Israel—greatly emboldened by their perceived triumph over the civilian population of Gaza—are pushing for an invasion of Lebanon and a confrontation with their arch-enemy, Hezbollah. Most of these politicians either don’t know what transpired in 2006 or think that today’s “stronger and more capable” IDF will prevail with relative ease. They appear to discount the idea that Israel could face a humiliating defeat that would undermine their future security and deterrents. They are so convinced of their own invincibility; the prospect of defeat has never entered their minds. This is from the BBC:
On Tuesday, Israel’s far-right security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visiting firefighters in the nearby town of Kiryat Shmona, said the government’s response to Hezbollah’s rockets should be war.
“No peace in Lebanon while our land is being targeted,” he said (BBC)
Not surprisingly, Ben-Gvir’s support for an invasion is shared by fellow-traveler Bezalel Smotrich who offered these remarks in a speech at the Western Wall at the end of the Jerusalem Day Flag March:
“Prime Minister, give the order, go to war with Hezbollah, destroy them,” he bellowed. “Take strength from the multitudes gathered here and give the order. Go to war with Hezbollah, subdue, destroy, move the security zone from the Galilee into southern Lebanon.”
Not to be outdone by the firebrands in Netanyahu’s war-cabinet, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog delivered the following ominous statement:
I call from here to the international community and its leaders and stress — it is impossible to remain indifferent to this terrorism, from Lebanon and in general. Israel has been attacked daily, for many months, by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, in flagrant violation of all international agreements and resolutions.
The world needs to wake up and realize that Israel has no choice but to protect its citizens and you shouldn’t be surprised when it does so with greater and greater strength and resolve, and don’t come to us with complaints when the situation gets out of control,” Herzog warned. “This is not the time to stand by and let the region escalate. This evil terrorist aggression needs to be curbed and stopped,” Times of Israel
Aside from the predictable bluster of pompous politicians and their allies, there are a few notable realists who understand that the outcome of any confrontation with Hezbollah is far from certain. Check out this excerpt from an article at the Jerusalem Post by retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik who said “that any attack by the Israeli army on Hezbollah could bring terrible destruction to all of Israel”:
I warned that due to the gloomy situation in the army, it is only a matter of time before disaster strikes. And indeed, it has, with Hamas attacking communities in the Gaza border area. Fortunately, we had a miracle this time as Hezbollah did not attack us from the North, as it would have brought a disaster far worse than the one suffered by the Gaza border communities. It is doubtful if we could have recovered from it and continued living in our beloved country.
In the past, I warned, and I continue to warn now, that the army and the military are not prepared for regional warfare. If the IDF goes to war against Hezbollah and launches a significant attack – as recommended by some, including senior officials in the North and even the defense minister, with absolute ignorance of their situation and readiness of the army and the military for regional war – this could bring disaster upon the country. It is a gamble on the continuation of our lives in the State of Israel.
I warned of this when the war broke out in the Gaza Strip and the people cheered for the army, which at the end of the day did not achieve the desired result….
Those responsible for the disgrace, disaster, and terrible shame that occurred on October 7, may lead us into the next regional war, a war that will destroy our country because in the last 20 years we have not prepared the home front and the army for that war. Today, both the political and military leadership do not lift a finger to prepare the home front and the army for the next regional war. This war is the most severe threat to the country since its establishment, the security situation continues to deteriorate every day, and no one seems to care….
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Benny Gantz, and former chief of staff Aviv Kohavi are leading us nowhere! To a path with no way back. ….
They are the ones who brought upon us the most severe hell in the history of the people of Israel since the Holocaust, they are the ones who are leading our way to the next hell without strategic thinking and rationality, but mainly out of emotions and gambling with the security of the country. They continue the fighting more and more because in their opinion it works in their favor. Despite the goals they have defined, the minimization of Hamas and the release of the hostages alive, are moving further away from us every day. And we are descending further and further in the security of the country, in the economy, in society, and in international relations. Where else will we fall? God save us. IDF general: Military, political leaders are leading Israel to disaster – opinion, Retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik, Jerusalem Post
It’s an extraordinary statement and right on the money. Israelis may feel emboldened by the devastation they have inflicted on Gaza at little cost to themselves, but Hezbollah is ‘a different kind of animal’ altogether. Any invasion of Lebanon will come at a high price in terms of destruction, casualties and overall security. Are the Israeli people really prepared to make the sacrifices a war with Hezbollah require? Are they really ready to see their sons and daughters returned home in body bags?
Perhaps, Netanyahu is merely bluffing when he threatens to engage Hezbollah on the battlefield. Maybe, he’s just trying to project the image of a strong wartime leader. We don’t know. But what we do know, is that if he launches a cross-border offensive into Lebanon, he’ll get more than he bargained for. And—like Sharon and Olmert before him—he’ll live to regret it.
From Twitter—
IDF Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, in a visit to Northern Command: ‘Hezbollah has increased its fire in recent days and we are ready to start attacking in the north. We are approaching the point of the decision.
*
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).
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.
US President Biden has presented a plan for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
It provides for the release of all hostages by Hamas and at the same time the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza.
At this point Palestinian civilians would return to their homes and neighbourhoods in all areas of Gaza, receiving increased humanitarian assistance from the international community. The international community’s reconstruction of Gaza would then begin.
In this way – Biden underlines – Israel could integrate more deeply into the region, including a potential historic normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, becoming part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by Iran.
The clear aim of the plan is to strike the BRICS, which Russia and China are part of, and Saudi Arabia has entered together with Iran, which the USA and Israel consider their most dangerous enemy in the region. However, the fact remains – concludes Biden – that Israel will always have the right to defend itself from threats to its security and that the United States will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to protect itself.
Biden’s plan perfectly fits the United States’ war strategy in the Middle East.
It maintains the strategic axis with Israel by continuing to supply it with the most advanced weapons systems and massive quantities of ammunition, including those with which Israel is razing Gaza to the ground. At the same time, he envisages reconstruction of Gaza – entrusted to the international community, i.e. mainly to the United States, Israel, the European Union, and the G7 – which, as the plan presented by Netanyahu specifies, would consist of rebuilding Gaza from scratchtransforming it into a massive free trade zone with luxury skyscrapers, eco-friendly solar power plants and electric car manufacturing plants.
The surviving Palestinians, returning to their homes and neighbourhoods, would find only rubble and would no longer have any real property rights. An inevitable mass exodus would follow, while those remaining would become dependent on the activities set up in Gaza by the international community. The Palestinian Territory of Gaza would thus be erased, together with that of the West Bank, erasing Palestine as a state.
*
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 in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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.
I suppose it must be the masochist in me, but for some reason or other — boredom perhaps with the manifold manifestations of deception, dissonance, media manipulation of the public in service of sweetly profitable agendas — I decided to tune into the ‘face of science’, aka, Anthony Fauci, as he was being questioned by the United States Congress.
Readers of RFK Jr’s masterwork on this bureaucratic creature,
The Real Anthony Fauci, would hardly be surprised by the evasive, dishonest and slimy responses proffered by the former head of NIAID who oversaw the vast oppressive and distinctively UN-scientific program foisted upon us all — a program that included falsehood and harm beyond a novelist’s imagination — at least beyond this novelist’s imagination,
I should say — with masks, lockdowns, suppression of appropriate treatment, unnecessary fear-mongering, promises about a vaccine which, by any other word would still never be a vaccine, unlike our proverbial Shakespearean rose, and everything else, about which I have written myself into a dull listless ennui, notwithstanding the immensity of harm that has occurred as a result. Harm to individuals, businesses, society as a whole, in the form of financial and physical damage, including financial and physical death, as well as harm to the public’s psyche.
After all, being subjected to fear fear fear fear and lies lies lies in the midst of chaos chaos chaos for years, as we have been, does take a toll.
I often upbraid my colleagues for not giving the purely emotional and psychological aspect of the psyops its due, focused as they tend to be on the deleterious effects of spike proteins and nanoparticles and graphene and electromagnetic radiation, which are certainly to be considered, but which are certainly not the entire megillah.
Remember: whoever organized this plague upon global humanity managed to persuade a huge majority into accepting its lethal absurdities. And they managed to convince a sizeable portion too that we who questioned, thought, debated and discussed and scrutinized the extremities perpetrated upon us, we who refused to subject ourselves to the untested unnecessary inoculation, should be treated as leprous vermin deserving of scorn, avoidance, discrimination and even quarantine.
One has to hand it to them: they crafted a very potent assault, full of cleverness, and even future-proofed against inquiry! One of my neighbors, for example, has had recurrent blood clots and a pulmonary embolism and has been hospitalized at least four times in the past six months. She has been jabbed thrice — as a schoolteacher here in New Zealand it was ‘no jab no job’ and she could ill afford to live without money, so she reasoned — and her doctors have astutely laid the blame for her coagulatory problems with — you guessed it — ‘long covid’.
Forgive my circuitous introductory aside, for what I meant to address was a phenomenon that startled me out of professional slumber some ten years ago in Florence, Italy.
