Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of the leading neocon architects of the Greater Middle East and North Africa Project launched by the US after September 11, 2001, wrote a propaganda article titled “The Perils of Isolationism” in the Foreign Affairs magazine dated August 20, 2024. 

.

.

.

Screenshot from Foreign Affairs

In the article that marketed the dangers of the US withdrawing from the world stage against Russia and China to the American public, the US is described as a state that brings peace, tranquility and security to the world. 

Interestingly, there is not a single line in the article about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Image is from the Public Domain

Rice, who served as National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush during the US’s most aggressive period in 2003, said in one of her articles, “We will change the borders of 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa.” 

I consider the only correct paragraph in Rice’s unnecessarily long (15-page) article in Foreign Affairs to be the following:

“The United States is now a different country; exhausted by eighty years of international leadership, some of it successful and celebrated, some dismissed as failures. The American people are different, too; they have less faith in their institutions and the viability of the American dream. Years of divisive rhetoric, Internet echo chambers, and ignorance of the complexities of history even among the best-educated young have left Americans with a fragmented sense of common values. Our elite cultural institutions are responsible in these areas. They have rewarded those who destroyed the United States and ridiculed those who praised its virtues. To address Americans’ lack of faith in their institutions and in each other, schools and colleges must change their curricula to offer a more balanced view of U.S. history. These and other institutions must foster healthy debate, encouraging competing ideas rather than creating a climate that reinforces existing views.’’

A Regressive U.S. and the Never-ending Wars

With 248 years of recorded history, the United States is in rapid decline. The pains of moving away from the dollar-based global economic system and establishing a new multipolar world order are increasing geopolitical tensions everywhere at global, continental and regional levels. The US and its integral part, the EU, continue to seek and provoke adventures far beyond their capabilities and power for the continuation of the global hegemony led by the US, sending the message that they will not allow a new order. 

Canadian economist and author Professor Michel Chossudovsky said in the spring of 2011:

“The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The US and its allies have launched a military adventure that threatens the future of humanity. The ultimate goal is the conquest of the world under the guise of “human rights” and “Western democracy”… The hegemonic project of the US in the post-9/11 period is the globalization of the war that the US-NATO military machine has spread to all regions of the world with its emphasis on covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and “regime change.”

Many of the methods Chossudovsky wrote about have been implemented by the US to date, but despite all the wars, conspiracies, government changes, military coups and color revolutions, economic blockades and sanctions, the US cannot achieve the ultimate goal. 

For example, the number of countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war that started on February 24, 2022 is around 40 out of 193 UN member states. The majority are EU members, and the rest are American vassal states such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and Japan. This means that the overwhelming majority of the world does not comply with the US. The US cannot be a game changer, especially with the endless wars it has started after 2001 and the death, chaos and deprivation it has brought to the continents. It is stirring up and provoking countries with colorful coups through institutions and individuals purchased with irresponsible printed dollars, but it is not getting results. If the US had been successful, there would be no Ukraine-Russia war today, nor would there be an Israel-Gaza war. The fact that the US unconditionally stands by Israel, which commits genocide, in the Gaza War that is taking place today, and that Netanyahu received a 3-minute standing ovation in the US Congress show that Washington can never be a honest broker and cannot set up games anymore. In short, US initiatives make headlines on the first day, but the initiative in question is forgotten a week later.

A Disappearing State Ukraine

2.5 years have passed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, which was provoked through Ukraine’s NATO membership for US geopolitics and rimland consolidation, on February 24, 2022. Ukraine, which has the entire media and propaganda power of the West, the open support of the EU and NATO, against Russia, whose depth, especially its manpower and defense industry resources are incomparably vast, is now an exhausted state. Its economic power has regressed to a level incomparable to that of before the war. Its demographic power has been severely damaged. Although Ukraine’s suicide attack on a historically significant settlement like Kursk was aimed at preventing losses in the Donbas region and diverting Russia’s attention from there, Russia did not shift forces from strategic Donbas for Kursk. Russia is gaining on the Donbas front every passing day. If the war is not stopped, the possibility of Ukraine losing the Odessa port and being completely cut off from the sea may even come to the fore.

Ukrainian troops prepare to fight Russian forces in Donbass (Source: Indian Punchline)

The USA’s Success in EU and NATO

On the other hand, the most successful front in this war is the weakening of the EU through Ukraine and Russia War, making it completely dependent on the US for defense, and transforming NATO into a 32-member structure with the exaggerated Russian threat. NATO has not only expanded, but also its defense budgets have been increased excessively due to the war. Thus, military sea/air/land transportation corridors and new bases that will surround Russia from the North Sea, Adriatic, Aegean, Baltic, and Black Sea with American military equipment have been implemented. Furthermore, the US has decided to place medium-range nuclear missiles in German territory, which is a semi-colony, in 2026, which is an extremely dangerous and provocative picture. The US side, which was able to establish a balance in nuclear and conventional deterrence in the Cold War, no longer knows any limits in nuclear provocation. 

The US Nuclear Strategy document leaked to the press last week revealed the nuclear armament targeting China. Let’s add the hostility towards Russia created in the public opinion of the US and the EU to these provocative successes of the US. For example, rumors that Russia will turn towards Poland and the Baltic states after Ukraine are frequently spread by the Western media these days. However, Russia’s capacity is limited. This perception of threat can be created despite the fact that the Baltic Sea has turned into a NATO lake and there is no direct land connection to Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast. The main reason for this is of course to be able to sell weapons of the US military industry through the war created in Europe and to keep the the hostility against Russia alive, to be able to maintain political and military pressures, and to keep NATO’s raison d’être alive. There is no other country in NATO and the EU that questions the Russian threat created by the US, other than Hungary and Slovakia. UK is unable to act outside the US. The situation of France, which produced great military leaders and strategic thinkers such as Charles De Gaulle and Andre Beaufre, is deplorable. 

The situation of Germany, the economic locomotive of the EU, is worse than a colony. Its industry and economy are in decline. Even the oldest and most prestigious shipyard in Germany, such as Meyer, which was founded in 1795, is on the verge of bankruptcy and the government is launching a rescue operation. 

The situation of Türkiye is complicated. Thanks to Article 19 of the Montreux Convention, we are able to maintain our active neutrality, but due to the economic pressures of the US and the West, we continue to make concessions in every field. On August 14, the American USS Wasp amphibious assault ship, whose primary duty is to protect Israel in the Gaza War, and our TCG Anadolu amphibious assault ship and TCG Gökova frigate were able to conduct transition training in the Mediterranean. 

We learn about this activity from American sources. While the government is doing this, the opposition remains silent. In other words, in defiance of Atatürk, we have been dragged into a situation close to the cooperation of Damat Ferit of the Istanbul Government and the American Mandates of the Sivas Congress during the armistice period (1919-20). 

However, in the period between the two world wars, which is very similar to today’s conjuncture, that is, during Atatürk’s time, Türkiye was very careful in its balance policy while its military, economic and demographic power was very weak. In August 1935, our Minister of Foreign Affairs Tevfik Rüştü Aras summarized the situation due to the increasing Italian fascism and threat as follows:

“In our opinion, the French-English friendship on one side of Europe, the Turkish-Soviet friendship on the other side and the good relations between them constitute the main basis of European peace. All other combinations are being worked around this.”

The Biggest Danger Is the US Vassals

In the current conjuncture, the best scenario for the US is that a new war will break out in Europe when the last Ukrainian soldier dies and the war is over. Undoubtedly, this war will be caused by the irresponsible vassals of the US, which never wants a direct conflict with Russia and pats them on the back. 

Source

Countries such as Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany and the U.K. are open to all kinds of scenarios. Moldova can also be added to this list. The sworn mandate holders and imperialist vassals in Türkiye are also ready for the tasks given. 

However, we also need to mention a great risk. As long as these weak and vassal states are not controlled by the US and are not told to stop, they can act irrationally and illogically and directly start a Russia-US conflict. 

It should not be forgotten that world military history is full of surprises. In a conjuncture where Russia’s interior is being hit with American and British weapons, a provocative attack is being carried out in Kursk under the hidden command of NATO forces, and F16 fighter jets are being given to Ukraine, how Russia will respond to the US and its friends is at least as uncertain and risky as the reaction Iran will show to Israel after the killing of the Hamas leader. What if this response eliminates the conventional escalation ladder to the point of a nuclear escalation?

While the US continues to arm Ukraine with a $60 billion sale last month and Israel with a $20 billion sale last week, Russia is arming and most likely training its ally Iran. Does the US making a rational judgment before unleashing its vassals on Russia? We don’t know. 

However, one week before the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, Biden’s National Security Advisor Sullivan wrote, “We are living the best peaceful period in history in the Middle East.” How much can we trust the US? How many USs are there in the US? Is the US a state that can control itself?

The Situation in the Indo-Pacific Is Complicated

The West’s intrigues are ahead of its political, military and economic power on the Indo-Pacific front. The direct participation of the American ambassador in protests in Bangladesh, as in Ukraine in 2014, summarizes everything. (If Americans say democracy is coming, we should be very careful.) It is not sustainable for this poor country, which is adjacent to the Myanmar-China Econonmic Corridor in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, to surrender to a pro-American government with freely printed American dollars. Because this country is squeezed between India and Myanmar and has no chance of implementing American geopolitics in this geography. On the other hand, the signal flare of a colorful coup in Indonesia has started with street protests. 

In fact, the scenario experienced in all underdeveloped or developing countries is repeating itself. In states where governments drowning in corruption act uncontrollably and ignore the people in order to maintain their positions, the US sees this weakness very well and evaluates it and presses the button when necessary in a way that will benefit itself. However, these colorful moves do not bring permanent results. These states are faced with the choice of either chaos and civil war under the guidance of the US or living in peace alongside Asian powers. 

As long as the unity of China, Russia and India within the BRICS and SCO continues, it is no longer possible for the Anglo-Saxons to be the game changers in the Asian geography, especially in Central Asia. As long as the big three stand firm and solidarity is achieved, such attempts at a color revolution will not gain a character other than being temporary.

New Order Has Been Established

The war between Russia and Ukraine is actually a war between the US and those who say no to the Western hegemony led by the Anglo-Saxons. This conflict is not regional but global. Global balance centers have now been established. While those on the side of the US are states that were occupied by the US after 1945 and vassalized in the US sphere of influence, there is China and Russia at another pole. The third pole is India and the majority of the non-aligned states of the Cold War period, called the Global South. In this process, we see that the other two poles are trying to establish a balance against the US and its vassals through organizations such as BRICS and the SCO against the US pole.

The War of Transportation Corridors

The transport corridors connecting Europe, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Basin in Asia, especially China’s Belt and Road Initiative, are shaping the geopolitical future. The US wants to render the transportation corridors that will challenge its hegemony dysfunctional through color revolutions, civil wars and regional conflicts.

Today, the China-Europe northern corridor via Ukraine has become dysfunctional. Every kind of provocation continues to damage the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) via Pakistan, the Myanmar-China Corridor via Bangladesh, and also the Iran-China oil pipelines and transportation lines. In the meantime, serious mistakes and unexpected events also come its way. For example, the Red Sea-Mediterranean passage leg, which is indirectly outside of their control, has become dysfunctional with the Gaza war.

American Military Alliances Are Spreading

The US believes that if it prevents economic integration and political unity in the Asian continent, it will also prevent military structures. It is currently unlikely that the SCO and BRICS will turn into a military alliance system. However, the US is progressing very quickly in the Indo-Pacific region in terms of military structure and cooperation with its own vassals and allies. The transition of Japan and South Korea to a joint command structure, the establishment of the AUKUS alliance with Australia and England, and the provision of nuclear attack submarines to Australia after 2026; the total American military presence in Japan and the USA reaching 100 thousand, the agreement reached with the Philippines for new military bases, and the moves to increase military cooperation between the Philippines, Australia, Japan, and Canada are recent examples. (The recent collision of the Philippines with Chinese Coast Guard ships in Sabina Shoal was a provocative move. Because the television and news teams of important Western news agencies were also on the Philippine ships.)

Gaza War and the Mediterranean

Image source

Israel’s initiation of the Gaza War by drawing the USA to its side with a great fait accompli is a link in the process of the fragmentation of Asia. In this case, the USA, by postponing its Indo-Pacific priorities, will help Israel. Because it is known that a leadership that does not come to Israel’s side during the election period will not have a chance to win in the election. The 3-minute standing ovation given to Netanyahu in Congress is an expression of this situation. However, the process backfired. While Israel was looking for an easy victory, the war was prolonged. The Yemeni Houthis cut off the Red Sea maritime trade route. The US and its allies could not fully control this route.

The US’s Mediterranean Vision

It goes without saying that even if the US does not have the power, it will try every way to establish a puppet Kurdistan state in northern Iraq and Syria, to influence the government and opposition in Türkiye and to disintegrate the secular and nation-state structure.

The real reason for the tragedy in Gaza is that the US killed Arab nationalism in the region, especially after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and succeeded in disintegrating the Arab States. The Arabs who moved away from nationalism were divided and weakened again by the U.S-NATO and Israel through Islamization and religion.

The US tried the successful model it applied to the Arabs for the Turks. However, despite all the Islamist parties that came to power with the support of the West after 1980, plots, provocations and moves such as the FETÖ (CIA backed Fetullah Gulen Islamist Organization) coup attempt, the Turkish people have persistently not given up their nationalist and secular identity. Although the attempts to transform Turkish nationalism into American Turanism (Pan Turkism) were partially successful after the 1970s, they could not create a permanent effect. 

However, as long as Türkiye remains in NATO, it will continue to remain in the sphere of influence of US geopolitics. It will not be possible for it to have the final say. We saw this in the acceptance of Finland and Sweden into NATO. While burying our soldiers martyred by the terrorist PKK, the Turkish Grand National Assembly approved the US request without a single dissenting opinion. Sweden was made a NATO member. The US wants a divided Mediterranean. The US wants absolute control of the Suez Canal, the Turkish Straits and the Aegean Sea Passages. The US wants a puppet Kurdistan (Second Israel) covering the lands of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkiye. However, it is not powerful enough to do it.

The Iran Factor

Iran’s resistance to the US with its anti-imperialist identity in the region is very valuable for global and continental balances. Iran is a very critical country that controls both Basra, the Caspian and the Central Asian basin. 

Just like Türkiye, it is at the center of the continents and basins. It is indispensable in both maritime and continental approaches of global dominance theses. If its natural resource wealth is added to this, its geopolitical importance emerges. Iran’s surrender to Anglo-Saxon hegemony provides the greatest support in the siege of Turkiye and Russia. Therefore, both Turkiye and Russia should always maintain good relations with Iran. Within this framework, Iran’s presence in Russia’s North-South Transit corridor is important for the continuation of stable relations between the two states. In recent months, Armenia’s exit from Russia’s sphere of influence and approaching the West to the extent of conducting joint military exercises with the US; Turkiye’s casting a shadow on relations by making comments at the highest level that belittle Azerbaijan, its efforts to normalize relations with Armenia upon the request of the US, while Azerbaijan could not obtain concessions from Yerevan for a peace agreement, and most importantly, the removal of the Zangezur Corridor from the agenda do not serve Turkish geopolitics. They serve the US’s Balkanization of the Caucasus. In this context, Putin’s visit to Azerbaijan is extremely important. It is a great message to Turkiye, which says two states and one nation. I hope Turkiye, which is approaching Armenia under US pressure, has received this message.

Lessons for Turkiye

Ankara should act in line with the difficulties and losses it has experienced in the last 22 years. A puppet Kurdish state cannot be allowed in the south. Türkiye cannot be allowed to be divided through discussions on a new constitution and the concept of being Turkish. The Caucasus Wall (set by Western powers), which Atatürk said “its formation will be our destruction” 104 years ago, cannot be allowed in the South Caucasus. 

We cannot  allow to be cut off from the Aegean and the Mediterranean through the EU’s Seville map. It is unacceptable to allow the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to be dragged into a new Annan Plan scandal through attempts at refederation talks. 

It is unacceptable for NATO to use our sovereign rights, primarily the implementation of Article 19 of the Montreux Convention in the Black Sea, as a tool for American geopolitics. Again, as exemplified by the joint training of our navy in the Mediterranean and the American warships that came to the aid of Israel, which committed genocide in Gaza, through our NATO membership, an impersonal and unprincipled security policy cannot be allowed. 

It seems that Ankara is paying the price of being drawn into the financial traps of the US and the EU in the last 22 years, and of shifting from a production economy and statism to a neoliberal consumer economy that has been rampant with full privatization, corruption, and hostility towards nature and the public, with geopolitical concessions. 

Future generations can restore economic losses but geopolitical losses can only be recovered through war. The primary duty of governments is to protect geopolitical interests without fighting.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.  

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The war against Russia has entered a new and more dangerous phase with the incursion of Ukrainian forces into the Russian region of Kursk. The New York Times calls it “the largest foreign incursion into Russia since World War II,” that is, since Russia was invaded by Nazi Germany and its allies, with Italy at the forefront.

The political media mainstream presents it as a brilliant strategic move by Kyiv to ease the growing Russian pressure on the Donbas front. It therefore hides the heavy losses that Ukrainian forces are suffering from Russian forces in Kursk, in terms of armoured vehicles and men.

The incursion of Ukrainian forces into this Russian region was planned and organized by the US-NATO commands with a much broader strategic purpose. They concentrated the attack in a border area manned only by young conscripts and border guards, who could not withstand the sudden onslaught of tanks and artillery. The rapid conquest of about 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory, the capture of over 300 conscripts, the destruction of three important bridges with US missiles, and the increasing drone attacks deep into the Moscow region, aim at a goal that is not simply territorial: spreading in Russia mistrust in the ability of the Government and President Putin himself to ensure the security of the country, thus weakening the internal resistance front.

This is happening at a time when the US and NATO are stepping up the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons close to Russian territory and a “secret nuclear strategy” is coming to light: in a classified document – reported by the New York Times – “President Biden has ordered US forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear clashes with Russia, China and North Korea.”

Italy’s participation in this catastrophic war strategy is far greater than expected. The incursion into the Russian territory of Kursk involved Italian armoured vehicles, which the government donated to Kyiv and crew training. This is confirmed by the video of the destruction of one of these armoured vehicles by Russian forces in Kursk. Italy is also participating in the preparation for nuclear war. In violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it not only deploys US nuclear bombs on its territory and prepares to use them, but through Leonardo, it builds nuclear missiles for the French arsenal.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

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).

Featured image source

Fabricated mass delusions are fueling the current state of permanent, Western-perpetrated global warfare. 

In fact, Western intelligence agencies are tasked with making sure we do not know the truth. Former CIA Director William J. Casey even admitted, ”We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” (1)

How can there be freedom and democracy in the West when people have no clue what is really happening and who are the real perpetrators? It is fake freedom and fake democracy.

Our hearts and souls are being impoverished through fabricated ignorance as Western governments and their agencies impoverish, mass-slaughter, and kill globally, thanks to our tax dollars.

The reality is that Western governments are complicit in committing genocide in Palestine because it could not happen without our billions and our bombs and our political/economic support. The ICJ has made it clear that Israel is an apartheid state, the walls are illegal, the segregation is illegal, the occupations are illegal.

Furthermore, the court has reaffirmed that, “freedom from foreign military occupation, racial segregation and apartheid is absolutely non-negotiable.” (2)

Last week alone, the U.S sent billions of dollars worth of weaponry to Israel to fortify the on-going genocide to which the US and its allies are accomplices. (3)

Apartheid and genocide define not only Israel, but also the West, and yet political rhetoric from the West would have us believe otherwise.

The Western-perpetrated mass-slaughter, impoverishment, and degradation of humanity in its long war against peace continues globally. In Ukraine, Western governments  are supporting not only nazism, but also what is basically a NATO invasion of Russia at this very moment. (4)

Meanwhile, Empire’s “New Middle East” (5) continues to be a disaster for real freedom and democracy in Syria and beyond.

Chemical weapons accusations against Syria were as fake as the WMD accusations against Iraq, and as President Assad and the Syrian government continue to represent civilisation and international law and justice in Syria, Washington’s illegal occupation, its theft of Syrian resources, its illegal support for internationally proscribed terrorist groups continues to impose the opposite. In fact, Washington is now using the Western-orchestrated resurgence of ISIS (which Washington supports covertly and overtly) as a fake pretext to continue its illegal, impoverishing, terrorist-supporting occupation. (6)

Who benefits from permanent warfare based on mass-deception?  Certain segments of Western economies benefit but Western populations overall are being “thirdworldized”, a word coined by Prof. Chossudovsky to describe the dictatorship of predatory “neoliberal” economic models.

All of this recalls the allegory of Plato’s cave where shackled prisoners believe the shadows on the wall as representative of reality and reject the truth as told by the released prisoner who has seen the outside world as it is.

If fabricated ignorance prevails, the NWO promises to be far more totalitarian, far less interested in even the pretense of democracy and freedom – at home or abroad.

COVID lockdowns and mandated experimental gene therapy drugs, neither safe nor effective, were a preview of what is to come.

Will we embrace the truth or continue to be dazzled and enslaved by political spectacles and empty rhetoric about freedom and democracy?

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Research Assistance by Basma Qaddour

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) Source of CIA Director William J. Casey’s Disinformation Program Quote, Publication date: 1981. (Source of CIA Director William J. Casey’s Disinformation Program Quote : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

(2) “Experts hail ICJ declaration on illegality of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as ‘historic’ for Palestinians and international law.” 30 July, 2024. (Experts hail ICJ declaration on illegality of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as “historic” for Palestinians and international law | OHCHR) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

(3) “US pushes fake ‘peace deal’ as it sends Israel billions in arms.” Socialist Worker, 20 August, 2024. (US pushes fake ‘peace deal’ as it sends Israel billions in arms (socialistworker.co.uk) ) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

(4) Peter Koenig, ” ‘A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III’. Has President Putin’s Patience Reached Its Limits?” Global Research. 18 August, 2024. (“A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III”. Has President Putin’s Patience Reached Its Limits?
 – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

(5) Prof. Tim Anderson, “Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’ ” Global Research. 28 November, 2015. (Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’ – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

see also: PNAC ” Policy Coup”

(6) Vanessa Beeley, “The battle for Syrian oil and territory in north-east Syria.” Substack, 11 August, 2024. (The battle for Syrian oil and territory in north-east Syria (substack.com)) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

See also:

Mark Taliano, “Video: Crimes Against Syria.” Global Research. 18 August, 2024. (Video: Crimes Against Syria – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 26 August, 2024.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky: Terrorism is Made in the USA. The Global War on Terrorism is a Big Lie (youtube.com)

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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.

First published by Global Research on October 23, 2023, with foresight 2 weeks after the October 7, 2023 Operation

***

False flag operations:

“The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it is necessary to create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain group of people or to a religion or a nation.” James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born actor, writer, producer and a resident of Australia, 2014.

“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in our way.” Benjamin Netanyahu (1949- ), Israeli Prime Minister (1996-1999), (2009-2021) and (2022- ), addressing Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (as quoted in ‘Netanyahu: ‘America is a thing you can move very easily'”, The Washington Post, July 16, 2010.)

“We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.” Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), American journalist, (in ‘Public Opinion’, 1922).

“Those who want thwart the creation of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfert of funds to Hamas.“ Benjamin Netanyahu (1949- ), Israeli Prime Minister, (during a meeting of the Likud party, in 2019).

Introduction

Nowadays, almost all wars, involving governments with access to enormous propaganda resources, are either deliberately provoked or simply the result of false flag operations, camouflaged under a veil of lies and fake news. In time of war, all parties lie. With the help of passive or complacent medias, not one distracted person in a hundred can see clearly what is really going on.

Rocket and missile clashes between Islamist Hamas and Israel, and atrocities and war crimes committed against civilians, are not new in that part of the world. The most recent outbreak of violence is, in reality, the continuation of a deep conflict, which is ongoing and which is entering into a new cycle of escalating violence.

Indeed, two years ago, in May 2021, serious riots took place inside the compound of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City, which left hundreds of Palestinians and many police officers injured. What followed was an escalation of attacks between Israel and Hamas. The latter launched more than 1,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip towards Israel, while the Israeli army, in return, dropped a deluge of fire on the blockaded Gaza Strip, causing more than 150 Palestinian deaths and 10 deaths on the Israeli side.

Only six months ago, on April 5th and 6th, 2023, there were new violent clashes in Jerusalem when Israeli police raided again the al-Aqsa mosque, in the pursuit of  “agitators” who had barricaded themselves inside.

It is therefore somewhat puzzling why so many observers were taken by surprise when Hamas launched its rain of rockets on Israel, on Saturday, October 7, 2023, in an operation specifically called al-Aqsa Deluge.

Likewise, we can only remain perplexed when the Israeli government itself says it was taken by surprise, since its relations with the Palestinian populations have been extremely tense, particularly since 2021.

Nevertheless, the British Guardian and other medias published the official version according to which there was a “catastrophic failure of intelligence by Israel”, regarding the offensive launched from Gaza against Israeli towns. Such an attack, it said, must have been in preparation for many months and “it is a mystery why Israeli intelligence appears to have had no idea it was coming.”

Significantly, other media also reported that Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (1958- ) stated that, “We will change the reality on the ground in Gaza.” “What existed before will no longer be.”

The same minister also declared on Monday, October 9, that he was imposing “a complete siege” on the Gaza Strip: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel supplies, everything is closed.” Adding, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”—forgetting that the Nazis described German Jews as ‘subhumans’ (Untermenschen), to justify genocide.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (1949- ), an ultra-Orthodox politician who favors “Eretz Israel”, the “Greater Israel” of the Bible, proclaimed that Israel was at war and that the Palestinians would pay a heavy price. 

How to make sense of all this?

How to explain that the Netanyahu Israeli government had no clue that the Hamas was planning an attack?

The central question is why and how the Israeli army and navy, which have imposed a tight land and sea blockade on everything entering the Gaza Strip since 2007, as well as the Mossad secret services, could not have been aware of what was coming?

Is this likely? Did someone deliberately close his eyes? It would seem crucial for the future to elucidate such a mystery.

The alternative explanation would be that we are possibly in the presence of a more or less voluntary laissez-faire attitude on the part of certain authorities, starting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, by not taking the necessary precautions to prevent an outbreak of military attacks by Hamas.

Why were warnings about an imminent attack ignored?

More fundamentally, perhaps, is how to interpret the report that Egypt’s intelligence minister, General Abbas Kamel, called Netanyahu days before the Hamas attacks, advising him that islamist militants in Gaza were planning “something unusual, a terrible operation”?

The Egyptians were reportedly aghast at Netanyahu’s passivity upon hearing the warning. “We repeatedly warned the Israelis that the situation had reached the point of explosion and would be very serious. But they took it lightly”, said an Egyptian services official, as reported by the Times of Israel.

Such warnings were ignored and dismissed by Netanyahu’s office as fake news! Even so, why did they not investigate them and prepare to deal with them, as a simple precaution?

What is more, the report that the Netanyahu government had been warned days before the Hamas attacks has been confirmed by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Representative Michael McCaul (R-Tex), who is privy to classified information.

The question thus arises: Has the Netanyahu government really been facing an unforeseen attack from Hamas, or are we rather in the presence of a war that has been somewhat facilitated, by omission or otherwise? In the latter case, it could be politically explosive for the Netanyahu government. It would, in fact, be much more than simple negligence.

Indeed, this would seem to be the case. According to a poll taken on Thursday, October 12, an overwhelming majority of 86% of Israelis believe their government and Netanyahu are to blame for the attacks and for the massacre that followed inside Israel. Besides, more than half of Israelis believe Netanyahu should resign.

This also seems to be the opinion of famous American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who believes that Mr. Netanyahu will have to answer for his governance before the Israeli population and that his days in power could be numbered. The Israeli government has a plan to eradicate Hamas, raze Gaza and expel its population.

As in any other conflict, it is important to ask the question Cui bono? or, who ultimately benefits?

This ‘new’ deadly Israeli-Palestinian war, presented as a ‘surprise’, could well come at the right time for two politicians, Benjamin Netanyahu and Joe Biden (1946- ).

• On the one hand, the new hard-line coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, elected at the end of 2022, is the most right-wing administration in Israeli history. Indeed, Netanyahu has allied himself with far-right and anti-Palestinian Zionist groups, which propose the annexation of part of the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967.

And, to make its intentions clear, the new coalition government’s first guiding principle, published on Wednesday, December 28, 2022, declared that “the Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the land of Israel”.

On the other hand, Netanyahu provoked huge anti-government demonstrations in his country when he pushed through a judicial overhaul to favor the religious extremists who are members of his coalition government.

• For his part, President Joe Biden has often said, here and here, that he considers himself to be a ‘Zionist’. He has declared that Netanyahu has been a “friend for decades”, and he has pledged that U.S. support for Israel was “set in stone and unwavering”.

However, Biden is currently low in the polls, both because of his poor record and for his advanced age.

Indeed, one year before the American presidential elections, the presumptive Democratic candidate has little chance of being re-elected, despite the legal troubles of his presumed Republican opponent, Donald Trump, or anyone else that the Republicans may choose as their candidate.

Only a large-scale war involving the United States could possibly change the situation and bail out Biden politically, allowing him to run as Commander-in-Chief.

Indeed, Joe Biden did not waste any time, at the start of the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to promise an additional military aid of $14.3 billion to Israel, beyond the $3.8 billion annually paid to the country.

Moreover, during his trip to Israel, on Wednesday, October 18, he is reported to have privately given Netanyahu the green light for an Israeli armed invasion of the Gaza Strip.

However, such a neocon-inspired and extremely biased one-sided foreign policy is not without creating increased frictions within the U.S. State Department.

The Added Complications of Natural Gas Under the Sea Next to the Gaza Strip

To show how complex the situation is in that part of the world, there exists a large natural gas deposit off the coast of the Gaza Strip, which could greatly profit the Palestinians. The exploitation of this gas field, called Gaza marine, has been the subject of negotiations between the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. All this necessarily also involves the Hamas group, a competitor to the Palestinian Authority, the latter being under the control of the Fatah party.

Future events should make things clearer concerning the behind the scenes objectives of both sides, in this umpteenth Israeli-Palestinian war, which seems to resurface each time the situation reaches an explosive level.

Conclusions

A first important geopolitical and moral lesson emerges here, and it is the enormous human disaster resulting from those repeated wars between Israelis and Palestinians. When misguided, visionless, incompetent or dishonest leaders allow a political problem to fester, many innocent people pay for their carelessness and irresponsibility.

A second major observation is that some leaders, in a position to do so, are currently doing next to nothing to strengthen international peace institutions, but seem rather to enjoy stirring up conflicts around the world.

Third, it must be said that it is not only where there are journalists and photographers that atrocities and war crimes are committed. Agressions, whether consisting in launching missiles or dropping bombs on populations, kill and massacre people (men, women and children), indifferently, on one side as much as the other. They are both immoral.

Fourth, barbarous and indiscriminate atrocities, which are carried out with modern weapons against civilian populations, are not only illegal under international law, they are unacceptable under basic humanitarian principles.

Fifth, the worst and everlasting human conflicts seem to be those that are fought within the context of a religious war.

Finally, states and terrorist organizations that do not respect international law create problems for themselves and represent an existential threat to civilization and to world peace.

*

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 blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He was Minister of Trade and Industry (1976-79) in the Lévesque government. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

---

The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles

by Rodrigue Tremblay, Preface by Paul Kurtz

Publisher: ‎ Prometheus (April 27, 2010)

Hardcover: ‎ 300 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1616141727

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1616141721

Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma. This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together. In the face of the obvious challenges to international stability-from nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, economic turmoil, and reactionary and sometimes violent religious movements-a code based on the “natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings” is needed more than ever. In separate chapters the author delves into the issues surrounding these ten humanist principles: preserving individual dignity and equality, respecting life and property, tolerance, sharing, preventing domination of others, eliminating superstition, conserving the natural environment, resolving differences cooperatively without resort to violence or war, political and economic democracy, and providing for universal education. This forward-looking, optimistic, and eminently reasonable discussion of humanist ideals makes an important contribution to laying the foundations for a just and peaceable global community.

Click here to purchase.

Russia today is taking another pivotal moment in its history, (with a series of many landmark issues) under its presidency of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), referred to as informal association, consistently forging collaborative relations with developing countries. With geopolitical situation heightening, spotifying challenges predominately remain on the association’s track. But the evolving developments are positive and promising, particularly increasing number of countries expressing the desire to join BRICS. It shows an interesting and indelible sign which reflects the necessity for the world’s re-configuration. This factor indicates the urgent yawning action for a multifaceted change, a new global architecture embracing geopolitics, the economy and security as well as socio-cultural and humanitarian spheres. 

Noticeably, Latin American countries and also in Asian and African regions are carving to join BRICS. There are many reasons including the sovereign desire by like-minded countries to deepen their cooperation with BRICS with a proper sense of respect. In addition, BRICS follows an open-door vision, and stronly committed to the fact that the principles governing this format – mutual respect, balance of interests and a consensus-based approach – are very appealing. In the former Soviet space, Belarus and Azerbaijan have recently expressed their sanonymized interest to leverage unto BRICS platform. 

“Azerbaijan has filed an official application for joining BRICS,” Azerbaijan’s news agency quoted Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Aykhan Hajizada. Baku’s intention to join BRICS was reflected in a joint declaration on strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and China, which was signed on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Astana in early July.

Apart from that, Azerbaijani parliament speaker, Sakhiba Gafarova, said at a plenary session of the 10th BRICS Parliamentary Forum in St. Petersburg on July 11 that her country wanted to be a full-fledged BRICS member. 

Image: Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. (photo: Courtesy photo / www.kremlin.ru.)

Russia and Belarus have formed a Union State.

Late July, and even long before that, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has publicly reiterated that Minsk had been invited to the BRICS summit, due in Kazan in October. Lukashenko, who has announced his resignation in 2025, irreversibly promised Belarus ascension into BRICS.

In this regard, Lukashenko instructed the Foreign Ministry to draw up a plan of Belarusian participation and bilateral meetings on that platform. That however, Belarus sees BRICS as a basis for economic development and is ready to join integration processes within the framework of the informal association. “We are interested in getting involved in integration processes in that space. BRICS is another footing to help us maintain balance and economic stability,” BelTA agency quoted Lukashenko as emphatically asserted. 

Belarus and Azerbaijan are former Soviet republics, with common historical background despite the stark indications of disparity in approach to current politics and economic development, much still remains uniquely common in cultural practice and in the society. Undoubtedly, both the older and current generations have comprehensive understanding of Soviet history and culture. Therefore, Belarus and Azerbaijan governments and their state institutions such as the cabinet, legislative and judiciary, would endorse aligning to BRICS, and contribute towards shaping a new post-Soviet space within the framework of emerging new geopolitical reality. 

As the majority of countries around the world face new, modern-day challenges, so it has become necessary to create conditions to combat Western and European threats to political and economic stability. The need to amplify their collective voices or positions in strengthening partnerships as illustrated by BRICS agenda which is very broad. The agenda is in line with the general motto adopted by Russia’s BRICS chairmanship, relating to the widest range of issues, including politics, security, economy, finance and on education, sports and humanitarian ties.

China and India Factors

While China and India have historically warm multiple ties with Russia, and even from Soviet times, both as BRICS members maintain closer economic partnerships with the Western world. China has comparatively more presence than India in Belarus and Azerbaijan, but future prospects exist for extensive collaborating through BRICS.

Within its calculated strategy, China has a large footprint in the region, thanks to its Belt and Road Initiative. But that aside, Belarus and Azerbaijan can still secure economic partnerships and harness their modern technology and scientific innovations. Furthermore, public-private partnerships are crucial mechanism for mobilizing the necessary resources and expertise for development. 

In terms of influence and economic presence, China is indiscriminately deepening its trading and investment relations across the entire former Soviet region, and the Eurasian Economic Union, using its own version of  – not confrontation – but it deemed acceptable as ‘mutual cooperation’ and polycentricity. The 29th meeting between prime ministers of Russia and China (BRICS stalwart supporters of multi-polarity) reviewed economic cooperation, took cognizance of the huge untapped economic potentials generally in the Eurasian region, and specifically in the Russian Federation. 

On August 21-22, Chinese Premier Li Qiang visited Minsk and held talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko which resulted sign agreements on investment and on a free trade area in the services sector. In addition Belarus would host an industrial zone for China’s new quality productive forces concept based on technologies, innovations and high-quality human potential. This reflects the absolute possibility for Chinese technologies to enter the Belarusian market in large numbers as the core mid-term task for the two countries’ governments, until 2030. The new agreement will enable Belarus to increase exports of its services to China by at least 12%-15% within the next five years, while investment in Belarus will grow by at least 30%, according to reports. 

India has good relations in Belarus and Azerbaijan. India’s interest included science & technology cooperation. It continues, at present time, seeking investment and resources through Belarusian route for developing smart cities,  improving the manufacturing sector and increasing skill development especially in the pharmaceutical industry. China and India are both active in Russia. Mutual trade between Russia and China is developing successfully, and the two governments are working well towards this, Russian President Vladimir Putin has noted in Kremlin reports. According to the government office, bilateral trade blossomed up to $240.1 billion in June 2024. 

Russia’s BRICS Diplomacy

For now, though, after years of declining Russia’s influence in many parts of the world, Moscow is steadily rising up. And at least, being a member of BRICS plays much supportive role. Russia’s presidency of the association has witnessed stern position against increasingly Western ‘domineering powers’ in recent years, and more recently pressurizing countries to back sanctions against Russia for its ‘special military operations’ in neighbouring Ukraine. Several BRICS documents and communiques contained anti-Western positions, mostly against United States’ hegemony and neo-colonial character. As an association of states, BRICS is guided in its efforts by the principles of mutual respect and consensus, which rules out any attempts to dictate one’s will or impose any totalitarian administrative and oversight practices. Reiterating here that BRICS offers a good opportunity for discussing international matters, including the emergence of a new world order with better justice for all, and making efforts to strengthen cooperation between BRICS and the countries of the Global South and East, while enhancing their international role. 

BRICS under Russia’s 2024 directorship has advanced steps to introduce its currency and a financial settlement and payment system platforms primarily targeting de-dollarization process. Coordinated by the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) which was established in 2015, these existing measures would, most probably, lead to drastic reduction in the use and over-dependence of the dollar as world-wide currency. In the economic sphere, the BRICS countries have been discussing ways to promote sustainable development, to support the multilateral trading system, and to improve the global financial architecture. 

In spite of the above, Vice Chairman of BRICS Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sameep Shastri, and several state officials have indicated that BRICS member states are no longer attaching much importance to the dollar, one single currency, and are now successfully using national currencies. This, in the first step, underscored the assertions that Western countries are the strongest economies in the world. Therefore in the ultimate analysis, the economic power is steadily, or rather rapidly, shifting from the West to the Global South. 

Challenges and Future Prospects

According to authentic estimates, more than 30 countries have applied to join BRICS, which now includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE — and in a collective pursuit of an uncomfortable non-aligned policy. Experts have, however, pointed to strong relations beyond ‘non-alignment’ and beyond the confines of BRICS. As many countries express desire to join BRICS, to incorporate their unique non-aligned political and economic values, so also in parallel dimension are challenges and, worse the competitiveness by key Western players and multinational organizations such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. BRICS is simply anti-Western association and has it own principles. The question over Belarus and Azerbaijan here also brings into focus Eurasian regional security. We know that Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001, following the collapse of the Soviet era. Now the SCO, being the successor to the Shanghai Five including China and Russia. In June 2017, it expanded to eight states, with India and Pakistan. Iran joined the group in July 2023, and Belarus in July 2024. Several countries are engaged as observers or dialogue partners. 

Image: Ilham Aliyev (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

With China, Iran, India and Russia in BRICS, they share the same security interest. Moreso, Azarbaijan and Belarus becoming BRICS members will fortify the SCO operations in the region. Our analytical studies further show unfolding remarkable opportunities with BRICS member countries for the next new members such as Azerbaijan and Belarus. Azerbaijan has an observer status according to Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizada. Azerbaijan will probably become a full member of the SCO in a little while, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said during his meeting with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev on July 3 in Astana. 

The floodgates for new members have since been opened: The association now includes the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two of the world’s biggest oil producers, and accounts for well over a quarter of the world’s GDP. Azerbaijan is also an oil producer in the region, and it could also serve as a smooth conduit for Russia to access global markets. 

Judging from the above discussion, and subsequent findings from several reports also offer logical implications if Azerbaijan and Belarus are accepted into BRICS. It provides solid conditions for building up common capabilities and approaches in the fight for economic power. This may likely entice Armenia and Kazakhstan also to take similar steps to become members of BRICS, whose economic benefits are enormous. For some reasons, BRICS could be a counterweight against U.S. economic hegemony in the global economic system. 

BRICS, which traces its name to a Goldman Sachs report in 2001, has long struggled to find an economic or geopolitical purpose, as its member countries have little in common besides being large and non-Western. The BRICS association was created in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa joining in 2011. On January 1, 2024, Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia became full members of the group. Russia is chairing the association this year. The main event, presentation of outstanding practical results, 2024 for BRICS during the summit on October 22-24, with a planned venue in Kazan, the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

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.

Featured image is from an Al Jazeera video

Seventy-seven years after India broke free from British rule and became truly independent by following a non-aligned policy, Britain has humiliatingly achieved vassalage status by becoming completely dependent on US policy despite being a former Great Power. Instead, the former colony is now experiencing great global influence, and even within Britain itself, when we consider former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is of Indian stock.

Following the dismantling of the British Empire in the 20th century, London had hoped to maintain indirect control and influence over its former colonies, including India, just as France did over large swathes of Western Africa. However, the UK was not successful in this endeavour. Instead, the former “Jewel in the Crown” of the British Empire expelled all British influence over the country’s governance, with newly independent India becoming an important member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

In line with New Delhi’s longheld Non-Aligned policy, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposed on August 17 at the third virtual Voice of the Global South Summit to create a human-centred “Global Development Compact” for the Global South to facilitate trade, technology sharing, and financing on favourable terms. India occupies a crucial position within the Global South, and its active participation in cooperation is significant in promoting cooperation among developing countries, such as through the BRICS formation, among others.