At the time I attended a psychopharmacology conference in that magnificent city as part of my continuing educational requirements for public health psychiatry. The idea was to hone my understanding and prescribing skills and to learn about new research, and the like. (I will leave aside the vast and profound issue of pharmaceutical use in psychiatry for another day.)
As I dutifully sat through the presentations I was struck by several speakers, not so much by the research they described, but by the fact that they all seemed to have lucrative businesses on the side, businesses that grew directly out of the research they had been conducting which itself was paid for by the citizenry’s taxes.
To be clear: Dr. A or B or C ran a lab funded by taxpayer monies, and the discoveries — to be kind — that resulted from their taxpayer funded work were somehow claimed or patented by them so that they could start their own for-profit companies. I remember one person in particular who was making very good money as an entrepreneur purveying blood tests for mental disorders.
Again, I will leave aside the dubiety about these kinds of tests to focus on the purely meretricious aspect of these practices. It was enough to shock me out of my auditorium slumber. Where had I been all these years? What had I missed? Since when did public servants parley our money into their personal gains without raising eyebrows?
Listening to Fauci and hearing about the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties ‘earned’ by the NIAID during the covid fiasco, I was reminded of my stay in Florence, a city that was once itself famous for bankers and scheming financial chicanery run by Renaissance potentates, and the jolt out of my personal professional cocoon.
Scientists, doctors, researchers and investigators have not merely been slogging away like dedicated professionals for the benefit of humanity — they’ve been getting an opportunity to exchange their drab lab coats for thousand-dollar suits and dresses and the promise of lots of lucre.
It helps to understand how we got to the terrible crossroads we find ourselves at now. Medicine is a mess, a corruption of principles and values has gutted its core, and the covidian after-effects are hardly over. Other phony pandemics always seem to be hovering on the horizon, like birds of flu-bearing prey — while similarly disease-laden monkeys beat about the underbrush at our feet.
And as for the psychology of it all, I am chagrined to realize that the people who most fully appreciate the non-somatic and purely psycho-social effects are the propagandists themselves. They’re the ones who, following in the footsteps of Bernays and his ilk, with ever greater manipulative refinement, have made Manchurian candidates of the masses, deliberately and with skillful precision.
Yes, we have a war against the imposition of poisons into our bodies; but we also have a war against the deviously brilliant persuasions against our minds. They’ve played upon us, as if we were unworthy things, though thankfully not everyone has succumbed to their Siren songs or tales of horror.
This is the primary piece of their stratagem, from which all else flows.
As I said to a friend the other day, I feel like I’m driving a car whose side and rear-view mirrors can’t be trusted, so that every time I need to change a lane I’ve got to swivel around. The histories and legacies handed down to us are largely lies. The once-authoritative media we depended upon have betrayed us in deepest consequence.
Nonetheless, we have ourselves and our new-found home-grown way of pursuing truth for truth’s sake, not for profit. And with a little bit of luck we yet may fashion a world where peace and good trump fear and war.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/.
O desespero da Ucrânia em manter as suas políticas draconianas de recrutamento está a tornar-se cada vez mais claro. Num discurso recente, um alto funcionário ucraniano sugeriu aumentar o número de mulheres em posições militares não combatentes – o que permitiria uma expansão no número de homens nas linhas da frente. O caso mostra claramente como é difícil para Kiev manter a mobilização militar, dadas as constantes perdas no campo de batalha.
A vice-primeira-ministra ucraniana, Irina Vereshchuk, afirmou que pretende colocar mais mulheres em postos militares fora da frente, incluindo centros de recrutamento e cargos de gestão. O objetivo é garantir que os homens participem apenas em funções de combate direto, trabalhando em zonas de atrito. Isto permitiria que funções burocráticas, administrativas e de gestão fossem desempenhadas por mulheres ucranianas.
“[As mulheres são] um grande conjunto de pessoal para o sistema de centros de recrutamento, incluindo cargos de gestão (…) Ao aumentar a inscrição de mulheres para trabalhar no recrutamento, os homens poderiam ser libertados para unidades de combate”, disse ela.
A Ucrânia está tão desesperada para manter um número regular de tropas nas linhas da frente que recentemente tem havido discussões se de fato há a necessidade de enviar soldados para centros de recrutamento. Por outras palavras, Kiev vê a presença de militares em funções burocráticas como um “desperdício”, uma vez que o país precisa de manter o maior número possível de homens na linha da frente. Ao recrutar mulheres, espera-se “resolver” este problema.
No entanto, este processo não será tão fácil. Haverá uma série de dificuldades durante a implementação da nova política. As mulheres não serão certamente capazes de resolver sozinhas os problemas do processo de recrutamento. As novas recrutas terão de aprender o seu serviço com soldados que já estão no terreno – a maioria dos quais são homens. Assim, até que Kiev consiga libertar todos os seus homens para a linha da frente, haverá um longo período de transição e adaptação na estrutura das forças armadas.
Além disso, há que recordar que a situação real de Kiev é pior do que aquilo que é dito publicamente. Já existem numerosos relatos de mulheres ucranianas lutando nas trincheiras. É provável que as mulheres ocupem posições de gestão e de combate, uma vez que a situação demográfica do país é extremamente problemática, exigindo que Kiev utilize praticamente toda a sua população para o esforço de guerra. Não é por acaso que Kiev já está a recrutar para as suas fileiras adolescentes, idosos e até pessoas com problemas de saúde. O país decidiu efetivamente obedecer à ordem ocidental de “lutar até ao último ucraniano”.
Enquanto isso, homens comuns estão fazendo tudo o que podem para evitar a morte certa no front. As taxas de evasão ao recrutamento estão a aumentar. Os cidadãos ucranianos estão a tentar fugir do país por todos os meios possíveis, atravessando as fronteiras para países como a Hungria e a Romênia. Por exemplo, a Guarda de Fronteira Ucraniana relatou recentemente a morte de 45 homens que se afogaram enquanto tentavam fugir do país atravessando o rio Tisza.
Além disso, milhões de homens ucranianos permanecem no estrangeiro. Kiev está tentando repatriá-los e mandá-los para o front, mas é muito difícil fazê-lo. Não é fácil trazer de volta um cidadão que está legalmente noutro país. As nações europeias teriam de adoptar medidas ditatoriais para forçar os ucranianos comuns a regressar ao seu país, o que prejudicaria a imagem de “Estados democráticos” que estes países tentam manter. Algumas nações, como a Polônia, já estão a endurecer as medidas para repatriar ucranianos, mas é improvável que esta política se espalhe rapidamente por toda a Europa.
A Ucrânia continuará a ter sérios problemas de mobilização. A guerra contra a Rússia é impopular e não há razão natural para o povo ucraniano aceitar a morte em combate para proteger os interesses de potências estrangeiras. Já é claro para os ucranianos comuns que a continuação do conflito é o pior cenário e que a negociação dos termos de paz é a única forma de evitar uma tragédia ainda maior no país.
No final, todas as mulheres recrutadas por Kiev estarão sujeitas aos mesmos riscos que os homens. Não só os soldados nas linhas da frente são alvos legítimos, mas também os centros de comando e recrutamento. Todas as instalações militares ucranianas são um alvo potencial para a artilharia e a aviação russas de alta precisão, razão pela qual a maioria das mulheres soldados também será recrutada para a morte certa. Ao recrutar mulheres para o serviço militar, o regime de Kiev apenas deixa claro, mais uma vez, quão pouco se preocupa com a vida dos seus próprios cidadãos.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.\
Important article by
Jacques R. Pauwels,author of
The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015),
Big Business and Hitler (2017),
Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events (2022).
Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization
Introduction
Nazi Germany was a military colossus and defeating the beast was a herculean task that could never have been accomplished singlehandedly by any one of its enemies. The job was done, but only after many years of struggle, and it required superhuman efforts from all the countries that were involved in the titanic conflict against Hitler, his Nazism, that is, the German variety of fascism, and other fascist dictatorships that had lined up with Germany, such as that of Mussolini.
The group of countries that fought and ultimately defeated Nazi Germany was called the “Grand Alliance” by Churchill, but the Soviets used a more prosaic term, the “Anti-Hitler Alliance”.
This partnership, which emerged only after the Soviet Union and the US became involved in the war in 1941, featured two wings, first, the “Western Allies”, and second, the Soviet Union. The latter battled the German forces in a titanic struggle along the so-called Eastern Front, starting in the summer of 1941. The former, meaning the Americans as well as the British, fought the Nazis in Europe starting in the summer of 1943, when they landed troops in Italy.
However, their paramount contribution came on the Western Front, that is, a “theatre of war” not in Southern but in Western Europe, and the action there started with the famous landings in Normandy of of June 6, 1944, whose code-name was Operation Overlord.
The 80th Anniversary of D-DAY
June 6, will mark the 80th anniversary of “D-Day”, the planners and participants of the landings in Normandy will be honoured in the presence of the French President and many other dignitaries.
Rightly so, because Operation Overlord epitomized the contribution of the Western Allies to the defeat of Nazi Germany.However, about the Normandy Landings, a few important aspects should be kept in mind, aspects that will almost certainly remain unmentioned during the commemorations.