Due to frustration over India forging its independent path with Global South countries and losing global hegemony, particularly over its former colony, the United Kingdom supports separatist forces within the South Asian country. Britain’s support for separatist forces is only set to increase after the Labour Party won a landslide victory in a parliamentary election earlier this year, bringing to power Keir Starmer, whose centre-left party openly backs separatism in Jammu and Kashmir and promotes Khalistan, a movement seeking to create an independent homeland for Sikhs by establishing an ethnoreligious sovereign state in northwest India.

The 2024 Labour election manifesto promised to seek a “new strategic partnership with India, including a free trade agreement, as well as deepening cooperation in areas like security, education, technology and climate change,” and Starmer stressed at the India Global Forum: “What my Labour government will seek with India is a relationship based on our shared values of democracy and aspiration,” but in action, London has only continued its hostile and condescending policies towards New Delhi.

A vital issue for the UK is that India demonstrated its commitment to its independent path by refusing to join the anti-Russia camp and instead deepened its ties with the Eastern European country. Russian crude accounted for a record 44% of India’s total imports in July, reaching 2.07 million barrels per day, 4.2% higher than in June and 12% higher than a year ago. Based on Chinese customs data, this figure surpassed China’s July oil imports from Russia of 1.76 million bpd via pipelines and shipping.

India’s access to cheap Russian energy has significantly contributed to the reason why India, as a former colony that had $45 billion looted by Britain and thus impoverished and crippled the country when it achieved independence in 1947, has overtaken the UK as the world’s fifth largest economy. India is expected to also overtake Japan and Germany in 2027 to become the third largest economy, while the UK is expected to slip down to 10th place by 2050.

In effect, what this data shows is that India is thriving while Britain, which had the advantage of building its economy off the back of looted tens of billions of dollars, is in terminal decline. Of course, India has a long path to bring the per capita GDP to current Western standards, but extreme poverty is rapidly declining, standing at under 3% of the population, whilst the opposite is true in the UK, where absolute poverty has seen the biggest rise in 30 years, standing at 18%.

India’s rising economy follows its growing global influence. In comparison, Britain’s global influence has declined as Global South countries are no longer willing to deal with British chauvinism, exceptionalism, and hypocrisy. The so-called Global Britain initiative has failed, whilst European, Asian, African, and Latin American countries are desperate to build trade relations with India, identifying the huge potential of the country’s rapidly growing Middle Class and booming industry.

More importantly, due to Britain’s terminal decline and inability to exert its influence abroad, the country has capitulated to Washington’s policies, which often run contrary to the interests of Britons. London frames its servitude to Washington as one of cooperating on pan-Anglo interests, and although this may appear true in the case of AUKUS, it does raise the question of what interests the UK has in the Asia-Pacific region beyond economic.

It is obviously the imposition of US hegemony over the region, but this does not boost the credibility and image of Britain’s global image, and rather just damages it as it is now exposed to be nothing more than a vassal of Washington rather than an independent and mature state, just as India has become after overcoming significant British-created challenges at its independence.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Due to a single case of eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), four towns in New England are now subject to “voluntary” lockdowns for the foreseeable future, at least until the onset of winter.

Via New York Post (emphasis added):

“Four Massachusetts towns — Douglas, Oxford, Sutton and Webster — have enacted a voluntary evening lockdown in an attempt to curb the spread of a potentially deadly mosquito-borne disease.

The decision comes after the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) confirmed the first human case of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) since 2020in Worcester County.

On Wednesday, the Oxford Board of Health voted to support the recommendation for people to remain indoors after 6:00 p.m., effective immediately, through Sept. 30, according to a public health advisory shared with Fox News Digital.

Starting on Oct. 1, the recommendation is to remain indoors after 5:00 p.m. until the first hard frost.”

The lockdowns are being marketed as “voluntary” — until, of course, you get into the fine print.

Continuing:

“The lockdowns are considered recommendations, and there will be no enforcement if residents do not comply, the town spokesperson said.

“We want to educate our residents about EEE and the seriousness of the illness and make them aware of the risk,” the statement continued.

“However, if they want to use town fields outside these recommendations, they will have to show proof of insurance and sign an indemnification form.””

So, “voluntary” apparently means that if you want to use public lands, you need to sign a waiver and provide proof of insurance to the Public Health™ overseers — which really stretches the term to its limit.

All of this over a lone case of an infection that the CDC admits causes a “few cases” annually.

Via CDC (emphasis added):

“Eastern equine encephalitis virus is spread to people by the bite of an infected mosquito.

Only a few cases are reported in the United States each year. Most cases occur in eastern or Gulf Coast states.

Although rare, eastern equine encephalitis is very serious. Approximately 30% of people with eastern equine encephalitis die, and many survivors have ongoing neurologic problems. Symptoms of eastern equine encephalitis can include fever, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, behavioral changes, and drowsiness.

There are no vaccines to prevent or medicines to treat eastern equine encephalitis.

You can reduce your risk of infection with eastern equine encephalitis virus by preventing mosquito bites.”

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.

Featured image source

The Ukraine War is at a crossroads. It is entering a new phase. Military and political strategies on both sides are in flux. Both Ukraine and Russia have opened new fronts and offensives—Ukraine in the northern Kursk border region and Russia in the Kharkov and central Donbass area of Donetsk. Further new fronts are likely.

It is estimated that Russia’s total forces in Ukraine ranges today, late summer 2024, are between 600,000 (per Ukraine) and 700,000 (per Russia Ministry of Defense). Ukraine’s total available forces are around 350,000. Behind these numbers, however, both sides are mobilizing further additional forces not yet committed to the line of combat. Ukraine is hurriedly recruiting and training another 150,000 while Russia reportedly has another 400,000 in its total armed forces located elsewhere in Russia. Russia additionally plans to have an army of 1.4 million by year end which suggests additional combat reserves of perhaps 300,000 in addition to its 700,000 combat brigades now in Ukraine.

So Russia today has a roughly 2 to 1 numerical superiority in both combat troops in Ukraine as well as potential reserves. What a Russian force of 700,000 in Ukraine today—and even 1 million by year end—means is that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) is simply not a sufficient force to conquer all of Ukraine. Nor was it ever intended to be when Russia in February 2022 entered Ukraine with an SMO combat force of less than 100,000.

With combat forces even at 1m by year end, short of an unlikely total collapse of Ukraine’s army, the SMO is not sufficient to take Kiev or Odessa; and it’s certainly not sufficient to invade NATO as some war hawks in the west like to argue in order to justify more direct NATO involvement in the war.

By way of historical comparison, it took the Soviet Union a 13 million man army to push the Nazis out of its territory; at least a third or 4 million of which were engaged in its southern Ukrainian front alone.

While Russia has a clear, albeit not overwhelming edge, in combat forces in Ukraine today, military success is not just a function of absolute numbers but of how well forces can be concentrated at a given front to enable a numerical advantage for a time over one’s adversary. Other factors play a tactical role as well—like the element of surprise, the quantity and quality of reserves that can be marshalled at critical points and times in the conflict, the mobility of one’s forces to be quickly deployed, and the ability to deceive one’s opponent as to where, when and how much force will be concentrated.

While important, and even at times decisive, these latter factors (reserves, surprise, mobility, etc.) are nonetheless secondary; concentration of force is always the primary military tactic.  And so far we have seen both Ukraine and Russia concentrate their respective forces, albeit in different fronts separated by hundreds of kilometers. The question is which front is strategically the more important.

The Key Strategic Event of 2024 

The key event of the war this summer 2024 is Russia’s concentration of numerically and qualitatively superior forces in the central Donbass area. Russia has enjoyed a numerical advantage in combat forces in the Donbass as well as in air superiority and missile-artillery forces for at least the past year since the collapse of Ukraine’s summer 2023 offensive. This Russian advantage and superiority in Donbass has been further increased this summer 2024 as result of Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass this summer of some of its own best brigades. Ukraine sent these best brigades from the Donbass to the north Kursk border region to participate on August 6 in Ukraine’s invasion of Russia’s Kursk territory. That shift of Ukraine forces left its Donbass front weakly defended.  In contrast, Russia has not shifted any of its forces from Donbass to the Kursk front but has increased its forces in Donbass. This event is perhaps the single most important strategic shift in the war this summer 2024.

Which front and offensive—Ukraine’s Kursk or Russia’s Donbass—is more important for the eventual outcome of the war will likely be decided in the coming months, and definitely before year end 2024.

In the battles now underway in these two fronts—Kursk and Donbass— we may in effect be witnessing the beginning of the endgame of the war in Ukraine.

As result of Ukraine’s withdrawals of some of its best brigades from the Donbass, Russian forces are now having increasing success on that front taking village after village and driving west toward the key Ukraine strongholds of Pokrovsk in central Donbass, as well as toward Slavyansk in northern Donbass. Should Russia take Pokrovsk and Slavyansk, the war in eastern Ukraine will be effectively over—at least in those former provinces Lughansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhie and Kherson in eastern Ukraine. The line of combat will almost certainly then move quickly far to the west to the Dnipr river.

In contrast, it’s difficult to see what strategically Ukraine hopes to achieve by its penetration into Russia’s Kursk province. Will it turn the tide of the war in favor of Ukraine? That is highly unlikely given Russia’s continuing advantage in combat forces, weapons and air superiority. Which raises the question: what were Ukraine’s motives and objectives for its Kursk offensive and can it attain them?

Ukraine’s Kursk Summer Offensive 

Image: © Sputnik . Kursk Region Acting Governor Press Office 

Launched on August 6, 2024 Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has had some initial success. Ukraine initially concentrated numerically superior forces at the Kursk border (as it had earlier in the summer at the Kharkov border southeast of Kursk).

In the run up to its August Kursk offensive, Ukraine publicly announced its troop concentrations opposite Kursk and north of Kharkov city were strictly defensive moves to prepare for expected Russia invasions from the north which were being rumored to be imminent throughout the spring 2024.  In hindsight, however, Ukraine’s announcement that its forces at the Kharkov and Kursk borders were strictly defensive appears to have been a military deception. Ukraine’s military recently revealed that Ukraine had been preparing back in June for an offensive into Russia at Kursk.

The question then arises: what were Ukraine’s motives and objectives moving troops from the Donbass and other areas of Ukraine (also from the Belarus-Ukraine border) and concentrating them on its northern Kharkov and Kursk border. If it was not for defense against a new Russian offensive in the north but to launch an offensive of its own, what were (and are) Ukraine’s objectives?

In preparation for it Kursk offensive this August, Ukraine transferred combat brigades from all over Ukraine and concentrated them at the Kursk border in July—including many of its best brigades in Donbass as well as some of its 95,000 in defensive positions at the Kharkov border.  Ukraine reportedly even moved troops from its Belarus border to Kursk, enabled apparently by an agreement with Belarus to reduce their respective forces from the Belarus-Ukraine border (an agreement that reportedly has been recently rescinded). Finally, Ukraine also rushed some of its new drafted recruits with minimal training to its Kursk region in preparation for the Kursk offensive as well.

In short, Ukraine moved up to a third of its total brigades to the Kursk region. That is probably around 150,000, perhaps half of which are actual combat brigades. A reduced force was left at Vovchansk and a seriously depleted force in the Donbass. In addition, some Ukraine brigades reportedly have returned to the Belarus border since the August offensive.

With an amassed combat force of around 70,000 Ukraine easily overwhelmed Russia’s thinly guarded Kursk border which was manned with border guards and other untested units—even though Ukraine invaded Kursk initially with 12,000 or so. Since August 6 it has brought up and concentrated at least another 60,000 or so.

This perhaps suggests Ukraine is not finished with crossing the border into Russia elsewhere along the northern border. Some analysts suggest Ukraine plans to open another offensive further northwest of Kursk in what’s called the Bryansk border region. Or alternatively just southwest of Kursk in the Belgorod border.  There is even some rumor of another offensive in the far southwest of Zaporozhie province by Ukraine, targeting the taking of the Zaporozhie nuclear power plant currently under Russian control. Where Ukraine might marshall such additional combat forces is debatable, however.

In response, Russia initially brought in special forces and marines to check Ukraine’s advance which has slowed significantly. And reportedly mechanized forces are en route to the Kursk front from other locations in Russia. The Kursk pocket has now become perhaps the most intense killing field of the war to date.

What the Kursk and other possible Ukraine offensives and fronts suggests is that Ukraine is desperate to get Russia to shift its superior and increasingly effective forces from the Donbass in order to slow Russia’s accelerating advances there. But so far it appears Russia has not done so.

Russia’s Kharkov-Vovchansk Offensive

There’s another parallel story here: Before Ukraine’s August offensive into Kursk, Russian forces in early May had entered Ukraine’s Kharkov province near the Ukrainian border city of Vovchansk located just 25miles north of Ukraine’s second largest city of Kharkov. That Russian offensive was launched with a small force of only 15-20,000 even though Russia knew Ukraine had concentrated 95,000 troops in a defensive line just south of the border. The result was predictable: the Russian offensive into Kharkov became quickly bogged down and a stalemate resulted there around the city of Vovchansk, at least until very recently.

A second parallel question therefore arises: why did Russia cross the border near Kharkov-Vovchansk with such an insufficient concentration of forces, facing off against what it knew were reportedly 95,000 Ukrainian troops dug in defensive positions?  Clearly the objective could not have been to take Kharkov city. So then what was it?

Russia’s Donbass Offensive

The most important strategic military development this summer 2024 in the war is not Ukraine’s invasion at Kursk. It is that to enable its Kursk offensive Ukraine has left its Donbass front seriously weakened. So weak in fact that Russia’s offensive in the Donbass is intensifying almost daily with growing success.

Image: A Ukrainian soldier adds wood to a fire to stave off the bitter cold, Bakhmut, Donbass (File photo)

There are three directions in which Russia is driving west in the Donbass. The most important is the central Donbass where Russia is virtually at the gates of the strategic hub Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk. Pokrovsk is a railway and road intersection that feeds Ukraine forces most of its weapons and supplies to central and southern Donbass. If it falls to Russia supplies to most of its forces in central Donbass are at great risk. Equally important, west of Pokrovsk there are few lines and fortifications for Ukraine defense operations. The road is open to the Dnipr river to the far west, the next natural line of defense by Ukraine. But the Dnipr represents the loss of all of Donetsk province and its complete liberation by Russia.

Just further north of Pokrovsk lies a similarly strategic city of Slavyansk and its neighboring largest city of Kramatorsk. Slavyansk is the analog in terms of Ukraine logistical support for the northern Donbass. If it too falls so to does all of the remainder of northern Donetsk and Lughansk province. Russian advances have also begun in this region, through Siversk and Izyum.

In short, if Pokrovsk and Slavyansk fall to Russia it’s game over in the Donbass front to Ukraine. Russia advances suggest this is likely before the US November elections or soon after. The point is Ukraine’s withdrawal of some of its best forces from Donbass, to its Kursk front, as no doubt accelerated Russia’s gains now underway in the Donbass. And if Donbass falls, Ukraine has no choice but to exit its positions further south at the Zaporozhie border as well, or else be encircled there.

The events in recent months in Donbass thus raises yet a third strategic question: Has Ukraine effectively decided to sacrifice the Donbass in order to launch its Kursk offensive?

Military analysts on both sides seem uncertain as to why Ukraine and Russia have made the decisions they have at this critical juncture of the war in summer 2024—Russia last May in Kharkov, Ukraine this summer in Donbass and Kursk, and Russia’s decision to hold firm to its offensive in Donbass.

So what are some of the possible explanations being bandied about by analysts trying to explain these objectives of these two offensives—Ukraine in Kursk and Russia in Kharkov-Donbass?

Some Unanswered Strategic Questions:

Let’s summarize these strategic questions and offer some possible answers.

Question 1. Why Did Ukraine Invade Kursk, what are its possible objectives, and can it attain those objectives: 

Military analysts are all over the map with speculation as to why Ukraine invaded Kursk. Some say the objective was seize the Russian nuclear power plant located just south of the city of Kursk and less than 100 miles from the border.  By seizing the plant Ukraine would then use it as a blackmail piece in negotiations with Russia.

Another objective raised is that Ukraine intends to use the territory captured as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia, which it appears several third party countries have been trying to arrange—albeit thus far without success.

In terms of military tactics, still another speculation goes, the Ukrainian invasion was intended to force Russia to transfer brigades from its Donbass front to Kursk, and thereby slow down Russia’s advances in the Donbass that appear to be accelerating.

Yet another speculation is Ukraine intended to create a ‘buffer’ zone along the border before Russia launched its own offensive into Ukraine in the region. That suggests the Ukrainian invasion was to pre-empt Russia opening an offensive front of its own along the northern border.

Another view is that the true objective of Ukraine’s offensive has been to make Putin appear weak to Russian elites and public who are now demanding a more aggressive Russian response to the invasion. The Kursk offensive, according to this view, is to provoke Russia to a more extreme aggressive response that would enable Zelensky to receive more lethal military aid from NATO—like US Storm Shadow and US ATACMS missiles and missile carrying F-16s—and NATO permission to use them to attack deep inside Russia.

It is possible that a little of all the above are motivations for Ukraine’s offensive:  So far as seizing the Kursk nuclear plant is concerned, if that were the objective it has been neutralized and Ukraine has virtually no chance of reaching the Kursk plant any longer now that massive Russian defenses now block its path.

The explanation that the Kursk offensive’s objective is to force Russia to move military units from Donbass to Kursk has also apparently failed to date. Russia has sufficient reserves elsewhere in Russia proper and is moving those to the Kursk front.

The speculation that Zelensky authorized the Kursk offensive as a ‘land for land’ bargaining chip in future negotiations is also negated by recent events since August 6: Putin has publicly stated there will be no negotiations with Ukraine so long as its forces remain on Russian territory, whether in Kursk or Donbass.

The idea of Ukraine obtaining a buffer has never been convincing. Why would Ukraine deplete its military resources elsewhere and risk losing more territory (Donbass) in order to protect territory (North Border) it hadn’t even lost yet?

It seems therefore that the most likely objective of the Ukraine Kursk offensive was, and remains, political: to provoke Russia into an extreme response in order for Ukraine to restore fading western support for Ukraine to continue the war. Zelensky needs Russia to escalate to remain in power in Ukraine. Throughout NATO, support is waning for providing military arms and ammunition. The west further believes that funding Ukraine’s war and economy is settled, provided by the seized $300 billion of Russian assets. However, Western Media almost daily has become increasingly critical of the war, recognizing it cannot be won. Zelensky thus needs to show Ukraine still has the ability to fight and NATO needs to provide even more weaponry because Russia is escalating the war! Zelensky realizes he needs more direct NATO troop involvement—not just weaponry.  Currently NATO is participating in ground operations with  technicians operating advanced NATO weapons, mercenaries, as well as senior NATO officers and war planners on the ground.  It will need even more.  It can’t impress NATO to provide more by losses in the Donbass. It might convince NATO war hawks by offensives into Russia like Kursk.

2. Has Ukraine effectively decided to sacrifice Donbass?

Evidence on the ground strongly suggests Ukraine may have decided to sacrifice territory in the Donbass and perhaps the entire region altogether.  Its Donbass defense was beginning to crack well before the Kursk offensive, ever since loss of the strategic Donbass city of Avdeyevka earlier this year. Now losses there are accelerating after Ukraine pulled some of its best brigades from Donbass and moved them to Kursk.

For Ukraine, the northern Kursk front is strategically more important than Donbass.  Its bargaining position in eventual future negotiations with Russia and western support in general was weakening so long as it was losing Donbass. Seizing Russian territory in the north might shore up that loss of support and strengthen its position. In short, protecting Kharkov city and Ukraine territory outside Russia’s four provinces in the east is strategically more important to Ukraine than holding on to the Donbass.  Ukraine can’t hold onto the Donbass in the end and NATO and Ukraine both knows it. Opinion in the west increasingly suggests Ukraine should agree to give it Donbass and the four provinces.  But Ukraine cannot simply retreat in the Donbass and give it up without appearing weak and even about to lose the war. That would accelerate NATO withdrawal of support. Zelensky therefore needed another success elsewhere if Ukraine was inevitably about to lose Donbass. Thus the Kursk offensive.

3. Why did Russia invade Kharkov region with an insufficient force?

Russia crossed over the border early last May in the Kharkov region but not to capture the large Ukraine city of Kharkov. That would take perhaps a Russian offensive force of at least half a million.  Russia obviously knew, moreover, that a large Ukrainian force of up to 95,000 per reports was concentrated between the border and Kharkov city itself barely 50 miles away to the south. So why then did Russian open that front with only 15-20,000 troops? The only possible explanation is Russia entered Kharkov with an insufficient force to get Ukraine to withdraw forces from the Donbass to protect Kharkov, which it did.  Otherwise the explanation for throwing a force of 15,000 at 90,000 was military folly. And there’s no evidence throughout the war Russia has been militarily foolish in its offensive force deployments.

4. Did Russia get caught by surprise by the Kursk invasion?

It has to be admitted Russia was clearly caught off guard by Ukraine’s Kursk offensive. It might have been misled by Ukraine’s deception that its amassing of forces on the Ukraine side of the Kursk border in the summer was strictly defensive, designed to confront Russia should it have itself invaded at that location.  It is also possible Russia may have viewed US/NATO limitations to date on Ukraine’s use of ATACMS and cruise missiles to attack deep inside Russia as evidence Ukraine was not allowed by NATO/US to escalate attacks directly into Russia. Before August 6 Ukraine’s attacking inside Russia was limited to Ukrainian drones. Russia may have interpreted these NATO limits meant Ukraine would not be given the ‘green light’ to cross the Russian border with large ground forces. This—combined with Russia misreading Ukraine’s concentration of forces on its side of the border as only defensive—may have led Russia to erroneously assume Ukraine would not mount an offensive into Kursk.

5. Are we witnessing the growing importance of reserves in the war?

As the war now has passed its two and a half year mark, it is clearly beginning to wear on both sides in terms of men and materiel. The availability of sufficient reserves is therefore beginning to play a relatively more important role as the war has continued.  Not just reserves in the sense of the number of available combat troops but their combat experience, training, and availability of weapons and ammunition are becoming an increasingly critical factor in the conduct of the war.  This is often the case in war as the conflict becomes protracted, except when one side has an overwhelming force advantage of the other. That may have been the case in US wars in Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Panama, and elsewhere. But it wasn’t in Viet Nam and it isn’t in Ukraine. Here Russia’s longer term advantage in reserves has begun to show.

It is true Russia in refusing to move reserves from Donbass has had to commit reserves from elsewhere in Russia but it has such reserves. Ukraine does not. The Kursk offensive shows Ukraine has probably committed most of its remaining reserves to that front.  And it had to move brigades from Belarus, Kharkov and Donbass for the Kursk offensive—and to cut short training of new drafted recruits. Ukraine is approaching the end of its human reserves and cannot get an increase in weapons and ammunition from NATO that it requires if the war intensifies, as it is now, in both Kursk and Donbass.  NATO has arrange continued funding for Ukraine throughout 2025 by seizing Russia’s $300B assets in G7 banks that were frozen at the outset of the war. NATO’s provision of weapons is slowing, moreover, as NATO inventories are drying up; it can no longer accelerate the delivery of weapons to Ukraine as it did in 2022-23. Nor politically does NATO have the will to provide soldiers on the ground directly into Ukraine, although it is building the largest military and air base in NATO now in eastern Romania within tens of miles from Odessa where it already has stationed thousands of French and US airborne troops. If NATO does intervene ever on the ground it will mostly like be to prevent Russia seizure of the critical Ukraine seaport of Odessa, without which even a rump state of Ukraine in the west cannot be sustained.

5. What are Russia’s strategic options with regard to the Kursk invasion? Its Donbass Offensive?

Russian strategy will not change much in the Donbass. It will continue to advance, likely even more rapidly. Ukraine’s forces in Donbass may even collapse there before year end, with Ukraine retreating west to the Dnipr river and thus abandoning any hold on territory that comprises Russia’s four provinces. As for the Kursk front, Russia will most likely seal off the currently occupying Ukrainian force, bring up new Russian armored division, artillery and air forces and continue to batter those Ukrainian forces in the pocket until they weaken and retreat of their own accord. That will likely happen soon after the US November elections. Ukraine will try to hold on to Kursk to try to ensure further US support before Biden leaves office next January. The odds are significant, however, it will not be able to succeed in that.

Political Consequences of the Kursk-Donbass Offensives 

Public opinion in Russia has strengthened Putin’s hand in the war as a consequence of the two offensives. His problem now is not ensuring Russian public opinion continues to support his government and the SMO but that growing segments of Russian opinion and Russian media are now demanding he take even more aggressive military action in response to the Kursk invasion.

Putin’s challenge now is to not fall for Ukraine’s Kursk provocation, abandon the SMO and escalate the conflict to an even more intensive and wider war invading that would require a much larger military force than the SMO and falling into the NATO war hawks trap to use a Russian escalation as an excuse to get NATO even more directly involved on the ground in the war than it already is.

Zelensky clearly wants to maneuver events into that direction—i.e. a more direct Russia-NATO conflict. That’s perhaps the major rationale behind the Kursk offensive. But Putin ultimately wants some kind of negotiated settlement, albeit on Russia’s two terms announced earlier this summer. He will therefore likely wait until the outcome of US elections to determine whether abandoning the SMO for a larger conflict is necessary.  Zelensky and Ukraine leadership is desperate and reckless; Putin is calculating and typically factors in the bigger political picture.

For the moment, however, Putin’s conditions for beginning negotiations announced a couple months ago—i.e. Ukraine leave the four provinces and agree to neutrality—is off the table. Scuttling the possibility of negotiations (that China was trying to arrange last July) may have also been part of the objective of Ukraine’s Kursk offensive. Ukraine and Zelensky have a long track record of feigning interest in negotiations as a cover for an escalation planned. Ukraine diplomatic maneuvers in Beijing in July and in Qatar in August are evidence Ukraine has no intention of seriously negotiating anything.  Quite the contrary.  Although nothing is imminent,  US and Russia may continue exploring the possibility of negotiations through back channels, as they have in recent months, but it’s clear there will be no negotiations of any kind until after the US elections at earlies and more likely not until the Biden administration ends next January 20, 2025.

Throughout the summer opinion has been growing among NATO elites and western media that Ukraine cannot hold onto the Donbass or even the four provinces annexed in 2022 by Russia. Russia’s continuing successes in the Donbass offensive further confirm that view, and solidify it should Russia take Pokrovsk next month.  Conversely, NATO elite opinion may shift further toward allowing Ukraine to attack inside Russia using ATACMS, cruise missiles, and even F-16s to enable Ukraine to hold onto the Kursk territory as Ukraine losses the Donbass. The test of this NATO elites’ shift will be evident should US allow in coming weeks further shipments of UK storm shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine. Losing the Donbass logically means rolling the military dice even further in Kursk and the northern border.

Russian tanks in the Donbas after crossing the Siverskyi Donets with pontoon bridges, April 2022 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

US neocons and war hawks will attempt to create further escalation in the Ukraine war between now and January 2025 in order to make it extremely difficult for any new US president elected in November to reduce US/NATO commitments to Ukraine, let alone withdraw.

Should Harris win in November, the Biden administration policies toward the war will almost certainly continue. Harris will be malleable to the foreign policy/neocon establishment who have been running US foreign policy and wars since at least 2001 and perhaps even earlier since the late 1990s. Should Trump win—and the Deep State allow him to actually take office in January without a major US constitutional crisis (which is more likely than not)—it is unlikely that Trump will be able to end the Ukraine war in the short run after taking office January 20. Even with Trump in office, the war will therefore continue well into 2025. The only factor that may expedite an earlier end to the war is if Russia debilitates Ukraine military resources to such an extent that those forces effectively collapse in both the Donbass and Kursk fronts.

Russia has never intended to ‘conquer’ all of Ukraine, including Kiev. Putin’s SMO has always been to drive Ukrainian forces out of the Russian speaking provinces and then ensure some kind of neutrality by what’s left of a Ukrainian state.

But before that can happen Russia will need to conclusively drive Ukraine back across the border from Kursk and take the strategic Donbass cities of Pokrovsk and Slavyansk. Only then is Endgame apparent. Only then will Ukraine forces retreat back to whatever remains of Ukraine. Only then will US/NATO decide to cut losses and abandon the ‘Ukraine Project’ altogether.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Residential building in Avdiivka city (Donetsk region of Ukraine) after Russian shelling and airstrikes on the city on 17 March 2023 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

---

Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed

By Jack Rasmus

Publisher:‎ Lexington Books (February 28, 2019)

Hardcover: ‎146 pages

ISBN-10:‎ 1498582842

ISBN-13:‎ 978-1498582841

Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed describes how US federal governments, often in cooperation with the largest US private banks, introduced and expanded central banking functions from 1781 through the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Based on an analysis of the evolution of the US banking system – from pre-1781, through the 1787 US Constitutional Convention, Congressional debates on Hamilton’s reports to Congress, the rise and fall of the 1st and 2nd Banks of the United States, and through the long period of the National Banking System form 1862-1913, the book shows how central banking in the US evolved out of the private banking system, and how following the financial crash of 1907 big New York banks pushed through Congress the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, creating a central bank which they then managed for their interests.

Click here to purchase.

In an interview uploaded onto the YouTube channel of Le Figaro in April 2024, General François Lecointre, the former Chief of Defence Staff of France, made controversial remarks which were interpreted by many as meaning that he desired the recolonisation of Africa.

.

.

Lecointre appeared to suggest that France needed to invade and militarily reconquer its old colonial territories including those from which France has recently been unceremoniously ejected. In doing so, he was in fact alluding to a long-held geopolitical concept known as “Eurafrica.”

This idea, which has found expression in Herman Sorgel’s “Atlantropa” and in Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa Movement, is one in which the destinies of the continents of Europe and Africa have been inextricably interwoven.

In earlier years, Eurafrica, which was developed during the age of the colonisation of the African continent by European powers, was explicitly paternalistic and exploitative in its exposition. But even in more recent times, its theoretical enunciations through terms such as “partnership” do not hide its extractivist raison d’etre: That Europe requires untrammelled access to Africa’s mineral resources. This has been the demonstrable modus operandi of Eurafrica’s institutionalised application: Via France-Afrique, the device through which France managed its shadow empire in post-independence Francophone Africa, and also through the workings of the European Union. For unknown to many Eurafrica lay at the very heart of the creation of the European Economic project in the 1950s. Indeed, the Eurafrica-based relationship between the EU and African states persists to this day, a state of affairs which from the European perspective is threatened by resource-starved China’s expanding presence on the African continent.

During his interview General Lecointre said the following:

We must return and help these African countries. Rebuilding state structures, restoring administrations, and fostering development are all crucial steps.

Many interpreted the word “return” as a direct reference to the recent expulsions of the French military from the Sahelian states of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, implying that a resurrection of French power could only be achieved in the foreseeable future by military force. Further, his use of the word “help,” despite its link to fostering development did not strike critics as being predicated on philanthropic motives. Instead, his language, given a paternalistic import, was suggestive of the sort which has been used in the context of an enduring concept which fuses the destinies of Europe and Africa in a political and economic union.

The original concept of Eurafrica was a political project through which African colonies would be merged prior to the process of European integration. The resultant entity would serve as a counterweight to competing continental blocs in the Americas and Asia. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the man who created and led the Pan-European Movement, believed European technical advancement and “high culture” would merge with the “primitive” vitalism of Africa to create a geopolitical power bloc. Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote that “Africa has become our closest neighbour and its destiny a part of our own destiny.” He also argued that “the future of Africa depends on what Europe makes of it.” It is therefore not difficult to see Lecointre’s choice of words as forming a continuum of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s approach of the twinning of destinies in an enterprise combining a latter day insistence on a sphere of influence with a modern Mission civilisatrice.

However, what Lecointre did not specifically address was the underlying motivation for returning to Africa, which of course is about France regaining and maintaining access to a continent which is abundant in crucial raw materials. It is important therefore to explain France’s two-tier application of Eurafrica as a national endeavour and as part of a supra-national enterprise. This refers respectively to France’s relations with its former colonies through France-Afrique, as well as the relationship between the European Union and Africa. In the post war years, Eurafrica was a central tenet of France’s foreign policy strategy aimed at reconciling French efforts in integrating with Europe while maintaining a hold on its African empire. This strategy was clear to one American analyst who stated in the early 1950s that France envisioned an economic link between Europe and Africa “with Paris in control.”

France-Afrique, an expression coined by Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire in 1955, formed the basis through which France’s extraction model was perfected. The Communaute Francaiseensured that France maintained access to a range of natural resources produced by its former colonies including oil, bauxite, tin and uranium. France was able to maintain control of what was a shadow empire in the areas of economics, security and culture. These would be strengthened over the decades through various formal and informal agreements. A key feature of the economic stranglehold France had over most of Africa’s Francophone states was through monetary union. The creation of two sets of currencies, the Communauté Financière Africaine in West Africa and the Coopération Financière en Afrique centrale in Central Africa, each set of which France is responsible for printing, provided a formidable device for controlling a collection of satrapies.

The CFA has been referred to as a “colonial currency” not only because of the restrictive terms under which it operates, but also because of its effect of stultifying the economic development of participant nations. For instance, the pegging of the currencies to the French Franc in yesteryears and today to the Euro is for African states a debilitating arrangement given the strength of both Franc and Euro. Right from the outset of the creation of CFA in 1945, its overvaluation in French colonies meant that while African countries had the purchasing power to buy products from metropolitan France, they were restricted in their ability to export. But they were for the most part purchasing products processed from the raw materials they had sold. France at the same time was granted special access to vital raw materials from its colonies in regard to which it had a right of first offer. This arrangement was extremely helpful in reviving the French economy which had been devastated during the Second World War. French control of CFA would also enable it to access raw materials in Africa in its own currency, in the process bypassing the US dollar which had become the de facto world reserve currency.

The CFA system is also an affront to the sovereignty of African subscriber states who do not participate in the process through which monetary policies are decided. The free transferability of the regional currencies was not part of an equal bargain since each nation was for many decades obliged to deposit at least 50 per cent of their foreign exchange reserves with the French treasury, a rule which has been abrogated in West Africa but still applies to the Central African CFA zone. Free transferability also negatively impacts on African nations tied to the monetary system because French individuals and companies who invest in these countries can just as easily divest and repatriate their profits.

Although President Franklin Roosevelt was strident in his insistence that the European powers break up their empires after the end of the Second World War, his successors did not oppose the neocolonial features of France-Afrique because it served as a bulwark against the spread of communism in the Cold War era. France was careful to deploy French military forces in each of the countries and it employed economic leverage against recalcitrant political leaders.

The man who “enforced” French hegemony among its former colonies was Jacques Foccart. Known as President Charles de Gaulle’s Monsieur Afrique, Foccart was the co-founder of Service d’Action Civique (SAC), a Gaullist militia that specialised in undertaking covert operations in Francophone Africa. He was also influential in the conduct of clandestine operations undertaken by the French foreign intelligence service, once admitting that the French secret service was responsible for assassinating Felix-Roland Moumie, the Cameroonian Marxist leader in Geneva, while the French state was orchestrating a “dirty war” in that country.

Foccart oversaw  “Operation Persil” after President Sekou Toure of Guinea refused to join Communaute Francaise, famously declaring that Guineans would prefer “freedom in poverty to riches in slavery.” Toure proceeded to create a central bank and a new currency. In retaliation, France withdrew its civil servants and technical staff during which equipment was destroyed. Then Foccart ordered the SDECE (Service de documentation extérieure et de contre-espionnage) to sabotage the Guinean economy by covertly flooding the country with fake currency. Operation Persil ultimately failed.

In July 1973, President Francois Tombalbaye of Chad led a demonstration in the capital city Fort-Lamy (later N’DJamena in protest against what he alleged to be French interference in the internal affairs of his country. Foccart was reported to have told friends that he intended to “save” Chad and predicted that Tombalbaye’s government would not survive beyond December 1973. He was assassinated in 1975 during a coup d’etat. But France-Afrique, later pejoratively spelt as Franceafrique, because of its inherent neocolonial basis, weakened over the course of time because of France’s growing commitment to the European Economic project, and the deaths of key figures such as Foccart.

The key tenets of Eurafrica nonetheless survived in France’s relationship with most of its former colonies and persists in the European Union’s relationship with the African continent. For as the Swedish professors Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson explained in their book Eurafrica: the Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism, the foundation of the original European community of states which evolved into the European Union, was predicated on the principles theorised by Coudenhove-Kalergi. Key to this was the extractivist relations between a group of integrated European nations and the African continent. The rationale for European integration was, Coudenhove-Kalergi effectively argued, to exploit Africa as efficiently as possible. “Africa,” he said, “could provide Europe with raw materials for its industry, nutrition for its population, land for its overpopulation, labour for its unemployed, and markets for its products.” The unity of Europe as a precondition to the effective exploitation of the African continent was explicitly articulated by French Prime Minister Guy Mollet when he met with US President Dwight Eisenhower in February 1952. Mollet stated that he wanted Africa to be integrated into the European project through French and German capital, Italian labour, American and German machinery and French administrative expertise.

Both academics have thus challenged what they refer to as the Immaculate Conception narrative of the EU’s founding. This holds that tired of cyclical wars often centred on the rivalry between France and Germany, a group of Western European states grouped together to form an economic association of states which would “unite for peace, freedom and democracy.”

But there were clues that the creation first of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, and then of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Commission (EURATOM) in 1957 were not simply a peace project. For instance, at the time of the EEC’s establishment in 1957, a headline in the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed the development to be a “First step towards Eurafrica”.

There were many other similarly worded headlines. One, a short dispatch from Rome by a correspondent for the International News Service (INS) which was published in The Rockland County Journal News on March 26th, 1957, reflected Kalergi’s twin idea of a union with Africa being predicated on mineral resource exploitation and the formation of a geopolitical bloc able to hold its own against rival continental power blocs. Titled “Signing of Unity Treaties Seen Step Toward Eurafrica”, the writer reflected the former by stating “…the pacts contain the seeds of an even bigger dream, a ‘Eur-Africa’ pooling of European and African marketing and political schemes”, and the latter which noted that “one aim of the two pacts is to raise the level of manufacturing methods in all of the nations in all so that ‘Little Europe’ and its 160,000,000 population will be able to compete on equal terms with the United States and Russia.”

As Jean-Michel de Lattre wrote in Politique etrangere in 1955: “It is in Africa that Europe will be made”.

France and its vast colonial empire in Africa would be central to this. In an article written 5 years earlier in the May 16th edition of the Edmonton Journal, which was titled “French Idea Of Eurafrica”, George W. Herald expounded on the meaning of Eurafrica. It meant, he wrote, “that the French would like to link colonial Africa to the forthcoming Federation of Europe.” And given that France controlled most of these colonies, Herald continued, “If that area and a federated Europe could be welded into one supra-national community, they say, unprecedented new vistas would be opened to future generations.”

He stressed that geological experts had asserted that the “mineral wealth buried south and west of the Sahara is virtually inexhaustible.” These he informed his readers included gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, iron ore, phosphate and sulphur. It was also clear that at this stage France was not at all keen to pursue a course of decolonisation and was actively opposing independence movements in Tunisia and Morocco. It also did not appear to Herald to be enthusiastic about embarking on what he termed a “share-the-wealth” programme with other European states. The reluctance to embark on decolonisation and the unwillingness to give up the primacy of French access to the mineral wealth of her African colonies of course went against the key tenets of Eurafrica established by Coudenhove-Kalergi including that which insisted that those European states such as Germany which had been dispossessed of its African colonies would be granted access to African resources in order to solidify the unity of a future European Union. France of course relented by granting its colonies independence under the stringent condition of joining the Communaute Francaise.

In an era of decolonisation, the purveyors of Eurafrica needed to portray the concept as being one which was far removed from the naked exploitation of Africa as had been the motive behind the division of the continent at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. The members of the Common Market, as the EEC was often referred, were quite conscious of the colonial backdrop to their formation and were at pains to explain that the relationship with Africa was not the story of a one way street of exploitation which socialist and communist ideologues were often keen to assert. Thus, in July 1962 it was announced in Brussels that associated African states would receive $1,000 million in development aid which would double the amount that they had received since its inception in 1957. The overall package which included guarantees related to price stabilisation for African raw materials and unrestricted, tariff-free access for African products to the Common Market one newspaper reported had “great political significance in counteracting communist propaganda that (the Common Market) is an instrument of neocolonialism.”

While as mentioned earlier, the burdens associated with increased integration in the European project weakened France-Afrique, the European Community, as it then was styled, nonetheless continued to plot an economic path that bound it to Africa and also to other nations which today are referred to as the “Global South” in preference to the previous designation of “Third World”.

First, was the Yaoundé Convention of 1963, which was signed between the EEC and the Associated African States and Madagascar. A second Yaoundé Convention was signed in 1969 which included Mauritius, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Prior to this in 1966, the military government of Nigeria signed an agreement with the EEC which granted it the status of an Associate Member State. And building up on this the Lome Conventions of 1975 and 1979 were signed with the ACP Group consisting of African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

All these agreements reflected the extractivist model, with the Lome Convention aiming to transform the economies of the African and other states into “quasi-industrialised” ones. Although the combined agreements signed in Yaoundé and Lome were essentially dismantled following American claims that the provisions were incompatible with those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU, Hansen and Jonsson remind, continues to aggressively exploit minerals on the African continent including the oilfields of Libya, the goldmines of Ghana, and the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of Africa’s most minerally endowed countries.

The idea of Eurafrica is being brought back to public consciousness because of the rise of China as an economic power and an increasingly multipolar world. Although European trade and investment far outstrips that of China in Africa, the EU has been rattled by the challenges posed to its access to African raw materials by raw material-hungry China’s increasing presence on the continent. This has been magnified by the increased animus between resource-rich Russia and the EU which has imposed an extraordinary range of sanctions on the country over its conflict with Ukraine.

The European Commission’s Raw Materials Initiative launched in 2011 was a response to what is perceived as the threat posed by China, a country on which it was heavily dependent on rare earth minerals, lithium and magnesium. The idea behind this is to create a list every three years of designated Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) which are utilised in energy transition and digital technologies. This enables an assessment to be made of those which are at risk of short supply or of disruption in the supply chain. The European Critical Raw Materials Act came into force in May 2024. The Act acknowledges that the EU “will never be self-sufficient in supplying such raw materials and will continue to rely on imports for a majority of its consumption.”

Given the drift of geopolitical currents, it has been clear for some time to many political and economic analysts that the historical criticality of the EU’s relationship with Africa needed to be re-emphasised. This was reflected in the headline of an article inThe Economist in September 2018 which was titled “The rebirth of Eurafrica” (“Why Europe should focus on its growing interdependence with Africa” in its online edition). 2018 also saw the launching of the Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Development and Jobs and in the following year, the European Commission stressed that Africa was the EU’s global priority. Under the new president, Ursula von der Leyen, a policy paper titled “Comprehensive Strategy with Africa” was presented. Using words which resonated with past enunciations of Eurafrica, Josep Borrell, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said “A part of Europe’s future is at stake in Africa. To face our modern challenges, we need a strong Africa, and Africa needs a strong Europe.”

Yet, despite these positively expressed sentiments, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pledged commitment to launching “a Marshall Plan for Africa,” the aura of an exploitative motive remains. For example, in 2021 when speaking of the need for the EU to become “a more active global player” in formulating a strategy to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), von der Leyen remarked that “It doesn’t make sense for the EU to build that perfect road between a Chinese-financed copper mine and a Chinese-financed harbour.”

Her words, Peo Hansen, argues encapsulate the Eurafrican mentality and expose that “agency, sovereignty and autonomy are alien to the EU concept of Africa.” It is such attitudes particularly those predicated on the exploitative mechanism of Franceafrique which have caused the military regimes in Sahelian West Africa to boot out the French. It is also the reason many African states have been turning to China and Russia, both presently building BRICS as an alternative to the EU and other Western institutions which they assert are not respectful to the specific needs and interests of Africans.

Eurafrica in both its theory and application is the antithesis of the spirit of multipolarity in which, in contrast to the hegemonic and neocolonial models of the EU and Bretton Woods institutions, is predicated on an equal partnership and respect for national sovereignty.

It is also worth noting that the EU has often not lived up to its concept as a peace project. For while the EU has succeeded in keeping the peace as far as wars among its member states are concerned, it chose to be silent and inert while the Algerian war raged. Oil and gas rich Algeria was at the time of the uprising of the Front de libération nationale (FLN) considered to be part of Metropolitan France, but no voices were raised in Brussels over the widespread atrocities including massacres and torture committed by the French armed forces. What is more, French state-sponsored terrorism was brought to European soil by “La Main Rouge” (The Red Hand), a terror group which was actually a covert arm of the French state. Under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Red Hand assassinated several key Algerian figures in the FLN, as well as West German arms dealers suspected of supplying weapons and munitions to the FLN.

The EU has also served to give cover to the illegal military adventures embarked upon by NATO, a military organisation to which most of its member states belong. This has included the destruction of the Libyan state which was led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The voices of independent spirited political leaders such as the Austrian Bruno Kreisky and the German Willy Brandt, both of whom Peo Hansen noted “spoke in the name of Europe,” are virtually non-existent.

This clarification of the colonial origins of the EU and its fundamentally extractivist relationship with the African continent needs to be correctly understood by Africa’s political leaders and the policymakers who have uniformly pursued the resource rental model as the default basis of running their economies. Contentment with an arrangement in which African states possess no ambition further than selling their minerals and raw materials to developed countries and supra-national entities such as the EU only serve to relegate them to the permanent state of unequal partners. It not only places limits on their ability to exercise economic statecraft, but it also sets a perpetual barrier on maximising national prosperity. There cannot be a future in leasing mining rights to their resources when they would be infinitely better off by extracting their resources and developing such resources into products that can then be sold on the world market under a single currency regime.

Eurafrica would be a much sounder concept if it were shorn of its neocolonial trappings. But for Africa and Europe to operate in genuine equal partnership, much of the onus in achieving this state of affairs will be on Africans who must embark on a quest to transform their consumer orientated, resource-based economies into productive ones by developing for themselves industrial base economies.

A note:

The origins of the EU are both fascinating and multifaceted. But the official narrative of it being guided to birth by the efforts of Robert Shuman whose plan was inspired by the ideas of Jean Monnet is incomplete. The bringing to fruition of the dream of a federated Europe owed a great deal to the covert efforts of the United States through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its precursor the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) both of which funded the post war European Movement. This has been backed up by scholarly research. The United States believed that a united Europe would serve as a bulwark to the spread of communism and provide a means for rehabilitating the successor state to Nazi Germany. It was envisaged as a means through which the United States could control Europe in an age of US global domination.

However, despite its foundational association with the idea of Eurafrica, the claim that it was purposefully set up to engineer the genocide of white Europe is one without any basis in fact. While Coudenhove-Kalergi, himself of mixed European and Japanese descent, predicted the development of a Eurasian-Negroid race with an appearance similar to that of the Ancient Egyptians, this was not an integral component of his specific project to unite Europe in a mission to exploit Africa. That Eurafrica was not a concept inexorably attached to racial interbreeding is clear from the fact that the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley incorporated his own vision of Eurafrica as part of his “Third Position.” At its inception, the Common Market acted with stealth and decisiveness in ensuring that Muslim Arab Algerians, as mentioned earlier then citizens of a country considered as Metropolitan France, did not have the same rights as other citizens in the European Economic Community.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He has an interest in both history and geopolitics. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

It’s painful, punishing and horrific. You might be tempted not to bear witness and shut off all means of communication and, if you are a believer, to simply focus on prayer, and if you are not a believer, to become hardened and cynical, and live in the safe zone where your good fortune has planted you for no apparent reason.

Or you might torture yourself by dwelling on and sharing every detail of every massacre, every image of a dismembered child or of scenes so inhumane, so catastrophic, so depraved, they cause your brain to want to freeze. Or you might become hopelessly outraged, take yourself off on a suicidal mission of revenge, or protest in the streets where you know you will be met with repression.

At any given time these past months since Toufan al Aqsa on Oct 7, 2023, a multitude of these tendencies have been raging in our hearts simultaneously, buffeting us helplessly this way or that the minute we open our eyes each morning wondering if it is over. No matter the siren call of cowardice, failing to bear witness one way or another to both the horror and the truth is not an option.

So, here are a few tips on how to be present in this nightmare, awake and conscionable:

1. Disabuse yourself of any lingering illusions related to the United States’ government policy in the Middle East, its so-called “values,” and its key corporate media discussion forums like the Sunday morning shows (ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union and Fox News Sunday), which speak primarily in the voice of government officials. You can safely tune them all out and filter US pronouncements through Al Mayadeen’s or other trusted media discussion forums that consistently thread their way through the maze of US doublespeak. If you are American, join the Uncommitted National Movement to put pressure on Kamala Harris in key swing states, including Michigan.

2. Understand that the international regime as represented by UNSC has no credibility. It is dominated by the US-centralized empire — i.e., the extensive political, economic, military, and cultural influence that the United States exerts globally. Historically, the US has vetoed numerous resolutions that called for Israel to adhere to international laws, recognize Palestinian statehood, or halt settlement activities in occupied territories. The US continues to veto a framework for peace in Palestine by blocking resolutions that criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza or call for measures to protect Palestinian civilians, most recently blocking a resolution for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, blocking another that called for “humanitarian pauses,” and another that condemned violence against civilians and called for adherence to humanitarian law.

3. Whereas there are no indications that the international regime will be transformed soon, there are indications that the dynamic between Arab Gulf countries and Iran is evolving. Iran is expanding its influence in the Middle East and has become a direct challenge to the power and influence of the United States in Gulf countries that now realize the strategy of the US to maintain Israel’s chokehold on Palestinians has failed. It is the US and Israel that now pose a threat to the security of the Gulf states and the whole region.

4. Be aware that, in the same way that the accusation of antisemitism has lost its potency for being falsely used on a large scale by Zionists, the accusation of terrorism has also lost its integrity for the same reason. Journalist Jonathan Cook writes on Facebook: “Israel just keeps widening the circle of ‘terrorists’: from Hamas to the entire Palestinian people, to the United Nations, to the International Court of Justice, to the International Criminal Court. The question you should be asking yourself is: How long before I’m declared a terrorist?”

5. Have faith in the axis of resistance. Their cause is just and they are proving themselves on the battle field beyond measure. As Caitlin Johnstone writes in Caitlin’s Newsletter,

“October 7 was entirely a response to generations of abuse against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel, so the correct response to it would have been to heal those abuses in a way that is agreeable to the Palestinians. This would likely include ceding large amounts of land, the payment of very extensive reparations from Israel (and ideally from its wealthy western allies as well), eliminating all unjust laws and apartheid systems, a comprehensive push to purge society of the toxins of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, the right of Palestinians in exile to return to their homeland, and the negotiation of a peace agreement which yields so much that even the most hardline factions in Palestinian society would be compelled to agree with it.”

6. Pray for Israel to implode from within as well as without before it destroys the world.

In short, as you bear witness to the horror, keep firmly in mind the end of all the illusions and misconceptions that you might have accumulated over decades of US and Zionist PR, and put all your faith in the resistance.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite.

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 is by Fuad Alymani via Rima Najjar

The late US President John F. Kennedy is not alive today to voice his opinion on the Israeli war on Gaza, but we know he would stand with the Palestinians, not the Israeli government.

While yet a young senator, Kennedy in July 1957 delivered a famous speech where he voiced his opposition to then President Eisenhower’s military and political support for French colonialism, and called on the US administration to support the fight for freedom and independence in Algeria.

The situation in Gaza, the Occupied West Bank, and Occupied East Jerusalem today is very similar to the events that marked the end of French rule in Algeria.

“The most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile – it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent,” Kennedy said. “Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free.”

“The time has come for the United States to face the harsh realities of the situation and to fulfill its responsibilities as the leader of the free world – in the UN, in NATO, in the administration of our aid programs and in the exercise of our diplomacy – in shaping a course toward political independence for Algeria”.

On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany signed the act of military surrender to the Allies. The next day, 5,000 Algerians marched in celebration of the end of WW2. About 134,000 Algerians had fought alongside the US and allied forces to defeat Germany, with 18,000 deaths among the Algerian veterans. They were also carrying banners as they marched calling for an end to French occupation. The French occupation forces opened fire on the marchers, and in retaliation to the deaths, 102 French settlers were killed.

During the next two weeks, the French forces along with French settlers massacred about 45,000 Algerians. The French air force bombed towns and villages thought to be sympathetic to the cause of freedom and an end of French occupation, with French settlers hunting down Algerians and hanging them.

The French authorities and the French settlers had dehumanized the Algerians and referred to them as animals, which morally justified their killing of thousands of human beings. The massacre of 45,000 Algerians in May 1945 secured another nine years of occupation, but it served to strengthen the Algerian’s resolve to fight for an end of French occupation.

On November 1, 1954, the war of liberation began in earnest. It took eight years for Algeria to win its independence over France; in what British historian Alistair Horne dubbed “a savage war of peace”.

The Algerian people paid for their freedom with 1.5 million lives, which was 20% of the population.

As France was seeking to maintain its brutal military occupation of Algeria, then US President John F. Kennedy clearly voiced his belief that French rule over Algeria was not sustainable in the long term, condemned colonialism, and openly rooted for Algeria’s independence. Kennedy was voicing a core American value held dearly today, and one fought for by countless Americans since 1776. The US stance in the 60’s played an important role in the success of Algeria’s liberation struggle.

Israeli military leaders have said it would be impossible to crush the Palestinian desire for freedom and the will to resist occupation in every possible way just by killing Hamas fighters in Gaza. The Israeli right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deluded in thinking the colony of Israel will be secure if the resistance group is degraded.

The Israeli colonial government seeks to strengthen its grip over the occupied Palestinians by showing them there are no legal consequences to the Israeli genocide, apartheid and atrocities carried out against the Palestinians. Because Israel has complete impunity, and the international community is impotent to stop them.

Israel ordered the Gazans to move south to Rafah, which was designated as a safe zone. Then the military said that Hamas is in Rafah and started an aerial and ground assault on the safe zone killing thousands of civilians, mainly women and children.

Experts have said the Israeli plan is to de-populate Gaza, so that the armed resistance can never return. Some feel the ultimate plan is to force any surviving in Gaza into the desert of Egypt, and then turn the Israeli military on the Occupied West Bank and repeat the Gaza operation there. Many analysts feel the Israeli end game is to annex all of the Palestinians lands which would forever close the hopes of the two-State solution.

Israel will make sure to complete this plan unless the US will intervene to make the genocide stop. But, US President Joe Biden has seemingly abdicated the Oval Office, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is operating on auto-pilot. The days of JFK and the moral high ground of America’s commitment to freedom and independence are dead and buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

According to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, on January 23, 2024, a lasting end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only come through a two-State solution. His statement came in response to Israel’s leaders’ clear and repeated rejection of a two-State solution. The UN meeting was attended by 60 representatives.

Stéphane Séjourné, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, said France would support a new effort on a peace process to result in the two-State solution. He added that Israel is not to decide the future government of Palestine.

Ahmed Attaf, Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Community Abroad of Algeria, called for a new international peace conference based on the two-State solution. He warned that Israel is seeking to expand their colonial presence, referring to Israeli plans to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and lamented that Israel’s occupation of Palestine has held the Middle East hostage.

Riyad Al-Maliki, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine, said that Israeli leaders “do not see our people as an empirical and political reality to coexist with, but as a demographic threat to get rid of through death, displacement or subjugation”.

He warned that either the Palestinians achieve their freedom, which results in peace and security in the region, or that freedom is denied and the region remains in constant armed conflict.

“Israel should no longer entertain the illusion that there is somehow a third path whereby it can choose continued occupation and colonialism and apartheid and somehow still achieve regional peace and security,” said Al-Maliki.

Through the US presidential terms of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barak Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden there were no attempts to pursue two-State solution negotiations. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received repeated standing ovations when he addressed the US Congress. The US lacks credibility as a peace broker, and there is no leader similar to JFK waiting in the wings.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: Palestinian families walk through destroyed neighbourhoods in Gaza City on 24 November 2023 as the temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli army takes effect (MEE/Mohammed al-Hajjar)

“The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line, – the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea” — (W. E. Burghard Du Bois)[1]

Links to Parts I to IX are provided at the bottom of this article.

Zionism’s Suicidal Quest for a Substitute Jewish Identity

One of the most qualified specialists in the study of Zionism – its antecedents, motivation, power-base, claim to the land of Palestine, and the far-reaching repercussions of the creation of the state of Israel on both Jews and Arabs – is undoubtedly late Egyptian scholar Dr Abdelwahab Elmessiri. His scholarly interest in, and extensive research on, Zionism as a political movement led to the publication in 1975 of “The Encyclopedia of Zionist Concepts and Terminology”, acknowledged to be, to this day, the only work of its kind in the Arabic language. 

Among many other works he published is a book[2], which, upon its release in 1977, appealed not only to scholarly readers but also to large elements of the public, for it discusses aspects that, at that time, were not apparent to the public and policymakers alike in the Western countries, the United States in particular, who had then – and still do today – failed to recognize the true nature of political Zionism and had accepted the ambiguities and mythicism that blur the differences between Zionism and Judaism. Such an accommodation continues to facilitate the rationalization of, and support for, a Zionist-dominated Israel, while also helping to conceal the mistreatment of the native Palestinian population and the denial of their legitimate and inalienable rights.

In this outstanding book, Elmessiri also expressed his conviction that the situation was not without hope, and suggested which aspects of Zionist policy and practice could be changed or eliminated so that peace and justice could be realized in the “Promised Land”. The suggestions he put forward were all the more worthy of interest as none of them would do violence either to the basic tenets of Judaism or to the individual human rights of both the Palestinians and the Jews.

With regard to the subject of Zionism and religious belief, Elmessiri observes that it is difficult to think of a political phenomenon that generates more controversy and elicits more violent reaction than Zionism. Many political movements and institutions, he says, have been described over the years as progressive or counterrevolutionary, nationalist, or settler-colonialist. But unlike Zionism, “very few movements in the twentieth century have been described as being ‘much more than a political entity’[3] [and] it is doubtful whether any political outlook has ever been classified as a ‘sacred word and concept’[4] and as a ‘legitimate religious belief’,[5] not to mention the fact that some Zionists and their sympathizers even view the establishment of a state in the land of Palestine as being the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and an event of apocalyptic significance.

It is precisely this aspect of the controversy surrounding Zionism that made it necessary for the Egyptian scholar to begin his study of this ideology by asserting what he believed is self-evident, namely that Zionism is a political movement, and is not a religious doctrine. He added that the hue and cry in the West, following the adoption of the 1975 United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism, was a timely reminder of the need to emphasize once more the difference between the religious belief and the political program.

Far from being sacred, Elmessiri affirms, Zionism is a political ideology of complex European origins, rooted primarily in the socioeconomic realities of the Eastern European Jewish ghettoes and in European society of the late nineteenth century; the common denominator among their wide variety of schools of thought being the conviction that the Jews, without waiting for divine intervention, should achieve “autoemancipation” by taking matters into their own hands and terminating their state of perpetual alienation and deep longing, and create a Jewish state of their own or, to use the more precise phrase of Theodor Herzl, “the Jews’ state” (der Judenstaat)[6]. It also was being understood that the Jewishness of this state lay neither in its religious orientation nor in its commitment to Judaism and its values, but instead in its presumed national (ethnic) Jewish character.

That is why like scores of other authors do, Elmessiri highlights the well-established historical fact that many of the founders of Zionism had little concern with Judaism, and even evinced a marked hostility toward its precepts and practices. Indeed, Herzl himself, during a visit to Jerusalem, consciously violated a great number of Jewish religious practices in order to emphasize his new non-religious outlook as distinct from a traditional religious stance[7]. Likewise, his close friend, the Hungarian-born and Germanophile writer and Zionist leader, Max Nordau[8] was a self-avowed atheist who believed that the Torah was “inferior as literature” compared “to Homer and the European classics”, and that it was “childish as philosophy and revolting as morality”[9]. He even suggested that the day would come when Herzl’s Der Judenstaat would be given equal status with the Bible, even by its  author’s religious opponents[10]. In an autobiographical sketch, he wrote: “When I reached the age of fifteen, I left the Jewish way of life and the study of the Torah (…) Judaism remained a mere memory and since then, I have always felt as a German and as a German only”[11]. Similarly, Chaim Weizmann took pleasure at times in “baiting the Rabbis about kosher food”[12], and a typical group of Zionist halutzim (pioneers), deliberately irreligious, and militantly atheistic, marched in defiance of Jewish dietary laws in the early 1920s to “the Wailing Wall on the Day of Atonement munching ham sandwiches”.[13]

Elmessiri also informs that the Zionist settlers in Palestine, the first to implement this new philosophy of political Zionism, were unusually careful to stress the non-religious and untraditional nature of their endeavor so that there would be no misunderstanding of their philosophy. That’s most probably the reason why they dropped the name “Jews”, calling themselves “Hebrews” instead. They used this more modern term in their campaigns in the 1930s and early 1940s, calling for a “Hebrew” rather than “Jewish” state. The current term, “Jewish state”, Elmessiri said, originally coined as a non-religious concept, was revived in the 1940s, again with no intended religious connotation.

So, most of the early Zionists have seen themselves in non-religious terms, and their ideology, patterned after nineteenth-century European nationalism, was intended to replace traditional religious beliefs. Such an amoral outlook, replacing deep religious commitment while making full use of it, has always proved to be a more or less sure way for recruiting the masses, and the “fusion of nationalistic outlook with religious fervor was achieved by turning authentic religious doctrine into a national myth”.[14]

In light of the foregoing, it comes as no surprise that the Jewish orthodox sect Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), for example, characterizes the Zionist rabbis as “the clericals of the false Israel” who “teach a false doctrine”[15]. Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik (1853-1918), who was Rabbi of Brisk, Poland, and the founder of the “Yeshiva approach to Talmudic study”, had this to say about Zionism: “The Jewish people have suffered many (spiritual) plagues – the Sadducees, Karaites, Hellenisers, Shabbatai Zvi, Enlightenment, Reform and many others. But the strongest of them all is Zionism”.[16]

In effect, in a 1381-page landmark book[17] considered by many as a definitive treatise on the differences between Judaism and Zionism, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro explains how and why Zionism represents a hijacking of Jewish identity, or as he puts it, a theft of that identity that is not in line with his religion. Zionism, he says, was conceived to erase classic Jewish identity as a people with a divinely ordained mission and replace it with an identity based on national polity. This attempt to reengineer Jewish identity resulted in the creation of a “self-deprecating, logically inconsistent, traumatic ideology called Zionism”. 

It also engendered a belief that no other country in the world adheres to, that is, Israel is the homeland (heimat) and nationality of the Jewish people scattered all over the Earth, including people who never visited Israel, never were citizens of this country, nor were their family members, nor do they ever plan to be. No Muslim country makes such an absurd claim vis-à-vis the world’s Muslims, nor has the Vatican ever professed that it is the country of all Catholics.

Rabbi Shapiro, who begs to differ, is of the opinion that if someone wants to extricate themselves from Zionism’s influence, they must maneuver through a mess of false ideology, false Judaism, false history, false politics, and a false worldview.

In his comprehensive account and critical examination of the various Zionist schools of thought and their ideologies, the orthodox Jewish scholar points out that the original Zionists were Jews who were influenced by, impressed with, and envied the lifestyle of the Gentiles over that of the Jews. More than anything else, they wanted to be secular, or in the words of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the “diametrical opposite of a Jew”; because they attributed anti-Semitism to the priestly lifestyle of the religious Jews, looking at them as “ugly, immoral, and debased”. They, therefore, were convinced that if the Jews could become normal, that is to say to change their lifestyle, and indistinguishable from non-Jews, anti-Semitism would end.

As a matter of fact, pioneer Zionists did secularize themselves, but anti-Semitism didn’t end. They were rudely awakened to their Jewishness by anti-Semitic violence, especially the string of pogroms that began in Russia in 1881, and thus were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they refused to be Jews, and the Gentiles refused to let them be Gentiles. This is how they resolved that Zionism must be their “Plan B”. They basically figured if they can’t join the Gentile nations, they’ll make a nation of their own by turning all the Jews into a nationality.

In doing so, they created an entirely new society, pretending they were scions of the “ancient people of the Book” – partly to garner support from the Evangelicals and to recruit Jews to populate their future state.

Also, because Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism but is rather a political movement, many early Zionists were atheists or agnostics, but still claimed God gave the Jews the “Holy Land”.      

Making “Good Jews” White and European

On that same subject of the perversion of the Jewish identity, Professor Steven Friedman, one of South Africa’s foremost political theorists of mainstream understandings of Jewishness, wrote a thoroughly-researched book.[18] In it, he offers a searing analysis of the weaponization of anti-Semitism in service of political objectives that support the Israeli state and global white supremacy.  Friedman argues that the changes wrought to Jewish identity form an important element in the ideology which underpins the Israeli state and that they deserve more attention than they have received.

He appropriately reminds us that until the French revolution and the Enlightenment, all Jews were effectively forced to adhere to their religion by the reigning authorities. And when Jews were allowed to choose whether to practice their religion, those who chose not to were still regarded as ethnically Jewish. This made Jewish identity more complicated than that of most other religious or ethnic groups.

The concept of religious tolerance promoted by thinkers of the Enlightenment era led to an unprecedented transformation in the legal and economic status of the Jews. Having enjoyed civil rights and been allowed a freedom of movement denied to them for centuries, Western European Jews in the nineteenth century rose to high levels in the professions, the arts, business and even government.

Yet, as explained by Stanford University Professor Maxine Schur in a presentation at Oregon-based Reed College,[19] “beneath the new external acceptance of the Jews, there existed in European society a virulent undercurrent of anti-Semitism which was different than the one that had plagued the Jews in the Middle-Ages or during the Inquisition for it was based not on theological, but secular grounds. It was racial, rooted in bogus biology. Paradoxically, the racial anti-Semitism was given authority and first popularized by a self-confessed proponent of religious tolerance, the celebrated philosopher of the Enlightenment, Voltaire”.

Indeed, François-Marie Arouet (1694-1778), known by his nom de plume Voltaire, was famous for his wit and his criticism of Christianity, especially of the Roman Catholic Church, and a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Furthermore, what matters for our purpose is that he was outspoken in his hostility towards the Jews, and recent scholars such as Arthur Hertzberg[20] have seen him as one of the founders of modern secular anti-Semitism.

In effect, in his 1756 “Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations” (translated to English as “Essay on the customs and spirit of nations and key facts of history from Charlemagne to Louis XIII”), Voltaire writes:

‘“The Jews are an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched (…) In all the annals of the Hebrew people, one does not see any generous action. They know neither hospitality, nor liberality, nor clemency. Their sovereign happiness is to practice usury with foreigners (…) Their glory is to set fire to and bloody the small villages that they can seize. They slaughter the old and the children (…) They never know how to forgive when they are victorious; they are the enemies of the human race. No politeness, no science, no art perfected at any time among this atrocious nation”.

In a section devoted to Voltaire, the Jewish Virtual Library considers that historically speaking, Voltaire’s outlook was a powerful contribution to the creation of the mental climate which made possible the emancipation of the Jews, but at the same time it prepared the ground for the future racial antisemitism. Just after Voltaire’s death, Zalkind Hourwitz, librarian to the king of France, wrote: “The Jews forgive him all the evil he did to them because of all the good he brought them, perhaps unwittingly; for they have enjoyed a little respite for a few years now and this they owe to the progress of the Enlightenment, to which Voltaire surely contributed more than any other writer through his numerous works against fanaticism”.

For Nabila Ramdani, an Algerian French journalist and columnist, however,

“the celebrated philosopher was an unapologetic racist and anti-Semite who inspired Hitler, and the removal of his statue in Paris was long overdue (…) The  problem is not simply that Voltaire failed to incorporate persecuted groups such as Black people and Jews into his so-called progressive thinking; it is that his advocacy of biological racism and white supremacy still offer justification to all kinds of extremists. These include Nazi sympathizers traditionally linked to France’s far-right National Rally (formerly the National Front) as well as terrorists who target synagogues and mosques”.[21]

When restrictions on Jews in Europe began to ease, religious hostility to them as a group became less tenable. In theory at least, Jews could choose not to be Jewish by converting to Christianity, as more than a few did. But bigotry is not that easily ended. Those who were prejudiced against Jews, presumably alarmed that they could now integrate into society, focused not on the religion of the targets of their bigotry but on accidents of birth; they began to insist that Jews constituted a separate and dangerous race. The ideologues of this new racism called it “anti-Semitism”. 

The term appeared in Germany in the 19th century and is commonly associated with the German activist Wilhelm Marr, who, in 1879, founded the “Antisemiten Liga” (League of Anti-Semites) following the publication of a pamphlet whose German title translates as “The Victory of Jewishness over Germanness”.[22] It has remained in usage even though it is inaccurate since Arabs are Semites too.[23] While anti-Jewish racists often despise Arabs as well, the term was used to describe a prejudice against Jews only.

After 1948, and more conspicuously in the years following the June 1967 Israeli-Arab War, the Israeli state and its Western supporters have endeavored to convert “anti-Semitism” from a description of anti-Jewish racism to a weapon against their critics, many of whom happen to be Jews who believe that the state’s attitudes and practices are racist. As it was, an allegation of racism has been turned into a weapon against anti-racists. This is accompanied by another turnaround: the Israeli state and its supporters seek to turn the campaign against anti-Semitism from a rebellion against white supremacy into an endorsement of white Europeanness.

In effect, the use and misuse of anti-Semitism to browbeat Israeli state opponents is part of a larger reality in which those who do this seek to change the nature of Jewish identity by distinguishing between “real” Jews and the rest. They also seek to “flatten out” Jewish identity. Jews are no longer, like every other group, a complicated mix of differing opinions and perspectives. Instead, there are only “good” Jews who attach their identity to the Israeli state and “bad” ones who do not. The historian Avi Shlaim, responding to claims that all “real” Jews support the Israeli state, observes: “Ironically, to treat Jews as a homogeneous group is in fact an antisemitic trope. It is antisemites who fail to differentiate between different kinds of Jews, and want to see them all clustered in one place. It is on this basis that Theodor Herzl, the visionary of a Jewish state, predicted that the antisemites will become our most dependable friends”.[24]

To be sure, as we have noted earlier, an important source of anti-Jewish hostility is the Christian right, which has held Jews in contempt for centuries.[25] But its religious beliefs also ensure uncritical support for the Israeli state.[26] The fact that these allies of the Israeli state see it as an essential means to achieve the death of the Jewish religion, and that hostility to Jews is deeply embedded in their view of the world, does not deter the state and its supporters. Thus, during a state visit to Brazil in 2019, then Prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared: “We have no better friends in the world than the Evangelical community”.[27]

To make sense of this confusing thinking, Friedman explains, it is crucial to understand that for those in positions of Jewish authority who peddle this attempt to manufacture a reality that seems entirely unreal, anti-Semitism no longer means prejudice against Jewish people. In the English-speaking world, this development can be dated to the 1970s when Arnold Foster and Benjamin Epstein, who held leadership roles in the American Anti-Defamation League, published a book[28] which started something of a cottage industry. It is noteworthy that the Anti-Defamation League was founded to combat anti-Semitism in the United States, but it has become chiefly a propaganda vehicle for the Israeli state.

For the South African Professor, the term “anti-Semitism” has become detached from its moorings. It no longer means racism directed at Jews; it means holding left-wing or egalitarian opinions, which often seems to include being opposed to the white supremacy of which anti-Semitism was once a part. The new Jew – or victim of anti-Semitism – is no longer a member of a particular ethnic group; it is a right-wing person, Jewish or non-Jewish, who supports the economic status quo and the racial hierarchies that have reigned in the West for centuries. The new anti-Semite is not a person who hates Jews; it is a person, Jewish or non-Jewish, who embraces egalitarian values. Jewish people are no longer victims of prejudice as a group; they are now divided into two groups – one “good”, the other ‘bad’ – and ‘bad Jews’ are one of the groups most likely to be accused of anti-Semitism. This is so because of, and not despite, the fact that the “bad Jews” who are stigmatized as “anti-Semites” tend to be anti-racists.

The American “new anti-Semitism” was a product of the Israeli state and has now become not only a core position among the state’s defenders but “one that characterizes the mainstream of most of Western politics.”[29]

The claim that hostility to the Israeli state was born of anti-Jewish hatred has emerged in that state years before the Americans claimed to have found a new and dangerous anti-Semitism: “A significant intellectual milestone was in the late 1960s when Israeli researchers began to develop the concept of ‘new antisemitism’. Their view was that the old anti-Jewish sentiment that had taken shape and changed form over the centuries was now directed first and foremost against the Jewish political enterprise of Zionism and Israel”.[30] A recently published study shows that it was the Israeli state itself which had started the ball running; the term had been used at a series of seminars organized by the office of the Israeli president in the late 1980s.[31] This view soon became deeply embedded in the Israeli state’s ideological battle with its critics.

Opposition to the Israeli state and its actions did not target the Jews; it was aimed at the Israeli state. But central to Zionism’s understanding of itself was the claim that it was the vehicle of all Jews, not merely those Jews who supported the idea of a Jewish state. As a result, to reject the Israeli state – or even to criticize what it did – was to show hostility to the Jews, even if you happened to be Jewish. Friedman views this logic as false, “just as to oppose apartheid in South Africa was not an expression of prejudice against white people. But it served the purpose of Zionism and its allies”.

And so, for the ideologues of Zionism, the “Jewish state” quickly turned from a cure for anti-Semitism to its cause when it was faced by the reality of Palestinian resistance. The Palestinians who wanted their land back were labelled the “new Nazis”, hence Netanyahu’s false claim that it was the Mufti al-Husseini, not Hitler, who devised the mass murder of European Jews. In truth, Netanyahu was following the lead of Malcolm Hoenlein, an American Jewish leadership figure and vocal supporter of the Israeli state, who told a meeting in Toronto, Canada, that Hitler had reluctantly “followed the wishes of the Mufti when he had decided to kill all Jews”.[32]

This invention served an important purpose: it conveniently portrayed Palestinians not as victims of the power of the Israeli state but as powerful Jew-haters whose enmity was even greater than that of the Nazis. It follows, of course, that if Palestinians are Nazis, those who support their cause are too, the primary effect of which being to “delegitimize the Palestinian cause and to practically remove once and for all the Palestine issue from the international agenda”.[33]

Furthermore, Friedman rightly calls attention to the fact that “comparing anti-Jewish racism to any other form of racial bigotry is now branded anti-Semitic because it is said to reduce the significance of Jewish suffering – which is the justification for the state”.

Indeed, President Biden’s “special envoy to combat anti-Semitism”, Deborah Lipstadt, for instance, has insisted that hatred of Jews is both eternal and unlike any other historical fact, “beginning with her earliest work, which argues that the Holocaust was a unique, incomparable event, Lipstadt has tended to exceptionalize antisemitism as the most ancient, enduring form of prejudice –  a constant transhistorical force, resurfacing across eras and continents”.[34] Responding to this peculiar claim, American Jewish Studies scholar Barry Trachtenberg remarks: “If one accepts antisemitism to be eternal, and not a consequence of social or historical factors, then it is a fact of life that will forever push Jewish people into defensive postures. It will make us more nationalist, more reactionary, more militaristic, and more closed off the rest of the world”.[35]

Worst still, the claim that opposition to the Israeli state and to its actions is equated with “antisemitism” has become the official position of Western governments, and in some US states, such opposition has even been criminalized.

This outstanding development in the West was spearheaded by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization comprising 35 members and 9 observer countries founded in 1998 by former Swedish Prime minister Göran Persson, with the declared mission of combating “growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism”.[36] Its most potent and damaging instrument is, by far, its definition of anti-Semitism which has become an article of Zionist faith and is relentlessly portrayed by Zionists as “what the Jewish community wants”. Steven Friedman believes that “the IHRA and its participating governments do not consider this attempt to force all Jews to associate with the state’s actions as anti-Semitic. Nor do they acknowledge that, by labelling opposition to the state as hostility to Jews, their definition violates this clause. Thus, the IHRA definition itself becomes anti-Semitic and, consequently, the Western states that endorse and apply it are keeping alive a shameful history of anti-Jewish racism”.[37]

By defining hostility to Jews in a way which substitutes a state for an ethnic group, the British Jewish author Robert Cohen points out, the IHRA definition also defines what it is to be Jewish: “By that reckoning, to be Jewish is to deny the possibility that Zionism has played out in racist ways, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And to be Jewish is to believe that the state of Israel is a democratic nation like any other, despite Israel’s own constitutional laws defining it as the nation state of the Jewish people rather than the state of all its citizens (…) To be Jewish, according to the IHRA, is to deny the truth, ignore reality, and defend the indefensible”.[38]

Thereafter, the IHRA definition has been used relentlessly to stigmatize political expression and shut down free speech in the Western world, whether it be by governments or many universities. It has been “wielded against academics who campaigned for Palestine to deprive them of jobs and to suppress campaigns against the Israeli state, in particular the BDS movement”.[39]

Nowadays, the Israeli state is seen not only as ally of the West but also as its representative in the Middle East. Like South Africa before 1994, Friedman observes: “the Israeli state is in, by not of, the region it finds itself”. This further explains why the “Collective West” regards Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, democracy being often used by Western governments, elites and academics as a code for “Western”, and why former Israeli Prime minister Ehud Barak dared to utter the racist claim that Israel is a “villa in the jungle”! Instead of this misnomer, the more correct definition that should be applied to the Israeli state is, in the words of Steven Friedman: “the only Western state in the Middle East”.

All of this perfectly sums up the tenacious prejudice that this Western-created state is an island of “first world” Western civilization in a barbaric neighborhood.[40]

Such a prejudice is hardly a novel phenomenon, nor does the Western racist and supremacist mindset seem to become a fading memory during our times. Indeed, back in 1914, Winston Churchill was not ashamed to declare: “We are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance… We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us”. Churchill was telling the plain truth to his pairs in the closed meeting of the British Cabinet. As a new academic study[41] has asserted, the impact of British colonialism on India was devastating, uncovering staggering death tolls and immense wealth extraction that was carried out by the empire during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The report estimates that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920, “a figure that is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars and the Nazi holocaust”! It also estimates that during nearly 200 years of colonialism, the British Empire stole at least $45 trillion in wealth from India. Interestingly enough, this new research further highlights how British colonialism in India was not only devastating for the Indian people, but also had “a profound impact on the global capitalist system” and “inspired fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini”, who then carried out similar genocidal crimes within and outside their own borders.

A further example of this deeply rooted feeling was given, much more recently, by none other than the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, who, addressing young European diplomats at Bruges, Belgium, said: “Here, Bruges is a good example of the European garden. Yes, Europe is a garden. We have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that the humankind has been able to build the three things together (…) The rest of the world – and you know this very well, Federica – is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden (…) Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means (…) Keep the garden, be good gardeners. But your duty will not be to take care of the garden itself but [of] the jungle outside”.[42]

A Naked Colonialism Fast Approaching Its Demise

According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, settler colonialism has “an additional criterion that is the complete destruction and replacement of indigenous people and their cultures by the Settler’s own in order to establish themselves as the rightful inhabitants”. 

Image: File photo of illegal Israeli settlements

Many scholars apply the term to Israel’s founding too. Late Australian historian Patrick Wolfe, for one, clearly referred to the Zionist settler project in Palestine as an example of settler colonialism in a seminal essay[43] published in 2006. As practiced by Europeans, he wrote, “both genocide and settler colonialism have typically employed the organizing grammar of race. European xenophobic traditions such as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or Negrophobia are considerably older than race, which, as many have shown, became discursively consolidated fairly late in the eighteenth century (…) Settler colonialism destroys to replace. As Theodor Herzl, founding father of Zionism, observed in his allegorical manifesto/novel, ‘If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct’.[44] Settler colonialism is an inclusive, land-centered project that coordinates a comprehensive range of agencies, from the metropolitan center to the frontier encampment, with a view to eliminating the indigenous societies… The colonizers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event”. 

In Palestine, however, the native society has not been eliminated. Palestine is not “as Jewish as England is British”, as Chaim Weizmann once candidly expressed Zionist goals. Instead, as Rashid Khalidi said, “The population of the entire country from the river to the sea, unified by decades of occupation and colonization since 1967, is today at least half Palestinian, and that proportion is growing. The natives are still there, and they are restless. Those Palestinians who have managed to remain in historic Palestine – in spite of the ceaseless efforts to dispossess them – continue to resist erasure. Outside of Palestine, an equal number remain profoundly attached to their homeland and to the right of return. The Palestinians have not forgotten, they have not gone away, and the memory of Palestine and its dismemberment has not been effaced. Indeed, wider international audiences are increasingly aware of these realities”.[45]

When one looks at white settler colonies, Joseph Masaad insightfully observes[46], the only ones that have survived are the ones who have been successful in absolutely eliminating and annihilating the native population, either completely or basically retaining a small minority of them. We see this especially in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The situation is quite different in other settler-colonial places – like South Africa, Algeria, Rhodesia, Kenya, Mozambique, Angola and Namibia – where the attempts to establish settler-colonies have failed, and as a result, those countries ended up gaining their independence in the early 1960s and through the mid-1990s. And the reason why those attempts did not succeed is because the native populations have always outnumbered the white settler intruders.

The Western-Zionist settler-colonialism in Palestine clearly belongs to the latter project. As mentioned before, Theodor Herzl had foreseen the absolute need to expel the native Palestinian population and replace it with Jewish immigrants coming mostly from Eastern and Western European countries; a sine qua non condition for the successful establishment of a “Jewish state” in the “Holy Land”.    

Later on, in the 1920s and 1930s, Zionist ideologues and activists came up with concrete schemes and plans on how to bring this about, and started to implement their designs even before the 30th of November 1947, the day the United Nations General Assembly passed the Partition Plan Resolution. Indeed, by the time Israel was finished with the expulsions by December 1948, the Zionists had successfully evicted more than 90% of the Palestinian population in the territories they illegally occupied by brutal force.

According to Prof. Masaad, the major mistake the Zionists made was to conquer the remaining part of Palestine in 1967, adding to Israel a large number of Palestinians, not only the indigenous populations of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, but also more than half the refugees that they had expelled in 1948 among those who had taken refuge and had been living in the areas Israel conquered. As a result of that, the demographic situation changed dramatically in Israel to affect the survivability of the settler colony, at least on a demographic basis.

As referred to earlier, several Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, have made predictions over the last few years, saying they were not sure Israel will survive to its 80th or 100th birthday. That kind of worry is based essentially on the internal fissures, the demographic contraction of Israel, and the fact that there’s no new major pool from which to draw additional Jewish immigrants. The six million or so American Jews, for instance, have never shown a willingness, or at least never has been a large percentage of American Jewry that showed an interest in moving to Israel. Even though many individual Jews may be strongly supportive of Israel, that does not mean that they are all Zionists, or they’re going to move en masse to Israel. 

Accordingly, Joseph Masaad goes on to say, the mass murder and genocidal policies of the Israeli government are not necessarily irrational. The issue is not only to eliminate the Palestinians physically and demographically, but also to forestall the possibility of resistance in the future. This kind of behavior is quite rational, followed by many of the settler-colonial countries – like the appalling atrocities and mass killings committed by the British in Kenya in the 1950s and 1960s; the American support for the Portuguese in the South African war on the guerrillas in Angola and Mozambique between 1962 and 2000; the Western support to the French in Algeria where any uprising by the Algerian natives against their cruel and sadistic French settlers would be met with massive murders of tens of thousands of Algerians as in 1945, so much so that hundreds of thousands of Algerians were killed by the French during the war of independence between 1954 and 1962; and the US troops going to support France after its defeat in Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam in 1954, continuing the war at the behest of the French and then independently until 1975.