First, while the “Battle of Normandy” that started on June 6, 1944, was undeniably a major clash, it was not the biggest battle of World War II, as the statistics reveal.
In terms of length, it started on June 6, 1944, and ended at the end of August of that year, so it lasted almost three months.
The Battle of Stalingrad, on the other hand, dragged on twice as long, it lasted for more than half a year, from mid-July 1942 to early February, 1943.
The Siege of Leningrad also deserves to be mentioned here, even though it was admittedly not a conventional battle: it began on September 8, 1941, and did not come to an end until January 27, 1944, so its exact duration was 2 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and 5 days.
Second, the casualties – killed, wounded, missing in action, and/or taken prisoner — suffered by the belligerents in Normandy were high, but not as high as the opening scenes from movies like Saving Private Ryan would have us believe.
Those scenes conjured up the fighting on Omaha Beach, one of the five sectors of the landing beaches where American soldiers landed, had to attack strongly fortified German positions, and suffered heavy losses, namely, 2,500 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.
But in the other sectors the Germans were less numerous and far less strongly entrenched, and their resistance was far less ferocious, so the Allied troops coming ashore took considerably fewer casualties.
On Utah Beach, for example, the Americans encountered very light resistance and suffered merely 200 casualties.
On Sword Beach, the British likewise met limited opposition.
And on Juno Beach, the 14,000 Canadians who came ashore suffered 1,096 casualties, including “only” 381 killed.
The total number of Allied casualties on D-Day reached approximately 10,000, a figure that included 4,414 men killed, the latter still a high number, of course, but not nearly as high as most people imagine.
The number of casualties represented just over 6 percent of the total of 160,000 troops who came ashore, the number of killed, 2.7 percent.
The relatively low number of losses was due to the fact the Germans had only limited forces available to defend against an Allied “invasion”.
According to British military historian Richard Overy,
“in the east, Germany and her allies had some two hundred and twenty-eight divisions, compared with fifty-eight divisions in the west, only fifteen of which were in the area of the Normandy battle in its initial stages” — consisting mostly of troops of inferior quality, though supported by some elite SS units –, because the bulk of the Wehrmacht was fighting for dear life on the Eastern Front. In another one of his books, Overy writes that in, Normandy, the Germans had one division for every 217 miles of coastline, divisions consisting mostly of less than the usual minimum of 12,000 men and “largely made up of older soldiers, …wounded from the eastern front and men of poorer physical condition, [with] low combat effectiveness.
The Germans defenders were thus stretched very thinly along the French coast.
Significant numbers of them, entrenched in and around bunkers and pillboxes of the “Atlantic Wall”, were separated from each other by sometimes long expanses of lightly defended coastline. The Americans learned the difference at Omaha and Utah. In any event, the notion that thousands of German soldiers were waiting in the dunes, shoulder to shoulder, as Allied soldiers alighted from their landing craft, is a fiction concocted by Hollywood in movies such as The Longest Day.
In the entire Battle of Normandy, the Americans, British, and Canadians suffered a total of about 220,000 casualties, while Germany accounted for 300,000, for a grand total of just over 550,000; the number of men killed was 30,000 for the US, 11,000 for the UK, 5,000 for Canada, and 30,000 for Germany, totalling 76,000. Mindboggling as these figures may be, they are dwarfed by the numbers killed, injured, missing in action and/or taken prisoner during the 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad.
According to the same source, the Encyclopedia Britannica, that battle resulted in approximately 800,000 casualties on the side of Germany and allied powers, and 1,100,000 on the Soviet side, for a total of 1.9 million. And that appears to be a rather conservative estimate, as Wikipedia cites higher figures, namely, a total number of over one million killed; and the Modern War Institute, a “national resource at the United States Military Academy at West Point”, puts the Stalingrad death toll at approximately 1.2 million. In any event, the Battle of Normandy may be said to have been only half as deadly as the Battle of Stalingrad.
Let us return to D-Day.
On that June 6, the plans called for Allied troops to overcome the German coastal defenses without too much trouble and to push deep inland, in the case of the Canadians from Juno Beach to the outskirts of the city of Caen, a distance of nearly 20 kilometers.
(Bicycles were brought along to facilitate that trip, so no major German resistance was obviously expected.)
However, it would take weeks before the “Canucks” were to enter Caen.
The other Allies did not do better; by the end of the first day, none of them had secured their first-day objectives.
The reason was that the Germans responded to the Allied landings by sending in elite troops that had been held in the rear, including SS units, to be sent to the front whenever and wherever the need would arise. These troops were unable to throw the Allies back into the sea, but they did manage to prevent them to penetrate deep inland, as the planners had expected.
The result was a long stalemate.
It helped the Allied cause that the Germans were prevented from transferring manpower from the Eastern Front to Normandy by actions of the Red Army, culminating on June 22 — anniversary of Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 — in the kickoff of a major offensive on the Eastern Front, code-named Operation Bagration.
The Wehrmacht was mauled badly by the Red Army, which was to achieve an advance of more than 600 kilometres, all the way from deep in Russia to the suburbs of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which was reached in early August.
Bagration thus enabled the Western Allies to finally break out of their Normandy bridgehead, and General Eisenhower himself later acknowledged that Bagration had been a necessary precondition for the belatedly successful outcome of Operation Overlord.
(Incidentally, the Soviets would render a similar — and equally rarely acknowledged — serviceto the Western Allies in early 1945 when they responded to an urgent American request by unleashing a major offensive in Poland on January 12, 1945, one week earlier than originally planned; that move forced the Germans to abandon a surprise attack in the Belgian Ardennes that had caused the Americans great difficulties in the so-called Battle of the Bulge.)
Summarizing the above, it is clear that the Western Allies won the Battle of Normandy, admittedly not easily, but without major losses, because the huge sacrifices required to defeat the Nazi Moloch had been suffered for three years, and continued to be suffered, by the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
It is fair to say that Nazi Germany was defeated by the efforts and sacrifices not only of the Red Army but of Soviet women and men in general, including partisans, factory workers, farmers, and so forth, whose total losses by the end of the war would approach a mindboggling thirty million.
In fact, the string of Nazi victories that had started in 1939 came to an end — and the tide of World War II turned, to put it that way — not with the landings in Normandy in June 1944, as is claimed or implied in many history books and of course in Hollywood productions such as The Longest Day. The tide of the war turned on the Eastern Front, and it did so well before D-Day, namely, in 1941, in the vast expanses of Russia to the west of Moscow.
When Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22, 1941, Hitler and his generals were convinced that the Wehrmacht was going to crush the Red Army within 6 to 8 weeks.
They also badly needed a quick victory, because only quick triumph could solve a major problem. In the thirties, while preparing for war, the Hitler regime had built up huge stockpiles of imported strategic raw materials that Germany lacked, above all rubber and petroleum, the latter mostly supplied by the US. During the coming war, the Reich would likely be prevented from importing sufficient quantities of these products, without which the mighty panzers and planes would be useless,by a British naval blockade, which is what had happened in World War I.
However, in 1939-1940, the stockpiles of crucially important petroleum had been severely depleted as Nazi Germany inflicted “lightning warfare” on countries as far apart as Poland, France, and Greece; and neither continuing imports from Romania and – via neutral Spain – the US, nor increased production of synthetic fuel and rubber could make up the shortfall. And so, when Operation Barbarossa started, and three million German soldiers crossed into the Soviet Union with no less than 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, and more than 2,700 planes, Nazi Germany only had sufficient fuel (and rubber tires) left to wage war for little more than two months. But this was deemed sufficient because the Soviet Union was expected to be knocked out soon enough, and then its unlimited raw materials, including Caucasian petroleum, would be available to the Reich.
However, it became clear all too soon that despite impressive initial victories, Barbarossa was not going to be a cakewalk after all.
By the end of August, the German spearheads were still nowhere near the Caucasus, the Eldorado of Soviet petroleum.
Hitler’s “Third Reich” now faced the prospect of catastrophic fuel shortages in addition to almost equally problematic scarcity of labor needed in its armament and other industries, as millions of men could not return home and go back to work in the factories.The conclusion drawn by many cognoscenti, such as high-ranking Wehrmacht officers, Nazi bigwigs, the Swiss secret service, and the Vatican, as early as the summer of 1941 and increasingly in the fall of that year, was that Germany could no longer hope to slay the Soviet bear and was doomed to lose the war.
Oceanic tides turn inexorably but slowly, yet not imperceptibly.
The tide of World War started to turn similarly slowly within weeks after the start of Barbarossa, but the phenomenon was already perceived by a small though increasing number of observers and could be certified on December 5 of 1941, when the Red Army successfully launched a major counter-offensive that threw back the Germans and certified the fiasco of Barbarossa. On that same day, Hitler was informed by his generals that he could no longer hope to win the war. It is therefore legitimate to define December 5, 1941, as the “turning point” [Zäsur, literally “caesura”] of the entire world war,” as Gerd R. Ueberschär, a German expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has put it. On the other hand, it is true that those in the know were rare and that, for whatever reasons, most of them chose to remain discreet; consequently, it was only after the spectacular German defeat at Stalingrad, in early 1943, that the entire world was to realize that Nazi Germany was doomed to lose the war.
When, more than one year later, the Western Allies landed in Normandy, they were lucky to face a (part of a) German army that was severely handicapped by a paucity of petroleum.
The Nazis had hoped that victory against the Soviet Union would provide them with plenty of Caucasian fuel for their panzers and planes.
That did not happen and, to the contrary, the fighting in the vast expanses of the Soviet Union further depleted Germany’s stocks of fuel. By the summer of 1944, the Nazi war machine was not only figuratively but even literally “out of gas”,and this is why the Luftwaffe, for example, which disposed of excellent airplanes, was virtually absent from the skies over Normandy, to the great relief of the Allies on the ground, on the sea, and of course in the air.
It should be mentioned that the US was not yet a belligerent when the turning of the war’s tide was confirmed by the Soviet counter-attack in front of Moscow on December 5, 1941.
Washington was admittedly on extremely unfriendly terms with Berlin because of American deliveries of all sorts of weapons and other equipment to Britain, but had no intention, and therefore no plans at all, to go to war against Hitler, even though there were plenty of compelling humanitarian reasons for crusading against his truly evil regime.
America’s major US corporations were also doing wonderful business with Nazi Germany itself, for example producing trucks, planes, tanks, and other strategic equipment in their branch plants in Germany and by supplying the petroleum so badly needed by the Panzers and Stukas.
America’s political and social- economic elite was also staunchly anti-communist and did not want to undertake anything that might jeopardize the Nazi dictator’s prospects for success in his crusade against the Soviet Union. Conversely, Hitler, in dire straits in the Soviet Union, was not keen at all to take on a new enemy of the calibre of the US.
However, Washington wanted war, not against Germany but against Japan, and did so mainly in order to prevent its much-despised rival in the Far East from pocketing Vietnam and Indonesia, resource-rich colonies of countries occupied by Germany, France and the Netherlands.
Tokyo was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which triggered an American declaration of war on Japan but not on Germany, which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and whose alliance with Japan did not require Berlin to become involved in a war started by Tokyo.
However, to Washington’s great surprise, Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor.
He almost certainly speculated that this entirely gratuitous gesture of solidarity would induce his Far Eastern ally to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the enemy of Germany, the Soviet Union, thus forcing the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war. But Tokyo, expecting to have its hands full with the US as enemy, did not take the bait.
In Washington the German declaration of war arrived as a most unpleasant surprise, since a war against Germany was unwanted and no plans had been made for it. The American historian Stephen E. Ambrose has rightly emphasized that the US did not “enter” the war but was “pulled in[to]” it.
He was right in the sense that Uncle Sam was indeed “pulled into” the war against Germany against his will – and by none other than Hitler himself!
In view of this, it is worth asking whether the Americans would ever have declared war on Nazi Germany, and landed in Normandy, if Hitler had not declared war on them. And one should ask if Hitler would ever have made the desperate, even suicidal, decision to declare war on the US if he had not found himself in a hopeless situation in the Soviet Union. The entry of the US into the war against Germany, then, which for many reasons was not in the cards before December 1941, and for which Washington had not made any preparations, was not a cause, but merely a consequence, of a turn of the tide of World War II that happened in the Soviet Union in the second half of 1941.
In any event, when the Americans and other Western Allies did come ashore in Normandy in June 1944, there was less than one year left in a war whose outcome had already been decided three years earlier on the opposite side of Europe. In some way, Operation Overlord confirmed that Nazi Germany’s sun had reached its zenith in 1941 and was setting rapidly. And the troops were not sent to the Normandy beaches to liberate France en route to Berlin, but to prevent the Soviets from defeating Germany, take Berlin, and thus liberate all of Europe on their own.
When Nazi Germany unexpectedly became an enemy of the US, the US automatically became an ally of Germany’s enemies, including Britain and the Soviet Union. Uncle Sam’s alliance with Moscow was to involve supplying the Soviets with weapons and other equipment, but those supplies, while certainly important, would never represent more than a fraction of what the Red Army needed and would become quantitatively and qualitatively meaningful only in 1943, that is, well after the decisive battles in front of Moscow and in Battle of Stalingrad. The notion that the Soviets survived Operation Barbarossa thanks to American aid is nothing more than a myth.
With its British ally, on the other hand, Washington worked very closely together and coordinated strategy, and it was agreed that they would give priority to the fight against Germany, rather than the other common enemy, Japan.
This would logically involve sending troops into occupied Europe to confront the Nazi beast, thus opening a “Second Front”.
A Second Front would have provided much relief for the Red Army, which in 1942 faced an admittedly desperate German attempt to reach the Caucasian oilfields, an attempt that led to a titanic battle fought in and around Stalingrad from which the Soviets did not emerge victoriously until early 1943.
However, Roosevelt and Churchill preferred not to open a Second Front.The leaders of the US and Britain were happy to see their useful but unloved Soviet ally and Nazi Germany administer a major bloodletting to each other in what appeared throughout 1942 to be a stalemated conflict on the Eastern Front.
They realized that defeating Germany would require huge sacrifices, and landing troops in occupied Europe would unquestionably be a very costly affair. Was it not far wiser to stay safely on the sidelines, at least for the time being, and let the Soviets slug it out against the Nazis? With the Red Army providing the cannon fodder needed to vanquish Germany, the Americans and their British allies would be able to minimize their losses. Better still, they would be able to build up their strength in order to intervene decisively at the right moment, when the Nazi enemy and the Soviet ally would both be exhausted. With Great Britain at its side, the US would then in all likelihood be able to play the leading role in the camp of the victors and act as supreme arbiter in the sharing of the spoils of the supposedly common victory. In the spring and summer of 1942, with the Nazis and Soviets locked into a titanic battle, watched from a safe distance by the Anglo-Saxon tertius gaudens, it did indeed look as if such a scenario might come to pass.
The reason given to Stalin for not opening a second front was that the combined American and British forces were not yet strong enough for a major operation on the continent.
Presumably, the naval war against the German U-boats first had to be won in order to safeguard the required transatlantic troop transports. However, troops were successfully being ferried from North America to Great Britain, and in the fall of 1942 the Americans and British proved able to land a sizable force in North Africa. These landings, known as Operation Torch, involved the occupation of the French colonies of Morocco and Algeria, and in the summer of 1943 the “Yanks” and “Tommies”, now accompanied by “Canucks”, to use the nicknames of the Western Allied soldiers, were to cross into Sicily, followed by the Italian mainland, and knock Italy out of the war.
Not only Stalin demanded the opening of a Second Front, so did a large segment of the British public, mostly ordinary working-class folks who, in contrast to their “betters”, sympathized with the Soviets. To silence this annoying constituency, Churchill arranged for a contingent of troops, not coincidentally consisting mostly not of Americans or British but of Canadians, to be dispatched on a raid to the French seaport of Dieppe, an operation code-named Jubilee. As expected, these men were slaughtered there, which was then conveniently cited as irrefutable proof that the Western Allies were not yet able to launch a major cross-Channel operation. The stratagem achieved its purpose, but the public was horrified by the slaughter. However, after the 1944 landings in Normandy, it became possible to concoct an ostensibly convincing rationale. Jubilee was triumphantly revealed to have been a “general rehearsal” for the successful Normandy landings, as valuable lessons had allegedly been learned during a raid that served to test the German defences. This was a laughable proposition, since any lessons about German defenses, learned in August 1941, could not have been relevant almost two years later: indeed, in the aftermath of Jubilee, in 1943, the Germans constructed new defenses, collectively known as the “Atlantic Wall”. In any event, thus was born a myth: the tragedy of Jubilee as the sine qua non for the triumph of Overlord.
After the Battle of Stalingrad, it was obvious that Nazi Germany was doomed to lose the war and opening a Second Front suddenly loomed urgent to Roosevelt and Churchill. The Soviets were now likely to start heading for Berlin, and via the Italian boot, where, after the fall of Mussolini the Germans had moved in and put up a tough resistance, the Allies could never beat them in what becoming an unspoken inter-allied race to Berlin. Preparations were now made for a landing on the French Atlantic coast, code-named Operation Overlord. The urgency of this task increased rapidly as in 1943 the Red Army advanced systematically along the entire length of the Eastern Front. But it was too late to carry out such a logistically complex operation in that year, especially since the necessary landing equipment needed to be transferred back from North Africa and Italy. Roosevelt and Churchill were far from delighted that the Red Army was grinding its way, slowly but surely, towards Berlin and possibly places farther west. And so, from the perspective of Anglo-American strategy, “it became imperative to land troops in France and drive into Germany to keep most of that country out of [Soviet] hands,” as two American historians, Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble, have written.