In light of the above, there’s nothing special about the ongoing Western support for Israel. Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has been banging on about how Israel is defending Western civilization, and that were it to fall, Europe would be next. The exact same discourse has recently been repeated by Netanyahu in his latest address to the US Congress, saying: “We meet today at a crossroads of history. Our world is in upheaval. In the Middle East, Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends. This is not a clash of civilizations. It’s a clash between barbarism and civilization. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life. For the forces of civilization to triumph, America and Israel must stand together. Because when we stand together, something very simple happens. We win. They lose (…) The ICC is trying to shackle Israel’s hands and prevent us from defending ourselves. And if Israel’s hands are tied, America is next. I’ll tell you what else is next. The ability of all democracies to fight terrorism will be imperiled. That’s what’s on the line”.[47] Netanyahu’s lies were met with dozens of standing ovations on the part of the overwhelming majority of the audience. The rare but resounding dissenting voices came from inside the Capitol with Rashida Tlaib holding a “War Criminal” sign, and from the outside with thousands of protesters chanting “free Palestine” and also calling Netanyahu a war criminal.

We have also heard from the German Head of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen that the Jewish values of Israel are European values. Such “shared values” must then include the values of colonialism and genocide. It is worth recalling here that the tone of the EU’s support for Israel had already been set when she tweeted a photo of the European Commission building in Brussels lit up in an Israeli flag. She pointedly said: “Israel has the right to defend itself – today and in the days to come. The European Union stands with Israel”.[48]

Shrewdly explaining the justification for the European Union’s solidarity with Israel, including and notably Germany’s purported love for European Jews and its regret over the Holocaust, Prof. Masaad says that after World War II, the Europeans “made the discovery that the Jews were actually white European people”. Their regret was therefore “not that you should not kill people that are different from you, but instead that you should not kill people that are just like you, meaning white European, since Jews, subsequent to the Holocaust, began to be integrated in Europe at the level of cultural value”. As for the belief that non-white people should continue to be killed, it has never been questioned, and we’ve seen many examples of this in European colonial policies since 1945 – from the Algerian and Vietnamese genocides in the case of France, to what the United States has done in Korea, Vietnam, Central and Southern Africa, Central and South America, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

In his book referred to above, Mahmood Mamdani provides a similar explanation, saying that by the beginning of the twentieth century, it was a European habit to distinguish between “civilized wars” and “colonial wars”. The former were governed by the “laws of war” and the latter by the “laws of nature”, meaning that wars between “people like us” were fought within rules that were meant to limit their barbarity, but wars against people who were not full members of “Western civilization” were not bound by any rules at all. Mamdani traces the beginnings of the massacres of colonized people to the first years of the 19^th century, when first Australians were slaughtered by colonists in Tasmania. They were imitated by wholesale slaughters in French Algeria, German Namibia, and Belgian Congo, among others.

Also worthy of mention, in this respect, is the observation according to which Nazi extermination camps were all situated in occupied Poland, not in Germany. There were, of course, concentration camps in Germany, but used as forced labor camps, not death camps. So, by “siting the camps to the east of Germany, the Nazis were, in effect, removing them from Western Europe where such barbarism was not considered acceptable. The east of Europe became, in a sense, a colony inhabited by people who were not considered Aryan and therefore not fully European. They were thus subject only to the laws of nature”. And in the words of Frantz Fanon, “Nazism transformed the whole Europe into a veritable colony.”[49]

This Western support is then “part and parcel of their support for white supremacy in their own countries and elsewhere”, and the unstinting support that Israel is obtaining form powerful Western powers – apparently unshaken by any of its crimes and excesses – is “part of a kind of vengeance that inferior races have arrogated to themselves the right or the ability to kill or resist white supremacy”.

This is also why today, we see most of the support for the Palestinians coming precisely from people who have suffered under countries who had set up central colonies previously, like Algeria, South Africa and Namibia.

Seventy-six years ago, says Ghada Karmi,[50] “an anomalous state was imposed on the Arab Middle East. The new creation was alien in every sense to the region’s culture and anti-colonial struggle (…) The new state went on to violate international law repeatedly, attack its neighbors, persecute the native Palestinian population, and impose a system of apartheid rule over them (…) If instead, Israel had been left to fend for itself, the Palestinian struggle for freedom would have been short, and the settler community in Palestine would gradually and peaceably have been absorbed into the region”.

Ten months into its genocidal war on Gaza, Israel and its Western backers are getting more desperate than ever in defending their mass murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. And with Zionism exposed to much of the world for an unprecedented savagery in the 21^st century, it’s becoming clear that this project is not only unsustainable, but may even be approaching its demise. 

The current predicament of the state of Israel and its uncertain future were discussed by John Mearsheimer, one of the most distinguished Professors of political science in the world, at the Center for Independent Studies. In it, he explained “why Israel is in deep trouble”.[51] Three months later, Mearsheimer’s co-author of the celebrated book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, Stephen Walt, wrote an opinion,[52] in which, he too, says that Israel – whose Zionist project has been getting worse at defending itself for decades – is “in serious trouble”. He concluded his analysis by saying that Israel’s vengeful and shortsighted behavior has inflicted enormous harm on innocent Palestinians for decades and continues to do so today, warning that its decline in strategic judgement must be reassessed for the sake of its own survival.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the books “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014 and “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde” (Islam and the Order of the World),  Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2021. 

Notes

[1] W. E. Burghard Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches”, A. C. McClurg & Co., Chicago, 1903.

[2] Abdelwahab Elmessiri, “The Land of Promise: A Critique of Political Zionism”, North American, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1977.

[3] Bishop W. Ralph Ward, President of the United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, The New Yor Times, 9 November 1975.

[4] The first phrase is from a letter sent by the second annual Christian-Jewish Workshop, sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops cited in op. cit. The second phrase is used in the same report with no citation of source.

[5] “Notes on Zionism by Max Nordau”, selected by Chaim Bloch, Herzl year Book, Vol. VII, p. 34.

[6] To be read alongside his complete diaries:  https://archive.org/details/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzl_201606/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume1_OCR/

[7] “Statement by the Lubbavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shulem ben Schneersohn, on Zionism” (1903), in Michael Selzer (Ed) “Zionism Reconsidered”.

[8] Max Simon Nordau co-founded the Zionist Organization and coined the term “Muskeljudentum” (muscular Judaism) at the second Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland, on 28 August 1898.

[9] Desmond Stewart, “Theodor Herzl: Artist and Politician”, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974.

[10] Richard Crossman, “A Nation Reborn: The Israel of Weizmann, Bevin, and Ben-Gurion”, Hamish Hamilton, 1960.

[11] New World Encyclopedia, “Max Nordau”, 9 November 2022.

[12] Amos Elon, “The Israelis: Founders and Sons”, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971.

[13] Melford E. Spiro, “Kibbutz: Venture in Utopia”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1956.

[14] Arthur Hertzberg (Ed.), “The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader”, Harper & Row, New York, 1956.

[15] Cited in Meir Ben-Horin, “Max Nordau: Philosopher of Human Solidarity”, Conference on Jewish Social Studies, 1956.

[16] See “Neturei Karta international” website on https://www.nkusa.org/

[17] Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, “The Empty Wagon: Zionism’s Journey from Identity Crisis to Identity Theft”, ‎Primedia eLaunch LLC,2018.

[18] Steven Friedman, “Good Jew, Bad Jew: Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Assault on Meaning”, Wits University Press, Johannesburg, 2023.

[19] Maxine Schur, “Voltaire and the Jews”, Reed College, 20 June 2015.

[20] Arthur Hertzberg, “The French Enlightenment and the Jews”, Columbia University Press, New York and London, 1968.

[21] Nabila Ramdani, “Voltaire Spread Darkness, Not Enlightenment. France Should Stop Worshipping Him”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 31 August 2020.

[22] Robert Bernasconi, “Racism” in “Key Concepts in the Study of Anti-Semitism”, edited by Sol Goldberg, Scott Ury and Kalman Weiser, Pelgrave Macmillan, 2021.

[23] Avi Shlaim, “On British Colonialism, Antisemitism, and Palestinian Rights”, Middle East Eye, 1 March 2021.

[24] Avi Shlaim, idem.

[25] James Carroll, “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews”, Houghton Mifflin, Boston and New York, 2002; and Malcolm Hay, “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism”, Freedom Library Press, New York, 1981.

[26] Robert Leonhard, “Visions of Apocalypse: What Jews, Christians and Muslims Believe About the End Times, and How Those Beliefs Affect Our World”, The John Hopkins University, 2010.

[27] Julian Sayarer, “The Antisemitic Face of Israel’s Evangelical Allies”, Jacobin, 20 February 2022.

[28] Arnold Foster and Benjamin R. Epstein, “The New Anti-Semitism”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1974.

[29] Amos Goldberg, “Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: How Right and Left Conflate Issues to Deny Palestinian Rights”, Middle East Eye, 28 Avril 2022.

[30] Amos Goldberg, op. cit.

[31] Anthony Lerman, “Whatever Happened to Anti-Semitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’”, Pluto Press, London, 2022.

[32] Norman G. Finkelstein, “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History”, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, 2005.

[33]  Amos Goldberg, ibidem.

[34] Nathan and Ruth Ann Perlmutter, “The Real Anti-Semitism in America”, Arbor House, New York, 1982.

[35] Mari Cohen, “Deborah Lipstadt vs. ‘The Oldest Hatred’”, Jewish Currents, 8 February 2022.

[36] See IHRA website, “About Us”: http://www.holocaustremembrance.com/about-us 

[37] Steven Friedman, “Good Jew, Bad Jew”, op cit.

[38] Robert Cohen, “We Need to Decolonize Our Understanding of Antisemitism”, Patheos, 6 March 2021.

[39] Ramona Wadi, “Defeating the IHRA Witch Hunt: An Interview with Palestinian Activist and Scholar Shahd Abusalama”, Mondoweiss, 7 February 2022.

[40] Lazar Berman, “After Walling Itself in, Israel Learns to Hazard the Jungle Beyond”, The Times of Israel, 8 March 2021.

[41] The study, conducted by economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his colleague Dylan Sullivan, is published in the respected journal World Development, under the title “Capitalism and Extreme Poverty: A Global Analysis of Real Wages, Human Height, and Mortality since the Long 16th century”. Read its summary here, including a link to the whole paper in pdf form: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/world-development/vol/161/suppl/C

[42] To read the full statement, see “European Diplomatic Academy: Opening remarks by High Representative Josep Borrell at the inauguration of the pilot programme”, Official EU website, 13 October 2022.

[43] Patrick Wolfe, “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native”, Journal of Genocide Research, Volume 8, 21 December 2006.

[44] Theodor Herzl, “Old-New Land [Altneuland, 1902]”, Lotta Levensohn, trans. (New York: M. Wiener 1941), p. 38.

[45] Rashid Khalidi, “Israel: ‘A Failed Settler-Colonial Project’”, Institute for Palestine Studies, 10 May 2018.

[46] Prof. Joseph Masaad, interviewed by Rania Khalek, BreakThrough News, 5 June 2024.

[47] The Times of Israel, “We’re protecting you: Full text of Netanyahu’s address to Congress”, 25 July 2024: https://www.timesofisrael.com/were-protecting-you-full-text-of-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

[48] Niamh Ni Bhriain and Mark Akkerman, “Partners in Crime: EU complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza”, Transnational Institute, 4 June 2024.

[49] Johanna Jacques, “A ‘Most Astonishing’ Circumstance: The Survival of Jewish POWs in German War Captivity During the Second World War”, Social and Legal Studies 30, no. 3, 2021.

[50] Ghada Karmi, “Why is Israel so vital to the West”, Middle East Eye, 18 May 2023.

[51] John Mearsheimer, “Why Israel Is in Big Trouble”, Centre for Independent Studies, 17 May 2024. To read the transcript of the discussion: https://scrapsfromtheloft.com./opinions/why-israel-is-in-deep-trouble-john-mearsheimer-with-tom-switzer-transcript/

[52] Stephen M. Waltz, “The Dangerous Decline in Israeli Strategy”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 16 August 2024

---

Links to Parts I to IX:

The War on Gaza: Might vs. Right, and the Insanity of Western Power

By Amir Nour, December 01, 2023

The War on Gaza: How the West Is Losing. Accelerating the Transition to a Multipolar Global Order?

By Amir Nour, December 04, 2023

The War on Gaza: Debunking the Pro-Zionist Propaganda Machine

By Amir Nour, December 11, 2023

The War on Gaza: Why Does the “Free World” Condone Israel’s Occupation, Apartheid, and Genocide?

By Amir Nour, December 22, 2023

The War on Gaza: How We Got to the “Monstrosity of Our Century”

By Amir Nour, January 25, 2024

The War on Gaza: Towards Palestine’s Independence Despite the Doom and Gloom

By Amir Nour, February 02, 2024

The War on Gaza: Whither the “Jewish State”?

By Amir Nour, April 17, 2024

The Twilight of the Western Settler Colonialist Project in Palestine

By Amir Nour, August 17, 2024

The War on Gaza: Perpetual Falsehoods and Betrayals in the Service of Endless Deception. Amir Nour

By Amir Nour, August 25, 2024

At the time when Prime Minister Tony Blair brought in the Terrorism Act 2000 — note that this was before 9/11 – I was working in the Royal Courts of Justice. As I remember the lawyers were buzzing about it, worried about its vague and sloppy language, and its overt authoritarianism and capacity for abuse.

There was general incredulity that Blair, who is himself a lawyer, as of course is his wife, and his Home Secretary Jack Straw, who is also a lawyer and a former adviser of Barbara Castle, one of the most revered figures in modern Labour history, would bring in a law like that.

Looking back and thinking of those days, it’s amazing how naive we were.

Here we are and this terrible law is now being used against journalists, and is being used in a way which violates fundamental human rights.

The terrible thing is that it was at precisely this same time that the Blair government was bringing into law – with wide support from within the legal community — the Human Rights Act 1998, which embedded the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into U.K. law (the Human Rights Act 1998 was signed into law in 1998 but only came into force on Oct. 2, 2000).

At the time everyone in the legal world assumed that it was the Human Rights Act 1998 that was by far the more important Act, and which would be far more consequential than the Terrorism Act 2000.

Indeed I distinctly remember all sorts of assurances floating around that there was no need to worry because the Terrorism Act 2000 would be restricted and its loose wording interpreted by reference to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In reality what has happened is the opposite. Far from the Human Rights Act 1998 mitigating the effect of the Terrorism Act 2000, it is the Terrorism Act 2000 which is prevailing over the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 – as the Medhurst case shows.

None of this would be happening were it not for a radical change in the whole legal and political culture in the U.K., which has taken place since these two Acts were brought into law.

I don’t want to romanticise the past, but the shift towards authoritarianism, and the ongoing repression of free speech and journalism, which has taken place since 2000, still seems to me astonishing and at some level inexplicable.

The cases brought against Julian Assange and former British diplomat Craig Murray (imprisoned for his journalism on a contempt of court conviction) and the misuse of the Terrorism Act 2000 to harass journalists, including Murray, illustrate this.

What illustrates it even more is that all of this is happening practically without protest. The media here in the U.K. are currently maintaining a stony silence about the Medhurst arrest, whereas if anything like that had happened in 2000 or before there would have been outrage.

It is this sharp authoritarian turn in British legal and political culture — and the lack of any pushback against it — which shocks me. Its origins are obviously in the U.S., but the extent to which it is now sweeping the entire West, is astonishing.

I have heard that in Germany things are even worse, with people like former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis prevented from entering the country.

Here in Britain we are throwing away the liberties people once fought for, for example in the 18th century Wilkes Case. Moreover we are doing it without a murmur. Liberty is dying in silence.

On the specifics of the Medhurst case, I would say two things:

1. I think the objective is to intimidate and silence Medhurst, and to get Google to de-platform his YT channel, rather than to prosecute him. Even allowing for the current climate I cannot believe that the U.K. authorities are going to bring a prosecution.

If they do something like that then things are even darker than I supposed. Having said that, assuming I am right, acting to intimidate and silence a journalist, thereby depriving him of his livelihood, is already appalling enough.

2. It’s clear from Medhurst’s account that the police were acting under instructions and under tight supervision. Based on what he says, it looks as if the police were constantly checking and getting instructions throughout the entire period of his detention and arrest.

It would be interesting to know from whom, and what the chain of command was. Perhaps in better times we will find out.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Alexander Mercouris is a legal analyst, political commentator and editor of The Duran.

Featured image: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Andrew Newton/Wikimedia Commons)

It must be stated at the outset that regardless of anything else, if one of the great powers follows world dominance as a central precept of its policy then it is only a matter of time before this would bring the world very close to World War 3 or nuclear war or a war involving other weapons of mass destruction. It does not matter if such a ruinous policy is adopted by the USA or China or Russia or any other emerging great power, the result will be the same.

In recent years the most obstinate and non-rational pursuit of such a destructive policy has been seen in the context of the USA. This highly dangerous policy, often identified with the aim that no foreign power should be allowed to emerge or remain in such a strong position that it can now or in future threaten worldwide US supremacy and dominance, used initially to be identified with the neo-conservatives, but now this has been mainstreamed as the policy of the greater part of the US establishment, or at least those sections of it who appear to call all the shots in decision-making. In pursuit of this policy, all the time efforts are being made to weaken those with the potential to emerge as rivals, by bleeding them in various ways, by planning for their disintegration and by dividing them, by isolating them, by imposing sanctions on them, and above all by making them fight proxy wars, and by assisting the proxy fighters in many ways so that they can inflict the maximum damage on rivals and potential rivals.

If USA is the leading power of world dominance now, China too can strive for this position after some years if its economic, technological and military power continues to grow at a fast pace. While it continues to show signs of undue although restrained aggression at several levels, it must first meet the challenge posed by the number one power seeking to maintain dominance and in the process trying to encircle China in various ways.

The bigger reality is that as long as any great power or emerging great power is guided by the ambition of world dominance, a huge danger of this escalating into a world war or nuclear weapons war will remain. So in these times of weapons of mass destruction, the quest of dominance by any great power is inherently a huge risk for all life on earth.

However this risk can increase or decrease at various times depending on the extent of responsibility exercised by the leadership of the great powers. What is deeply worrying today is that we are either already in the middle of the highest risk situation ever, or else appear to be fast moving towards such a situation.

The earlier highest risk situation is often considered to be of the days of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. However the crisis was being handled at the topmost level by two world leaders, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, who were very responsible leaders and were committed to peace ( even though some of their aides were not).

Hence they sorted out the crisis before it could blow up into a nuclear war. Unfortunately such responsible leadership is increasingly missing today in the country—USA– which has been on a very aggressive quest for dominance regardless of consequences. Millions of people have already been killed in the course of this quest in entirely avoidable wars and proxy wars. In addition some of the leaders closely allied to the USA, particularly Netanyahu of Israel and Zalensky of Ukraine, have frequently behaved in no less irresponsible ways while escalating conflicts with their very narrow vision and aims.

How the Ukraine war has been escalating towards possibly a much bigger tragedy was recently captured very competently in a comment by Thomas Palley (August 23, 2024) titled ‘Ukraine’s Hiroshima moment is drawing closer’. Thomas Palley is a senior American economist who served as the Chief Economist for the US China Economic and Security Review Commission. He has written,

“Conditions in Ukraine increasingly give Russia military and geopolitical cause to use tactical nuclear weapons. Though Russia will use them, the US and NATO are implicated in the process. They are in the grip of neocon madness which casually dismisses potentially catastrophic consequences and blocks all off-ramps.”

USA/NATO have been crossing one red-line after another regarding supplying more and more advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti- aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles, long-range HIMARS rockets, longer-range ATACMs and F-16 jets. In addition, Palley noted

“the US has provided satellite information, while under-cover advisers have assisted long-range missile attacks deep inside Russia which include attacking the Kersch bridge, Russian naval vessels at sea, naval yards in Crimea and in Novorossiysk, Russia’s high altitude AWACS defense system, and an attack on Russia’s anti-ballistic missile defense system.”

Palley asserts,

“Many neo-con supporters have casually talked of ‘Putin’s nuclear bluff’. The reality is– it is threat of nuclear retaliation by the USA that is a bluff. No sane US politician or general would risk thermo-nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine.”     

As for the possibilities of an early settlement Palley notes,

“The problem is peace cannot get a hearing. Ukraine’s flawed democracy is suspended, the Azov extremists are in control, and any Ukrainian opposing the war faces imprisonment or worse.”

At the same time, neo-con thinking prevails over rational voices speaking for peace in the USA.

As though things were not bad enough earlier, the Kursk invasion has further increased the possibilities of what increasingly looks like a much wider and bigger confrontation between Russia on the one hand and the USA/NATO on the other hand, even though some of the NATO members are reluctant to join an offensive confrontation against Russia.

In fact the USA has consistently pursued hostile policies towards Russia since the start of the 21^st century, highlighted by steady eastward expansion of NATO, promoting hostile regimes in countries close to Russia, equipping them with  weapons most likely to be used against Russia, attempts of regime change and disintegration aimed at Russia, assisting/instigating a coup in Ukraine followed by constant support for forces ( including neo-Nazis forces) hostile to Russia, sabotaging of efforts to stop Russia-Ukraine war at an early stage.

At what stage this can lead to an open confrontation between USA/NATO has been the most worrying issue for some time now.

This, however, is only one of the two theatres of war which today can escalate into a world war. The other such war is of course the one in the middle-east. While almost every day since October 7 2023 has been a day of great distress, the second big crisis of the possibility of huge escalation (after the first one in the first half of April which could be contained) started developing on July 30-31 with two assassinations, and since then the world has been on the edge regarding what sort of retaliation will come from Iran and Hezbollah. Even after the much bigger clash between Israel and Hezbollah on August 25, at the time of writing this on August 25 the threat of retaliation from Iran still remains. The bigger clash of August 25 between Hezbollah and Israel has also left behind scars that will not heal easily or soon.

A temporary containment of the escalating crisis was obtained by ongoing negotiations for Gaza ceasefire. With Mr. Netanyahu not really wanting peace and hardliners now being in the forefront of Hamas too, chances of both sides agreeing to permanent ceasefire are very slim. If talks break down, the likely Iranian retaliation can escalate the situation further, but in addition there are possibilities also of other sources of escalation which should not be ignored. If Israel-Iran and/or Israel-Hezbollah wars break out then the USA too can be drawn in more directly, while Russia can provide high-tech support to Iran and China can provide some kind of support too. Hence another theatre of possible confrontation between great powers emerges, and the two wars can get linked up too in some ways. 

Even without the USA getting drawn in, an over-pressed Israel under Netanyahu can resort to the use of one or more tactical nuclear weapons. Iran can be aggressively motivated to speed up greatly its quest for developing its own nuclear weapons.

Hence the possibilities of actual use of nuclear weapons and of World War 3 are developing like never before seen in recent decades. The United Nations has not been particularly active to prevent this, while some of the most powerful word leaders have been behaving in very irrational and reckless ways.  Hence it is extremely important to make every possible effort to raise the level of peace efforts much beyond the existing levels.

The reason why peace efforts are generally not able to rise to the level of actually being able to prevent such dangerous escalations is that these are seen mainly as fire-fighting operations, while the need is for continuing peace work which can provide a strong foundation, a strong base for peace efforts to prevail over the war-mongering. 

Hence once we get past the present dangers somehow, we should not fall back into complacency and should work very sincerely and with continuity to strengthen peace movements and all forces of peace all over the world, and most particularly in the leading conflict zones.        

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Man over Machine. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

[This presentation was made in 2018.]

The U.S. wants to sabotage the inter-Korean dialogue.

The U.S. is waging a war against peace.

These are few of the highlights in the presentation shared by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on “U.S. Aggression and Militarization in Korea and Pacific” on March 6, 2018 at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) in Manila.

The “Forum on Militarism and War in Asia and the Pacific” was sponsored by the Philippines Chapter of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS-Phils), the Philippines-Korea Solidarity Committee, the PUP Office of Academic Affairs, College of Political Science and Public Administration, College of Social Science and Development, and also attended by students from the University of the Philippines in Manila.

More than 400 students packed the Manila Room of the PUP Hasmin campus.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Sorry to keep everybody waiting.

Sixteen months ago, in April of 2023, I launched my campaign for president of the United States. I began this journey as a Democrat, which is the party of my father, and my uncle.

It is the party which I pledge my own allegiance to.

Long before I was old enough to vote, I attended my first democratic convention at the age of six in 1960, and back then, the Democrats were the champions of the Constitution and of civil rights.

.

.

The Democrats stood against authoritarianism, against censorship, against colonialism, imperialism, and unjust wars. We were the party of labor, of the working class. The Democrats were the party of government transparency and the champion of the environment. Our party was the bulwark against big money interests and corporate power. True to its name, it was the party of democracy.

As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, Big Pharma, big tech, big ag and big money when it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent.

The mainstream of American politics and journalism derided my decision. Conventional wisdom said that it would be impossible even to get on the ballot as an independent, because each state poses an insurmountable tangle of arbitrary rules for collecting signatures. I would need over a million signatures, something no presidential candidate in history had ever achieved, and then I’d need a team of attorneys and millions of dollars to handle all the legal challenges from the DNC.

The naysayers told us that we were climbing a glass version of Mount impossible. So the first thing I want to tell you is that we proved them wrong. We did it because beneath the radar of mainstream media organs, we inspired a massive independent political movement, more than 100,000 volunteers sprang into action, hopeful that they could reverse our nation’s decline. Many work 10 hour days, sometimes in blizzards and blazing heat.

They sacrificed family time, personal commitments and sleep, month after month, energized by a shared vision of a nation healed of its divisions, they set up tables at churches and farmers markets. They canvassed door to door in Utah and in New Hampshire.

Volunteers collected signatures in snowstorms, convincing each supporter to stop in the frigid cold, to take off their gloves and to sign legibly during a heat wave in Nevada. I met a tall, athletic volunteer who cheerfully told me that he had lost 25 pounds collecting signatures in 117 degree heat.

To finance this effort, young Americans donated their lunch money, and senior citizens gave up their part of their social security checks. Our 50 state organization collected those millions of signatures and more. No presidential campaign and his political, American political history has ever done that, and so I want to thank all of those dedicated volunteers and congratulate the campaign staff who coordinated this enormous logistical feat.

Your accomplishments were regarded as impossible. You carried me up that glass mountain. You pulled off a miracle. You achieved what all the pundits said could never be done. You have my deepest gratitude, and I’m never going to forget that, not just for what you did for my campaign, but for the sacrifices you made because you love our country.

You showed to everyone that democracy is still possible here, it continues to survive in the press and in the idealistic human energies that still thrive beneath a canvas of neglect and of official and institutional corruption.

Today, I’m here to tell you that. I will not allow your efforts to go to waste. I’m here to tell you that I will leverage your tremendous accomplishments to serve the ideals that we share, the ideals of peace, of prosperity, of freedom, of health, all the ideals that motivated my campaign.

I’m here today to describe the path forward that you’ve opened with your commitment and with your hard labors. Now in an honest system, I believe that I would have won the election, in a system that my father and my uncles thrived in a system with open debates, with fair primaries, with regularly scheduled debate, with fair primaries, and with a truly independent media, untainted by government propaganda and censorship and a system of nonpartisan courts and election boards, everything would be different.

After all, the polls consistently showed me beating each of the other candidates, both in favorability and also in head-to-head matchups. But I’m sorry to say that while democracy may still be alive at the grassroots, it has become little more than a slogan for our political institutions, for our media and for our government, and most sadly at all for me, the Democratic Party.

In the Name of saving democracy, the Democratic Party set itself to dismantling it, lacking confidence in its candidate that his candidate could win in a fair election at the voting booth.

The DNC waged continual legal warfare against both President Trump and myself. Each time that our volunteers turned in those towering boxes of signatures needed to get on the ballot, the DNC dragged us into court, state after state, attempting to erase their work and to subvert the will of the voters who had signed those petitions. It deployed DNC-aligned judges to throw me and other candidates off the ballot and to throw President Trump in jail,

It ran a sham primary that was rigged to prevent any serious challenge to President Biden. Then when a predictably bungled debate performance precipitated the palace coup against President Biden, the same shadowy DNC operatives appointed his successor, also without an election.

They installed a candidate who was so unpopular with voters that she dropped out in 2020 without winning a single delegate.

My uncle and my father both a relish debate. They prided themselves on their capacity to go toe to toe with any opponent and the battle over ideas, they would be astonished to learn of a Democratic Party presidential nominee who, like vice president Harris, has not appeared in a single interview or an unscripted encounter with voters for 35 days.

This is profoundly undemocratic. How are people to choose when they don’t know whom they are choosing, and how can this look to the rest of the world? My father and my uncle were always conscious of America’s image abroad because of our nation’s role as the template for democracy, the role model for democratic processes, and the leader of the free world, instead of showing us her substance and character, the DNC and its media organs engineered a surge of popularity for vice president Harris based upon nothing, no policies, no interviews, no debates, only smoke and mirrors and balloons in highly produced Chicago circus.

In Chicago, the democratic speakers mentioned Donald Trump 147 times just on the first day of the convention. Who needs a policy when you have Trump to hate?

In contrast, at the RNC convention, President Biden was mentioned only twice in four days.

I do interviews every day. Many of you have interviewed me. Anybody who asks gets to interview me. Some days, I do as many as 10. President Trump, who actually was nominated and won an election, also does interviews daily. How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answer.

They did it by weaponizing the government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy. They did it by suing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates.

What alarms me is they resort to censorship and media control, and the weaponization of the federal agencies. When a US president colludes with or outright coerces media companies to censor political speech, it’s an attack on our most sacred right, a free expression, and that’s the very right upon which all of our other constitutional rights rest.

President Biden mocked Vladimir Putin’s 88% landslide in the Russian elections, observing that Putin and his party controlled the Russian press and that Putin prevented serious opponents from appearing on the ballot.

Here in America, the DNC also prevented opponents from appearing on the ballot. Our television networks exposed themselves as Democratic Party organs over the course of more than a year. In a campaign where my poll numbers reached at times in the high 20s, the DNC-allied mainstream media networks maintained a near perfect embargo on interviews with me during this 10 month presidential campaign. In 1992 ROS perot gave 34 interviews on mainstream networks.

In contrast, during the sixteen months since I declared, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN combined, gave only two live interviews from me. Those networks instead, ran a continuous deluge of hit pieces with inaccurate, often vile pejoratives and defamatory smears. Some of those same networks and colluded with the DNC to keep me off the debate stage.

Representatives of those networks are in this room right now, and I’ll just take a moment to ask you to consider the many ways that your institutions have abdicated this really sacred responsibility: the duty of a free press to safeguard democracy and to always challenge the party in power.

Instead of maintaining that posture of fierce skepticism toward authority, your institutions have made themselves government mouthpieces and stenographers for the organs of power. You didn’t alone cause the devolution of American democracy, but you could have prevented it.

The Democratic Party’s censorship of social media was even more of a naked exercise of executive power. This week, a federal judge, Terry Doughty, upheld my injunction against President Biden calling the White House’s censorship project, quote, “The most egregious violation of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.” ‘ [The] 155 page decision details how just 37 hours after he took the oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution, President Biden and his White House opened up a portal and then invited the CIA, the FBI, and CISA, which is a censorship Agency.

It’s the center of the censorship industrial complex, DHS, the IRS and other agencies, they censor me and other political dissidents on social media. Even today, users who try to post my campaign videos to Facebook or YouTube get messages that this content violates community standards.

Two days after judge Doughty rendered his decision this week, Facebook was still attaching warning labels to an online petition calling on ABC to include me in the upcoming debate. They said that violates community standards, their community standards.

The mainstream media was once the guardian of the First Amendment and democratic principles, and has joined this systemic attack on democracy. The media justifies their censorship on the grounds of combating misinformation, but governments and and oppressors don’t censor lies. They don’t fear lies. They fear the truth, and that’s what they censor.

And I don’t want any of this to sound like a personal complaint, because it’s not. For me, it’s all part of a journey, and it’s a journey that I signed up with. But I need to make these observations, because I think they’re critical for us doing the thing that we need to do as citizens in a democracy, to assess where we are in this country and what our democracy still looks like and the assumptions about US leadership around the globe, and are we living up?

Are we really still a role model for democracy in this country, or have we made it a kind of a joke? And here’s the good news, while mainstream outlets denied me a critical platform, they didn’t shut down my ideas, which have especially flourished among young voters and independent voters thanks to the alternative media. Many months ago, I promised the American people that I would withdraw from the race if I became a spoiler that would alter the outcome of the election, but has no chance of winning.

In my heart, I no longer believe that I have a realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless, systematic censorship and media control. So I cannot, in good conscience, ask my staff and volunteers to keep working their long hours, or ask my donors to keep giving when I cannot honestly tell them that I have a real path to the White House.

Furthermore, our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot and the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats with whom I disagree on the most existential issues, censorship, war and chronic disease.

I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and not not ending it. My name, my name, will remain on the ballot in most states. If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping President Trump or vice president Harris and red states, just the same will apply. I encourage you to vote for me, and if enough of you do vote for me and neither of the major party candidates win 270 votes, which is quite possible. In fact, today, our polling shows them tying at 269 to 269 and I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contingent election.

But in about 10 battleground states where my presence would be a spoiler, I’m going to remove my name, and I’ve already started that process and urge voters not to vote for me, it’s with a sense of victory and not defeat that I’m suspending my campaign activities.

Not only did we do the impossible by collecting a million signatures, we changed the national political conversation forever, chronic disease, free speech, government corruption, breaking our addiction to war have moved to the center of politics.

I can say to all who have worked so hard the last year and a half, thank you for a job well done.

Three great causes drove me to enter this race in the first place, primarily, and these are the principal causes that persuaded me to leave the democratic Democratic Party and run as an independent and now to throw my support to President Trump.

The causes were free speech, a war in Ukraine and the war on our children.

I’ve already described some of my personal experiences and struggles with a government censorship industrial complex. I want to say a word about the Ukraine war. The Military Industrial Complex has provided us with a familiar comic book justification, like they do on every war. At this one is a noble effort to stop a super villain, Vladimir Putin, invading the Ukraine, and then to thwart his Hitler like march across Europe.

In fact, tiny Ukraine is a proxy in a geopolitical struggle, initiated by the ambitions of the US neocons or American global hegemony. I’m not excusing Putin for invading Ukraine. He had other options. The war is Russia’s predictable response to the reckless neocon project of extending NATO to encircle Russia, a hostile act.

The credulous media rarely explained to Americans that we unilaterally walked away from two Intermediate Nuclear Weapons treaties with Russia and then put nuclear where any ages missile systems in Romania and Poland. This is a hostile, hostile act the white the and that the Biden White House repeatedly spurned Russia’s offer to settle this war peacefully.

Ukraine war began in 2014 when US agencies overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a hand picked pro Western government that launched a deadly civil war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In 2019 America walked away from a peace treaty, the Minsk agreement, that had been negotiated between Russia and Ukraine by European nations.

And then in April of 2022 we wanted the war. In April of 2022 President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelensky to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed, and the Russians were withdrawing troops Kyiv and Donbas and Luhansk.

And that peace agreement would have brought peace to the region, and would have allowed Donbas and Luhansk to remain part of Ukraine. President Biden stated that month that this object, that his objective in the war was regime change in Russia, his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin simultaneously explained that America’s purpose in the war was to exhaust the Russian army, to degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world.

These objectives, of course, have nothing to do with what they were telling Americans about protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. Ukraine is a victim in this war, and it’s a victim of the West. Since then, we end of Russia, and both Russia and the West.

Since then, we have since tearing up that agreement, forcing Zelensky to tear up the agreement, we’ve squandered the flower of Ukrainian youth, as many as 600,000 Ukrainian kids and over 100,000 Russian kids, none of whom, all of whom we should be mourning, have died, and the Ukraine’s infrastructure is destroyed. The war has been a disaster for our country as well. We squandered nearly $200 billion already, and these are badly needed dollars in our communities, suffering communities all over our country.

The Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and the sanctions have destroyed Europe’s industrial base, which form the bulwark of us, national security, a strong Germany with a strong industry is a much, much stronger deterrent to Russia, and a Germany that is is deindustrialized and turned into a just an extension of US military base, we push Russia into a disastrous alliance with China and Iran were closer to the brink of nuclear exchange than at any time since 1962 and the neocons and the White House don’t seem to care at all. Our moral authority and our economy are in shambles, and the war gave rise to the emergence of brics, which now threatens to replace the dollar as the global reserve currency.

This is a first class calamity for our country. Judging by her bellicose, belligerent speech last night in Chicago, we can assume that President Harris will be an enthusiastic advocate for this and other neocon military adventures, and President Trump says that he will reopen negotiations with President Putin and end the war overnight as soon as he becomes president, this alone would justify my support for his campaign.

Last summer, it looked like no candidate was willing to negotiate a quick end of the Ukraine war, to tackle chronic disease epidemic, to protect free speech, our constitutional freedoms, to clean corporate influence out of our government, or to defy the neocons and their agenda of endless military adventurism. Yes, but now one of the two candidates has adopted these issues as his own, to the point where he has asked to enlist me in his administration. I’m speaking of course, of Donald Trump.

Less than two hours after President Trump narrowly escaped assassination. Calley Means called me on my cell phone I was then in Las Vegas. Calley is arguably the leading advocate for food safety, for soil regeneration and for ending the chronic disease epidemic that is destroying America’s health and ruining our economy. Calley has exposed the insidious corruption at the FDA and the NIH, the HHS and the USDA that has caused the epidemic.

Calley had been working on and off for my campaign, advising me on those subjects since the beginning, and those subjects have been my primary focus for the last 20 years, I was delighted when Calley told me that day that he had also been advising President Trump.

He told me, President Trump was anxious to talk to me about chronic disease and other subjects and to explore avenues of cooperation. He asked if I would take a call from the President. President Trump telephoned me a few minutes later, and I met with him the following day.

A few weeks later, I met again with President Trump and his family members and closest advisers in Florida in a series of long, intense discussions. I was surprised to discover that we are aligned on many key issues.

In those meetings, he suggested that we join forces as a Unity Party. We talked about Abraham Lincoln’s Team of Rivals. That arrangement would allow us to disagree publicly and privately and furiously, if need be on issues over which we differ while working together on the existential issues upon which we are in concordance.

I was a ferocious critic of many of the policies during his first administration. There are still issues and approaches upon which we continue to have very serious differences. Still, we are aligned with each other on other key issues, like ending the Forever wars, ending the childhood disease epidemics, securing the border, protecting freedom of speech, unraveling the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, getting the US intelligence agencies out of the business of propagandizing and censoring and surveilling Americans and interfering with Our elections.

Following my first discussion with President Trump, I tried unsuccessfully to open similar discussions with Vice President Harris. Vice President Harris declined to meet or even to speak with me. Suspending my candidacy is a hard rending decision for me, and I’m convinced that it’s the best hope for ending the Ukraine war and ending the chronic disease epidemic that is eroding our nation’s vitality from the inside, and for finally, protecting free speech.

I feel a moral obligation to use this opportunity to save millions of American children above all things. In case, some of you don’t realize how dire the condition is our children’s health and chronic disease in general, I would urge you to view Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Calley means and his sister, Dr Casey means, who is the top graduate of her class at Stanford Medical School.

This is an issue that affects all of us far more directly and urgently than any culture war issue and all the other issues that we obsess on and that are tearing apart our country, this is the most important issue, therefore it has the potential to bring us together.

So let me share a little bit about why I believe it’s so urgent today, we spend more on health care than any country on Earth, twice what they pay in Europe, and yet we have the worst health outcomes of any nation the world.

We’re about 79th and health outcomes behind Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mongolia and other countries. Nobody has a chronic disease burden like we have. And during a covid epidemic, we had the highest body count of any country in the world. We had 16% of the covid deaths, and we only have 4.2% of the world’s population. And CDC says that’s because we are the sickest people on Earth.

We have the highest chronic disease rate on earth, and the average American who died covid had 3.8 chronic diseases. So these were people who had immune system collapse, who had mitochondrial dysfunction, and no other country has anything like this. Two thirds of American adults and children suffer from chronic health issues 50 years ago, that. Number was less than 1%

Oh, we’ve gone from 1% to to 66% in America. 74% of Americans are now overweight or obese, and 50% of our children 120 years ago, when somebody was obese. They were. They were sent to the circus. They were literally there were case reports done about them.

Obesity was almost unknown in Japan, childhood obesity rate is 3% compared to 50% a year. Half of Americans have pre-diabetes or type two diabetes. When my uncle was president, I was a boy, juvenile diabetes was effectively non existent.

A typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes during his entire career, a 40 or 50 year career today, one out of every three kids who walks through his office door is diabetic or pre-diabetic, and the mitochondrial disorder caused diabetes, also causing Alzheimer’s, which is now classified as diabetes, and it’s causing this country more than our military budget.

Every year there’s been an explosion of neurological illnesses that I never saw as a kid, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, Tourette’s Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, Asperger’s, Autism. In the year 2000, the Autism rate was one in 1500. Now, autism rates in kids are one in 36, according to CDC; nationally, nobody’s talking about this.

Image source

One in every 22 kids in California has Autism, and this is a crisis that 77% of our kids cannot are too disabled to serve in the United States military. What is happening to our country, and why isn’t this in the headlines every single day?

There’s nobody else in the world that is experiencing this. This is only happening in America about 18% and by the way, you know there has been no change in diagnosis, which the industry sometimes like to say there has been no change in screening.

This is a change in incidents. In my generation, 70-year-old men, the autism rates are about one in 10,000. In my kids’ generation, one in 34. I’ll repeat in California, one and 22. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we allowing this to happen to our children?

These are the most precious assets that we have in this country. How can we let this happen to them? About 18% of American teens now have fatty liver disease. That’s like one out of every five that disease when I was a kid, only affected late stage alcoholics who were elderly, cancer rates are skyrocketing, and the young and the old, young adult cancers are up 70 79%,

One in four American women is on antidepressant medication. 40% of teams have a mental teens have a mental health diagnosis, and 15% of high schoolers are on Adderall, and half a million children on SSRIs.

So what’s causing this suffering? I’ll name two culprits, first and the worst is ultra processed food. About 70% of American children’s diet is ultra processed that means industrial manufactured in a factory. These foods consist primarily of processed sugar, ultra-processed grains, and seed oils.

Laboratory scientists who form many of them formerly worked for the cigarette industry, which purchased all the big food companies in the 1970s and 80s, deployed 1000s of scientists to figure out chemicals, new chemicals, to make the food more addictive. And these ingredients didn’t exist 100 years ago. They humans aren’t biologically adapted to eat them.