The American and British political and military leaders, representatives of their countries’ establishment, that is, upper classes, had always been intrinsically anti-communist and anti-Soviet. Conversely, they had not been against any form of fascism, including its German variant, Nazism. They were “philofascists”, that is, benevolent towards fascism and supporters of fascists, because fascism was the paramount enemy of communism and simultaneously “good for business” and therefore for capitalism, of which fascism is arguably a manifestation; it should not be forgotten that Hitler’s Germany, like Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain, were capitalist countries. It is an irony of history that the US stumbled into a war against fascism, personified by Hitler (as well as Mussolini) and thus found themselves to be allies of the Soviet Union. But that alliance was an unnatural one, destined to last only until the defeat of the common enemy. As some American generals put it on one occasion, they were fighting a war “with the wrong ally against the wrong enemy.”
The landings in Normandy, then, were organized for the purpose of preventing a scenario that haunted the gentlemen who happened to be the leaders of the US and Britain, a scenario in which the Soviets would singlehandedly defeat Germany and liberate not only Eastern but also Western Europe, including France. If that would happen, the “Russkis” were expected to follow the precedent set by the Americans and British in 1943 when they liberated Italy except the northern part, which remained behind German lines. They had done exactly as they pleased, nota bene without permitting any input from their Soviet ally, input that had been foreseen in previous agreements. To prevent any radical social-economic changes, they had neutralized the leftist partisans who had plans for an entirely new Italy; and installed an ex-fascist and known war criminal, Marshal Badoglio, in power. In fact, the Western Allies left much of Italy’s fascist system in place, thus ingratiating the industrialists, bankers, large landowners, the monarch, Vatican, and other pillars of the nation’s establishment who had in fact enabled, and benefited from, the Mussolini regime, but angering workers and “ordinary” Italians, who castigated the new system as “fascism without Mussolini”.
If the Soviets were to act similarly in the countries they liberated, the result could be expected to be the opposite, namely, a joint effort of the liberators and the leftist resistance fighters to eradicate, at the expense of the upper class, not only of fascism but also of the capitalist system of which fascism may be said to have been the exoskeleton. From the perspective of the Americans, who were determined to maintain and revitalize capitalism wherever possible, this would have been nothing less than a catastrophe.
The far from uplifting tale of the “liberation” of Italy demonstrates clearly that the Americans and their British partners had nothing against fascism and fascist dictatorships and preferred to maintain fascism in one way or another, rather than allow a liberated people itself to determine the political and social-economic configuration of their country.
We will soon see that the landings in Normandy did not purport to liberate France in the sense of leaving the French themselves free to democratically make decisions about the postwar makeup of their country, and that the liberators actually preferred to maintain the fascist system of Vichy France, with some cosmetic changes, naturellement, rather than run the risk that the French might experiment with forms of socialism, as they had done, to the displeasure of the ruling elites in Britain and in the US, in the 1930s under the auspices of a leftist government known as the “Popular Front”.
At that time, in 1936, the gentlemen in power in Washington and London, in contrast to most “ordinary” American and British people, sympathized with Franco, and proceeded to support him covertly if not overtly, when he waged war against a democratically elected republican government with plans for social and economic reforms. If the landings in Normandy purported to bring freedom to France, as we hear again and again, and defeat fascism in Germany and everywhere in Europe, why did the Americans and the British not follow up their triumph in the spring of 1945 by removing Franco from power in Madrid, as they could have done with the wave of a hand?
The landings in Normandy, then, were not about freedom for France and crusading against fascist dictatorship.
Their real objective was to allow the Western Allies to compete with the Soviets in an undeclared race to Berlin, a race that, in the summer of 1944, was still very much winnable. And winning that contest would give the Americans and their British partner control over much if not all of Germany and the attendant possibility of doing in there what they had already done in Italy, namely preserving the social-economic status quo even if it meant sheltering fascists – in the case of Germany: Nazis — and philofascists. This was all the more important since US corporations and banks held huge investments in Germany, certain to be lost in case the tandem of Soviets and German antifascists took control. The tale of what happened to Germany cannot be told here, but we all know the result: the Americans got their way in the western reaches of the country, and the Soviets, in the eastern part.
As soon as the Battle of Normandy was concluded victoriously, German resistance melted away in most if not all of the rest of France.
This made it possible to undertake the primordial push into Germany, but also required dealing with the thorny issue of the situation in France. The Americans would have preferred to keep the Vichy-based collaborator government of Marshal Pétain in power, but minus the discredited Pétain, and with a more respectable personality, a French Badoglio, so to speak, at the helm; after all, the Vichy-regime had been good for business, including the business of French subsidiaries of US banks and corporations such as Ford France, which had made lots of money thanks to eager collaboration with the Germans.
Washington had maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy until the landings in North Africa, and had flirted afterwards with Pétainist politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, and generals who, after Stalingrad, sensing where the wind was coming from, had opportunistically switched to the Allied side. Washington’s preference for Pétainists was determined by two related factors. First, the desire to find French partners who, once hoisted into the saddle of power, could be relied upon to maintain the capitalist status quo in a post-liberation France. Second, their fear that the withdrawal of the Germans and the concomitant collapse of the Vichy regime might cause the Resistance to come to power, a resistance that was mostly working class – just as collaboration had been mostly bourgeois – and very leftist, with the communists as the leading element, and introduce the kind of radical reforms that were very popular in France but abominated as a “red revolution” by American leaders, including president Roosevelt, who were determined to save capitalism in France regardless of the wishes of the French.
As for General Charles de Gaulle, leader of the so-called Free French based in Britain and acknowledged by many inside and outside of France as one of the leaders of the Resistance, he was not a leftist but a conservative personality; but Roosevelt and most other American decision-makers despised him as an obnoxious megalomaniac and shared Vichy’s view that he was a mere front for the communist real leaders of the Resistance. Washington thus refused to recognize de Gaulle and the French provisional government he headed, even though it had become clear to them that their favourite option, putting an ex-Pétainist in power, was inacceptable to the French people.
And so the Americans planned to rule “liberated” France (and other European countries) themselves, at least for the time being, via a military government they controlled but euphemistically called Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories (AMGOT). In Italy, this arrangement had overseen the previously mentioned transition from fascism with to fascism without Mussolini, and the idea was clearly to achieve a similar result in France, Vichyism sans Vichy. However, with respect to France the idea of turning the country a de facto American protectorate, was not yet implemented at the time of the landings.
In the meantime, de Gaulle was slowly becoming acceptable to Washington on account of three factors. First, the Americans finally realized that the French people would not tolerate that the Vichy system would be maintained in any way, shape, or form. Conversely, they had come to understand that de Gaulle was popular, enjoyed the support of a considerable segment of the Resistance, and had the potential to eclipse the communists as its leader. Second, de Gaulle appeased FDR by committing himself to pursue a political course that would in no way threaten the economic status quo. To guarantee his commitment, countless former Vichyites who enjoyed the favours of the Americans were integrated into his Free French movement and even given leading positions. Gaullism thus became respectable and de Gaulle himself morphed into “a right-wing leader,” acceptable to French upper class, which dreaded a takeover by the “red” Resistance, and to the Americans, poised to succeed the Germans as partners and protectors of that elite.
By the end of August 1944, when the Battle of Normandy was won, an uprising of the predominantly communist Parisian Resistance clearly purported not to prevent the Germans from burning down the city, as would be suggested in a 1966 Hollywood production, Is Paris Burning?, but to establish a French government that was to be independent of the country’s “Anglo-Saxon” liberators and likely to pursue policies not to their liking.
That forced the Americans to abandon the AMGOT scheme and quickly reach for the card they had hitherto been reluctant to play: de Gaulle.
The general was rushed to the capital, to be presented to the Parisians as the saviour for whom patriotic France had been waiting for four long years. It was arranged for him to strut triumphantly down the Champs Elysees, while the local Resistance leaders were coerced to follow him at a respectful distance, looking like unimportant extras. A little later, on October 23. 1944, Washington certified its admittedly uneasy partnership with de Gaulle by recognizing him as head of the provisional government of the French Republic.
After the Battle of Normandy, then, it was thanks to the Americans that in France de Gaulle, and not the men of the Resistance, could come to power. In contrast to the latter, de Gaulle was a conservative personality, and he collaborated eagerly with Washington to prevent the radical reforms which the Resistance had planned and many if not most Frenchmen, and certainly the working class, had expected and would have welcomed. The country’s capitalist social-economic system was preserved, though its political superstructure was updated: on the ruins of the fascist Vichy regime, a new, comparatively much more democratic system, was erected, to become officially known in 1946 as the “Fourth Republic”. This arrangement provided immense relief to France’s upper class but also served the purposes of the Americans, who were determined to make liberated Europe safe for capitalism, preferably an unfettered, American-style capitalism, with “open doors” for US products and capital – and Uncle Sam very much in control.