Hundreds of these chemicals are now banned in Europe, but ubiquitous in American processed foods. The second culprit is toxic chemicals in our food, our medicine, in our environment, pesticides, food additives, pharmaceutical drugs and toxic waste permeate every cell of our bodies.

These assault on our children’s cells and hormones is unrelenting and name just one problem, many of these chemicals increase estrogen because young. Children are ingesting so many of these hormone disruptors. America’s puberty rate is now occurring at age 10 to 13, which is six years earlier than girls were reaching puberty in 1900 our country has the earliest puberty rates of any continent on the earth.

And no, this isn’t because of better nutrition is not normal. Breast cancer is also estrogen driven, and now strikes one in eight women. We are mass poisoning all of our children and our adults, considering the grievous human cause of this tragic epidemic of chronic disease, it seems almost crass to mention the damage it does to our economy, but I’ll say it is crippling the nation’s finances.

When my uncle was President, our country has spent $0 on chronic disease. Today, government health care spending is almost all for chronic disease, and it’s double the military budget, and it is the fastest budget, a growing budget item in the federal budget, chronic disease costs more to the economy as a whole, cost at least $4,000,000,000,000. 5 times our military budget.

And that’s a 20% drag on everything we do and everything we aspire to. Or in minority communities suffer disproportionately people who worry about DEI or about, you know, bigotry of any kind, this dwarfs anything. We are poisoning the poor. We are systematically poisoning minorities across this country.

Industry lobbyists have made sure that most of the food stamp lunch program, about 70% of food stamps and 70 or 77% of school lunches are processed foods. There’s no vegetables. There’s nothing that you would want to eat. We are just poisoning the poorest citizens, and that’s why they have the highest chronic disease burden of anybody, any demographic, in our country, and the highest in the world.

The same food industry lobbied to make sure that nearly all agricultural subsidies owed to commodity crops that are the feedstock of the processed food industry. These policies are destroying small farms, and they’re destroying our soils. We give, we give about, I think, eight times as much in subsidies to tobacco and we do to fruits and vegetables.

It makes no sense if we want a healthy country. The good news is that we can change all this. We can change it very, very quickly. America can get healthy again. To do that, we need to do three things.

First, we need to root out the corruption in our health agencies. Second, we need to change incentives in our health care system. And third, we need to inspire Americans to get healthy again.

Eighty percent of NIH grants go to people who have conflicts of interest. These are the people, virtually all of them. Joe Biden just appointed a new panel to NIH to decide the food recommendations, and they’re all people who are from the industry. They’re all people who are from the processed food companies. They’re deciding what Americans you know here is healthy and the recommendations on the food pyramid and the Rec and what goes to our school lunch programs, which go, what go to the, you know, the program, the Swiss program, the Food Stamp programs.

They are all corrupted and conflicted individuals. These agencies—the FDA, USDA, and CDC—are all controlled by giant for-profit corporations. Seventy-five percent of the FDA funding doesn’t come from taxpayers; it comes from pharma, and pharma executives, consultants, and lobbyists cycle in and out of these agencies.

With President Trump’s backing, I’m going to change that. We’re going to staff these agencies with honest scientists and doctors who are free from industry funding. We’re going to make sure the decisions of consumers, doctors and patients are informed by unbiased science. A sick child is the best thing for the pharmaceutical industry on American children or adults get sick with a chronic condition, they’re put on medications for their entire life.

Imagine what happened when. Medicare starts paying for Ozempic, which costs $1,500 a month, and it’s being recommended for children as young as six. To offer it for the condition of obesity that is completely preventable and barely even existed 100 years ago, and 74% of Americans are obese.

The cost if all of them took their Ozempic prescription is $3 trillion a year. This is a drug that is made by Novo Nordisk, the biggest company in Europe. It’s a Danish company, and the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends change in diet to treat obesity and exercise.

And in our country, the recommendation now is for ozempic to children at age six. Novo Nordisk is the biggest company in Europe, and virtually its entire value is based upon its projections of what it’s going to sell, of the ozempic it’s going to sell to America and we have the food lobbyists have a bill in front of Congress today that is backed by the White House, backed by Vice President Harris and President Biden to allow this to happen, this $3 trillion cost that is going to bankrupt our country.

We for a fraction of that amount, we could buy organic food for every American family three meals a day, and eliminate diabetes altogether. We’re we’re going to bring healthy food back to school lunches. We’re going to stop subsidizing the worst foods with our agricultural subsidies. We’re going to get toxic chemicals out of our food we’re going to reform the entire food system, and for that, we need new leadership in Washington, because unfortunately, both the Democrats and the Republican parties are in cahoots with the big food producers, Big Pharma and big ag, which are among the DNC’s major donors.

Image is from Flickr

Vice President Harris has expressed no interest in addressing this issue. Four more years of democratic rule will complete the consolidation of corporate and neocon power, and our children will be the ones who suffer most.

I got involved with chronic disease 20 years ago, not because I chose to or wanted to. It was essentially thrust upon me. It was an issue that should have been central to the environmental movement. I was a central leader at that time, but it was widely ignored by all the institutions, including the NGOs, who should have been protecting our kids against toxins.

It was an orphaned issue, and I had a weakness for orphans. I watched generations of children get sicker and sicker. I had 11 siblings and I had seven kids myself. I was conscious of what was happening in their classrooms and to their friends, and I watched these Sick Kids, these damaged kids in that generation, almost all of them are damaged, and nobody in power seemed to care or to even notice.

For 19 years, I prayed every morning that God would put me in a position to end this calamity. The Chronic Disease crisis was one of the primary reasons for my running for president, along with ending censorship in the Ukraine war, it’s the reason I’ve made the heart-wrenching decision to suspend my campaign, and to support President Trump.

This decision is agonizing for me because of the difficulties it causes my wife and my children and my friends, but I have the certainty that this is what I’ve meant to do, and that certainty gives me internal peace, even in storms. If I’m given the chance to fix the Chronic Disease crisis and reform our food production, I promise that within two years, we will watch chronic disease burden lift dramatically.

We will make Americans healthy again. Within four years, America will be a healthy country. We will be stronger, more resilient, more optimistic and happier. I won’t fail in doing this.

Ultimately, the future, however it happens, is in God’s hands and in the hands of the American voters and those of President Trump.

If President Trump is elected and honors his word, the vast burden of chronic disease that now demoralizes and bankrupts the country will disappear. This is a spiritual journey for me, I reached my decision through deep prayer, through hard-nosed logic, and I asked myself, What choices must I make to maximize my chances to save America’s children and restore national health?

I felt that if I refused this opportunity, I would not be. To look myself in the mirror, knowing that I could have saved lives of countless children and reversed this country’s chronic disease epidemic. I’m 70 years old. I may have a decade to be effective.

I can’t imagine that President Harris, a president Harris, would allow me or anyone, to solve these, these dire problems. After eight years of President Harris, any opportunity for me to fix the problem will be out of my reach forever.

President Trump has told me that he wants this to be his legacy. I’m choosing to believe that this time he will follow through on this, his biggest donors, his closest friends and all support this objective.

My joining the Trump campaign will be a difficult sacrifice or my wife and children, but worthwhile if there’s even a small chance of saving these kids. Ultimately, the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other.

That’s why I launched my campaign to unify America.

My dad and uncle made such an enduring mark on the character of our nation, not so much because of any particular policies that they promoted, but because they were able to inspire profound love for our country and to fortify our sense of ourselves as a national community held together by ideals.

They were able to put their love into the intentions and hearts of ordinary Americans and to unify a national populist movement of Americans: blacks and whites, Hispanics, urban and rural Americans, and inspired affection and love and high hopes and a culture of kindness that continue to radiate among Americans from their memory.

That’s the spirit on which I ran my campaign, and that I intend to bring into the campaign of President Trump. Instead of vitriol and polarization, I will appeal to the values that unite us, the goals that we could achieve if only we weren’t at each other’s throats.

Most unifying theme for all Americans is that we all love our children, if we all unite around that issue now, we can finally give them the protection, health, and the future that they deserve.

Thank you all very much. Thank.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Featured image source

If you’re not on social media, you’ve likely spent ten and a half months blissfully unaware of an extremely freakish but very common phenomenon in which Israel’s supporters respond to images and videos of dead and mutilated children in Gaza by babbling about the Israeli hostages being held there by Hamas.

Whenever you see someone sharing raw footage of the most horrific thing imaginable being inflicted upon someone who couldn’t possibly have done anything to deserve it, and someone in the replies yelling “RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!”, it’s important to be clear what they’re saying.

 

Click here for an enlarged view

 

What they are saying is that they believe Israel should murder children, decapitate them, rip their guts out, dismember them, mutilate them, burn them alive, every single day, until its military demands are submitted to. They are also probably saying that they personally would help Israel do these things to children if circumstances permitted.

They are saying they are fully on board with killing, decapitating, eviscerating, dismembering, mutilating and incinerating small children every day until the hostages are released.

They are saying this despite the mountains upon mountains of evidence that what’s being done in Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with releasing the hostages.

They are saying this despite the mountains upon mountains of evidence that the IDF has been killing and injuring Israeli hostages with its attacks on Gaza.

They are saying this despite the mountains upon mountains of evidence that Netanyahu is doing everything he can to sabotage a hostage deal while the genocide in Gaza continues.

They are saying this despite the fact that Israel holds thousands of Palestinians hostage under “administrative detention” without due process, and while Israel holds millions of Palestinians hostage in the giant extermination camp known as Gaza.

And they are saying this despite the mountains upon mountains of evidence that Israeli forces are raping, mutilating and torturing Palestinian hostages in torture dungeons as a matter of policy.

It’s important to be aware that this is what they are saying because it’s important to be aware of who Israel’s defenders and supporters really are. These are not normal people. These are not people with healthy minds, with functioning empathy centers in their brains. There is something deeply, profoundly wrong with who they are and how they are.

It’s important to be aware of this because otherwise you might fall into the trap of thinking this issue must be more complicated than it looks, and the interpretation of what we are seeing in Gaza must be a matter of subjective opinion. No, that’s not true at all. What’s happening in Gaza is very simple and straightforward, and is exactly what it immediately and obviously looks like to anyone who beholds it through the lens of conscience and basic human empathy.

The reason for all the debate and disagreement you are seeing about Gaza has nothing to do with complexity or nuance, and everything to do with some very warped and damaged minds lacking the fundamental faculties that cause normal people to care about other human beings.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Featured image source

On July 31, Russian border guards left the territory of the Zvartnots International Airport (around 15 km west of Yerevan), where they served for the past 32 years. Moscow’s FSB, which is tasked with guarding borders in both Russia and Armenia, is still one of the main reasons why the latter’s border with NATO member Turkey has been stable for decades. As part of long-term security agreements between Moscow and Yerevan, Russian border guards were also deployed at Zvartnots, helping their Armenian colleagues for over three decades. However, ever since the unfortunate South Caucasus country was hijacked by the NATO-backed Pashinyan regime back in 2018, it’s been nothing but one disaster after another for one of the oldest civilizations in known history.

In just he undermined Armenia’s alliance with Russia, but also failed to protect Artsakh (better known as Nagorno-Karabakh), a millennia-old native Armenian land that’s now been virtually depopulated. While Azeri occupation forces were ethnically cleansing civilians from Artsakh and destroying whatever’s left of Armenia’s magnificent past in this historic area, Pashinyan was busy blaming Russia for not going to war with Azerbaijan, something that he himself refused to do for the sake of his own people. And yet, the virtually imminent fall of Stepanakert, the small Armenian republic’s capital city, was prevented precisely by Moscow, which sent peacekeepers and stopped Azeri troops from conquering the entirety of Artsakh.

For the next three years, Russian troops were the only thing standing between the Azeri military and the remaining population of native Armenians.

However, instead of building closer ties with Russia to ensure that whatever was left of Artsakh survives, Pashinyan focused on building phantom “alliances” with the political West, particularly after the latter escalated its crawling aggression against Moscow.

The Kremlin was left with a rather difficult choice – either help its historical ally which was (slowly but surely) turning into anything but, or leave Yerevan to its own devices so as not to risk derailing the strategically important rapprochement with Ankara and Baku.

Pashinyan kept making one anti-Russian move after another, ignoring requests to help prevent the complete fall of Artsakh.

Faced with a hostile Western supported government, Armenia slowly being pulled into the orbit of US-NATO.

the Kremlin couldn’t do much to save Artsakh apart from going to war with Azerbaijan in the middle of the special military operation (SMO).

Not only would this be yet another warzone that the political West would’ve exploited to the maximum, but it would’ve also pushed Turkey firmly into the anti-Russian camp, resulting in a potential frontline stretching from Azerbaijan to Norway.

As yet another unfortunate victim of NATO’s game of chess in the post-Soviet space (and beyond), Artsakh and the native Armenians paid the ultimate price of Pashinyan’s treachery. To add insult to injury, he was busy planning a Snoop Dogg concert at the time.

However, the NATO-backed Sorosite regime in Yerevan keeps escalating anti-Russian and anti-Armenian moves. The people of Armenia have now been effectively turned into guinea pigs thanks to Pashinyan allowing the Pentagon to station biolabs in the country, including in the vicinity of Russian military bases. Worse yet, there’s been a massive increase in American military presence in the country. Just days after the FSB border guards left the Zvartnots International Airport, US soldiers arrived. According to Flightradar24, on August 2 and 3, two C-17 “Globemaster” heavy-lift military transport aircraft landed at Zvartnots. Some sources claim that anywhere between 30 and 50 American troops arrived in Armenia and were soon sent to the critically important Syunik region.

Azeri media also reported that the US servicemen were deployed “at a military base in Zangezur”. This term has become increasingly popular among pan-Turkists, as both Turkey and Azerbaijan are openly planning to establish what they call the Zangezur corridor which would go through the south of the Syunik, giving Baku direct access to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.

A tiny, 17 km long border with Turkey in this area would give Ankara unimpeded access to Azerbaijan precisely through this so-called Zangezur corridor, and by extension, to Central Asia. The Turkish ruling elite believes this could jumpstart its geopolitical wet dream of establishing a direct link with the critically important former Soviet Central Asia and expanding Ankara’s influence all the way to Xinjiang.

The deployment of American troops in this area is an extremely dangerous development, particularly if reports about their activities close to the Iranian border are true. Namely, according to military sources, the Pentagon also sent specialists equipped with advanced ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) equipment meant to be deployed along the border with Iran. The US troops would then have a unique opportunity to directly observe the Iranian military deployed in the region, as well as to monitor its missile systems. If this is true, it would be a major escalation on the part of Yerevan and would likely destroy its previously good relations with Tehran. This would come at a time when Armenia is completely surrounded by enemies, with the obvious exception of Georgia.

However, Yerevan’s northern neighbor is making increasingly sovereigntist moves and is becoming quite “non-compliant” with the political West diktat. This could leave Armenia completely isolated, with the Russian military deployed in the country being the only obstacle to its total destruction by the Neo-Ottomanist/Pan-Turkist neighbors. Russian bases in Goris and Sisian are still the only guarantee that Azerbaijan and Turkey won’t make a move on the Syunik and establish their much-desired Zangezur corridor. Speaking of which, it shouldn’t be excluded that the US wants to control this area precisely for this reason. Enabling the corridor would invariably pit Turkey against the multipolar world, as its imperialist delusions of grandeur would inevitably bring instability to Central Asia.

Thus, Pashinyan is not only enabling the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel to undermine the much-needed dismantling of the so-called “rules-based world order”, but he’s also destroying Armenia’s one remaining strategic option. Namely, Yerevan has been building closer ties with India, perhaps the sole decent move of the Pashinyan regime. This includes the acquisition of weapons from Delhi. Iran was crucial in the implementation of this strategy, but with the deployment of US troops in Syunik, Pashinyan managed to destroy Armenia’s last option besides Russia.

Such strategic idiocy (to put it mildly) can only be expected from a Sorosite working against the interests of his country. Armenia’s survival under this sort of “leadership” can only be described as sheer luck (or perhaps nothing short of divine intervention). However, basing one’s survival on luck alone cannot even be considered a strategy and it’s only a matter of time before it runs out. As I’ve stated before, Pashinyan’s resignation certainly wouldn’t resolve Armenia’s problems, but it would be a darn good start.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

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 is from InfoBrics

The following text contains some premium conspiracy theories on the subject of “monkeypox”. At least that’s what those who believe in what the TV tells them would claim. But because almost all of the old conspiracy theories have come true in the meantime, we are now getting a new supply:

As you probably know, the WHO has already issued the highest global health alert for monkeypox (Mpox) last week, although the spread is only limited to some regions of Africa.

You probably also know that a simulation game on the topic of “monkeypox” took place at the Munich Security Conference in 2021. One of the participants was Jeremy Farrar, the then director of the billion-dollar health foundation “Wellcome Trust” (funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others). As luck would have it, Farrar has been Chief Scientist at the WHO since last year.

At the end of 2023, BioNTech enters into a strategic partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). CEPI was founded in Davos in 2016 (WEF sends its regards) and is an alliance of the WHO, the EU Commission, individual governments, pharmaceutical companies, (private) donors and foundations. The “Wellcome Trust”, the Gates Foundation and the UN stand out in the 2024 investor overview.

In May 2024, BioNTech and CEPI announced that they are expanding their portfolio for mRNA vaccines – including vaccines against Mpox. At the same time, the monkeypox vaccine “Imvanex” from “Bavarian Nordic” is already being produced in Denmark and is the only one to be approved in both the EU and the USA.

So much for the crystal-clear facts. If you want to find out more, here is a good place to start.

In the meantime, during my own research, I came across further, rather disturbing information:

Did you know that the Austrian Red Cross (Tyrol section) for example, is now looking for new employees for vaccination centers? The tasks include managing patient flows, preparing barcodes and vaccination certificates as well as carrying out mobile vaccinations. Applicants are expected to be “assertive”, among other things. From the end of September, the new employees will receive a gross salary of around €2,450 per month at their place of work in Vienna.

BioNTech previously announced in the German business newspaper Handelsblatt that they expect 90 percent of their total sales to be generated by the end of 2024. 

Currently, BioNTech is building its first commercial African vaccine factory in Rwanda. The focus here also includes mRNA vaccines against Mpox.

Some old acquaintances traveled to the opening: EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock gave themselves the dubious honor.

Incidentally, Germany is supporting the development of the vaccine production in Rwanda with almost 36 million euros of German taxpayers’ money.

Dear readers, do you believe in coincidences?

I DO NOT!

Christine Margarete Anderson is a German politician who has been serving as a Member of the European Parliament since 2019.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Featured image is from Christine Anderson

In a video uploaded by Democratic Party strategist Simon Rosenberg in 2023, Tim Durigan, the DNC’s lead disinformation analyst, shares a PowerPoint with a sample intelligence report that provides a rare inside look at what the DNC sees as “disinformation”.

.

.

 

 

The “Cognitive decline” disinformation intelligence report lists content the DNC calls “out of context” & “deceptive”. But nearly every video and article listed is factual reporting, while the rest is opinion & comedy. Let’s go through each example, 1 by 1.

 

 

 

The DNC 1st lists @dbongino’s @rumblevideo, “Joe Biden SNAPS at Reporter When Asked About Hunter—He’s Losing It”. It’s a real clip of Biden aggressively denying any controversy involving Hunter. Today, NYT shows if anyone was spreading disinfo, it was Biden, not Bongino.

The Sun’s “Joe Biden mixes up Donald Trump with George Bush” video clip is also real and accurate. Incredibly, WaPo claimed Biden meant host George Lopez, when he warned of “4 more years of George”. Bush was the last ‘George’ to serve 4 years in the White House. Not Lopez…

 

 

 

@DonaldJTrumpJr’s post sharing the same authentic clip also made the DNC’s “disinformation” list.

 

 

@BreitbartNews is on the DNC “disinformation” slide with the article “Joe Biden Refers to Doug Emhoff as ‘Kamala’s Wife’”. “My wife Jill…and Doug Emhoff, uh, Kamala’s wife,” Biden mumbled. Biden didn’t correct himself. There’s no deceptive editing in the video or article.

 

 

PJ Media: “Joe’s Freudian Sniff? Joe Biden Just Said He’s Got a Great ‘VOTER FRAUD Organization’ Going” Again, contrary to the DNC slide, this so-called “disinformation” headline is 100% accurate. Biden said this on the Pod Save America podcast and never corrected himself.

 

 

“Biden says in video he has created ‘voter fraud organization'”, is a perfectly accurate @FoxNews headline. The subhead even explicitly labels Biden’s verbal gaffe a “mistake”. But, once again the true reporting was placed on the DNC’s “disinformation” list.

 

 

The DNC also put @RealDonaldTrump’s comedic “Prevent a Zombie Uprising” ad in its “disinformation” list but anyone who hasn’t had their brain eaten by zombies can see it’s clearly satire.

The DNC lists another Trump ad as “disinformation” for simply juxtaposing past Biden clips with clips of the slower Biden in the present.

Despite calling accurate reporting on Biden’s brain decline “deceptive” & “disinformation” for 5 years straight, Party elites themselves pushed Biden to drop out after his last braindead debate in June. But the DNC’s war on “disinformation” continues.

After his slideshow, Durigan raised the issue of “misinformation” in Latino, Black, & Asian communities. To police discourse in the minority groups, the DNC is working to “build out an apparatus” to infiltrate their “private communications spaces”.

In addition to “social listening” (domestic surveillance) and intelligence reports, the DNC operative says the disinformation program provides Democrat campaigns with PR suggestions so they can focus on “what they really need to be doing, which is, you know, raising money…”

Whoa! Speaking of money, please support me at and follow me here on X where I expose the real disinformers!

 

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

[Former] President Donald Trump has declared that the “Drug Cartels” in Mexico are terrorists, intimating that America should wage a new “war on terrorism” in Mexico modelled on America’s counter-terrorism initiative in the Middle East against Al Qaeda.

What do the Mexican Drug Cartels and Al Qaeda have in common? They are covertly supported by US intelligence. They serve US interests.

Below Dean Henderson’s carefully researched article on the Mexican Drug Cartels first published in 2013.

***

 

By the time George W. Bush moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2001, his Harken Energy scam had been brushed under the dirty rug that passes for history.  But his allegiance to Big Banking and the Houston oil giants never wavered.

Bush stressed the importance of Latin America throughout his campaign and touted his Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed with Canada and Mexico in the 1990’s.  FTAA would create a free trade zone from the Yukon to Tierra del Fuego and would be a Big Oil bonanza.  One of its biggest promoters was Bechtel.

Oil began frequenting the offices of PEMEX – the Mexican national oil company.  Thomas Clines’ and Ted Shackley’s Houston-based API Distributors sold PEMEX oil drilling equipment and gathered intelligence for Big Oil.  Deals proceeded, including one that called for PEMEX to keep the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve fully stocked.  Exxon bought Mexico’s Compania General de Lubricantes in 1991. [1]

The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), would create a free trade zone from the Yukon to Tierra del Fuego and would be a Big Oil bonanza. One of its biggest promoters was Bechtel.

Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox, former Coca-Cola executive who owns a vast commercial farming empire, before meeting any other foreign head of state.  While Bush touted FTAA, Fox hyped his Puebla to Panama free trade scheme for Central America.  Key to the latter plan is construction of a dry canal across the Tehauntepec Isthmus from the oil port of Coatzacoalas on the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific port of Salina Cruz.  Financial backing for the plan is pledged by the World Bank, World Trade Organization and US Treasury Department. [2]

The plan would set up maquiladoras in southern Mexico, just as Fox’s predecessor Ernesto Zedillo had done along the US-Mexican border following the 1995 implementation of NAFTA.  Increasing worker demands and labor unrest at the northern plants had multinationals looking south. Wages there averaged 40% less and neighboring Guatemala could supply even cheaper labor.  By the end of 2002, ninety-two maquiladoras set up shop in southern Mexico.  The new canal would be their shipping outlet.

Another part of Puebla to Panama calls for Big Oil to move into the southern Mexico states of Tabasco and Chiapas, where a unique geological formation holds promising oil reserves and vast reserves of natural gas.  Funding is forthcoming for oil and gas pipelines which will service the petro-expansion.  Monsanto covets the incredible biodiversity of Chiapas in their quest to monopolize the world’s genetic resources. [3]

In 1993 indigenous revolutionaries calling themselves Emiliano Zapata Liberacion Nacional (EZLN) launched a brief offensive on the Chiapas capital of San Cristobal de las Casas.  The Zapatistas held the town for a short while, then retreated into the Lacondon jungle where their mysterious leader Subcommandante Marcos launched a sophisticated internet campaign blasting globalization and revealing the history of genocide which Indians throughout Mexico have suffered at the hands of the Mexican government, hacienda oligarchs and multinational corporations.

The Zapatistas took their name from Emiliano Zapata, who in the early 20th century launched guerrilla attacks against Four Horsemen oil facilities in Veracruz.  Zapata’s small band of revolutionaries gained massive public support, leading to the nationalization of the Mexican oil industry by President Lazaro Cardenas.  The Zapatistas resurrected the ghost of Emiliano Zapata and stood squarely in the path of Big Oil plans to seize Chiapas’ extensive oil and gas reserves.

Chase Manhattan Bank’s Mexico policy expert Riordan Roett penned a report advocating martial law in Mexico to attract foreign investors.  Roett singled out both the Zapatistas and democracy as obstacles, arguing that the Mexican government must, “eliminate the opposition in Chiapas and should consider carefully whether or not to allow opposition victories (even) if won fairly at the ballot box”. [4]

President Ernesto Zedillo heeded the Chase Manhattan call, sending 70,000 Mexican Army troops – one-third of all Mexican forces – into Chiapas, establishing de facto martial law in the region.

In December 1997 fifty-six Totil Indians were gunned down by paramilitaries trained by the Mexican Army at Atial refugee camp near Ocosingo. The massacre was part of a counterinsurgency program called the Chiapas Strategy Plan, which aimed to foment trouble among indigenous peoples.  The divide and conquer campaign was supervised by General Mario Ramon Castillo, magna cum laudegraduate in Counterinsurgency from the US Center for Special Forces at Fort Bragg. [5]

In 2001, with atrocities in Chiapas mounting, the Zapatistas led a caravan to Mexico City that grew bigger each kilometer.  They arrived 10,000 strong to cheering throngs of supporters. Marcos and other Zapatista leaders addressed an audience of over 100,000 people and lobbied (in ski masks) Mexico’s Congress.  They demanded implementation of the 1996 San Andres Accords, which promised to redress their grievances with the Mexican government.  One section known as the Autonomy Provisions gives tribes control over natural resources in their region, directly threatening Four Horsemen control over Chiapas oil and gas reserves.

Chase Manhattan Bank’s Mexico policy expert Riordan Roett penned a report advocating martial law in Mexico to attract foreign investors. Roett singled out both the Zapatistas and democracy as obstacles, arguing that the Mexican government must, “eliminate the opposition in Chiapas and should consider carefully whether or not to allow opposition victories (even) if won fairly at the ballot box”. [4]

Marcos insisted,

“There will be no plan, nor project, by anyone, that does not take us into account.  No Puebla-Panama Plan, no Trans-Isthmus Project, nor anything else that means the sale or destruction of the indigenous peoples’ home.  I am going to repeat this so they can hear us all the way in Cancun.”

Marcos was referring to a gathering of the World Economic Forum in Cancun, where Vicente Fox was glad-handing the Illuminati banking elite in hopes of obtaining funding for his grand scheme.

At least one Mexican governor said Marcos’ message had been heard loud and clear at the Mexican mega-resort – built for North American tourists at the expense of thousands of Yucatan peasants, who were sent packing when the gaudy Cancun resort was built.  The Governor explained, “Without being present, Marcos set the framework for the meeting…and the topics of Chiapas and the EZLN passed like ghosts through the hallways of the Westin Regency Hotel”. [6]

Albanian President Sali Berisha may have been IMF darling of Europe, but he couldn’t hold a candle to Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Elected in 1988 as candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) – which until the election of National Action Party (PAN) President Fox in 2000, held a four decade monopoly over the Mexican Presidency – Salinas lasted only one term. But in those six years he overturned decades of safeguards which Mexico had enacted to protect its national sovereignty from multinational prospectors.  And the people of Mexico were poorer for it.

 

Salinas de Gortiari, Bush Senior, Mulroney

Salinas came to power promising to raise the standard of living in Mexico and modernize the country.  But he was a tramp for international capital. His name became synonymous with corruption in the collective mind of Mexico. 

Salinas was implicated in the biggest drug trafficking scandal in Mexican history.  He was kicked out of Mexico and fled to the US, where he found a sympathetic crowd and a job as a member of the board of Dow Jones & Company, which publishes the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s.

Salinas wasn’t the first Mexican narco-dictator.  President Miguel Aleman allowed JFK’s Permindex assassins to be trained in Mexico.  Today he owns a big chunk of Acapulco, where the Canadian Pacific coca-express manages his hotel interests.  Aleman made a living trafficking in drugs through his TAMSA Group, Mexico’s fifth largest conglomerate.  The director of TAMSA is Bruno Pagliai, cousin of Princess Beatrice of the Italian House of Savoy.

Salinas was implicated in the biggest drug trafficking scandal in Mexican history. He was kicked out of Mexico and fled to the US, where he found a sympathetic crowd and a job as a member of the board of Dow Jones & Company, which publishes the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s.

Aleman’s personal banker was Max Schein of Banco Mercantil de Mexico, whose correspondent bank is Israel’s Bank Leumi – subsidiary of Silver Triangle power broker Barclays and financier of the Asquelon diamond trade.  Schein also chairs Sociedad Technion de Mexico, a branch of the Israel Technician Society (ITS), which serves as Mossad’s overseas scientific espionage arm.  British MI6 operative and Kennedy assassin Colonel Louis Mortimer Bloomfield is an ITS board member. [7]

Aleman aide Gonzalo Santos was a business partner of Alberto Sicilia Falcon, a Bay of Pigs and CIA Operation 40 veteran who was trained at Fort Jackson.  Falcon worked with Ted Shackley’s Trak II program in Chile, then moved to Mexico where he created an overnight empire moving Sinoalese heroin.  Business partners included Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana.  “Big Sam” fled to Mexico when the heat came down in the US, but Mexico agreed to extradite him to France.  Giancana was nabbed during a Houston stopover and murdered.  The Mexican Interior Ministry says the CIA killed him. [8]

The DEA sent agent Enrique Camarena and an elite special narcotics force to Mexico to help the government try to apprehend Sicilia Falcon.  Camarena was tortured and killed by Enterprise contra arms supplier/CIA Laos veteran Raphael Quintero when he got too close to Falcon.

When Falcon was arrested in 1975 he said he was working for the CIA and that part of his drug proceeds went to fund Latin American counter-revolutionary groups.  FBI documents revealed that the CIA had been trying to destabilize the government of Mexican President Luis Echevarria due to his nationalistic stance towards an IMF plan to privatize PEMEX on behalf of Big Oil. [9]

Salinas moved to dismember PEMEX, a symbol of Mexican pride since President Lazaro Cardenas, heeding the battle cry of Zapata, expropriated the assets of the Four Horsemen in 1938. [10]  The Gulf Coast city where PEMEX has its largest operations is named Lazaro Cardenas.

In 1992 Jose Manzo, chief of the Department of Liquid Gas & Polymers for the PEMEX international branch PMI, charged company officials with doing “damage to the natural resources” after PMI entered into shady contracts with Lyondell Petroleum, an ARCO subsidiary which is now part of BP Amoco. [11]  Salinas ignored Manzo, instead ordering the arrest of numerous leaders of the Oil & Petrochemical Workers Union (OPWU), who also saw a Four Horsemen takeover of PEMEX looming.  In 1989 OPWU leaders, including union head Joaquin Hernandez, were arrested at the Salina Cruz PEMEX refinery when they protested its privatization.

The Salinas family secrets began to see daylight following the March 23, 1994 assassination of PRI front-runner Luis Colosio at a PRI political rally in Tijuana.  Colosio had made overtures to the Zapatistas and railed against the privatization of Mexico’s economy over which Salinas presided.  He bucked the PRI old guard to emerge as front-runner through sheer charisma, but his increasingly populist rhetoric made the PRI dinosaurs nervous.

Baja State’s PRI Governor Xicotencatl Leyva was forced from office after it was found that he had opened up a Tijuana corridor for the Sinaloa-based Arrellano Felix drug cartel, which had taken over the Sicilia Falcon network.  Leyva’s expulsion was ordered by the Colosio reformist faction of PRI, which promised to clamp down on drug cartels.

On the day of his Tijuana rally, Colosio was surrounded by elite PRI bodyguard squadrons TUCAN and Grupo Omego.  La Culebra played on the sound system, its lyrics ringing out, “the snake is going to get you, better move your feet”.  A shot rang out.  Colosio was dead.  Vicente Mayoral, a member of TUCAN standing near Colosio, grabbed a 23-year-old mechanic named Mario Aburto and pronounced him the killer.  Aburto began screaming that he saw Mayoral pull the trigger.  Many in the crowd later corroborated his story.

When Falcon was arrested in 1975 he said he was working for the CIA and that part of his drug proceeds went to fund Latin American counter-revolutionary groups. FBI documents revealed that the CIA had been trying to destabilize the government of Mexican President Luis Echevarria due to his nationalistic stance towards an IMF plan to privatize PEMEX on behalf of Big Oil . [9]

Stories were planted in the Mexican media that Aburto had connections with the Zapatistas.  Salinas used the rumors to order a massive military deployment into Chiapas.  President Clinton extended a $6.5 billion credit line to Salinas within 24 hours of the assassination.  Tijuana Police Chief Federico Benitez took charge of the investigation.  Within days he was gunned down at Tijuana’s Airport, less than five minutes from where Colosio had been shot.

Years later Special Prosecutor Miguel Montes revealed the final results of his investigation.  He found that four members of TUCAN, including Vicente Mayoral, were involved in the Colosio assassination.  TUCAN boss and PRI Security Chief Rodolfo Rivapalacios was implicated – described by the report as a, “well-known torturer”.  He had received a check from deposed PRI Baja Governor Leyva on the morning of the assassination.  Montes’ report stated that CISEN, a top-secret Mexican Interior Department police unit with CIA ties, may have been involved.  Rivapalacios, the only official to get jail time, was released from prison after serving only one month. [12]

Ernesto Zedillo – another in a line of IMF subordinates – became the new PRI front-runner.  Zedillo faced a serious challenge from Cuahtemec Cardenas of the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), which had the support of the oil unions and has long been the party of Mexican workers and peasants.

The 1994 Presidential vote was close, but from their windowless Barranca del Muerto (Ravine of Death) vote-counting dungeon in Mexico City, the PRI made sure Zedillo emerged victorious.  According to the Mexican business newspaper El Financiero, the PRI complex has two separate vote-count systems on its Unisys mainframe computer.  One system reflects the actual vote count.  The other is automatically stacked in favor of the PRI candidate.  In both 1988 and 1994 electoral fraud was rampant.

The PRI launched campaigns of intimidation during both elections.  Cardenas had run against Carlos Salinas in 1988. During both campaigns his chief aides were gunned down just prior to the elections.  In 1994 an election monitoring group called the Civil Alliance had its members terrorized.

Member Amando Avendano was invited to a PRI function in Tuxla Gutierez.  En route with three other members, his car was run off the road by a 75-ton Kenworth truck.  His three passengers died. Avendano was in a coma for six months.  The driver of the truck left the scene and was never found. Mexican police declared the ordeal an accident.  PRD President Munoz Ledos’ son was kidnapped prior to the 1994 election and a student leader whose group supported Cardenas was kidnapped and tortured. [13]  PRI candidate Zedillo narrowly won the 1994 election.

In 1995, just as NAFTA kicked in, the Mexican peso was severely devalued making maquiladora labor even cheaper for multinational corporations. Mexico’s banking system was privatized. State-run industries were given away to US multinationals in return for debt relief from international bankers through a flurry of crooked debt-equity swaps.

In December 1994 the Mexican stock market crashed, precipitating the Mexican debt crisis.  In 1995, just as NAFTA kicked in, the Mexican peso was severely devalued making maquiladora labor even cheaper for multinational corporations.  Mexico’s banking system was privatized. State-run industries were given away to US multinationals in return for debt relief from international bankers through a flurry of crooked debt-equity swaps.

President Jose Lopez Portillo had nationalized Mexico’s banking system in 1982, citing the international bankers’ betrayal of Mexico through encouragement of flight capital from the Mexican elite.  Lopez Portillo stated that the IMF remedy was to “deprive the patient of food”.

The international bankers received a $50 million front-end fee just for sitting down to negotiate with debt-ridden Mexico.  JP Morgan Chase and Citibank handled the debt negotiations, led by Citibank insider William Rhodes.  The US Treasury kicked in $50 billion to get the bankers off the hook, allowing them to pass their Mexican losses on to US taxpayers, while taking ownership of Mexican companies.  One part of the secret deal ensured the Four Horsemen a 15% discount on all future Mexican crude oil purchases. [14]

PEMEX was looted and the money stashed away in those same US banks.  One debt-equity swap saw the Rockefeller-controlled ASARCO, one of the biggest mining companies in the world and long-time Chase client, awarded the Mexican National Cement Company and other state mineral assets in exchange for a debt write-off from Chase.

ASARCO has a lead mining subsidiary in Peru known as Southern Peru Copper.  During the 1980’s there were allegations in the Montana press that Southern Peru was shuttling more than just lead to ASARCO’s East Helena, MT lead smelter.  Lead ore is a favorite of drug smugglers due to its opaque nature.  Workers at ASARCO’s Hayden and Globe, Arizona smelters claim to have witnessed cocaine being processed there.  Both smelters and two more at Morenci, AZ and Silver City, NM sit on the 33rd parallel.

The Mexican people, who wanted to believe Salinas’ promises of better days, were now more disillusioned than ever.  The now-bankrupt middle class joined the protests of the poor, creating the radical 1 million strong Barzonistas.  JP Morgan and World Bank President Lewis Preston may not have known he was echoing the comments of Mexican nationalist Jose Lopez-Portillo when he said of the 1990’s Mexican debt negotiations, “Deprivation of the population they were prepared to do.”

The Mexican people’s bout with disillusionment had only just begun.  The economy headed further south in 1999 with the US stock market crash. And Colosio’s assassination was just the tip of the iceberg in exposing PRI ties to the drug trade.  In the mid 1980s forty-five Mexican police officers were given lie detector tests on the question, “Did you ever take money from narco-traffickers”.  Not one passed.

In 1991 Mexican soldiers in the oil city of Veracruz gunned down local police who were trying to stop a plane from refueling. Its cargo was Columbian cocaine.  Mexico’s police and military were infamous for their corruption, but when the PRI’s #2 official Jose Ruiz Massieu was gunned down in 1995 the white powder trail led all the way to the door of the President.

Brother Raul and His Bankers

After a lengthy investigation it was found that Ruiz’ death was ordered by Raul Salinas – brother of President Carlos Salinas.  Raul was laundering drug money through Texas Commerce Bank, where he had over $20 million on deposit.  Texas Commerce had branches all along the US/Mexico border.  Major stockholders included James Baker and Robert Mosbacher.  Jeb Bush worked at the bank. Board members included Mosbacher and Warren Commission goon/President Gerald Ford.

In 1993 Chemical Bank bought Texas Commerce. Dick Cheney joined Exxon’s Lawrence Rawl, Mobil’s Hartwell Gardner, Conoco’s Constantine Nicandros and Amerada Hess’ John Hess on Chemical Bank’s board.  Cheney also joined the board at Morgan Stanley, which made a bundle on the Mexican debt scam.  There he joined Mobil Chair Allen Murray, who also sat on the board at Chase Manhattan.  In 1993 Chemical Bank boasted $150 billion in assets. Then it was swallowed up by Chase Manhattan.  The old Texas Commerce signs lining the Mexican border now read simply, “Chase”.

According to a November 1, 1996 article in the Wall Street Journal, Citibank was also laundering some of Raul’s drug proceeds.  Vice-President Amy Elliot received over $80 million in Citibank deposits from Salinas.  Elliot worked in Citibank’s private banking department, which specializes in helping the global elite set up offshore corporations and other instruments to avoid paying taxes. [15]

Elliot testified during a House of Representatives inquiry that the bank hadn’t followed a “prudent path” in checking out the source of Salinas’ loot.  Citibank retained former Clinton Whitewater counsel Robert Fiske. Neither Elliot nor Citibank were charged.

Swiss investigators found that Raul Salinas had over $100 million in that country’s banks which they believed were drug profits. They found thirteen accounts worth $123 million in Geneva, Bern, London, New York, Houston and Hamburg. [16] French authorities questioned Enrique Salinas, brother of Raul and Carlos, for stashing another $120 million in drug proceeds in French banks. As the Salinas investigation widened bankers ran for cover.

Swiss investigators found that Raul Salinas had over $100 million in that country’s banks which they believed were drug profits.  They found thirteen accounts worth $123 million in Geneva, Bern, London, New York, Houston and Hamburg. [16]  French authorities questioned Enrique Salinas, brother of Raul and Carlos, for stashing another $120 million in drug proceeds in French banks.  As the Salinas investigation widened bankers ran for cover.

Aptly-named fugitive banker Carlos Cabal, who financed the political career of PRI Tabasco State Governor and Big Oil friend, Roberto Madrazo, controlled Banco Union and Banca Cremi. He was chairman of Fresh Del Monte Produce. [17]  In 1994 drug trafficker Rogoberto Gaxiola testified that he moved millions through international banks, including Chase Manhattan.

In October 1996 a series of drug money deposits were routed from Banca Serfin, Mexico’s third largest bank, through Cabal’s Banco Union to Chase Manhattan in New York.  Chase forwarded the cash to Mercury Bank & Trust in the Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of Mexico’s largest bank Bancomer, itself a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase. [18]  Mexico’s second largest bank Banamex is owned by HSBC.

In 1997 Mexican Drug Czar General Jose Gutierrez was indicted for aiding the Gulf Cartel, run by Monterrey business tycoon Amado Carrillo. 