De Gaulle did not remain in power long enough – he resigned in January 1946 — to prevent France from being integrated into a US-dominated Western Europe and becoming a vassal of Uncle Sam, exemplified by membership in NATO – a development that was accompanied by the Americanization or “Cocacolonization” of the country.Butin 1958 de Gaulle made a comeback and obtained wide powers as he arranged for the Fourth Republic to give way to to a more authoritarian, ironically enough an American-style, presidential system, to be baptized “Fifth Republic”. He subsequently proved to be a thorn in the side of Uncle Sam, for example by banning American army bases (and NATO headquarters) from France and, more in general, failing to be a pliant vassal like Konrad Adenauer in West Germany. (It is for that reason that the CIA very likely orchestrated some of the coups and assassination attempts directed against the regime and/or person of the recalcitrant French president.)
De Gaulle also never forgave the Americans (and the British) for treating France like a “doormat” (paillasson), as he once put, at the time of the landings in Normandy. In 1964, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Overlord, he described the operation as “the prelude to a second occupation of the country”, and he never attended its annual commemoration. Also absent from the annual commemorations, at least during the last decade have been the Russian heirs to the Soviets, whose efforts and sacrifices had made possible not only the landings, but even the final victory against Nazi Germany.
This year, the official reason for Russian representatives being non grata is their country’s “war of aggression” against Ukraine, a kind of excuse that was never invoked to disqualify an American president for similar (and even worse) wars, for example, George W. Bush, who made an appearance in 2014. And what to think of the invitation extended to Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenski?
His government teems with admirers of Stepan Bandera and other Ukrainians who collaborated eagerly with the Nazis, and with neo-Nazis, and Zelenski himself happily and proudly participated when, in September, 2023, the members of Canada’s House of Commons unanimously honoured a former Ukrainian SS-man, Yaroslav Hunka, with a standing ovation in Canada’s Parliament.
The parliamentarians later sheepishly claimed ignorance, but Zelenski certainly knew very well who that man was, and what he stood for, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, should have known or at least have been informed. It is indeed no secret that, at the Nuremberg Trials, the SS in its entirety was declared to have been a criminal organization.
And it also known, especially in Canada, that a SS unit similar to the one of which Hunka was a member, fought against Allied troops in Normandy and committed war crimes there, including the massacre of dozens of Canadian prisoners of war in Ardenne Abbey near Caen.
Justin Trudeau presumably knows Canadian history and is aware of what happened at Ardenne Abbey; he should go there and lay a wreath – and invite Zelensky to come along.
Kimball, Warren F. “FDR and Allied Grand Strategy, 1944-1945: The Juggler’s Last Act,” in Charles F. Brower (ed.), World War II in Europe: The Final Year, New York, 1998, pp. 15-38.
Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Les élites françaises entre 1940 et 1944. De la collaboration avec l’Allemagne à l’alliance américaine, Paris, 2016
Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Les origines du plan Marshall: Le mythe de “l’aide” américaine, Armand Colin, Malakoff, 2023.
Pauwels, Jacques R. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, second edition, Toronto, 2015.
Pauwels, Jacques R. Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events, Toronto, 2022.
Pauwels, Jacques R. “Americanizing France”, CounterPunch, March 4, 2024,
Ueberschär, Gerd R. “Das Scheitern des ‘Unternehmens Barbarossa’”, in: Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette (eds.), Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion. “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 1941, Frankfurt, 2011, pp.85-122.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on October 31, 2022
Earth Day, April 22, 2024
***
Important to understand is that there is not one single new or original idea in Klaus Schwab’s so-called Great Reset agenda for the world. Nor is his Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda his or his claim to having invented the notion of Stakeholder Capitalism a product of Schwab.
Klaus Schwab is little more than a slick PR agent for a global technocratic agenda, a corporatist unity of corporate power with government, including the UN, an agenda whose origins go back to the beginning of the 1970s, and even earlier. The Davos Great reset is merely an updated blueprint for a global dystopian dictatorship under UN control that has been decades in development. The key actors were David Rockefeller and his protégé, Maurice Strong.
In the beginning of the 1970s, there was arguably no one person more influential in world politics than the late David Rockefeller, then largely known as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.
Creating the new paradigm
At the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the international circles directly tied to David Rockefeller launched a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks. These included
The Club of Rome;
the 1001: A Nature Trust, tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
the Stockholm United Nations Earth Day conference;
the MIT-authored study, Limits to Growth;
and David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.
Club of Rome
In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO. [i] That was the beginning of what would become the neo-Malthusian “people pollute” movement.
In 1971 the Club of Rome published a deeply-flawed report, Limits to Growth, which predicted an end to civilization as we knew it because of rapid population growth, combined with fixed resources such as oil. The report concluded that without substantial changes in resource consumption, “the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”
It was based on bogus computer simulations by a group of MIT computer scientists. It stated the bold prediction, “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.” That was 1971. In 1973 Klaus Schwab in his third annual Davos business leader meeting invited Peccei to Davos to present Limits to Growth to assembled corporate CEOs. [ii]
In 1974, the Club of Rome declared boldly, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Then: “the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over-population, food shortages, non-renewable resource [oil-w.e.] depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance.” [iii] They argued that,
‘horizontal’ restructuring of the world system is needed…drastic changes in the norm stratum – that is, in the value system and the goals of man – are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place. [iv]
In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome further argued:
Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. [v]
That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda2030 and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong
By far the most influential organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a billionaire oilman named Maurice Strong.
Canadian Maurice Strong was one of the key early propagators of the scientifically flawed theory that man-made CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens “the planet”, so-called Global Warming.
As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.”
Strong stated his radical ecologist agenda:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [vi]
This is what is now taking place under cover of a hyped global pandemic.
Strong was a curious choice to head a major UN initiative to mobilize action on the environment, as his career and his considerable fortune had been built on exploitation of oil, like an unusual number of the new advocates of ‘ecological purity,’ such as David Rockefeller or Robert O. Anderson of Aspen Institute or Shell’s John Loudon.
Strong had met David Rockefeller in 1947 as a young Canadian eighteen and from that point, his career became tied to the network of the Rockefeller family.[vii] Through his new friendship with David Rockefeller, Strong, at age 18, was given a key UN position under UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. The UN’s funds were conveniently enough handled by Rockefeller’s Chase Bank. This was typical of the model of “public-private partnership” to be deployed by Strong—private gain from public government. [viii]
In the 1960s Strong had become president of the huge Montreal energy conglomerate and oil company known as Power Corporation, then owned by the influential Paul Desmarais. Power Corporation was reportedly also used as a political slush fund to finance campaigns of select Canadian politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, father of Davos protégé Justin Trudeau, according to Canadian investigative researcher, Elaine Dewar. [ix]
Earth Summit I and Rio Earth Summit
By 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations in New York and Secretary General of the upcoming Earth Day conference, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Earth Summit I) in Stockholm, Sweden. He was also named that year as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation – which financed his launch of the Stockholm Earth Day project.[x] In Stockholm the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created with Strong as its head.
By 1989 Strong was named by the UN Secretary General to head the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development or UNCED (“Rio Earth Summit II”). He oversaw the drafting of the UN “Sustainable Environment” goals there, the Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development that forms the basis of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, as well as creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN. Strong, who was also a board member of Davos WEF, had arranged for Schwab to serve as a key adviser to the Rio Earth Summit.
As Secretary General of the UN Rio Conference, Strong also commissioned a report from the Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King which admitted that the CO2 global warming claim was merely an invented ruse to force change:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [xi]
President Clinton’s delegate to Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted the same, stating,
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” [xii]
At Rio Strong first introduced the manipulative idea of “sustainable society” defined in relation this arbitrary goal of eliminating CO2 and other so-called Greenhouse Gases. Agenda 21 became Agenda 2030 in Sept 2015 in Rome, with the Pope’s blessing, with 17 “sustainable” goals. It declared among other items,
“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…Social justice, urban renewal, and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only ‘be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”
In short private land ownership must become socialized for “society as a whole,” an idea well-known in Soviet Union days, and a key part of the Davos Great Reset.
At Rio in 1992 where he was chairman and General Secretary, Strong declared:
“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” [xiii] (emphasis added)
By that time Strong was at the very center of the transformation of the UN into the vehicle for imposing a new global technocratic “paradigm” by stealth, using dire warnings of planet extinction and global warming, merging government agencies with corporate power in an unelected control of pretty much everything, under the cover of “sustainability.” In 1997 Strong oversaw creation of the action plan following the Earth Summit, The Global Diversity Assessment, a blueprint for the roll out of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, an inventory of every resource on the planet, how it would be controlled , and how this revolution would be achieved.[xiv]
At this time Strong was co-chairman of Klaus Schwab’s Davos World Economic Forum. In 2015 on Strong’s death, Davos founder Klaus Schwab wrote,
“He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board.” [xv]
Before he left the UN over an Iraq Food-for-Oil corruption scandal, Strong was member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Rothschild Foundation. Strong was also a director of the Temple of Understanding of the Lucifer Trust (aka Lucis Trust) housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City,
“where pagan rituals include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for blessing. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a sermon, as worshippers marched to the altar with bowls of compost and worms…” [xvi]
This is the dark origin of Schwab’s Great Reset agenda where we should eat worms and have no private property in order to “save the planet.” The agenda is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate billions of us “ordinary humans.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
[v] The Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, quoted in Brent Jessop, Mankind at the Turning Point – Part 2 – Creating A One World Consciousness, accessed in http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=154
[vii] Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green: The Links between key environmental groups, government and big business, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1995, pp. 259-265.
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Biden ha presentato un piano per “un cessate il fuoco duraturo” a Gaza. Esso prevede “il rilascio di tutti gli ostaggi” da parte di Hamas e allo stesso tempo “il ritiro delle forze israeliane da tutte le aree popolate di Gaza”. A questo punto “i civili palestinesi tornerebbero nelle loro case e nei loro quartieri in tutte le aree di Gaza”, ricevendo e “una accresciuta assistenza umanitaria da parte della comunità internazionale.” Inizierebbe quindi “la ricostruzione di Gaza da parte della comunità internazionale”.
In tal modo – sottolinea Biden – “Israele potrebbe integrarsi più profondamente nella regione, compreso un potenziale accordo storico di normalizzazione con l‘Arabia Saudita, entrando a far parte di una rete di sicurezza regionale per contrastare la minaccia rappresentata dall’Iran.” Chiaro scopo del piano è quello di colpire i BRICS di cui fanno parte Russia e Cina, nei quali l’Arabia Saudita è entrata insieme all’Iran, che USA e Israele considerano il loro più pericoloso nemico nella regione. Resta comunque il fatto – conclude Biden – che “Israele avrà sempre il diritto di difendersi dalle minacce alla sua sicurezza” e che “gli Stati Uniti faranno sempre in modo che Israele abbia ciò di cui ha bisogno per difendersi”.
Il piano di Biden è perfettamente funzionale alla strategia di guerra che gli Stati Uniti attuano in Medio Oriente. Esso mantiene l’asse strategico con Israele continuando a fornirgli i più avanzati sistemi d’arma e massicce quantità di munizioni, comprese quelle con cui Israele sta radendo al suolo Gaza. Allo stesso tempo prospetta una ricostruzione di Gaza – affidata alla “comunità internazionale”, ossia principalmente a Stati Uniti, Israele,Unione Europea e G7 – che, come specifica il piano presentato da Netanyahu, consisterebbe nel “ricostruire Gaza dal nulla” trasformandola in una “massiccia zona di libero scambio” con lussuosi grattacieli, impianti ecologici a energia solare e stabilimenti per la produzione di auto elettriche.
I palestinesi sopravvissuti, ritornati nelle loro case e nei loro quartieri, vi troverebbero solo macerie e non avrebbero più alcun reale diritto di proprietà. Ne seguirebbe un inevitabile esodo di massa, mentre quelli rimasti diverrebbero semplici dipendenti delle attività impiantate a Gaza dalla “comunità internazionale”. Verrebbe così cancellato il Territorio Palestinese di Gaza, insieme a quello della Cisgiordania, cancellando la Palestina come Stato.
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.
The following is part of a transcript of an interview recorded this week. Find it here.
Mojmir Babacek is from Prague in the Czech Republic. He graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978, he signed “Chapter 77,” a document aiming to defend human rights in communist Czechoslovakia.
Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.
Global Research interviewed him on June 6 to expand on his research in the area, and on what he has been trying to do to alert the public as to how the very mind itself may be controlled and manipulated by pulsed microwaves and low frequency electromagnetic radiation used without the knowledge or consent of the targeted individual.
Global Research: Okay, so first of all, could you give us a basic understanding of what exactly is happening physiologically to cause these neural weapons to affect the brain and nervous system?
Mojmir Babacek: Every action of neurons in the brain has chemical and electrical part. The actions differ by the number of firings of neurons and their frequencies. In this way, the brain is comparable to the computer because it works digitally.
Inside of the neuronal fibers is liquid, which is full of ions. Those are electrically charged particles, just the same like electrons in the conductive metals. The most important part in the activity of the human nervous system represents electrical currents, which are occurring as flows of those charged ions in the nerve fibers.
In 2014, Chinese scientists published the results of an experiment in which they searched for microwave conductivity of electrolyte solutions. In the introduction, they stressed that their experiment plays an important role in investigating the interaction between electromagnetic waves and biological tissues that have high water content and a significant concentration of ions. The experiment proved that this electrolyte is conductive for microwaves up to 20 GHz frequency.
If the microwaves are passed in the frequencies of the brain activity, which is from 1 to 100 Hz, they will trigger the spreading of the nervous signal in the nervous system. Now, if a human being is supposed to feel something or do something or think about something, it is necessary that the large quantities of neurons start firing in the same frequency. So, if the electrolytes in the nerve fibers are reached by microwaves, which are passed in the nervous activity frequencies, they will produce in the human being perceptions, emotions, thoughts or any kind of the activity of the human body, like salivation.
In this way, the electrolytes in the nervous tissue will function the same way as antennas in the radios and the human nervous system will be subjected to those passed microwaves targeting the human body. The MCS America organization, which fights against pollution, confirms this conclusion in its study on electromagnetic field sensitivity. The study states, the body can collect the signal and turn it into electric currents just like the antenna of a radio set or a cell phone.
The veracity of those explanations is confirmed by the experiment where 20 volunteers were exposed to the pulses of 217 Hz used in cell phone telephony. In the recordings of the electroencephalograms appeared electrical currents in the frequency of 217 Hz. It means that microwaves pulsed in 217 frequency produced the same frequency in the nervous systems of the volunteers.
In another experiment, cell phone microwaves pulsed in 11 to 15 Hz produced changes in the electroencephalogram during the sleep in 30 volunteers. Australian scientists in the other experiment presented a conclusion that not only could cell phone signals alter a person’s behavior during the call, the effects of the disrupted brainwave patterns continued long after the phone was switched off. The difference between pulsed microwaves and extra-long electromagnetic waves in frequencies from 1 to 100 Hz is that pulsed microwaves can be targeted on one person or the whole nation if the cell phone signals are pulsed in brain frequencies, while extra-long electromagnetic waves transmitted in brain frequencies with a length of up to 300,000 km will reach brains in large areas of the planet.
This is what American antenna system HAR, Prussian antenna system SURA and newly built Chinese system in Hainan province can do.
GR: Information beams can affect people’s thoughts by bypassing the conscious minds. Give me examples of the kinds of thoughts entering into people’s minds and the possible dangers to human rights that that encompasses.
MB: Robert Becker, who was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize for the work in this field of science, presents in his book Cross-Currents the report coming from the microwave research department at Walter Reed Army Institute where J.C. Sharp carried out an experiment with the transmission of words into the brain by radio-frequency radiation. The report presented this conclusion. Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation.
There were reports in the 70s that some woo-wear stores experimented with using subliminal messaging including ultrasonic messages embedded in the music played in their stores. These messages were intended to influence customer behavior such as reducing theft and encouraging purchases. That this method of subconscious programming can be produced by pulsed microwaves as well was described in the experiment by J.F. Shapitz.
This experiment, again, was published by the book Body Electric by Robert Becker, the scientist. The experiment was released voluntarily on basis of Freedom of Information Act, J.F. Shapitz stated. In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of hypnotist may be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into the subconscious parts of the human brain without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously.
In one of the four experiments subjects should have been given a test of 100 questions ranging from easy to technical ones. Later, not knowing that they were being irradiated they would be subjected to information beams suggesting the answers to the questions they had left blank amnesia for some of their correct answers and memory falsification of their correct answers. After two weeks they had to pass the test again.
The results of those experiments were never published for obvious reasons. People would be alarmed by such disclosure. When encoding human speech into pulse microwaves it is possible to transmit either audible or inaudible ultrasound messages into the human brain.
A human being cannot hear ultrasound messages but its brain perceives them and a person may consider those words to be his own thoughts and his or her behavior can be controlled and manipulated in this way.
GR: Could you comment on whether the secrecy behind this neuro-weapons technology might have been influenced by the collapse of another secret CIA program called MK-ULTRA?
MB: Yes, the report on the CIA MK-ULTRA subproject 94 issued in October 1996, you can read there. The feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated.
The project MK-ULTRA was cancelled due to the lawsuit of former patients of the Canadian mental hospital Alain Memorial Institute. There the CIA was experimenting with effects of chemicals and electricity on patients. When the former patients filed a lawsuit against CIA the CIA deleted their records on this program to hide the evidence against them.
The trouble was that they forgot to delete the financial records which were published later on. The research of electromagnetic manipulation of the activity of the human nervous system was apparently classified soon after the publication of Alain Frey’s experiment with transmission of sounds into human brains by pulsed microwaves.
GR: Where have you gotten indications of just how far the research has gotten if there is no official funding for open microwave bio-research?
MB: Several experiments with pulsed microwave effects on the human brain activity were published before the research was classified just like Alain Frey’s experiment.
Later on American newspapers and books have every now and then published some information on the classified research. In 2007 the Washington Post wrote about the Air Force experiment where barely intelligible sentences were transmitted into human brains by Air Force. In the 90s of the past century there was a long string of publications on mind control research in Russia due to the fact that Russian scientist Viktor Sedlecky published an article where he wrote that the psychotronic generators as he called it were used during the push against Gorbachev to manipulate the unit that should attack incumbent President Yeltsin’s residence.