A month earlier Gutierrez’ US counterpart in the war on drugs, General Barry McCafferty, who earlier headed the US Southern Command in drug-ridden Panama, was in Mexico saluting Gutierrez for his attack on the Mexican drug trade.  DEA gave Gutierrez full access to its database despite the fact that files detailed his involvement with drug traffickers and cover-ups. [19]

CIA had access to those same files and also gave the general a clean bill of health.  The day he was indicted, an arrest warrant for Amado Carrillo was mysteriously lifted.  The US certified Mexico as a drug war partner and one day later Carrillo’s bagman – Monterrey business tycoon Humberto Garcia – disappeared from Mexico’s National Anti-Drug Institute where he was being held. [20]  Garcia’s brother Juan ended up in a Houston jail on drug trafficking charges.  Carrillo mysteriously died in 1997 after undergoing plastic surgery.  But the Mexican media would not let the scandal die.

Proceso did an investigation of the Garcia brothers and found extensive business ties to the Salinas family going back decades.  The magazine implicated the entire Salinas family in the Mexican drug trade, revealing their long-standing ties to Columbia’s drug cartels.

Mexican authorities were forced to issue a narcotics warrant for Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Peralta, whose Grupo Iusacell conglomerate is one of Mexico’s largest.  Peralta had close ties to the Salinas family, once loaning Raul $50 million without even asking for a receipt.

In November 2002 the highest Mexican military court – the Council of War – convicted two high-ranking generals of working with the Amado Carrillo syndicate.  General Francisco Quiros and Brigadier General Arturo Acosta were accused of using military aircraft to transport cocaine. [21]

US authorities were now forced to move. They seized $9 million from a Texas Commerce account held by Mexico’s top drug prosecutor and PRI insider Mario Ruiz Massieu.  Ruiz had spearheaded the cover up of the involvement of fellow Texas Commerce Bank client Raul Salinas in ordering his brother Jose’s death.  Just before US authorities seized his money, Ruiz had received $1 million and five luxury cars as hush money from Gulf Cartel boss Amado Carrillo.  Someone in the US government had to have tipped Carrillo off that Ruiz was about to go down.  Initially, a US magistrate refused to extradite Ruiz, who was hiding in the US. [22]

When he finally appeared in a Mexican courtroom the cartel hush money had no effect. Apparently repentant over his brother’s death, Ruiz sang.  His testimony led to the arrest of Raul Salinas and the eviction of Carlos Salinas from Mexico in 1997.

At memorial services for seventeen campesinos massacred by Guerrero State Police in Coyuca de Benitez, the Ejercito Popular Revolucionario (EPR), another group of armed leftists in Guerrero state; accused the Mexican government, military and oligarchy of running the Mexican drug trade.  The EPR also stated that the recent replacement of civil police by federal troops on the streets of Mexico City is a prelude to martial law in the country. [23]

Prior to the Mexican Presidential Elections of June 2006, PRD Candidate and Mexico City Mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador led all polls. 

But the Barranca del Muerte dungeon worked its magic. After a three day delay PRI Candidate Felipe Calderon was declared the winner.  Leftist protests sparked up across Mexico as Obrador refused to accept the results.  With EPR and Zapatista guerrillas prepared to die to protect the oil and natural gas that is their birthright from the onrushing Four Horsemen, the Guerrero revolutionaries appeared to have it right on both accounts.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dean Henderson is the author of four books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Stickin’ it to the Matrix and Das Kartell der Federal Reserve. 

Notes

[1] Annual Report to Shareholders. Exxon Corporation. 1991.
[2] “Blueprint for Genocide: Vicente Fox’s Plan Puebla-Panama”. Philip E. Wheaton and Committee of Indigenous Solidarity. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.11
[3] “Lecture by John Ross”. Free Speech TV. Boulder, CO. 1-1-02
[4] “Banker to Mexico: Go Get ‘Em”. Time. 2-20-95. p.11
[5] Ross
[6] “Marcos Enmarca Cancun”. Milenio Diario. 2-27-01. p.22
[7] Dope Inc.: The Book that Drove Kissinger Crazy. The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992. p.483
[8] The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence and International Fascism. Henrik Kruger. South End Press. Boston. 1980. p.177
[9] Ibid
[10] Rebellion from the Roots. John Ross. Common Courage Press. Monroe, ME. 1995. p.335
[11] “Dateline Mexico: A Conspiracy Against PEMEX”. Carlos Cota Meza. Executive Intelligence Review. 7-17-92. p.14
[12] Ross. p.303
[13] Ibid. p.336
[14] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.194
[15] “Bankers for the Million-Plus Set”. Parade. 3-16-97
[16] “Swiss Question Salinas about Mystery Millions”. AP. Missoulian. 12-8-95
[17] “Mexico’s Political Investigation Widens”. Craig Torres. Wall Street Journal. 6-10-96. p.A12
[18] “Alleged Launderer Moves Millions Despite Scrutiny by US”. Craig Torres and Laurie Hays. Wall Street Journal. 4-1-97. p.A15
[19] “Who Can We Trust Anymore”. Newsweek. 3-3-97. p.12
[20] “Cartel Mexicano Creo Grupos Industriales”. AFP. La Prensa Grafica. San Salvador. 3-5-97. p.37A
[21] “Two Mexican Generals Guilty of Drug Charges”. Springfield News Leader. 11-2-02
[22] “Witnesses Link Ex-Prosecutor, Payoff`s”. AP. San Antonio Express-News. 3-13-97. p.A10
[23] “EPR Considera Que Desliegue Militar en las Calles es Preludio a un Estado de Sitio”. AFP. Prensa Libre. Guatemala City. 3-6-97. p.28

All images in this article are from Alter Info

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The following text was first presented  at the Rosa Luxemburg Conference, Berlin, January 11, 2014. It was subsequently included in my book entitled The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity

The concept of the Long War is part of US military doctrine since the end of World War II. In many regards, today’s wars are a continuation of the Second World War.

Worldwide militarization is also part of a global economic agenda, namely the application of the neoliberal economic policy model which has led to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

Of utmost relevance to an understanding of the war in Ukraine, the genocide against Palestine and the unfolding war in the Middle East 

Michel Chossudovsky, September 18, 2022, November 15, 2023, April 12, 2024

***

Video: Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation

Berlin, January 11, 2014

 

---

.

Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

Worldwide Militarization 

by 

Michel Chossudovsky

 

Introduction 

The world is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. This “war without borders” is being carried out at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in World history, which has been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. 

Worldwide militarization is part of a global economic agenda.

 General Wesley Clark (right)

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska plays a central role in coordinating military operations.

According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theatres:

“[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” (Democracy Now, 2007)

The ongoing war on Syria is a stepping stone towards a war on Iran, which could lead to a process of military escalation.

Russia and China, which are allies of both Syria and Iran, are also targeted by US-NATO. In the wake of the Cold War, nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort (deterrence), their use is now contemplated in the conventional war theatre.

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces directed against the Syria.

The geopolitics of oil and oil pipelines is crucial in the conduct of these military operations.  The broader Middle East- Central Asian region encompasses more than 60 percent of the World’s oil reserves.

© Map by Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003.  (click to enlarge) 

 There are at present five distinct war theatres in the Middle East Central Asian region: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, Libya and Syria.

An all out military attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan, Pakistan and China’s Western frontier.

“Waging a War without Borders”: The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 

This project was first formulated by the Neocons in September 2000

 

 

The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”.

 

 

Military actions are implemented simultaneously in different regions of the world (as outlined in the PNAC) as well as sequentially.

Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”, all of which are carried out in accordance with a “humanitarian mandate”.

This military agenda undertaken under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect” largely prevails under the Obama presidency.

Media propaganda has been instrumental is sustaining the fiction of humanitarian warfare.

.

The Legacy of World War II. Demise of Competing Imperialist powers

What is referred euphemistically as the “post war era” is in fact a period of continuous wars and militarization. This must be understood when focussing on contemporary US led wars. While commemorating World War I,  it is also important to understand that there is a continuum of US military strategies going back to World War I and the inter-war period.

The US emerges in the wake of the Second World War unscathed. Most of the fighting was conducted by its allies, a strategy which the US has used consistently in post-world war II conflicts. Moreover, a careful examination of World War II suggests that US corporate interests including Rockefeller’s Standard Oil supported both its allies and its enemies including Nazi Germany well beyond the US’s entry into World War II in 1941. The strategic objective was to weaken both sides, namely to destabilize competing imperialist powers.

Emerging as the victor nation in the wake of World War II, the US has determined the political and economic contours of post-War Western Europe. US troops are stationed in several European countries. Both its World War II adversaries (Germany, Japan, Italy) as well as its allies (France, U.K. Belgium, the Netherlands) have been weakened. With the exception of the U.K. which is part of the Anglo-American axis, these countries are outgoing colonial powers, displaced by US hegemony. Their pre-World War II colonial territories including Indonesia, The Congo, Indochina, Rwanda (among others) have been gradually integrated over a period of half a century into a dominant US sphere of influence.

In Africa, the process of displacement of France’s sphere of influence is still ongoing. The US is currently taking over the control of France and Belgium’s former colonies in Central Africa and West Africa. Washington also exerts a decisive role in the Maghreb.

“Internal Colonialism” in the European Union

A complex form of  “internal colonialism” is also emerging in the European Union. US financial institutions and business conglomerates together with their European partners are prevalent in setting both the monetary, trade and investment agenda.

Politics are subordinated to dominant financial interests. What is also unfolding in terms of secret trade negotiations (under the TTIP and CETA), is a process of economic and political integration between the EU and North America. These agreements together with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) constitute the building blocks of a process of global economic domination.

Meanwhile, presidential and parliamentary elections in the EU, including Germany, Italy and France (e.g. Sarkozy and Hollande) are increasingly the object of covert political interference (modeled on the color revolutions), namely US sponsored regime change. The fundamental question is to what extent are European leaders political proxies.

US Sponsored Wars and Military Intelligence Operations

This entire period (1945- present) has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military-intelligence interventions in all major regions of the World.

We are not dealing with piecemeal military operations pertaining to specific countries and regions: There is a military roadmap, a sequence of military operations. Non-conventional forms of intervention including State sponsored terrorist attacks rather than theater war have also been launched.

America’s war is a cohesive and coordinated plan of Worldwide military conquest which serves dominant financial and corporate interests. The structure of alliances including NATO is crucial.

The European Union plays a central role in this military agenda. The member states of the EU are allies of the Anglo-American axis, but at the same time, a restructuring process is occurring within the EU, whereby previously sovereign countries are increasingly under the jurisdiction of powerful financial institutions.

The imposition of the IMF’s deadly economic reforms on several European countries is indicative of America’s interference in European affairs. What is at stake is a major shift in EU political and economic structures, whereby member states of the EU are de facto re-categorized by the IMF and treated in the same way as an indebted Third World country.

Military Strategy

While the US has intervened militarily in major regions of the World, the thrust of US foreign policy is to have these wars fought by America’s allies or to resort to non-conventional forms of warfare.

The thrust of this agenda is twofold: 

1) US military might is coupled with that of “Global NATO” including Israel. We are dealing with a formidable force, in terms of advanced weapons systems. US military bases have been established in all major regions of the World under the geographical command structure. A new African command has been established.

2) Military action supports powerful economic and financial interests. A strategy of “Economic Warfare” under the neoliberal agenda is implemented in close coordination with military planning.

The purpose of warfare is not conquest per se. The US lost the Vietnam war, but the ultimate objective was to destroy Vietnam as a sovereign country.

Vietnam together with Cambodia today constitute a new impoverished frontier of the global cheap labor economy.

The imperial project is predicated on economic conquest, implying the confiscation and appropriation of the wealth and resources of sovereign countries. In the Middle East, successive wars have been geared towards the confiscation of oil and gas reserves.

Countries are destroyed, often transformed into territories, sovereignty is foregone, national institutions collapse, the national economy is destroyed through the imposition of “free market” reforms under the helm of the IMF, unemployment becomes rampant, social services are dismantled, wages collapse, and people are impoverished.

The ruling capitalist elites in these countries are subordinated to those of the US and its allies. The nation’s assets and natural resources are transferred into the hands of foreign investors through a privatization program imposed by the invading forces.

Historical Background: Nuclear Weapons. The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

America’s early nuclear weapons doctrine under the Manhattan Project was not based on the Cold War notions of “Deterrence” and “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). Contemporary post Cold War US nuclear doctrine is based on the notion that nuclear weapons can be used in the conventional war theater and that these weapons are “harmless to civilians”.

The strategic objective in the use of both conventional and nuclear attacks has been to trigger “mass casualty producing events” resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

 This strategy first applied during World War II in Japan and Germany was to terrorize an entire nation, as a means of military conquest.

In Japan, military targets were not the main objective: the notion of “collateral damage” was used as a justification for the mass killing of civilians, under the official pretence that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that civilians were not the target.

 In the words of president Harry Truman:

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. … This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one…

“It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” 20 (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

 

Harry Truman

Nobody within the upper echelons of the US government and military believed that Hiroshima was a military base, Truman was lying to himself and to the American public.

To this day, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is justified as a necessary cost for bringing the war to an end and ultimately “saving lives”.

Prior to Hiroshima, the US extensively used fire bombs in Japan resulting in large civilian casualties. In Germany, allied forces extensively bombed and destroyed German cities in the latter part of the war targeting civilians rather than military installations.

The US nuclear weapons arsenal has grown considerably. In the post Cold era, ArmsControl.org (April 2013) confirms that the United States

“possesses 5,113 nuclear warheads, including tactical, strategic, and non-deployed weapons.”

According to the latest official New START declaration, out of more than 5113 nuclear weapons,

“the US deploys 1,654 strategic nuclear warheads on 792 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers…

Moreover, according to The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) the U.S. possesses 500 tactical nuclear warheads, many of which are deployed in non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands.

The History of War Crimes

The notion of mass casualty producing events prevails to this date in US military strategies. Invariably, as in the case of Syria, the civilian casualties of war committed by the aggressor are blamed on the victims.

 The period extending from the Korean war to the present is marked by a succession of US sponsored theatre wars (Korea Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), various forms of military intervention including low intensity conflicts, “civil wars” (The Congo, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan), military coups, US sponsored death squadrons and massacres (Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), covert wars led by US intelligence, US-NATO sponsored military intervention in Libya (using Al Qaeda rebels as their foot soldiers sponsored by Western intelligence).

The war on Syria is essentially a covert war of aggression whereby the Western military alliance and its GCC partners are  supporting a terrorist insurgency. The objective is to destabilize Syria as a nation state.

The objective has not been to win these wars but in essence to destabilize these countries as nation states as well as impose a proxy government which acts on behalf of Western interests. Accounting for these various operations, the United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries in different regions of the developing world, since August 1945, a number of them many times (Eric Waddell, 2003):

“The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect ‘regime change’. The cloaks of “human rights” and of “democracy were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts.” (Eric Waddell, 2003)

Destroying Internationalism: The Truman Doctrine

The broader objective of global military dominance in the wake of World War II in support of an imperial project was formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War. It was reaffirmed by US President George Herbert Walker Bush in  a historical 1990 address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the downfall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet block.

The ideological underpinning of this agenda are to be found in what is known as the “Truman Doctrine”, first formulated by foreign policy adviser George F. Kennan in a 1948 in a State Department brief.

George Kennan

What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from “Containment” during the Cold War to “Pre-emptive” Warfare and “War on Terrorism”.  It states in polite terms that the US should seek economic and strategic dominance through military means:

 Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (…)

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better (George f. Kennan, 1948 State Department Brief)

 The planned disintegration of the United Nations system as an independent and influential international body has been on the drawing board of US foreign policy since the inception of the United Nations in 1946. Its planned demise was an integral part of the Truman doctrine as defined in 1948. From the very inception of the UN, Washington has sought on the one hand to control it to its advantage, while also seeking to weakening and ultimately destroy the UN system.

In the words of George Kennan:

“Occasionally, it [the United Nations] has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)

Although officially committed to the “international community”, Washington has largely played lip service to the United Nations. Today the UN is in many regards an appendage of the US State apparatus.

Rather than undermining the UN as an institution, the US and its allies exert control over the Secretariat and key UN agencies. Since Gulf War I, the UN has largely acted as a rubber stamp. It has closed its eyes to US war crimes, it has implemented so-called peacekeeping operations on behalf of the Anglo-American invaders, in violation of the UN Charter. Following the de facto “dismissal” of Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, UN Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban ki Moon have became a tool of US foreign policy, taking their orders directly from Washington.

Building a US Sphere of Influence in East and South East Asia

The Truman doctrine discussed above was the culmination of a post World War II US military strategy initiated with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and the surrender of Japan.

In East Asia it consisted in the post-war occupation of Japan  as well the US takeover of Japan’s colonial Empire including South Korea (Korea was annexed to Japan under the 1910 Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty).

Following Imperial Japan’s defeat in World War II, a US sphere of influence throughout East and South East Asia was established in the territories of Japan’s  former “Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”.

America’s hegemony in Asia was largely based on establishing a sphere of influence in countries under the colonial jurisdiction of Japan, France and the Netherlands.

The US sphere of influence in Asia –which was built up over a period of more than 20 years– included the Philippines (a US possession which was occupied by Japan during World War II), South Korea (annexed to Japan in 1910), Thailand (a Japanese protectorate during World War II), Indonesia (a Dutch colony occupied by Japan during World War II, which becomes a de facto US proxy State following the establishment of the Suharto military dictatorship in 1965).

 This US sphere of influence in Asia also extended its grip into France’s former colonial possessions in Indochina, including Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, which were under Japanese military occupation during World War II.

Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” which overtly threatens China is the endgame of this historical process.

The Korean War (1950-1953) was the first major military operation  undertaken by the US in the wake of  World War II,  launched at the very outset of  what was euphemistically called “The Cold War”. In many respects it was a continuation of World War II, whereby Korean lands under Japanese colonial occupation were, from one day to the next, handed over to a new colonial power, the United States of America.

In South Korea on September 8, 1945, three weeks after the surrender of Japan on August 15th 1945. Moreover,  Japanese officials in South Korea assisted the US Army Military Government (USAMG) (1945-48) led by General Hodge in ensuring this transition. Japanese colonial administrators in Seoul as well as their Korean police officials worked hand in glove with the new colonial masters.

While Japan was treated as a defeated Empire, South Korea was identified as a colonial territory to be administered under US military rule and US occupation forces. America’s handpicked appointee Sygman Rhee was flown into Seoul in October 1945, in General Douglas MacArthur’s personal airplane.

 The bombing raids directed against civilians in Japan and Germany at the end of World War II as well as the War on Korea (1950-53) had set the stage for the implementation of mass casualty producing events: extensive crimes were committed by US forces. US Major General  William F Dean “reported that most of the North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wastelands”

General Curtis LeMay [left] who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea brazenly acknowledged that:

“Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population. … We burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too”.

According to Brian Willson:

It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.”

North Korea has been threatened of an attack with US nuclear weapons for more than 60 years.

From the Truman Doctrine to Clinton, Bush and Obama

There has been continuity throughout the post-war era, from Korea and Vietnam to the present.

The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) “Post War” foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.

Under Obama, this agenda has become increasingly cohesive with  the legalization of extrajudicial killings of US citizens under the anti-terrorist legislation, the extensive use of drone attacks against civilians, the massacres ordered by the US-NATO-Israel alliance directed against Syrian civilians.

From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the “Truman Doctrine”. Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to Obama have carried out this global military agenda.

This entire “post war period” is marked by extensive war crimes resulting in the death of more than twenty million people. This figure does not include those who perished as a result of poverty, starvation and disease.

What we are dealing with is a criminal US foreign policy agenda. Media propaganda has served to obfuscate this agenda. US interventionism is invariably upheld as a humanitarian endeavor. Meanwhile, so-called progressive leftists and “anti-war activists” supported by corporate foundations have upheld this agenda on humanitarian grounds.

Criminalization does not pertain to one or more heads of State. It pertains to the entire State system, it’s various civilian and military institutions as well as the powerful corporate interests behind the formulation of US foreign policy, the Washington think tanks, the creditor institutions which finance the military machine.

War crimes are the result of the criminalization of the US State and foreign policy apparatus. We are dealing specifically with individual war criminals, but with a process involving decision makers acting at different level, with a mandate to carry out war crimes, following established guidelines and procedures.

What distinguishes the Bush and Obama administrations in relation to the historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain “the global war on terrorism” and support the spread of Western democracy.

The Wars of the 21st Century: From the Cold War to the “Global War on Terrorism”

The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, “ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders”

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of “Islamic brigades”.

9/11 and the Invasion of Afghanistan

The September 11, 2001 attacks have played a crucial role in the formulation of US military doctrine, namely in sustaining the legend that Al Qaeda is an enemy of the Western world when in fact it is a construct of US intelligence, which is used not only as pretext to wage war on humanitarian grounds but also as an instrument of non-conventional warfare.

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defence”.

The “Global War on Terrorism” was officially launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following morning (September 12, 2001), NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:

“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)

Afghanistan was invaded on October 7, 2001 under NATO’s doctrine of collective security: an attack on one member of the Atlantic Alliance is an attack on all members of  Atlantic alliance. The presumption was that the US had been attacked by Afghanistan on September 11, 2001, an absurd proposition.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.

Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America and the Western World are under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, which encompasses more than 60 percent of the Wortld’s oil and gas reserves..

Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.

Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda created by the CIA, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

What the media does not mention is that the terrorists in substance are paid killers, supported by the US and NATO.

Non-Conventional Warfare: Using Al Qaeda Rebels as the Foot Soldiers of the Western Military alliance

This strategy of using al Qaeda rebels as the foot soldiers of the Western military is of crucial significance. It has characterized US-NATO interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. It is currently part of a covert agenda to destabilize Iraq by supporting al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (AQIL).

US sponsored Al Qaeda terror brigades (covertly supported by Western intelligence) have also been deployed in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Yemen.

The objective is to create sectarian and ethnic divisions with a view to destabilizing or fracturing sovereign countries modelled on former Yugoslavia.

In the Middle East, the redrawing of political borders is contemplated by US military planners.

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

 
Map: click to enlarge

 Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

The War on Iran: World War III Scenario

As part of the Global War on Terrorism, the launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005. These plans are part of a broader Middle East Central Asian military agenda.

War on Iran is part of the Battle for Oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:

“…the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. … The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis added)

Public opinion remains largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.

Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.

If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.

The danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.

NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention”  Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P (ight0

The Anti-war Movement in Crisis: Cooptation and “Manufactured Dissent”

The antiwar movement in several Western countries is in crisis, dominated by self-proclaimed progressives. Some of America’s wars are condemned outright, while others are heralded as “humanitarian interventions”. A significant segment of the US antiwar movement condemns the war but endorses the campaign against international terrorism, which constitutes the backbone of US military doctrine.

Historically, progressive social movements (including the World  Social Forum) have been infiltrated, their leaders co-opted and manipulated, through the corporate funding of non-governmental organizations, trade unions and political parties. The ultimate purpose of “funding dissent” is to prevent the protest movement from challenging the legitimacy of the capitalist elites.

The “Just War” theory (Jus Ad Bellum) has served to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

A large segment of “progressive” opinion in the US and Western Europe is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society. Prominent “progressive” authors as well independent media outlets have supported regime change and NATO sponsored humanitarian intervention in Libya. Similarly, these same self proclaimed progressives have rallied in support of the US-NATO sponsored opposition in Syria.

Let us be under no illusions:  This pseudo-progressive  discourse is an instrument of propaganda. Several prominent “left” intellectuals –who claim to be opposed to US imperialism– have supported the imposition of “no fly zones” and “humanitarian interventions” against sovereign countries.

“Progressives” are funded and co-opted by elite foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, et al. The corporate elites have sought to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s.

The “Revolution Business”

The imperial World Order creates its own opposition.

The Occupy movement in the US is infiltrated and manipulated.

“Colored Revolutions” financed by Wall Street unfold in different countries (e.g. Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, Thailand, ). The CIA through various front organizations has infiltrated mass movements in different parts of the World.

The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), for instance, under the auspices of Serbia’s OTPOR is a CIA sponsored entity which describes itself as “an International network of trainers and consultants” involved in the “Revolution Business”.

Funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), it constitutes a  consulting outfit, advising and training US sponsored opposition groups in more than 40 countries. Its clench fist logo has been adopted by numerous “revolutionary” groups.

 

 

In turn, a panoply of alternative media upholds the “Colored Revolutions” as constituting a “Great Awakening”, a mass movement directed against the very foundations of  the capitalist World order.

In Egypt, for instance, several organizations involved in the Arab Spring including Kifaya and the April 6 Student movement were directly supported by US foundations and the US embassy in Cairo.

In a bitter irony, Washington was supporting the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of Freedom House (FH) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Both of these foundations have links to the US State Department and the US Congress.

Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak had been received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress. The Egyptian pro-democracy delegation to the State Department was described by Condoleezza Rice as “The Hope for the Future of Egypt”. In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents (see image below), several of which had met Condoleezza Rice a year earlier.

9/11 Truth

In numerous organizations including the trade union movement, the grassroots is betrayed by their leaders who are co-opted. The money trickles down from the corporate foundations, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Its called “manufacturing dissent”. Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.

In recent history, with the exception of Iraq, the so-called Western left namely “Progressives” have paid lip service to US-NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.  “Progressives” also support the official  9/11 version of events. They deny 9/11 Truth.

“Progressives” acknowledge that the US was under attack on 9/11 and that the war on Afghanistan  was a “Just War”. In the case of Afghanistan, the “self-defense” argument was accepted at face value as a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks, without examining the fact that the US administration had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1995-96. It was tacitly implied that by supporting al Qaeda, Afghanistan had attacked America on September 11, 2001.

In 2001, when Afghanistan was bombed and later invaded, “progressives” largely upheld the administration’s “just cause” military doctrine. In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement against the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Several prominent “left leaning” intellectuals upheld the “war on terrorism” agenda.

Media disinformation prevailed. People were misled as to the nature and objectives underlying the invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were identified as the prime suspects of the 9/11 attacks, without a shred of evidence and without addressing  the historical relationship between Al Qaeda and the US intelligence apparatus. In this regard, understanding 9/11 is crucial in formulating a consistent antiwar position. 9/11 is the pillar of US war propaganda; it sustains the illusion of an outside enemy, it justifies pre-emptive military intervention.

The logic pertaining to Syria was somewhat different. “Progressives” and mainstream “antiwar” organizations have supported so-called opposition forces without acknowledging that the mainstay of these forces is composed of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, recruited, trained and financed by US-NATO and their allies including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These antiwar groups, which previously supported NATO intervention in Libya, blame the Syrian government for the atrocities committed by the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels.

Rebuilding the Antiwar Movement

What is required is to rebuild a mass movement. And this cannot be led and manipulated by self-proclaimed “progressives” with the financial support of  corporate foundations.

The social base as well as the organizational structure of the antiwar movement must be transformed. America’s “Long War” is an imperialist project which sustains the financial structures and institutional foundations of the capitalist World Order. Behind this military agenda are powerful corporate interests including an extensive propaganda apparatus.

War and the Economic Crisis are intimately related. The Worldwide imposition of neoliberal macro-economic policy measures is part of the broader imperial agenda. And consequently, the broader movement against neoliberalism must be integrated into the anti-war movement.

Breaking the “Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority as well as the nature of the capitalist World order. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

A meaningful anti-war movement requires breaking the “war on terrorism” consensus and upholding 9/11 Truth. To reverse the tide of war and globalization requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities and municipalities, on the nature the imperial project, its military and economic dimensions, not to mention the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war. This movement must also occur within the Armed Forces (including NATO) with a view to challenging the legitimacy of the military agenda.

The message should be loud and clear:

The US and its allies are behind the Al Qaeda terrorists who have committed countless atrocities against civilians on the specific instructions of the Western military alliance,

Neither Syria nor Iran are a threat to World Peace. Quite the opposite. The threat emanates from the US and its allies. Even in the case of a conventional war (without the use of nukes) , the proposed aerial bombardments directed against Iran could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.

What has to be achieved:

• Reveal the criminal nature of this military project.
• Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain a “political consensus” in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.
• Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media.
• Break the legitimacy of the warmongers in high office. Indict political leaders for war crimes.
• Dismantle the multibillion dollar national intelligence apparatus.
• Dismantle the US-sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
• Bring home the troops.
• Repeal the illusion that the state is committed to protecting its citizens. 
• Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East/Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). 
• Expose how a profit-driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates. 
• Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war. 
• Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons. 
• Call for the Dismantling of NATO. 
• Reorganize the system of international justice which protects the war criminals. Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office.
• Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers. 
• Close down all US military bases in the US and around the world. 
• Develop an antiwar movement within the armed forces and establish bridges between the armed forces and the civilian antiwar movement.
• Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US-led global military agenda. 
• Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
• Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US. 
• Dismantle the homeland security state. Repeal the legitimacy of Obama’s extrajudicial assassinations. Repeal the drone wars directed against civilians. 
• Undermine the “militarization of law enforcement”. Reverse the gamut of anti-terrorist legislation in Western countries which is intended to repeal fundamental civil rights.

These are no easy tasks. They require an understanding of the power structure, of hegemonic relations between the military, intelligence, the state structures and corporate powers which are promoting this destructive agenda. Ultimately these power relations must be undermined with a view to changing the course of World history.

 

---

 

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Product Type: PDF File

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

---

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0973714708

Year: 2003

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

 

Psychics or psychopaths at the helm? —Felicity Arbuthnot,

.

 

.

.

Highlight

A  “Vaccine” for the Non-existent Hypothetical “Disease X” is slated to be developed  at a Research Centre located at The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons. 

 

 

 

Hypothetical “Disease X”

The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud

by

Michel Chossudovsky

January 27, 2024

Introduction

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, continues to mislead public opinion Worldwide. 

There is no such thing as  “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.

It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022:

“The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain”. says Bill Gates.

“A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC).

“We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

How could he know this in advance?

“Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, An Unknown Threat

In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr.Tedros recanted Bill Gates’ premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data.

Bill Gates is Tedros’ Mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”.

Bill Gates, Tedros et al (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems  from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. 

“Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen”

According to Forbes:

Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″

300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid”

A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic.

Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

To access Rumble and/or leave a Comment click here or the lower right hand corner of the video screen

To Donate to Lux Media Click Here

Scroll down to read the Section on the Disease X “Vaccine”

“Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years  Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis

In early February 2018  a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”.

click image to access text

“The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” 

The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017:  

“It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential.

But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years.

In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added)

“Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation 

The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201)

An October 21, 2019 report  “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: 

On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions.

Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel.  “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.”

“I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme.

Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added)

 

Video: Tedros Stated that  Covid was “The First Disease X”

WHO head Tedros tells #Davos #WEF2024 elites that prepping for ‘#Disease_X “is a common global interest, and very narrow national interests should not come in the way.” Report: https://t.co/MwKBZRCcqs pic.twitter.com/tN8EYi2wBq

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 17, 2024

 

Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions

In a Factual Nutshell: 

• WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed Cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. 
• There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency.
• On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros, said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. 
• The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of  44,279 cumulative confirmed cases 
• All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. 
• In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of  329.5 million people. 
• In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. 
• In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people.

The above is a summary. Scroll down for references and analysis

The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. 

The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating  a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire World population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank.

All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. 

The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a Worldwide digital ID system. 

According to David Scripac 

 “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” 

Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as : 

“an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “With an Unknown Pathogen” 

Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’ numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of   “Disease X”. 

A  State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023.

“Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.

Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.”

She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective.

“But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” …

“This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.”

(The Guardian, emphasis added) 

Will the “Disease X” “Vaccine” be Developed in the Labs of the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus?

“

The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE).

Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in: 

The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.

The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board.

..

***

Click above screenshot to the access Daily Star article 

What is required is a Mass Movement to Oppose the Adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly. (May 27, 2024).

We also Call for the Immediate Cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine”

Ironically to say the least,  the WHO Director General Tedros, admits that

“the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”.

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 22, 2024, Latest Revision August 28, 2024

 

***

 

World Health Organisation Head:

Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic

by

Steve Watson 

Original source Modernity

 

In an appearance at the globalist World Economic Forum in Davos, the Director General of the World Health Organisation urged that global cooperation will be needed during the next pandemic, and that national interests” hinder compliance.

In a session titled “Disease X,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that in order to be “better prepared” and “to understand disease X,” the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Agreement’ needs to be adopted globally.

“This is about a common enemy,” Tedros continued, adding “without a shared response, we will face the same problem as COVID.”

He explained that the decline for the legislation is May of this year and member states are negotiating between countries to implement it.

“This is a common global interest, and very narrow national interests should not come in the way,” he continued, adding “of course national interests are natural, but they could be difficult and affect the negotiations.”

WHO head Tedros tells #Davos #WEF2024 elites that prepping for '#Disease_X "is a common global interest, and very narrow national interests should not come in the way." Report: https://t.co/MwKBZRCcqs pic.twitter.com/tN8EYi2wBq

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 17, 2024

Tedros also declared that COVID was “the first disease X, and it could happen again.”

WHO head Tedros told #Davos globalists at #WEF2024 that '#Disease_X' is a placeholder name, and that COVID was "the first disease X, and it could happen again." Report: https://t.co/MwKBZRCcqs pic.twitter.com/YzVe26hvE5

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 17, 2024

Here is the full exchange:

Full video: The #WorldEconomicForum2024 Discussion “Preparing For #Disease_X". They call for global compliance when the next pandemic arrives. Report here: https://t.co/MwKBZRCcqs pic.twitter.com/0MCBGPZzBn

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 17, 2024

Before the cosy chat, Rebel news reporter Avi Yemini confronted Tedros and asked for his opinion on global lockdowns and vaccination mandates.

He had nothing to say.

 

🚨 WE GOT HIM! Tedros confronted at the World Economic Forum for what he did in Covid and his plans with Disease X.

This is why we’re in Davos, to pose the simple questions most people want answered and the media refuse to ask.

Get more and support https://t.co/uvbDgOk19N now! pic.twitter.com/lGUjLo8b65

— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) January 17, 2024

First published by Modernity

References 

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 21, 2024

Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid, 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 14, 2023

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking, 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2023

*

 

---

 

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

Free of Charge for ALL our Readers. Click here to Download 

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

 

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.

 

First published on August 12,2024

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, 

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat.”

—(Rudyard Kipling)[1]

A Brief History of a Long Struggle 

In 2008, Professor of Political Science and History at the University of California, Los Angeles, Anthony Pagden published one of the best books[2] concerning the history of the long and Manichean struggle between East and West, from classical times to the conflicts of the twenty-first century, including the protracted and seemingly insoluble Israeli-Arab and Israel-Palestine conflicts.

In this illuminating masterpiece of stunning scope and relevance, Pagden argues that the differences that divide West from East go deeper than politics, deeper than religion; and to understand this volatile relationship and how it has played out over the centuries, it is necessary to go back before the Crusades, before the birth of Islam, and even before the birth of Christianity. For him, the starting point should be set in the fifth century BCE. Europe, he goes on to say, was born out of Asia and for centuries the two shared a single history. But when the Persian emperor Xerxes, commonly known as Xerxes the Great, son of Darius the Great, tried to conquer Greece in 480 BCE – with initial victories securing control of mainland Greece but ending in defeat in Platatea the following year – a struggle began which has never ceased.

Later on, the conflict resumed when Alexander the Great and then the Romans tried to unite Europe and Asia into a single civilization – as symbolized by the historically famous “Susa weddings”[3]. Even more bitter battles continued unabated after the conversion of the West to Christianity and much of the East to Islam, two universal religions, each claiming world dominance. These battles culminated with the destructive episode of the Crusades during the Middle Ages, and were followed by Western colonization of almost all of the Islamic territories starting in the nineteenth century. They continue to our times under the pretext of the so-called American-led “War on terrorism” after the events of 11 September 2001[4].

Arnold J. Toynbee addressed the issue of Islam’s place in history and its relations with the West in his 1948 monumental “A Study of History”, which has been acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. He wrote:

“In the past, Islam and our Western society have acted and reacted upon one another several times in succession, in different situations and alternating roles. The first encounter between them occurred when the Western society was at its infancy and when Islam was the distinctive religion of the Arabs in their heroic age (…) Thereafter, when the Western civilization has surmounted the premature extinction and had entered upon a vigorous growth, while the would-be Islamic state was declining towards its fall, the tables were turned”[5].

The British historian further noted that in that life-and-death struggle, Islam, like Christendom before it, had triumphantly survived. Yet, this was not the last act in the play, for “the attempt made by the medieval West to exterminate Islam failed as signally as the Arab empire-builders’ attempt to capture the cradle of a nascent Western civilization has failed before; once more, a counter-attack was provoked by the unsuccessful offensive. This time, Islam was represented by the Ottoman descendants of the converted Central Asian nomads.” After the final failure of the Crusades, Western Christendom stood on the defensive against this Ottoman attack during the late medieval and early modern ages of Western history. The Westerners managed to bring the Ottoman offensive to a halt in the wake of the battle of Vienna that lasted from 1683 until 1699 when a peace treaty between the Sublime Porte and the Holy League was signed at Karlowitz. Thereafter, having encircled the Islamic world and cast their net about it, they proceeded to attack their old adversary in its native lair.

The concentric attack of the modern West upon the Islamic world, according to Toynbee, has inaugurated the present encounter between the two civilizations, which he saw as “part of a still larger and more ambitious movement, in which the Western civilization is aiming at nothing less than the incorporation of all mankind in a single great society, and the control of everything in the earth, air and sea which mankind can turn to account by means of modern Western technique”. Thus, the contemporary encounter between Islam and the West “is not only more active and intimate than any phase of their contact in the past, it is also distinctive in being an incident in the attempt by the Western man to ‘westernize’ the world – an enterprise which will possibly rank as the most momentous, and almost certainly as the most interesting feature in history, even for a generation that has lived through two world wars.” 

Toynbee drew the conclusion that Islam is once more facing the West its back to the wall; but this time the odds are more heavily against it than they were “even at the most critical moments of the Crusades, for the modern West is superior to it not only in arms, but also in technique of economic life, on which military science ultimately depends, and above all in spiritual culture – the inward force which alone creates and sustains the outward manifestations of what is called civilization”.

On this particular topic, Anthony Pagden points out that by the seventeenth century, with the decline of the Church, the contest has shifted from religion to philosophy: the West’s scientific rationality in contrast to those who sought ultimate guidance in the words of God. Thus, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed the disintegration of the great Muslim empires – the Ottoman, the Mughal, and the Safavid – and the increasing Western domination of the whole of Asia. The resultant attempt to mix Islam and Western modernism sparked off a struggle in the Islamic world between reformers and traditionalists which persists to this day. The wars between East and West, Pagden concludes, “have not only been the longest and most costly in human history, they have also formed the West’s vision of itself as independent, free, secular, and now democratic. They have shaped, and continue to shape, the nature of the modern world”.

In this long sequence of interaction between East and West, or Orient and Occident, Western powers – and Jewish Zionists following in their footsteps – have used the Bible (in both its Old and New Testament) profusely, for close to 2000 years, to justify the conquest of land in the Islamic world and everywhere else.

All along, the biblical claim of a so-called “divine promise” of land was integrally linked with the claim of a “divine mandate” to exterminate the indigenous populations of the conquered territorial possessions. This, unavoidably, resulted in the suffering of millions of people and the loss of respect for a Bible depicting God as a merciless and ferocious warrior Yahweh, making covenants with “His chosen people”, granting them other people’s lands, and commanding them to slaughter and pillage with His blessing and assistance! Expressed in particularly gruesome language, Exodus 20 to 33, for example, deal with what Yahweh told prophet Moses:

“If you listen carefully to what [My angel] says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Worship the Lord your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span. I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.” 

The Yahweh depicted in the books between Judges and Deuteronomy is a god whose actions are taught in religious and secular schools in Israel, says Australian senior lecturer in history in the school of social and international studies at Deakin University in Geelong, David Wetherell. A modern secular Israeli, he presumes, may not subscribe to such a god who commands the maltreatment/extermination of the original Canaanites and Hittites but still support Israel’s expansion into the lands of the indigenous Palestinians. Still, a citizen of Israel does not need to be a religious Jew to endorse the national mythology, and “the deeds of Israel’s national heroes in the Bible have come to non-religious Jews as a means of organizing biblical history to provide moral legitimacy for the walling in of indigenous Palestinians”.[6]

In his compelling book[7], Michael Prior issued a profound challenge to theologians, biblical specialists, and everyone interested in reading and understanding the Bible, in particular regarding the moral dimension of the interpretation of those biblical claims. In this book Prior protests at the neglect of the moral question in conventional biblical studies, and attempts to rescue the Bible from being a blunt instrument in the oppression of people. He affirms that said land traditions whose legitimization had the authority of “sacred scripture” and have been deployed in support of barbaric behaviour in a wide variety of contexts, pose fundamental moral questions relating to one’s understanding of the nature of God, of His dealings with humankind and of human behaviour. Prior believes that the communities which have preserved and promulgated those biblical traditions must shoulder some of the responsibility  for what has been done in alleged conformity with the values contained within them; because, he rightly notes, “according to modern secular standards of human and political rights, what the biblical narrative calls for are war crimes and crimes against humanity”, whether it be for the enduring consequences of the bloody colonization of Latin America, of the fabricated Afrikaner nationalism erected as an ideological structure justifying the abhorrent apartheid regime in South Africa and Rhodesia, or, even more so, of the nightmarish and genocidal settler-colonialism in Palestine instigated by political Zionism with the decisive support of the Christian governments of the Western world.

For all the above-mentioned reasons, the type of settler-colonialism established in the Arab land of Palestine has proved to be infinitely more inextricable than all the other – already resolved – similar cases. Indeed, while the Bible is not the only justification, “it certainly is the most powerful one, without which Zionism is only a conquering ideology. Read at face value and without recourse to doctrines of human rights, the Old Testament appears to propose that the taking possession of the Promised Land and the forcible expulsion of the indigenous population is the fulfillment of a biblical mandate”[8]. It logically follows then, as remarked by Caitlin Johnstone, that

“Everything about Israel is fake. It’s a completely synthetic nation created without any regard for the organic socio-political 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”.[9]

How Jewish Zionism Was Created by Christian Evangelicals 

Many readers of the following lines will surely be surprised to learn that many well-established facts regarding much of the core beliefs of the Zionist ideology that Zionists try to erase from history do not actually come from Judaism, but from Evangelical Christianity. In effect, as the already existing literature and some newly-disclosed Western archives show beyond any doubt, Christian Zionism was in existence centuries before any Jew ever thought of Zionism.

Image: Rabbi Shapiro with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Yom Yerushalayim celebration at Mercaz HaRav (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

American orthodox Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, who has attained an enviable place among both rabbinic scholars in orthodoxy and anti-Zionist public intellectuals, did an outstanding job in going over the history and the ideology of Western Christian Zionism and its influence on the Jews across the world.

In tackling such a daunting task, he starts with defining what it means to be a Jew. A Jew, he explains, is not a nationality or a race or an ethnicity or a culture. Rather, a Jew is anyone who accepts and keeps the 613 commandments (mitzvot) of the Torah, including the Ten Commandments given by God to Prophet Moses at Mount Sinai, not one less. Shapiro calls it a “job description” – and it’s a tough one indeed. It is therefore an anti-nationalist and anti-racist definition of Judaism; anti-Zionist in short.

Rabbi Shapiro then informs that it was the European Christian Evangelicals that first tied the existence of Israel to the Jewish Bible – the Old Testament as the Christians call it – because in Judaism no Jewish authority ever has done such a thing. Indeed, the Evangelicals believe that the Jews must be assembled in their Holy Land, having a state in Palestine, before the Messiah comes either to kill or convert all the Jews to Christianity. On the contrary, the Jews never wanted to return to the Holy Land en masse until the Jewish Messiah (Ha-mashiach) often referred to as King Messiah arrives and peace would reign in the world, and the universe would be ruled by a spirit of God. 

The ideology of modern Zionism is thus much more Christian Evangelical than it is traditional Jewish. In fact, a 2013 Pew Research Center survey[10] even concluded that “twice as many white evangelical Protestants as Jews say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God (82% vs. 40%). Some of the discrepancy is attributable to Jews’ lower levels of belief in God overall; virtually all Evangelicals say they believe in God, compared with 72% of Jews (23% say they do not believe in God and 5% say they don’t know or decline to answer the question). But even Jews who do believe in God are less likely than Evangelicals to believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people (55% vs. 82%)”.

It emerges from the historical compilation made by Shapiro and from other sources that:

• As early as 1585, a man by the name of Reverend Francis Kett – who was burned for heresy – published a book called “The Glorious and Beautiful Garland of Man’s Glorification”, in which he discusses the Jewish national return to Palestine;
• In 1611, English clergyman and biblical commentator Thomas Brightman’s pamphlet called “Apocalipsis Apocalypseos” was published. It described the process of the Jews’ so-called return to the Holy Land and their subsequent conversion to Christianity, saying: “Only if this happens would England be blessed by their God”;
• In 1621, lawyer and member of the Parliament of England for Canterbury, Sir Henry Finch, published a book whose title was “The World’s Great Restauration, or Calling of the Jews, and with them of all Nations and Kingdoms of the Earth to the Faith of Christ”, in which he called for the Jews to invoke their rightful claims to the Promised Land, reestablish themselves there, and convert to Christianity;
• In 1649, English puritan Christians who lived in Holland, Johanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer, presented a petition to the English parliament of Oliver Cromwell to allow the Jews to England, so that England, with the help of Holland, could then transport the Jews to Palestine where they needed to be, according to the Christian Evangelical belief;
• In 1771, Joseph Eyre, a minister of the Church of England, published a book titled “Observations Upon the Prophecies Relating to the Restoration of the Jews”, in which he reiterated that according to Christianity, the Jews are going to return to Palestine from the lands of their dispersion;
• During the years 1793-1795, Baptist minister James Bicheno published a book called “The Signs of the Times” predicting the imminent overthrow of the Pope and the ingathering of the Jews from their exile, in preparation for their conversion to Christianity;
• At the end of the 1700s, after the traumatic changes engendered by the American and French revolutions, the British, like many other Europeans, believed that the world was in the middle of a great upheaval. And as is usually the case at the turn of each and every millennium, people would turn to their religions to seek stability and psychological comfort. In particular, the invasion and occupation of the Ottoman territories of Egypt and Syria (1798-1801) by the Napoléon Bonaparte-led forces of the French First Republic were viewed as a sign that the Jews were coming back to the Holy Land. All the more so as Napoléon appealed to the Jews of Africa and Asia to join him in marching against Syria and restoring the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Jews, however, showed no interest in Napoléon’s offer: the religious among them knew that they belonged in exile all over the world and that their return to the Promised Land bore no resemblance to what Napoléon offered them; and the non-religious Jews, or the assimilated Jews of Germany and Western Europe, had no interest in abandoning their plans to be assimilated in European society;
• The early and mid-1800s saw increasingly more Christian Zionist activity in the attempt to both liberate the Jews from their exile and reestablish them in Palestine as well as to convert them to Christianity. And so, on 15 February 1809, the “London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews” was founded with the main aim to convert the Jews to Christianity. The Society changed its name several times since its inception. It still exists today and is known as “The Church’s Ministry Among Jewish people” (CMJ). It is one of the 10 official mission agencies of the Church of England. Besides the UK, it has branches in Israel, the US, Ireland, France, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong and Australia. The Society is not only the precursor of Zionism, but also the initiator of what is now the “messianic Jewish movement”. Messianic Jews consider themselves Jews and not Christians; they don’t believe in most of the Torah and consider Jesus as the Messiah. Their declared mandate, as published on their website, reads as follows: “We believe the mandate God has given to us is to be a witness to the Jewish People about the Messiah, and to educate the Church on the Jewish roots of her faith and understanding that God has not finished with Israel. We also believe that God is doing a restorative work between His people, as through Yeshua the dividing walls between us are being broken down”;
• In 1830, the British-born John Thomas, who was then living in New York, founded yet another Christian sect called the “Christadelphians”, a Restorationist and nontrinitarian denomination. Thomas wrote a book titled “Hope of Israel”, in which he suggested that the Jewish nation could successfully be reconstituted in its so-called ancestral homeland through the political assistance of England;
• In 1839, the Church of Scotland itself published a memorandum to the Protestant monarchs of Europe for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine;
• In 1848, British Tory politician and pre-millennial Evangelical Anglican Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, became president of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. He, more than anybody else, is responsible not only for pushing the idea of the creation of the state of Israel, but also for successfully getting Christian Zionism to become the official political policy of England. In 1853, he wrote to the Prime minister, Lord Aberdeen, that Greater Syria was “a country without a nation” in need of “a nation without a country… Is there such a thing? To be sure there is, the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!” In his diary that year he wrote: “these vast and fertile regions will soon be without a ruler, without a known and acknowledged power to claim dominion. The territory must be assigned to someone or other… There is a country without a nation; and God now in his wisdom and mercy, directs us to a nation without a country.” This is commonly cited as an early use of the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land” by which Lord Shaftesbury was echoing another British proponent of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine: Dr Alexander Keith;
• In 1851, the Italian politician Benedetto Musolino wrote a book[11] in which he called for a Jewish municipality in the Holy Land, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman empire, where the national religion would be Judaism and the national language would be Hebrew;
• In 1884, William Henry Hechler, who was a Restorationist Anglican clergyman and promoter of Zionism, published a book called “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy”. In it, he called for the Jews to return to Palestine as a prerequisite for the coming of the Christian Messiah, and based on complex calculations of scriptural interpretation, held that in 1897 or 1898 the Jews would be returned to Palestine. It is important to note that this Protestant pastor, who undertook missionary work in Germany, was also the personal tutor of Prince Ludwig, the son of the Grand Duke of Baden and the uncle of the future Kaiser of Germany William II;
• In 1887, shortly after the outbreak of the Russian pogroms, American Christian Zionist William E. Blackstone authored a book called “Jesus is Coming” in which he insisted Jews have a biblical right to Palestine. He sent a petition to President Benjamin Harrison with over 400 signatures, lobbying for the US to work together with the European countries to return Palestine to the Jews. In this petition, Blackstone used the argument that the Jewish refugees from persecution, which comprised about 2 million Russian Jews, had nowhere to go and that the only solution to their plight was a Jewish state in Palestine;
• In 1895, British Prime minister Benjamin Disraeli bought controlling interests in the Suez Canal, and two years later the British gained control of Cyprus, thereby establishing themselves as a key player in areas in and around the Holy Land and boosting significantly the expectation of the achievement of the long-sought creation of a Jewish state in Palestine;
• It is against such a backdrop that Theodor Herzl published his pamphlet “Der Judenstaat”[12] in 1896, which, according to William Hechler, was a clear fulfilment of the Christian prophecy. Hechler thereupon sought out to inform Herzl of this “miracle”! Herzl recorded in his diary his first meeting with the Reverend: “The Rev. William H. Hechler, chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna, called on me. A likeable, sensitive man with the long grey beard of a prophet. He waxed enthusiastic over my solution. He, too, regards my movement as a ‘prophetic crisis’ – one he foretold two years ago. For he had calculated in accordance with a prophecy dating from Omar’s reign (634-644) that after 42 prophetical months, that is, 1,260 years, Palestine would be restored to the Jews. This would make it 1897-1898. When he read my book, he immediately hurried to Ambassador Monson (British Ambassador in Vienna) and told him: the fore-ordained movement is here! Hechler declares my movement to be a ‘Biblical’ one, even though I proceed rationally in all points. He wants to place my tract in the hands of some German princes. He used to be a tutor in the household of the Grand Duke of Baden; he knows the German Kaiser and thinks he can get me an audience”. So, besides granting Herzl access to powerful leaders, Hechler did his own lobbying among the high-ranking state leaders he knew, in particular among the Protestants of Germany, England and the US. The US, by and large, has always supported Zionism. President John Quincy Adams said that he would like it if the Jews were again an independent government and no longer persecuted. For his part, Abraham Lincoln said to the Canadian Christian Zionist Henry Wentworth Monk: “Restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans”;
• Last but certainly not least, 1909 saw the publication by Oxford University Press of the “Scofield Reference Bible”, edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. It is a widely circulated Bible containing the entire text of the traditional, Protestant King James version published in 1611, and is known for having popularized dispensionalism at the beginning of the 20th century. It was revised by the author in 1917, and sales of it are said to have exceeded two million copies by the end of World War II. One of its most innovative features is that it comprises what amounts to a commentary on the biblical text alongside the Bible instead of in a separate volume, the first to do so in English since the Geneva Bible of 1560. More significantly, central to Christian Zionist belief is Scofield’s commentary (italicized below) on Genesis 12:3: “‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfilment closely related to the next clause, ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew – well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.” Drawing on Scofield’s tendentious interpretation, American Christian Zionist John Hagee claims that “The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”[13] But as Stephen Sizer rightly points out in his definitive critique[14], “The promise, when referring to Abraham’s descendants, speaks of God blessing them, not of entire nations ‘blessing’ the Hebrew nation, still less the contemporary and secular state of Israel”. It might be worthwhile to add to Sizer’s reflection the important fact that the Arabs – of whom the Palestinians – are also descendants of Abraham through his first son Ishmael.

Britain’s (and France’s) Promises and Betrayals

So, after centuries of relentless preaching and planning on the part of Western Christian Evangelicals, the early twentieth century finally provided them with the Jewish cooperation they needed – mainly after the formation of the British Zionist Federation in 1899 – to fulfill their desire to see the Jews restored in Palestine, which represents the beginning of the “redemption” according to Protestant Restorationist Christianity. This is how Britain issued the ominous Balfour Declaration in 1917. Lord Balfour himself, as we mentioned earlier, was a devout Christian[15], a racist and a Zionist. In 1906, as the then leader of the opposition, Balfour met with Chaim Weizmann[16] – together with Jewish MP and Minister Herbert Samuels and banker Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild – who lobbied him to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Afterthemeeting, Balfour commented:

“Their love for their country refused to be satisfied by the Uganda scheme. It was Weizmann’s absolute refusal to even look at it which impressed me”.

Balfour declaration (From the Public Domain)

The Declaration was quite simply just a letter from the Foreign Secretary to Lord Rothschild, thus having no legal legitimacy. Later, when it was incorporated into the 1922 Mandate of Palestine, what was initially a mere political sentiment was transformed into British policy[17] promising the Jews a land which was at the time an integral part of Syria and belonging to the Ottoman Empire, of which Britain had no legal right to give away.[18]

The exploration of the British archival documents held in the National Archives in Kew Garden – which detail the drafting stages of the Declaration – amply demonstrates the vast oversights, insincerity and a complete lack of consideration for the Palestinian people that has ignited and fuelled decades of violence and injustice in the Middle East region. Historian Elizabeth Monroe has described the Declaration as “one of the greatest mistakes in our [British] imperial history”.[19]

In the years preceding the publication of the Declaration, the British government had already entered into two very opposing agreements in the Levant. The first was the notorious Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, in which British statesman Sir Mike Sykes and French politician François Georges-Picot drew with pencils and carved up the map of the Middle East between France and Britain, assuming that the Ottoman Empire would fall.[20] The second agreement was named the Hussein-McMahon agreement. It comprised of a series of correspondences and formal pledges made between Hussein bin Ali, the Sherif of Mecca, and Sir Henry McMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt.[21] As the Great War commenced, Britain realized that Arab nationalists could be of benefit to them; they therefore solicited their loyalty to fight the Ottomans and in return McMahon promised to Hussein Arab independence on the advent of the Ottoman Empire being defeated. The British had therefore “already double crossed and betrayed two peoples before a third agreement on the destiny of Palestine had even been declared”.[22]

Over the last one hundred years, historical propaganda and biased colonial discourse have constructed the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and written its dominant narrative. This discourse, both within historiography and academia, has proven to be a powerful tool serving to manipulate our understanding of this conflict and to justify the continued denial of basic rights to the Palestinian people. However, as Noam Chomsky wrote in the book[23] he co-authored with Ilan Pappé: “Anyone who dares to dive into the ocean of words to be found in the political and diplomatic documents in the various national archives understands how precarious is the story extracted from these heaps of documents left behind by the chattering classes that shaped our lives over the last two centuries”. 

As a matter of fact, among the above-mentioned British archival documents, especially those included in the War Cabinet files, are various letters written by Lord Edwin Samuel Montagu, who was then the only Jewish member of the Cabinet and in which he opposed the Declaration, saying: “I have never heard it suggested even by their most fervent admirers, that either Mr. Balfour or Lord Rothschild would prove to be the Messiah”.[24] Alongside his protests – both before and after the Declaration was made public – was a list of forty-five prominent British Jews who vehemently expressed their opposition to the Declaration and abhorrence of Zionism, as well as figures showing that just six percent of the Jewish population of Great Britain supported Zionism. One of those prominent Jewish anti-Zionists was philanthropist, scholar and founding President of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, Claude Montefiore.[25]

A closer look at the different archives reveals the following main arguments:

• Said 45 Jewish people ardently resented Zionist efforts to convince Jews that they were an ethnic-racial group who constituted a nation. They believed it was an injustice to turn over control of a land to those who then constituted only 7% of the population[26], and distinguished that the Holy Land is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. They further articulated the practical implications of Zionism and the challenge both for those who would emigrate to Palestine and those assimilationist Jews who wouldn’t leave their countries of residence;
• Zionism was viewed by many Jews, and primarily by rabbis, as an anti-Jewish rebellion comparable to Luther’s challenge to the Church of Rome. Looking outside the British Jewish community, Montagu gives the testimony of Italy’s second Jewish Prime minister Luigi Luzzatti: “Jews must acquire everywhere full religious liberty as existing in the United States and in Italy. In Palestine, delivered from the Turks, Jews will live, not as sovereigns but as free citizens, to fertilize their fathers’ land. Judaism is not a Nationality but a Religion”;[27]
• With regard to Judaism and politics, Chief Rabbi Dr Hermann Adler was of the opinion that “When we dwelt in the Holy Land, we had a political organization of our own: we had judges and kings to rule over us. But ever since the conquest of Palestine by the Romans, we have ceased to be a body politic; we are citizens of the country in which we dwell (…) To Mr. Goldwin Smith’s question, ‘What is the political bearing of Judaism?’, I would reply that Judaism has no political bearing whatever. The great bond which unites us is not one of race, but the bond of a common religion. We regard all mankind as brethren. We consider ourselves citizens of the country in which we dwell, in the highest and fullest sense of the term, and esteem it our dearest privilege and duty to labor for its welfare”;[28]
• At the time of the drafting of the Declaration all British foreign policy was created along lines that sought to benefit the Empire, and Palestine was viewed as a territory of the utmost importance to the future security and wellbeing of the British Empire.[29] This line of argument finds that it was the British government who invited the Zionists into the negotiations and opened up the debate, thus contradicting common claims that it was Zionist leaders who courted and persuaded the Cabinet to fulfil their desires. Indeed, the archives show that the War Cabinet gained its first introduction to the idea of a Jewish Palestine by Herbert Samuels. In a memorandum in 1915 titled “The Future of Palestine”,  Samuels wrote: “From the standpoint of British interests there are several arguments for this policy [annexation of Palestine to the British Empire] if wider considerations should allow it to be pursued: 1. It would enable England to fulfil in yet another sphere her historic part of civilizer of the backward countries; 2. (…) Palestine, small as it is in area, bulks so large in the world’s imagination, that no Empire is so great but its prestige would be raised by its possession (…) particularly if it were avowedly a means of aiding the Jews to reoccupy the country; 3. (…) Although Great Britain did not enter the conflict [World War I] with any purpose of territorial expansion, being in it and having made immense sacrifices, there would be profound disappointment in the country if the outcome were to be the securing of great advantages by our allies, and not for ourselves (…) Certain of the German colonies must no doubt be retained for strategic reasons. But if Great Britain can obtain the compensations, which public opinion will demand, in Mesopotamia and Palestine, and not in German East Africa and West Africa, there is more likelihood of a lasting peace; 4. The belt of desert to the east of the Suez Canal is an admirable strategic frontier for Egypt. But it would be an inadequate defense if a great European Power [that is, France] were established on the further side; 5. The course which is advocated would win for England the lasting gratitude of the Jews throughout the world.  In the United States where they number about 2,000,000, and in all the other land where they are scattered, they would form a body of opinion whose bias, where the interest of the country of which they were citizens was not involved, would be favorable to the British Empire”.[30] The minutes from War Cabinet meeting 245 seemed to concur with Samuels’ analysis: “(…) The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that he gathered that everyone was now agreed that, from a purely diplomatic and political point of view, it was desirable that some declaration favorable to the aspirations of the Jewish nationalists should now be made. The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favorable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favorable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.”[31] Moreover, the archives show that the Foreign Office sent influential Zionists on mission to achieve these aims. Aaron Aaronsohn was one such Zionist who was sent to both the US and Russia by the Foreign Office to spy and infiltrate Jewish communities;[32]
• The discovery of oil in Persia by the British company Anglo-Persian in 1908 may have played a latent role in the formulation of Zionist policy. In a Foreign Office memorandum titled “The Oilfields of Russia and Mesopotamia” it was explained that the “security of this country and the British Empire is dependent on oil”;[33]

With regard to the no less perfidious and duplicitous attitude of France vis-à-vis the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general and the support given to Zionism in particular, Lord Montagu writes in a document labelled “SECRET” and titled “ZIONISM”[34] he circulated on the 9^th of October 1917: “The Cabinet has been informed that the French Government are in sympathy with Zionist aspirations. It has recently come to my knowledge officially that the French Ambassador has approached our Foreign Office with a proposal to establish a Jewish nation in El Hasa in Arabia [in today’s Saudi Arabia], oblivious of the fact that although this is technically Turkish territory, we have concluded so recently as 1915 a treaty which roughly promises to support Bin Saud and his followers in the occupation of the country. I quote this to prove that the French are anxious to establish Jews anywhere if only to have an excuse for getting rid of them, or large numbers of them”. 

Through this testimony Montagu was most probably just confirming the content of a letter[35] addressed on June 4, 1917, by Jules Cambon, then secretary general of the French Quai d’Orsay, to Polish-born Nahum Sokolow, a leader of the Zionist movement who publicly supported the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In this letter which precedes by five months the Balfour declaration, the French diplomat wrote: “You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine. You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago. The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies. I am happy to give you herewith such assurance”. 

At the time, the letter was not released for publication, and it was no sooner sent than regretted as the French Quai d’Orsay returned to its habitual anxiety and duplicity on the subject, as recounted by David Pryce-Jones in a book.[36] Indeed, on 15 January 1919, Foreign minister Stephen Pichon instructed Pierre Paul Cambon, the French ambassador in London, to draw to the British government’s attention that Zionist propaganda should not be allowed to become cause for trouble in the Middle East, saying: “The allied authorities should abstain from all actions or declarations which might arouse unrealizable expectations in the Jews (…) The Zionists must understand once and for all that there could be no question of constituting an independent Jewish state in Palestine, nor even forming some sovereign Jewish body”. Three days later Cambon wrote to Pichon that he could hardly believe the conversation he had just had with Lord Balfour, who reportedly said to him: “It would be interesting to be present at the reconstitution of the Kingdom of Jerusalem”. Cambon replied that according to the Apocalypse such a reconstitution would signal the end of the world, and Balfour came back: “It would be still more interesting to be present at the end of the world”! 

In sum, the examination of the British archival documents clearly shows that the Balfour Declaration was a product of four key mindsets: desperation for victory in World War I, imperialism, antisemitism and Orientalism.

In her speech[37] at a dinner organized in London on 2 November 2017 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Prime minister Theresa May said that the Declaration was “one of the most important letters in history”, that “we are proud of our pioneering role in the creation of Israel”, and that she will “absolutely not” apologize for this landmark document. She also slammed the BDS movement and considered “abhorrent” a “new and pernicious form of anti-Semitism which uses criticism of the actions of Israeli government as a despicable justification for questioning the very right of Israel to exist”. No wonder then that Benjamin Netanyahu flew to London to attend the dinner, and that no Palestinian leader was invited to the same event.

May’s exclusion of Palestinians from her celebration reflects with uncanny accuracy the scornful neglect of the same people from the Balfour Declaration one hundred years ago. The British “treated the Palestinians as non-people then, and still treat them as non-people today”.[38]

Click here to read Parts I to VIII.

*

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

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the books “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014 and “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde” (Islam and the Order of the World),  Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2021. 

Notes

[1] Rudyard Kipling, “The Ballad of East and West”. To read the whole poem: kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_eastwest.htm

[2] Anthony Pagden, “Worlds at War: The 2,500-Year Struggle between East & West”, Oxford University Press, 2008.

[3] As recounted by Ian Worthington in his book titled “Alexander the Great: A Reader”, Routledge, 2011, the Susa weddings were arranged by Alexander the Great in 324 BCE, shortly after he conquered the Achaemenid Empire. In an attempt to wed Greek culture with Persian culture, he and his officers held a large gathering at Susa and took Persian noblewomen in matrimony. The collective weddings involved 80 couples and blended various Greek and Persian traditions. Celebrating his own Persian wife, Alexander intended for these new unions to help him begin identifying himself as a son of Persia and thereby legitimize his claim as the heir of the Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty. It was also expected that any children produced from these marriages would, as the progeny of both Greece and Persia, serve as a symbol of the two civilizations coming together under Alexander’s Macedonian Empire.

[4] See my related articles titled: “Islam and the West: What Went Wrong and Why”, 6 March 2018: https://www.islamicity.org/14457/islam-and-the-west-what-went-wrong-and-why/ and “9/11 and the Green Scare: It’s High Time for a Paradigm Shift”, 13 March 2018: https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-green-scare-its-high-time-for-a-paradigm-shift/5631878

[5] Arnold J. Toynbee, “Islam and the West, and the Future”, in “Civilization on Trial”, Oxford University Press, 1948.

[6] David Wetherell, “Israel and the God of War”, Financial Review, 23 December 2004.

[7] Michael Prior, CM, “The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique”, Sheffield Academic Press, England, 1997.

[8] David Wetherell, idem.

[9] Caitlin Johnstone, “Everything About Israel Is Fake”, Globalresearch.ca, 11 June 2024.

[10] Michael Lipka, “More white Evangelicals than American Jews say God gave Israel to the Jewish people”, Pew Research Center, 3 October 2013.

[11] Benedetto Musolino, “Gerusalemme ed il Popolo Ebreo” (Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish People),  La Rassegna Mensile d’Israel, Roma, 1951.

[12] It’s worth indicating here that the first Zionist books that were printed before Herzl’s pamphlet  – that’s to say centuries after the Evangelical literature we have summarily mentioned – were Moses Hess’s “Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question” published in Leipzig, Germany, in 1862, in which he argued for the Jews to return to Palestine and proposed a socialist country, and Russian-Polish Leo Pinker’s “Auto-Emancipation” published in Berlin, Germany, in 1882 and considered as a founding document of modern Jewish nationalism, especially Zionism.

[13] Maidhc O Cathail, “The Scofield Bible – The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians”, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October 2015.

[14] Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon?”, Intervarsity Press Academic, 2004.

[15] He wrote a book on Christian theology in 1894 called “The Foundations of Belief: Being Notes Introductory to the Study of Theology”.

[16] Chaim Azriel Weizmann was born in Motol (Russian empire) in 1874. He settled in London upon taking up a science appointment at the University of Manchester. Being a chemist by training, he gave valuable assistance to the British munitions industry during World War I. This achievement signally aided the Zionist political negotiations he was then conducting with the British government. In 1917, he was President of the British Zionist Federation, and he headed the World Zionist Organization in 1920. He later became the first President of the state of Israel (from 1949 to 1952).

[17] See Janko Scepanovic, “Sentiments and Geopolitics and the Formulation and Realization of the Balfour Declaration”, CUNY Academic Works, 2014.

[18] Kathy Durkin, “The Ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration: Who Caused it and Why?”, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.

[19] Elizabeth Monroe, “Britain’s Moment in the Middle East 1914-1956”, Chatto & Windus, London, 1963.

[20] Joe Stork, “Understanding the Balfour Declaration”, Middle East Research and Information Project, 1972.

[21] See Hussein-McMahon Agreement (1915-1916): http://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/13mcmahonhussein.pdf

[22] Hannah Bowler, in “Giving Away Other People’s Land: The Making of the Balfour Declaration”, edited by Sameh Habeeb and Pietro Stefanini, The Palestinian Return Centre, 2017.

[23] Noam Chomsky & Ilan Pappé, “Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians”, Haymarket Books, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.

[24] NA CAB 21/58 Pamphlet written by Edwin S. Montagu (1917).

[25] In his works  “Nation or Religious Community?” and “Race, Nation, Religion and the Jews” published, respectively, in 1917 and 1918, he stated that “The establishment of a ‘National Home for the Jewish Race’ in Palestine presupposes that the Jews are a nation, which I deny, and that they are homeless, which implies that in the countries where they enjoy religious liberty and the full rights of citizenship, they are separate entities, unidentified with the interests of the nations of which they form parts, an implication which I repudiate”. See CAB/58 letter from Lenard Cohen (October 1917).

[26] Michael Meyer, “Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990.

[27] CAB21/58 booklet from Edwin Samuel Montagu titled “Zionism” (1917).

[28] D. Z. Gillon, “The Balfour Declaration and Its Makers”, Middle Eastern Studies, 1970.

[29] CAB21/58 “Judaism and Politics” Views of the Chief Rabbi Dr Hermann Adler (July 1878).

[30] D.Z. Gillon, “The Antecedents of the Balfour Declaration”, Middle Eastern Studies, 1970.

[31] CAB/37/123/43 Memorandum by Herbert Samuels, 21st January 1915.

[32] NA FO141/805/1 Draft telegram from the High Commissioner for Egypt, June 22^nd 1917.

[33] NA FO608/97 Memorandum on Oilfields of Russia and Mesopotamia (1919).

[34] British Record Office, Cab. No. 24/28

[35] See copy of the original letter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambon_letter#/media/File:Cambon_Letter.jpg

[36] David Pryce-Jones, “Betrayal: France, the Arabs, and the Jews”, Encounter Books, New York, 2006.

[37] To read the full text of the speech: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-mays-speech-at-balfour-declaration-centenary-dinner/

[38] Peter Oborne, “100 years after Balfour: the reality which still shames Israel”, OpenDemocracy, 2 November 2017. 

Featured image is from the author

 

 

 

.

.

Outstanding analysis first published on June 14, 2011. 

Read Part I and II:

The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

By Dean Henderson, May 06, 2023

History: The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild

By Dean Henderson, April 15, 2023

---

According to former British intelligence agent John Coleman’s book, The Committee of 300, the Rothschilds exert political control through the secretive Business Roundtable, which they created in 1909 with the help of Lord Alfred Milner and South African industrialist Cecil Rhodes. The Rhodes Scholarship is granted by Oxford University, while oil industry propagandist Cambridge Energy Research Associates operates out of the Rhodes-supported Cambridge University.

Rhodes founded De Beers and Standard Chartered Bank. According to Gary Allen’s expose, The Rockefeller Files, Milner financed the Russian Bolsheviks on Rothschild’s behalf, with help from Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg.

In 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour penned a letter to Zionist Second Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in which he expressed support for a Jewish homeland on Palestinian-controlled lands in the Middle East. [1]

The Balfour Declaration justified the brutal seizure of Palestinian lands for the post-WWII establishment of Israel.  Israel would serve, not as some high-minded “Jewish homeland”, but as lynchpin in Rothschild/Eight Families control over the world’s oil supply.  Baron Edmond de Rothschild built the first oil pipeline from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to bring BP Iranian oil to Israel.  He founded Israeli General Bank and Paz Oil. He is considered by many the father of modern Israel. [2]

Roundtable inner Circle of Initiates included Lord Milner, Cecil Rhodes, Arthur Balfour, Albert Grey and Lord Nathan Rothschild.  The Roundtable takes its name from the legendary knight of King Arthur, whose tale of the Holy Grail is paramount to the Illuminati notion of Sangreal or holy blood.

John Coleman writes in The Committee of 300, “Round Tablers armed with immense wealth from gold, diamond and drug monopolies fanned out throughout the world to take control of fiscal and monetary policies and political leadership in all countries where they operated.”

While Cecil Rhodes and the Oppenheimers went to South Africa, the Kuhn Loebs were off to re-colonize America.  Rudyard Kipling was sent to India. The Schiffs and Warburgs manhandled Russia. The Rothschilds, Lazards and Israel Moses Seifs pushed into the Middle East.  In Princeton, New Jersey the Round Table founded the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) as partner to its All Souls College at Oxford.  IAS was funded by the Rockefeller’s General Education Board. IAS members Robert Oppenheimer, Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein created the atomic bomb. [3]

In 1919 Rothschild’s Business Roundtable spawned the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London.  The RIIA soon sponsored sister organizations around the globe, including the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Asian Institute of Pacific Relations, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Brussels-based Institute des Relations Internationales, the Danish Foreign Policy Society, the Indian Council of World Affairs and the Australian Institute of International Affairs. Other affiliates popped up in France, Turkey, Italy, Yugoslavia and Greece. [4]

The RIIA is a registered charity of the Queen and, according to its annual reports, is funded largely by the Four Horsemen.  Former British Foreign Secretary and Kissinger Associates co-founder Lord Carrington was President of both the RIIA and the Bilderbergers.  The inner circle at RIIA is dominated by Knights of St. John Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, Knights Templar and 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Freemasons.  The Knights of St. John were founded in 1070 and answer directly to the British House of Windsor.  Their leading bloodline is the Villiers dynasty, which the Hong Kong Matheson family married into. The Lytton family also married into the Villiers gang. [5]

Colonel Edward Bulwer-Lytton led the English Rosicrucian secret society, which Shakespeare opaquely referred to as Rosencranz, while the Freemasons took the role of Guildenstern.  Lytton was spiritual father of both the RIIA and Nazi fascism.  In 1871 he penned a novel titled, Vril: The Power of the Coming Race.  Seventy years later the Vril Society received ample mention in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  Lytton’s son became Viceroy to India in 1876 just before opium production spiked in that country.  Lytton’s good friend Rudyard Kipling worked under Lord Beaverbrook as Propaganda Minister, alongside Sir Charles Hambro of the Hambros banking dynasty. [6]

James Bruce, ancestor to Scottish Rite Freemason founder Sir Robert the Bruce, was the 8th Earl of Elgin. He supervised the Caribbean slave trade as Jamaican Governor General from 1842-1846.  He was Britain’s Ambassador to China during the Second Opium War.  His brother Frederick was Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong during both Opium Wars.  Both were prominent Freemasons.  British Lord Palmerston, who ran the Opium Wars, was a blood relative of the Bruce monarchy, as was his Foreign Secretary John Russell, grandfather of Bertrand Russell. [7]

Children of the Roundtable elite are members of a Dionysian cult known as Children of the Sun.  Initiates include Aldous Huxley, T. S. Eliot, D. H. Lawrence and H. G. Wells.  Wells headed British intelligence during WWI. His books speak of a “one-world brain” and “a police of the mind”.  William Butler Yeats, another Sun member, was a pal of Aleister Crowley.  The two formed an Isis Cult based on a Madam Blavatsky manuscript, which called on the British aristocracy to organize itself into an Isis Aryan priesthood. Most prominent writers of English literature came from the ranks of the Roundtable. All promoted Empire expansion, however subtly.  Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society and Bulwer-Lytton’s Rosicrucians joined forces to form the Thule Society out of which the Nazis emerged. [8]

Aleister Crowley formed the British parallel to the Thule Society, the Isis-Urania Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.  He tutored LSD guru Aldus Huxley, who arrived in the US in 1952, the same year the CIA launched its MK-ULTRA mind control program with help from the Warburg-owned Swiss Sandoz Laboratories and Rockefeller cousin Allen Dulles- OSS Station Chief in Berne.  Dulles received information from the Muslim Brotherhood House of Saudi regarding the creation of mind-controlled Assassins.  Dulles’ assistant was James Warburg. [9]

The Atlantic Union (AU) was an RIIA affiliate founded by Cecil Rhodes- who dreamed of returning the US to the British Crown.  In 1939 AU set up its first offices in America in space donated by Nelson Rockefeller at 10 E 40th St in New York City.  Every year from 1949-1976 an AU resolution was floored in Congress calling for a repeal of the Declaration of Independence and a “new world order”. Another RIIA affiliate was United World Federalists (UWF)- founded by Norman Cousins and Dulles assistant James P. Warburg.  UWF’s motto was “One world or none”.  Its first president Cord Meyer stepped down to take a key position in Allen Dulles’ CIA.  Meyer articulated UWF’s goal, “Once having joined the One-World Federated Government, no nation could secede or revolt…with the atom bomb in its possession the Federal Government would blow that nation off the face of the earth.” [10]

In 1950 James Warburg, whose elders Max and Paul sat on the board of Nazi business combine IG Farben, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it- by conquest or consent.”  The AU and UAF are close to the CFR and the Trilateral Commission (TC)- founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1974. [11]

The TC published The Triangle Papers which extended the “special relationship between the US and Western Europe” to include Japan, which was fast becoming creditor to the rest of the world.  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was TC Chairman.  TC/CFR insider Harvard Professor  Samuel Huntington, who most recently has argued for a “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and the Muslim world, wrote in the TC publication Crisis in Democracy, “…a government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary.” [12]

The Illuminati

The Illuminati serves as ruling council to all secret societies.  Its roots go back to the Guardians of Light in Atlantis, the Brotherhood of the Snake in Sumeria, the Afghan Roshaniya, the Egyptian Mystery Schools and the Genoese families who bankrolled the Roman Empire.  British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who “handled” mafia-founder and 33rd Degree Mason Guiseppe Mazzini, alluded to the Illuminati in a speech before the House of Commons in 1856 warning, “There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention. I mean the secret societies.  Europe…is covered with a network of secret societies just as the surfaces of the earth are covered with a network of railroads.”[13]

The Illuminati is to these secret societies what the Bank of International Settlements is to the Eight Families central bankers.  And their constituencies are exactly the same.

The forerunners of the Freemasons -the Knights Templar- founded the concept of banking and created a bond market as a means to control European nobles through war debts.  By the 13th century the Templars had used their looted Crusades gold to buy 9,000 castles throughout Europe and ran an empire stretching from Copenhagen to Damascus.  They founded modern banking techniques and legitimized usury via interest payments.  Templars’ bank branches popped up everywhere, backed by their ill-gotten gold.  They charged up to 60% interest on loans, launched the concept of trust accounts and introduced a credit card system for Holy Land pilgrims.  They acted as tax collectors, though themselves exempted by Roman authorities, and built the great cathedrals of Europe, having also found instructions regarding secret building techniques alongside the gold they pilfered beneath Solomon’s Temple.  The stained glass used in the cathedrals resulted from a secret Gothic technique known by few.  One who had perfected this art was Omar Khayvam, a good friend of Assassin founder Hasan bin Sabah. [14]

The Templars controlled a huge fleet of ships and their own naval fleet based at the French Atlantic Port of La Rochelle.  They were especially cozy with the royals of England.  They purchased the island of Cyprus from Richard the Lion Heart, but were later overrun by the Turks.  On Friday October 13, 1307 King Philip IV of France joined forces with Pope Clement V and began rounding up Templars on charges ranging from necromancy to the use of black magic.  Friday the 13th would from that day forward carry negative connotations. “Sion” is believed to be a transliteration of Zion, itself a transliteration for the ancient Hebrew name Jerusalem.  The Priory of Sion came into public view in July 1956.  A 1981 notice in the French press listed 121 dignitaries as Priory members.  All were bankers, royalty or members of the international political jet set.  Pierre Plantard was listed as Grand Master.  Plantard is a direct descendent, through King Dagobert II, of the Merovingan Kings.  Plantard, who owns property in the Rennes-le-Chateau area of southern France where the Priory of Sion is based, has stated that the order has in its possession lost treasure recovered from beneath Solomon’s Temple and that it will be returned to Israel when the time is right.  He also stated that in the near future monarchy would be restored to France and other nations. The Templars claim to possess secret knowledge that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene, fathered children to launch the Merovingan bloodline and was the son of Joseph of Arimathea. [15]

Joseph was the son of King Solomon.  Solomon’s Temple is the model for Masonic Temples, which occur without fail in every town of any size in America.  It was a place of ill repute where fornicating, drunkenness and human sacrifice were the norm.  Accorder to British researcher David Icke, it’s location on Jerusalem’s Mount Moriah may have also been an Anunnaki flight control center. The Annunaki are the reptilian/aliens revealed by the Sumerian clay tablets- the oldest written accounts of humankind known. The Crusader Knights Templar looted their huge store of gold and numerous sacred artifacts from beneath the Temple.  King Solomon was the son of King David- who during his 1015 BC reign massacred thousands of people.

Icke calls King David “a butcher” and asserts that the king wrote a good chunk of the Bible.  His son Solomon killed his own brother to become King.  He advised Egyptian Pharaoh Shiskak I, marrying his daughter.  Solomon studied at Akhenaton’s Egyptian Mystery Schools, where mind control was rampant.  The Grand Lodge of Cairo spawned a network of secret societies including Assassins, Cabalists, Freemasons and the Afghan Roshaniya. Those who pass through to the highest levels become Illuminati.

Icke claims the Canaanite Brotherhood was headed by the god/king Melchizedek, who may have been an Annunaki.  The King focused on a Hebrew understanding of the Ancient Mysteries. The Order of Melchizedek became the secret society associated with the Cabala.  King Solomon developed his vast wisdom studying the Sumerian Tables of Destiny which Abraham had possessed.  Abraham may have also been of Anunnaki origin.

Both he and Melchizedek had been tutored by the Sumerian Brotherhood of the Snake, whose name may have something to do with the Biblical creation story, where Adam and Eve are tempted from a bountiful garden of Eden (a hunting and gathering existence?) into a world of “sin and servitude” by a snake.  When the Bible says that the first couple ate the forbidden fruit, could it mean that Eve was impregnated by the snake – an Annunaki serpent (the Nephilim of the Book of Genesis) – thus damning all Adamus to a life of toil under serpent king bloodline control?

The basis of the Sumerian Tables of Destiny which Abraham possessed became known as Ha Qabala, Hebrew for “light and knowledge”.  Those who understood these cryptic secrets, said to be encoded throughout the Old Testament, are referred to deferentially as Ram.  The phrase is used in Celtic, Buddhist and Hindu spiritual circles as well.  The Knights Templar brought Cabbalistic knowledge to Europe when they returned from their Middle East Crusade adventures. [16]

The Knights created the Prieure de Sion on Mt. Zion near Jerusalem in the 11th century to guard such holy relics as the Shroud of Turin, the Ark of the Covenant and the Hapsburg family’s Spear of Destiny- which was used to kill Jesus Christ.  The Priory’s more important purpose was to guard Templar gold and to preserve the alleged bloodline of Jesus – the royal Sangreal – which they believe is carried forth by the French Bourbon Merovingan family and the related Hapsburg monarchs of Spain and Austria. [17]  The French Lorraine dynasty, which descended from the Merovingans, married into the House of Hapsburg to acquire the throne of Austria.

The Hapsburgs ran the Holy Roman Empire until its dissolution in 1806, through King Charles V and others.  The family traces its roots back to a Swiss estate known as Habichtburg, which was built in 1020.  The Hapsburgs are an integral part of the Priory of Sion. Many researchers believe that Spain’s Hapsburg King Philip will be crowned Sangreal World King in Jerusalem.  The Hapsburgs are related to the Rothschilds through Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa’s second son Archibald II.

The Rothschilds- leaders in Cabala, Freemasonry and the Knights Templar- sit at the apex of the both the Illuminati and the Eight Families banking cartel.  The family accumulated its vast wealth issuing war bonds to Black Nobility for centuries, including the British Windsors, the French Bourbons, the German von Thurn und Taxis, the Italian Savoys and the Austrian and Spanish Hapsburgs. The Eight Families have also intermarried with these royals.