GR: You also see artificial intelligence playing a role and you wrote a petition banning the use of artificial intelligence to control the human nervous system. What is it about AI that concerns you with regard to Euroweapons?
MB: Evidently the human brain is compatible with computers and in this way the computers can be used to manipulate the brain’s activity. So this is an evident connection of artificial intelligence to manipulation of human brains.
In the project of the American Army from 1994 this project comes with producing a computer simulation of personality for people who would oppose the United States.
GR: What can ordinary people do right now to halt this research and expose the studies that have been taking place?
MB: Information on this kind of weapons is suppressed in mass media most of the times and even in most of the alternative media in the world. So for that matter there are no masses of people who would know about them and for that same matter there is no massive opposition against their development and use.
For sure it is a vast effort to disseminate information about their existence and threat they pose to the humanity. With a massive knowledge about this danger those weapons could be declassified. It’s really a vast effort.
Otherwise it seems there is no way to stop this effort to control even the world population by those technologies. As well people can sign the petition on Change.org entitled BAN REMOTE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN NERVOUS SYSTEM. The link to the petition can be found at the end of my recent articles on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Western powers heavily intervened in Russia against the Bolsheviks (1918-21), only to face humiliation and see their own troops revolt.
US Troops in Vladivostovk, 1918
Hitler’s Germany attacked Russia and was destroyed.
Their glory is apparently envied now by Biden, Scholz, Macron, Stoltenberg, von der Leyen etc., perhaps the most decadent coterie of “leaders” of the West in its whole history.
Of very low intellectual quality, those persons probably they have just a very vague idea, if they have, of European history, which makes easier for them to repeat it.
The only problem is that we now possess nuclear weapons and a whole host of other technological means that did not exist before 1945.
This is why the new campaign risks becoming not just the Waterloo of the West, but the Waterloo of humanity, unless humanity is mobilized in a massive and dynamic way to prevent its destruction.
We explained in a previous article why the latest decisions of the United States and NATO dramatically increase the possibility of a global nuclear war since, as we explained, they overturn the most basic principles of “nuclear stability” established in the past by the US and the USSR. Even if we don’t go immediately to global nuclear war Russia and the NATO are two technologically very advanced countries. They can transform into hell the planet even before they go nuclear.
This is more than just a personal viewpoint. The President of the United States himself, Joe Biden, said repeatedly the same.
From the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, he has refused to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory, arguing that we want to help Ukraine, but not to provoke ‘World War III’.
The argument that we should not provoke World War III was ever-present in White House deliberations on Ukraine policy (see this) until the President surrendered to the “War Party” within the collective West and the US government. So either Biden doesn’t know what he says and what he does, which is very dangerous when the decisions concern the very survival of humanity, or he knows what he says and, for reasons he himself knows, he chooses to take the risk of World War III, that is, the destruction of humanity.
I understand that my writing may be hard for the reader to take at face value. Having followed somewhat systematically for many years the issues of nuclear arms control and East-West relations, I have highlighted in my articles the path that has gradually led us to where we are, and warned about the risks of establishing new US bases in my own country, where even the explosion of a ‘small’ tactical nuclear device can lead to a radiation disaster. One of the main US bases is in Alexandroupolis, in Northeastern Greece, and most of the time in Greece the winds are Northeastern. Thus, the radiation from Alexandroupolis can fast go to the Attica agglomeration, where half of the Greek population are living. No one responded to me with arguments, but I was met with a great deal of skepticism and criticism, for my supposed doomsday mentality. Confirmation does not bring me any joy and I am still praying that I won’t be confirmed any more.
The thing seems completely logical and completely absurd at the same time. The biggest barrier to understanding reality is the constraints of our imagination, as the great French geneticist Albert Jacquard once wrote. Most people have a mechanism for denying reality if we feel it exceeds us, the same as ostriches have. Unable to bear the stress of danger, or not knowing how to deal with it, we prefer not to see it. But the nightmare is here, it is in the external reality. And the only way to avoid it is to mobilise states and societies.
Rapid Escalation
In the three days since I wrote my previous article on the risk of nuclear war, a series of news reports have confirmed our conclusion that we are heading towards the most serious nuclear crisis in our history.
After Biden’s decision to allow the use of US weapons against targets on Russian territory, within three days, the French are preparing to send troops to Ukraine, the Germans are discussing the possibility of recruiting 900,000 reservists, the Dutch and the Danes say they have no problem if the F16s they give to Ukraine strike inside Russia. But these aircraft can carry nuclear weapons. In other words, the Russians will be under constant threat and uncertainty that they could be subject to a nuclear attack.
Increasing uncertainty can cause nuclear war by mistake, while facilitating a provocation. The existence of such weapons in Ukraine, where Zelensky now seems to be fully controlled not only by the West in general, but by the extremist “Party of War” within it, makes any provocation much easier, i.e. destabilizes the most crucial factor of nuclear stability.
It’s like a poker game where the opponents are constantly moving up in stakes. US weapons have already carried out deadly attacks in Belgorod, Russia. Russia, as Putin himself said, responded by carrying out an attack in the direction of Kharkiv.
So what do they think in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin? That they will keep escalating the intervention in Ukraine and Moscow will not respond? Or do they want it to respond, they want escalation, taking things to a nuclear conflict without taking themselves the responsibility of it?
The Russians, for their part, released a map of the bases where the United States has stored nuclear weapons in Europe and Putin made a special reference to small European states whose leaders do not understand what they are getting themselves into. Most European media did not even report this news.
What do you think? Where exactly is this whole thing going?
European States: Fatal and Spineless Puppets
The vast majority of European political personnel, directly dependent on NATO and the US services, as it seems, and of a low moral and intellectual level, are powerless to challenge decisions and plans that threaten to lead Europe and humanity to their end.
An honourable exception is the Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán (see this), whom many may not like for other issues, but who had the courage to clearly oppose the war plans and is now threatened from Brussels, the seat of a supposedly democratic and increasingly totalitarian, European Union, with the exclusion of Hungarians from all posts in the EU. There is also, of course, the left-wing Slovak Prime Minister Fico, even more radical in his criticism of NATO policy, but someone made sure he was sent to hospital.
Orban said that he has never witnessed such irresponsibility in his life as he has seen in Europe’s involvement in Ukraine, without even an assessment of the costs and means needed to achieve its objective goals. NATO is becoming a directly involved party in Ukraine and the chances of avoiding this are limited. He said that he is not prepared, however, to allow Brussels and Berlin to decide that they should send Hungarian soldiers to Ukraine and lead his country back into war against Russia, as Hitler did.
Another European statesman, the President of Bulgaria has warned that NATO’s policy is bringing us to Nuclear Armageddon.
The “European Army”
Last month, the leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), Weber said that he wants the introduction of compulsory service and the creation of a European Army, which would not be subject to the constraints of control by national governments. In other words, Brussels will directly send European soldiers to Ukraine without asking anyone.
At the same time, the idea of a “military Schengen” is being discussed, i.e. NATO troops being able to move into EU territory without consulting governments.
European leaders do not understand that what they are doing is probably a prelude to the third world war and they think of nuclear bombs as a “tactical deterrent tool”, not as something that will actually be used, but what may not seem likely at the start of a war could occur by its conclusion, as the Hungarian Prime Minister pointed out.
The Central Question
The Americans may hope that, even if a nuclear conflict occurs, it will be under control and confined to European territory. But such calculations are utterly foolish. If humanity crosses the threshold of using nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, it will be extremely difficult to control and contain, even to keep it on European soil. Most likely, once mankind crosses the nuclear threshold, it will be the end of mankind.
Ultimately, the question that political forces and societies in the West have to answer is this: Do we want to risk the very existence of humanity, clearly not for the sake of Ukraine or democracy, but to uphold the dominance of an ultra tiny minority over the planet and our own nations?
Is it not time to start thinking again like Roosevelt, the two Kennedys, De Gaulle, Willy Brandt, Olaf Palme, Aldo Moro, Andreas Papandreou? Where they all working for Moscow as agents? Is it not time for the people to mobilise?
Because, as Nikita Khrushchev and John Kennedy said, those who survive a nuclear war, the living, will envy those who have died.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
![r/HistoryPorn - Radio Television of Serbia headquarters in Belgrade bombed by NATO exactly 20 years ago - 23 April 1999 [1280x894]](https://i0.wp.com/covertactionmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/r-historyporn-radio-television-of-serbia-headqua.jpeg?resize=640%2C447&ssl=1)
This made it possible to undertake the primordial push into Germany, but also required dealing with the thorny issue of the situation in France. The Americans would have preferred to keep the Vichy-based collaborator government of Marshal Pétain in power, but minus the discredited Pétain, and with a more respectable personality, a French Badoglio, so to speak, at the helm; after all, the Vichy-regime had been good for business, including the business of French subsidiaries of US banks and corporations such as Ford France, which had made lots of money thanks to eager collaboration with the Germans. 