Author David Icke believes the Rothschilds represent the head of the Anunnaki Serpent Kings, stating, “They (Rothschilds) had the crown heads of Europe in debt to them and this included the Black Nobility dynasty, the Hapsburgs, who ruled the Holy Roman Empire for 600 years.  The Rothschilds also control the Bank of England.  If there was a war, the Rothschilds were behind the scenes, creating conflict and funding both sides.”[18]

The Rothschilds and the Warburgs are main stockholders of the German Bundesbank.  Rothschilds control Japan’s biggest banking house Nomura Securities via a tie-up between Edmund Rothschild and Tsunao Okumura.  The Rothschilds are the richest and most powerful family in the world.  They are also inbred.  According to several family biographers, over half of the last generation of Rothschild progeny married within the family, presumably to preserve their Sangreal. [19]

The 1782 Great Seal of the United States is loaded with Illuminati symbolism.  So is the reverse side of the US $1 Federal Reserve Note, which was designed by Freemasons.  The pyramid on the left side represents those in Egypt- possibly space beacon/energy source to the Anunnaki- whose Pharaohs oversaw the building of the pyramids using slave labor.

The pyramid is an important symbol for the Illuminati bankers. They employ Triads, Trilaterals and Trinities to create a society ruled by an elite Sangreal few presiding over the masses- as represented by a pyramid.  The Brotherhood of the Snake worshiped a Trinity of Isis, Osirus and Horus- who may have been Anunnaki offspring.  The Brotherhood spread the concept of Trinity to Christian (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), Hindu (Brahma, Shiva and Krishna) and Buddhist (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) faiths. [20]

The reptilian eye atop the pyramid depicted on the $1 bill is the all-seeing eye of the Afghan Roshaniya, known alternately as The Order and Order of the Quest- names adopted by Skull & Bones, Germanorden and the JASON Society. [21]  Take a magnifying glass and look at the eye’s pupil. There is an image of an alien inside the pupil. I’m not kidding.

Novus Ordo Seclorum appears beneath the pyramid, while Annuit Coeptis appears above the all-seeing eye.  Annuit Coeptis means “may he smile upon our endeavors (Great Work of Ages)”.  Above the eagle on the right side of the note are the words E Pluribus Unum, Latin for “out of many one”.  The eagle clutches 13 arrows and 13 olive branches, while 13 stars appear above the eagle’s head.  America was founded with 13 colonies.  Templar pirate Jaques deMolay was executed on Friday the 13th.

The numbers 3, 9, 13 and 33 are significant to the secret societies.  33^rd-degree Freemasons are said to become Illuminati. According to the late researcher William Cooper, the Bilderberger Group has a powerful Policy Committee of 13 members.  It is one of 3 committees of 13 which answered (until his recent death) to Prince Bernhard- member of the Hapsburg family and leader of the Black Nobility.  The Bilderberg Policy Committee answers to a Rothschild Round Table of 9. [22]

*

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

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Notes

[1] “The Secret Financial Network Behind ‘Wizard’ George Soros”. William Engdahl. Executive Intelligence Review. 11-1-96

[2] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.83

[3] Ibid. p.89

[4] Fourth Reich of the Rich. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena, CA. 1978. p.77

[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.195

[6] Ibid

[7] Dope Inc.: The Book that Drove Kissinger Crazy. The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992. p.264

[8] Ibid. p.538

[9] Dope Inc.

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Marrs

[13] Icke. p.148

[14] Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Laurence Gardner. Element Books, Inc. Rockport, MA. 1996

[15] Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Michael Bagent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Dell Publishing Company New York. 1983

[16] Icke.

[17] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Press. Sedona, AZ. 1991. p.79

[18] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love Publishing. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000.

[19] Marrs. p.71

[20] Icke. 1994. p.42

[21] Ibid. p.71

[22] Cooper

Featured image is from Jerusalem Post

---

Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network

by Dean Henderson

Publisher: ‎ CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 3rd edition (September 10, 2010)

Paperback: ‎ 480 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1453757732

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1453757734

Big Oil… pulls back the covers to expose a centuries-old cabal of global oligarchs, whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet’s three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world’s central banks.Henderson implicates these oligarchs in the orchestration of a string of conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy Assassination to 911. He follows the trail of dirty money up the food chain to the interbred Eight Families who- from their City of London base- control the Four Horsemen of Oil, the global drug trade and the permanent war economy.”Big Oil… is an extraordinary expose of the powers and events that are exacting a heavy toll on us, the people”.- Nexus New Times Magazine. Australia.”Big Oil… is hair-raising and a masterpiece which deserves not less than the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism. This book should be a requisite for every American to study.”- Dr. Carlos J. Canggiano, M.D., Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico.

Click here to purchase.

First published on July 2, 2024

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

***

Fearmongering around bird flu mirrors COVID-19 responses, with calls for testing, social distancing, and vaccination in the agricultural sector. New RFID tagging requirements for dairy cows represent potential government overreach, aimed at increased animal tracking and control

Development of mRNA vaccines for bird flu in both humans and animals raises concerns about potential mandatory vaccinations and their impact on the food supply

FDA warnings against raw milk consumption lack evidence of foodborne transmission of bird flu to humans and may serve to protect industrial dairy interests. The centralization of the food system has led to a 72% decrease in small farms over the last 90 years, emphasizing the need to support small-scale farmers directly

The H5N1 virus may have origins in gain-of-function research, potentially emerging from a lab rather than occurring naturally in wild birds

Mass culling of poultry in response to outbreaks has led to over 92 million chickens being slaughtered since 2022, often using inhumane methods

*

Let the fearmongering begin (again)! Propaganda efforts are making people believe humans can die from the bird flu and that we must “do our part” in preventing the next global pandemic. Wear masks, social distance, sanitize everything, get tested, get vaccinated … It’s kind of like “COVID-19,” but now in dairy cows!

Image from imgflip.com

Similar to “wear masks, stay home, practice social distancing and sanitize everything,” the United States Department of Agriculture is now encouraging farmers to regularly test animals, test the milk weekly, register livestock, step up the use of personal protective equipment, limit traffic onto their farms, and increase cleaning and disinfection practices.

“The most important step we can take today is biosecurity. I am calling on producers to use our resources to enhance their biosecurity measures and states and producers to opt in to our support programs and herd monitoring programs, which are designed to limit the spread of this disease in dairy cattle.” — Secretary of the USDA Tom Vilsack.

Image from www.desmoinesregister.com. Article written by the secretary of the USDA (Tom Vilsack), spreading the message that it is up to the farmers to comply to biosecurity methods to stop the spread.

Similar to “toilet paper shortages,” now there are limitations on number of egg cartons purchased at some stores in Australia as bird flu spreads rapidly across large poultry farms. (Are meat and dairy products next?)

 

Figure: Coles is one of the two largest supermarket chains in Australia.

Similar to summer event cancellations in 2020 and 2021, state fairs and livestock events are requiring testing¹ and some are even being canceled this summer due to the bird flu.²

What’s next?

• Lock downs of cows and chickens inside barns to reduce the spread?
• Mandatory avian influenza testing?
• Mandatory mRNA vaccination of all livestock to “solve the problem?”
• Force farm employees to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)?

This is all a little déjà vu, isn’t it? Can you believe they are trying this again? And all of this may be obvious to you, but when you tune into any mainstream media account right now, people ARE buying it! And there is a massive amount of fearmongering and discussions on “why we should be concerned,” “what to do to prevent a spread.”

For example, Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN produced an “Are We Prepared for Bird Flu” fearmongering special.³ The CDC is now predicting that the next pandemic will be from the bird flu.

“Once the virus gains the ability to attach to the human receptor and then go human to human, that’s when you’re going to have the pandemic … I think it’s just a matter of time.” — Dr. Redfield, former CDC director.

News agencies from across the country are saying the exact same thing. So, is that really “news?” Or has it become propaganda again? Reporting what they want us to hear to spread fear. So in this article, let’s discuss how this bird flu “pandemic” is an attempt to obtain complete control of the food system.

“Who controls the food supply controls the people.” — Henry Kissinger

I will also touch on what YOU can do to help stop spread the fearmongering — helping others better understand why these types of events are occurring can hopefully help prevent people from falling for this. (AGAIN!)

What Is ‘Bird Flu’

According to According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “H5N1 is one of several influenza viruses that causes a highly infectious respiratory disease in birds called avian influenza (or ‘bird flu’).” The “bird flu” is not new — it is something agriculture has dealt with for a long time. The CDC actually outlines the history of Avian Influenza from 1880 — 2024 here.

Dr. Mercola wrote about this in 2006 in his book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax:” “The U.S. government is now practically screaming that a new avian super-flu will likely kill millions of Americans. The mainstream media is entirely onboard, as are drug companies and other corporations poised to benefit immensely off the paranoia. But there is NO coming bird flu pandemic.

It’s an elaborate scheme contrived by the government and big business for reasons that boil down to power and money.” Are they really trying this again?

GOF Origins?

While I do not think humans should be concerned, there is no denying that H5N1 can cause problems for birds. Many people say that H5N1 comes from wild birds — but is Nature really something we should be fearing or trying to separate ourselves from? Where did the strain come from and why is it so problematic? Are there other origins?

Gain-of-function (GOF) research seeks to alter the functional characteristics of a virus to “help” public health experts better understand how viruses can spread and better plan for future pandemics.

In 2010, there was controversial GOF research on avian flu viruses where strains of the H5N1 bird flu viruses were intentionally made to be transmissible via respiratory droplets among ferrets. These studies were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Dr. Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates has also funded gain-of-function research on H5N1.⁴

In 2011, the scientists reported that they were successful in modifying the avian H5N1 virus so that it was transmissible between mammals, making the entire situation riskier for humans.⁵

After being put on pause for a period of time, federal funding for these controversial research projects quietly resumed in 2019.⁶ And GOF critics have repeatedly discussed the human risks if the virus escaped (or released) from a lab.

Did the current H5N1 strain come from a lab? Were migrating birds infected, which then traveled across the world and country infecting a number of poultry and livestock facilities around the world? There are individuals investigating potential lab origins of HPAI through gain of function research.⁷

“Genetic analysis indicates that genotype B3.13 emerged in 2024 and exhibits genetic links to genotype B1.2, which was identified to have originated in Georgia in January 2022 after the start of serial passage research with H5Nx clade 2.3.4.4 in mallard ducks at the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia in April 2021.”

Us humans will NEVER win the war against Mother Nature, as She will ALWAYS outsmart us. Image from www.theatlantic.com

Unfortunately, there is now troubling censorship that was recently instated to better control the narrative. Robert Malone reported that in June of this year, amendments to the WHO IHR (International Health Regulations) were illegally approved and prepared behind closed doors.⁸

“Although the ‘Article 55’ rules and regulations for amending the IHR explicitly require that ‘the text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration,’ the requirement of four months for review was disregarded in a rush to produce some tangible deliverable from the Assembly …

The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to ‘develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities … in relation to … surveillance … and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.'”⁹

Now Cows and Humans Get Bird Flu

But the bird flu now involves more than just birds … this year marks the first “bird to cow” and “cow to human” transmission.

A multi-state outbreak of H5N1 bird flu in dairy cows was first reported on March 25, 2024. And according to the CDC, there are now 12 states with outbreaks in dairy cows with a total of 126 dairy herds affected.¹⁰

According to the Ohio Department of Agriculture, however, most sick cows recover within a few days.

The first reported human case in the US was a dairy farmer in Texas who developed pinkeye earlier this year. “Swab testing” was used to determine this dairy farmer had the same strain of bird flu, H5N1, that is supposedly circulating in dairy cows.

Altogether, there have been four human cases in the U.S., and none involved person-to-person spread — all were infected after exposure to animals presumed to have bird flu. With the goal of spreading fear, the World Health Organization reported that the first human has died from the avian influenza in Mexico on April 24th.

A few important details they do not include in headlines is that this individual had many pre-existing conditions, had no exposure to poultry or other animals, and was bedridden for three weeks prior to the onset of avian flu symptoms.

This accusation by WHO that this man died from the bird flu was denied by the Mexican Health Secretary Jorge Alcocer.¹¹ Jorge Alcocer said the 59-year-old man died from other causes, mainly kidney and respiratory failure, NOT the bird flu.

“I can point out that the statement made by the World Health Organization is pretty bad, since it speaks of a fatal case (of bird flu), which was not the case.” — Jorge Alcocer

While the individual who died may have tested positive for H5N2, the current “fear” in the U.S. is the spread of the H5N1 strain in dairy cows. In 2008, scientists documented how testing positive for H5N2 may just be a result of seasonal flu vaccines or antiviral medications.

“A history of seasonal influenza vaccination might be associated with H5N2-neutralizing antibody positivity.¹² These results suggest that the administration of Tamiflu (an antiviral) may affect the results of HI tests for H5N2 virus.”¹³

Again, doesn’t all of this sound so familiar? Pre-existing conditions, false positive faulty testing, fear, misinformation …

False Testing

Just like with COVID, government agencies are relying on PCR tests as they ramp up testing for bird flu. But PCR tests are extremely inaccurate and lead to significant levels of false positives.¹⁴

PCR testing works by replicating tiny fragments of DNA or RNA until they become large enough to identify. The fragments are replicated in cycles, and each cycle doubles the amount of genetic material in the sample. The number of cycles required to create an identifiable sample is the “cycle threshold” (CT). A high CT means many cycles were required to “detect” a virus.

“A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate.

In short, media and public health officials have conflated ‘cases’ — positive tests — with the actual illness.” — Dr. Mercola, written about PCR testing with COVID. But now we this can be applied to the current bird flu situation.

In December 2020, even the WHO warned that using a high CT would lead to false-positive results. Moreover, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, has said it is inappropriate to use the test as a diagnostic tool to detect a viral infection.¹⁵

Yet the government is mass producing and encouraging PCR testing with no reporting on CTs. A big part of the CDCs new $93 million plan to reduce the impact of bird flu involves testing.¹⁶ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not respond to “The Defender’s” inquiry about which CTs are used to test animals for bird flu.¹⁷

False positives can help them spread fear, encourage vaccinations, and mandate the mass killing of cattle herds of chicken flocks.

Proposed Solutions

Former CDC Director Tom Frieden, outlined how he thinks the US should respond:¹⁸

The USDA requires that infected farms depopulate (kill) their flocks to better contain the virus and stop the spread. “The virus, however, is fatal to birds, and state and federal officials require all poultry in infected flocks to be killed to prevent its spread.”¹⁹ These mass killings (or “depopulations”) are paid for with public dollars through a USDA Program.²⁰

On June 25, the Feds have paid Michigan farms $81 million to recoup the loss of having to cull millions of birds.²¹ More than $73 million of that $81 million was provided to the state’s largest egg producer, Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch. Nearly 6.5 million chickens (more than 40% of the state’s egg layers) were depopulated in early 2024.

Image from www.mlive.com

Roughly $1 billion has been paid out nationwide since the highly pathogenic avian influenza, H5N1, started spreading in January 2022. Nationwide, large corporate egg producers have received some of the biggest payments to cover the cost of culling their flocks. For example, Jennie-O was provided $105 million, Tyson Foods was provided $29 million, and Cal-Main Foods $22 million.²²

More than 92 million chickens have been slaughtered since the recent outbreak began in 2022. And in June of this year, 4.2 million birds were killed at a farm in Sioux County, Iowa. (Why were there 4.2 million chickens at a single farm?)

Corporations are compensated for the mass killings despite the utilization of inhumane depopulation methods that are not approved by animal welfare organizations. More than 80% of the mass culling here in the US use VSD+ (ventilation shut down plus), which is a cheaper option and is banned in other countries. Air is closed off to the barns and heat is pumped in until the temps rise above 104 °F, essentially cooking the birds alive.

In a mass killing of 5 million birds in March 2022 at Remembrandt Foods, some employees reported that it took about a month to pull the dead poultry from the cages and dump them into carts before piling the birds into nearby fields and buried in huge pits.

Image from www.vox.com

Is the massacre of millions of birds really the best way to handle this situation? (It isn’t working, as “avian flu” outbreaks continue to pop up!) What if flocks are massacred due to a single false positive test? What about the concept of “natural immunity?”

The “cull the whole flock with one positive test” approach of approach will just lead to a reduction in the nation’s food supply (or even food shortages) and will lead to even more centralization and regulation in the food supply that is getting worse each year.

Dairy Cow Tracking

The USDA used the H5N1 fearmongering to push a ruling through on April 26th of this year that RFID ear tags are now required for dairy cattle for an “efficient animal disease traceability system.”

Or … is it a way to monitor, track and control the total number of and movement of dairy cows? A way to keep records of mRNA vaccinations, pharmaceuticals and other protocols to maintain in control?

RFID (radio-frequency identification) tagging involves small devices that use radio frequencies to transfer data, mainly to track and identify objects, animals and people.

R-CALF USA is speaking out against this new ruling: “[T]he beneficiaries of this rule are not cattle producers or consumers. Instead, this rule is intended to benefit multinational beef packers and multinational ear tag manufacturers who will profit at the expense of cattle producers and consumers.

In fact, because the rule is cost-prohibitive for independent cattle producers, the agency is using millions of taxpayer dollars to give millions of their unnecessary EID ear tags away … We will fight against the implementation of this disastrous rule that infringes on the freedoms and liberties of our nation’s independent cattle farmers and ranchers. This is government overreach at its worst.” — R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard.

Vaccines

The CDC still says, “the human health risk assessment remains low,” yet there is extensive vaccine development.

Finland is now the first country to roll out the experimental bird flu vaccine and purchased vaccines for 10,000 people in mid-June,²³ from manufacturer CSL Seqirus. This first round is intended for those “most at risk,” including farm workers and veterinarians. This purchase is part of the 40 million vaccine deal the EU has secured with CSL Seqirus.

This “Zoonotic Influenza vaccine Seqirus” (a two-dose vaccine, given 3 weeks apart) was authorized by European regulators based on immunogenicity studies showing that it elicited immune responses that scientists THINK would be protective against avian influenza.²⁴ (How is “we think so” enough?)

The flu vaccine is traditionally made with eggs, and this has scientists worried. “A majority of the approved vaccines are created by incubating doses in chicken eggs, but the [bird flu’s] rate of fatality among poultry poses an issue for these vaccines.”²⁵ So, many manufacturers are shifting towards more mRNA vaccine development.

“The bird flu outbreak in U.S. dairy cows is prompting development of new, next-generation mRNA vaccines — akin to COVID-19 shots — that are being tested in both animals and people.”²⁶

The University of Pennsylvania is developing an mRNA vaccines for the bird flu using the same techniques that produced the COVID vaccines. According to a May 28th report from the Global Center for Health Security, “[a]n experimental mRNA vaccine against the H5N1 avian flu is highly effective in preventing severe illness and death in lab animals, researchers report.”²⁷

Moderna and Pfizer are also competing for federal contracts to build a national stockpile of mRNA vaccines targeted toward the new bird flu.²⁸

24 different companies are working towards the development of a bird flu vaccine for cows.²⁹Mandatory chicken and dairy cow mRNA vaccinations would then mean we are exposed to mRNA vaccines through our food.

We definitely do not need more vaccines, as more and more studies are coming out documenting that health complications skyrocketed shortly after the Covid vaccinations were released in 2020.^30,31,32 From Dr. Joseph Sansone:

“Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote.

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).”³³

War on Raw Milk

There also seems to be a war on raw milk amidst all this fearmongering. The FDA is now encouraging states to discourage and stop sales of raw milk to prevent human bird flu spread.³⁴ If you tune into various news reports from across the country, the message is similar:

“Eggs and pasteurized milk and dairy products from the store are safe to consume. But the FDA warns against the consumption of raw milk.”

The suggestion to avoid raw milk is listed twice on the list of CDC recommendations:

• People should avoid exposures to sick or dead animals, including wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and other wild or domesticated animals (including cows), if possible.
• People should also avoid exposures to animal poop, bedding (litter), unpasteurized (“raw”) milk, or materials that have been touched by, or close to, birds or other animals with suspected or confirmed A(H5N1) virus, if possible.
• People should not drink raw milk. Pasteurization kills A(H5N1) viruses, and pasteurized milk is safe to drink.
• People who have job-related contact with infected or potentially infected birds or other animals should be aware of the risk of exposure to avian influenza viruses and should take proper precautions. People should wear appropriate and recommended personal protective equipment when exposed to an infected or potentially infected animal(s). CDC has recommendations for worker protection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

There is no evidence supporting foodborne transmission of HPAI to humans. In fact, the FDA and USDA concluded in 2010 that “HPAIV is not considered to be a foodborne pathogen.”³⁵ HPAI in humans is linked to transmission via animal contact, not by foods.³⁶

The only demonstrated transmission is direct contact with animals — not a single human has developed bird flu from milk.

“Recent risk communications from CDC, FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of influenza A sub-type H5N1 (highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidence of viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature …

An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature introduced herein does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products.”³⁷

And something that the FDA really doesn’t want you to know is that there is no guarantee that pasteurization truly kills the virus.

When explaining why raw milk is not safe, many government agencies use this study with mice, saying heat treatment to the milk significantly reduces the HPAI virus titers. But the conclusion of the study is very, very important “bench-top experiments do not recapitulate commercial pasteurization processes.”

Enter this study that the FDA and mainstream media isn’t talking about which demonstrates that standard pasteurization protocols in the US for milk isn’t enough to actually inactivate the virus since this virus seems to handle heat surprisingly well.

And on top of that, raw milk has a number of antiviral properties and pasteurized milk does not contain.³⁸

The “pasteurized milk at the store is safe, and raw milk is very unsafe and is filled with bird flu” messaging encourages consumers to continue supporting these MEGA CAFO dairy farmers, and discourages consumers from supporting smaller dairy farms raising cows in synchronicity with Mother Nature.

So no, avoiding raw milk won’t stop human spread. But it will encourage more of a centralized food system.

The FDA’s messaging to avoid consumption of raw milk and raw milk products do not appear to be based on scientific evidence, but instead seem to be stemming from the desire to protect the centralized dairy industry.

FDA and USDA will never do anything to compromise the dairy industry, as the dairy industry spends millions of dollars on lobbying each year to keep control.

Confinement Operations Aren’t Working

With the repeated “outbreaks” occurring in poultry flocks year after year, isn’t it obvious that the current industrial agriculture system IS NOT working?

Why aren’t government agencies discussing how diseases easily spread when animals are stuffed in buildings, overcrowded and locked in confinement? Can you imagine if you were stuffed into a home with thousands of people — wouldn’t it be hard not to get sick?

In CAFOs, animals are often regularly on antibiotics due to the close living conditions. Can a body with a wiped-out gut microbiome handle any amount of disease?

Mega confinement barns, extreme biosecurity, separation from nature, vaccinations and antibiotics — it doesn’t work! But it does help them maintain food control and is a profitable business model for big ag, big pharma, and big food companies.

The development of a vaccine and culling birds is much more profitable path for addressing bird flu relative to the natural immunity path.

What You Can Do

The solution is clear — stop supporting their system. Buy from farmers. Remember, the messaging and fearmongering around the bird flu is intentional, with the goal of developing even more food control. Everything through their centralized food system is “safe” — so you can trust the food at grocery stores is safe from HPAI. (So they say …)

Instead, the messaging should be “know where your food comes from, know your farmer and know how the animals are raised.” This discussion on food sourcing and knowing your food comes from is not profitable for industrial ag because they get $0 from that sale, so it isn’t brought up.

The centralization of the food system and shift in farming styles has been somewhat successful in benefiting the big corporations and maintaining food control, while hurting farmers. The size of farms has increased, while the number of farms has shrunk (opposite of what we want for low toxin, nutrient-dense food production.)

In fact, the number of small farms has decreased by over 72% in the last 90 years — in 1935 there were 6.8 million farms, and in 2023 there were 1.89 million farms.

“It is very hard as a farmer to be profitable in the conventional system, so more and more farms are going out of business. And many farms that are in business require an off the farm job to pay the bills.”

We are losing small scale farmers more and more each year, and they need your support to stay in business!

Moral of the story — whenever you can, buy directly from farmers, Cooperatives, or buyers’ clubs — these type of food systems support small-scale, toxin free farming. The prices may be more expensive, but farmers are paid a fair wage and produce higher quality food products.

Plus, with these type of transactions, the big agriculture companies get $0 of this sale, funneling less money into their system. And on top of that, remain grounded and maintain common sense as we head into the next round of bird flu fearmongering.

*

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. Waitlists will reopen shortly.

Featured image is from rawpixel.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This incisive article by the late Professor Tanya Reinhart was first published on Global Research 22 years ago in December 2001.

Tanya Reinhart was a professor of linguistics at Tel Aviv University. She was a staunch critic of  the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel. Her legacy will live.

Emphasis Added

***

Already in October 2000, at the outset of the Palestinian uprising, military circles were ready with detailed operative plans to topple Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. This was before the Palestinian terror attacks started. (The first attack on Israeli civilians was on November 3, 2000, in a market in Jerusalem).

A document prepared by the security services, at the request of then PM Barak, stated on October 15, 2000 that

“Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence”. (Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.)

The operative plan, known as ‘Fields of Thorns’ had been prepared back in 1996, and was then updated during the Intifada. (Amir Oren, Ha’aretz, Nov. 23, 2001). The plan includes everything that Israel has been executing lately, and more.(1)

The political echelon for its part (Barak’s circles), worked on preparing public opinion to the toppling of Arafat. On November 20, 2000, Nahman Shai, then public-affairs coordinator of the Barak Government, released in a meeting with the press, a 60 page document titled “Palestinian Authority non-compliance… A record of bad faith and misconduct”,

The document, informally referred to as the “White Book”, was prepared by Barak’s aid, Danny Yatom.(2) According to the “White Book”, Arafat’s present crime – “orchestrating the Intifada”, is just the last in a long chain of proofs that he has never deserted the “option of violence and ‘struggle'”.

“As early as Arafat’s own speech on the White House lawn, on September 13, 1993, there were indications that for him, the D.O.P. [declaration of principles] did not necessarily signify an end to the conflict. He did not, at any point, relinquish his uniform, symbolic of his status as a revolutionary commander” (Section 2). This uniform, incidentally, is the only ‘indication’ that the report cites, of Arafat’s hidden intentions, on that occasion.

A large section of the document is devoted to establishing Arafat’s “ambivalence and compliance” regarding terror.

“In March 1997 there was once again more than a hint of a ‘Green Light’ from Arafat to the Hamas, prior to the bombing in Tel Aviv… This is implicit in the statement made by a Hamas-affiliated member of Arafat’s Cabinet, Imad Faluji, to an American paper (Miami Herald, April 5, 1997).”

No further hints are provided regarding how this links Arafat to that bombing, but this is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda – Arafat is still a terrorist and is personally responsible for the acts of all groups, from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to Hizbollah.

The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8. The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.

Many in Israel suspect that the assassination of the Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, just when the Hamas was respecting for two months its agreement with Arafat not to attack inside Israel, was designed to create the appropriate ‘bloodshed justification’, at the eve of Sharon’s visit to the US. (Alex Fishman – senior security correspondent of ‘Yediot’ – noted that “whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu Hanoud knew in advance that would be the price.

The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel’s military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation” (Yediot Aharonot, Nov. 25, 2001)).

Israel’s moves to destroy the PA, thus, cannot be viewed as a spontaneous ‘act of retaliation’. It is a calculated plan, long in the making. The execution requires, first, weakening the resistance of the Palestinians, which Israel has been doing systematically since October 2000, through killing, bombarding of infrastructure, imprisoning people in their hometowns, and bringing them close to starvation. All this, while waiting for the international conditions to ‘ripen’ for the more ‘advanced’ steps of the plan.

Now the conditions seem to have ‘ripened’. In the power-drunk political atmosphere in the US, anything goes.

If at first it seemed that the US will try to keep the Arab world on its side by some tokens of persuasion, as it did during the Gulf war, it is now clear that they couldn’t care less. US policy is no longer based on building coalitions or investing in persuasion, but on sheer force.

The smashing ‘victory’ in Afghanistan has sent a clear message to the Third-World that nothing can stop the US from targeting any nation for annihilation.

They seem to believe that the most sophisticated weapons of the twenty-first century, combined with total absence of any considerations of moral principles, international law, or public opinion, can sustain them as the sole rulers of the world forever. From now on, fear should be the sufficient condition for obedience.

The US hawks, who push to expand the war to Iraq and further, view Israel as an asset – There are few regimes in the world like Israel, so eager to risk the life of their citizens for some new regional war.

As Prof. Alain Joxe, head of the French CIRPES (peace and strategic studies) has put it in Le Monde,

“the American leadership is presently shaped by dangerous right wing Southern extremists, who seek to use Israel as an offensive tool to destabilize the whole Middle East area” (December 17, 2001).

The same hawks are also talking about expanding the future war zone to targets on Israel’s agenda, like Hizbollah and Syria.

Under these circumstances, Sharon got his green light in Washington. As the Israeli media keeps raving, “Bush is fed up with this character [Arafat]”,

“Powell said that Arafat must stop with his lies” (Barnea and Schiffer, ‘Yediot’, December 7, 2001).

As Arafat hides in his Bunker, Israeli F-16 bombers plough the sky, and Israel’s brutality is generating, every day, new desperate human bombs, the US, accompanied for a while by the European union, keep urging Arafat to “act”.

Undo the Oslo Arrangements 

But what is the rationale behind Israel’s systematic drive to eliminate the Palestinian Authority and undo the Oslo arrangements? It certainly cannot be based on ‘disappointment’ with Arafat’s performance, as is commonly claimed. The fact of the matter is that from the perspective of Israel’s interests in maintaining the occupation, Arafat did fulfill Israel’s expectations all these last years.

As far as Israeli security goes, there is nothing further from the truth then the fake accusations in the “White Book”, or subsequent Israeli propaganda. To take just one example, in 1997 – the year mentioned in the “White Book” as an instance of Arafat’s “green light to terror” – a ‘security agreement’ was signed between Israel and the Palestinian authority, under the auspices of the head of the Tel Aviv station of the CIA, Stan Muskovitz.

The agreement commits the PA to take active care of the security of Israel – to fight:

“the terrorists, the terrorist base, and the environmental conditions leading to support of terror” in cooperation with Israel, including “mutual exchange of information, ideas, and military cooperation” (clause 1). [Translated from the Hebrew text, Ha’aretz December 12, 1997].

Arafat’s security services carried out this job faithfully, with assassinations of Hamas terrorists (disguised as ‘accidents’), and arrests of Hamas political leaders.(3)

Ample information was published in the Israeli media regarding these activities, and ‘security sources’ were full of praises for Arafat’s achievements. E.g. Ami Ayalon, then head of the Israeli secret service (Shab”ak), announced, in the government meeting on April 5, 1998 that “Arafat is doing his job – he is fighting terror and puts all his weight against the Hamas” (Ha’aretz, April 6, 1998). The rate of success of the Israeli security services in containing terror was never higher than that of Arafat; in fact, much lower.

In left and critical circles, one can hardly find compassion for Arafat’s personal fate (as opposed to the tragedy of the Palestinian people). As David Hirst writes in The Guardian, when Arafat returned to the occupied territories, in 1994,

“he came as collaborator as much as liberator. For the Israelis, security – theirs, not the Palestinians’ – was the be-all and end-all of Oslo. His job was to supply it on their behalf. But he could only sustain the collaborator’s role if he won the political quid pro quo which, through a series of ‘interim agreements’ leading to ‘final status’, was supposedly to come his way. He never could. . . [Along the road], he acquiesced in accumulating concessions that only widened the gulf between what he was actually achieving and what he assured his people he would achieve, by this method, in the end. He was Mr. Palestine still, with a charisma and historical legitimacy all his own. But he was proving to be grievously wanting in that other great and complementary task, building his state-in-the-making. Economic misery, corruption, abuse of human rights, the creation of a vast apparatus of repression – all these flowed, wholly or in part, from the Authority over which he presided.” (Hirst, “Arafat’s last stand?” The Guardian, December 14, 2001).

But from the perspective of the Israeli occupation, all this means that the Oslo plan was, essentially, successful. Arafat did manage, through harsh means of oppression, to contain the frustration of his people, and guarantee the safety of the settlers, as Israel continued undisturbed to build new settlements and appropriate more Palestinian land.

The oppressive machinery, the various security forces of Arafat, were formed and trained in collaboration with Israel. Much energy and resources were put into building this complex Oslo apparatus. It is often admitted that the Israeli security forces cannot manage to prevent terror any better than Arafat can. Why, then, was the military and political echelon so determined to destroy all this already in October 2000, even before the terror waves started? Answering this requires some look at the history.

The Israeli Political and Military History 

Right from the start of the ‘Oslo process’, in September 1993, two conceptions were competing in the Israeli political and military system. The one, led by Yosi Beilin, was striving to implement some version of the Alon plan, which the Labor party has been advocating for years. The original plan consisted of annexation of about 35% of the territories to Israel, and either Jordanian-rule, or some form of self-rule for the rest – the land on which the Palestinians actually live. In the eyes of its proponents, this plan represented a necessary compromise, compared to the alternatives of either giving up the territories altogether, or eternal blood-shed (as we witness today). It appeared that Rabin was willing to follow this line, at least at the start, and that in return for Arafat’s commitment to control the frustration of his people and guarantee the security of Israel, he would allow the PA to run the enclaves in which the Palestinians still reside, in some form of self-rule, which may even be called a Palestinian ‘state’.

But the other pole objected even to that much. This was mostly visible in military circles, whose most vocal spokesman in the early years of Oslo was then Chief of Staff, Ehud Barak. Another center of opposition was, of course, Sharon and the extreme right-wing, who were against the Oslo process from the start. This affinity between the military circles and Sharon is hardly surprising. Sharon – the last of the leaders of the ‘1948 generation’, was a legendary figure in the army, and many of the generals were his disciples, like Barak. As Amir Oren wrote,

“Barak’s deep and abiding admiration for Ariel Sharon’s military insights is another indication of his views; Barak and Sharon both belong to a line of political generals that started with Moshe Dayan” (Ha’aretz, January 8, 1999).

This breed of generals was raised on the myth of redemption of the land. A glimpse into this worldview is offered in Sharon’s interview with Ari Shavit (Ha’aretz, weekend supplement, April 13, 2001). Everything is entangled into one romantic framework: the fields, the blossom of the orchards, the plough and the wars.

The heart of this ideology is the sanctity of the land. In a 1976 interview, Moshe Dayan, who was the defense minister in 1967, explained what led, then, to the decision to attack Syria. In the collective Israeli consciousness of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is “bull-shit” – Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67:

“Just drop it. . .I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the Syrians would shoot.” According to Dayan (who at a time of the interview confessed some regrets), what led Israel to provoke Syria this way was the greediness for the land – the idea that it is possible “to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired and give it to us” (Yediot Aharonot, April 27 1997)

At the eve of Oslo, the majority of the Israeli society was tired of wars.

In their eyes, the fights over land and resources were over. Most Israelis believe that the 1948 Independence War, with its horrible consequences for the Palestinians, was necessary to establish a state for the Jews, haunted by the memory of the Holocaust.

But now that they have a state, they long to just live normally with whatever they have. However, the ideology of the redemption of land has never died out in the army, or in the circles of the ‘political generals’, who switched from the army to the government.

In their eyes, Sharon’s alternative of fighting the Palestinians to the bitter end and imposing new regional orders – as he tried in Lebanon in 1982 – may have failed because of the weakness of the spoiled Israeli society. But given the new war-philosophy established in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, they believe that with the massive superiority of the Israeli air force, it may still be possible to win this battle in the future.

While Sharon’s party was in the opposition at the time of Oslo, Barak, as Chief of Staff, participated in the negotiations and played a crucial role in shaping the agreements, and Israel’s attitude to the Palestinian Authority.

I quote from an article I wrote in February 1994, because it reflects what anybody who read carefully the Israeli media could see at the time:

 “From the start, it has been possible to identify two conceptions that underlie the Oslo process. One is that this will enable to reduce the cost of the occupation, using a Palestinian patronage regime, with Arafat as the senior cop responsible for the security of Israel. The other is that the process should lead to the collapse of Arafat and the PLO. The humiliation of Arafat, and the amplification of his surrender, will gradually lead to loss of popular support. Consequently, the PLO will collapse, or enter power conflicts. Thus, the Palestinian society will lose its secular leadership and institutions. In the power driven mind of those eager to maintain the Israeli occupation, the collapse of the secular leadership is interpreted as an achievement, because it would take a long while for the Palestinian people to get organized again, and, in any case, it is easier to justify even the worst acts of oppression, when the enemy is a fanatic Muslim organization. Most likely, the conflict between the two competing conceptions is not settled yet, but at the moment, the second seems more dominant: In order to carry out the first, Arafat’s status should have been strengthened, with at least some achievements that could generate support of the Palestinians, rather then Israel’s policy of constant humiliation and breach of promises.”(4)

Nevertheless, the scenario of the collapse of the PA did not materialize.

The Palestinian society resorted once more to their marvelous strategy of ‘zumud’ – sticking to the land and sustaining the pressure. Right from the start, the Hamas political leadership, and others, were warning that Israel is trying to push the Palestinians into a civil war, in which the nation slaughters itself. All fragments of the society cooperated to prevent this danger, and calm conflicts as soon as they were deteriorating to arms. They also managed, despite the tyranny of Arafat’s rule, to build an impressive amount of institutions and infrastructure. The PA does not consist only of the corrupt rulers and the various security forces. The elected Palestinian council, which operates under endless restrictions, is still a representative political framework, some basis for democratic institutions in the future. For those whose goal is the destruction of the Palestinian identity and the eventual redemption of their land, Oslo was a failure.

In 1999, the army got back to power, through the ‘political generals’ – first Barak, and then Sharon. (They collaborated in the last elections to guarantee that no other, civil, candidate will be allowed to run.)

The road opened to correct what they view as the grave mistake of Oslo. In order to get there, it was first necessary to convince the spoiled Israeli society that the Palestinians are not willing to live in peace and are threatening our mere existence. Sharon alone could not have possibly achieved that, but Barak did succeed, with his ‘generous offer’ fraud. After a year of horrible terror attacks, combined with massive propaganda and lies, Sharon and the army feel that nothing can stop them from turning to full execution.

Why is it so urgent for them to topple Arafat?

Shabtai Shavit, former head of the Security Service (‘Mossad’), who is not bound by restraints posed on official sources, explains this openly:

“In the thirty something years that he [Arafat] leads, he managed to reach real achievements in the political and international sphere… He got the Nobel peace prize, and in a single phone call, he can obtain a meeting with every leader in the world. There is nobody in the Palestinian gallery that can enter his shoes in this context of international status. If they [the Palestinians] will lose this gain, for us, this is a huge achievement. The Palestinian issue will get off the international agenda.” (interview in Yediot’s Weekend Supplement, December 7, 2001).

Their immediate goal is to get the Palestinians off the international agenda, so slaughter, starvation, forced evacuation and ‘migration’ can continue undisturbed, leading, possibly, to the final realization of Sharon’s long standing vision, embodied in the military plans. The immediate goal of anybody concerned with the future of the world, ahould be to halt this process of evil unleashed. As Alain Joxe concluded his article in Le Monde:

“It is time for the Western public opinion to take over and to compel the governments to take a moral and political stand facing the foreseen disaster, namely a situation of permanent war against the Arab and Muslim people and states – the realization of the double phantasy of Bin Laden and Sharon.” (December 17, 2001).

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

(1) For the details of this operative plan, see Anthony Cordesman, “Peace and War: Israel versus the Palestinians A second Intifada?” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) December 2000, and it summary in Shraga Eilam, “Peace With Violence or Transfer”, ‘Between The Lines’, December 2000.

(2) The document can be found in:

(3) For a survey on some of the PA’s assassinations of Hamas terrorists, see my article “The A-Sherif affair”, ‘Yediot Aharonot’, April 14, 1998

Featured image is from PressTV

First published on November 26, 2022

***

We are being accused of  “spreading disinformation” regarding the Covid-19 vaccine. 

The Reuters and AP media “trackers” and “fact checkers” will be out to smear the testimonies of parents who have lost their children.  

Let us be under no illusions, the Covid Jab is not only “experimental”, it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine” which modifies the human genome. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming. 

The official data (mortality and morbidity) as well as numerous scientific studies confirm the nature of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine which is being imposed on all humanity. 

Peer reviewed reports confirm the causes  of vaccine related deaths and “adverse events” (injuries) including among others blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis, cardiac arrests.

The stated objective is to enforce the Worldwide vaccination of 8 billion people in more than 190 countries, to be followed by the imposition of a digitized “vaccine passport”. Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar operation for Big Pharma. It’s a crime against humanity.

The global vaccine project entitled COVAX is coordinated Worldwide by the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in liaison with the World Economic Forum (WEF),  the Wellcome Trust, DARPA and Big Pharma which is increasingly dominated by the Pfizer-GSK partnership established barely four months before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis in early January 2020.  

The Covid 19 “Vaccine” from the very outset in January 2021 has been conducive to a Worldwide Upward Movement in Mortality 

 

This is Not Manslaughter. It’s Murder

Yes, It’s a killer vaccine. That message should be loud and clear.

This is happening all over the world: children and adolescents are dying.

Crimes against humanity, crimes against our children.

Less than two months following the launching of Pfizer’s mRNA “vaccine”, a mass funeral protest was held for children who died after receiving the vaccine in Geneva, Switzerland (January 29, 2021)

Video

Myocarditis, Cardiac Arrest: “Young People Are Dying”. Sudden Death on a Massive Scale

The Vaccine Safety Research Foundation has recently released Until Proven Otherwise— a short video documentary about the corroborating findings of two leading cardiologists.

Video

Pfizer Reveals in a secret report (declassified under freedom of information) that its mRNA vaccine is a “killer vaccine”. The evidence comes from the “Horse’s Mouth”

“By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.

Bear in mind, this is Pfizer’s own data.

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.

What is contained in  Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.

Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine. 

It is also a  Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.

No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

People are told  that the vaccine is intended to save lives.” (Michel Chossudovsky)

Click here to read Pfizer’s “confidential” report.

 

What is Presented above is but the “Tip of the Iceberg” of what is happening Worldwide

This whole process is “profit driven” in the billions, sustained by scientific fraud and disinformation.

Worldwide “Big Money” Vaxx Operation

Recorded September 21, 2022: 12.9 Million doses administered (mid December 2020- September 21, 2022)

• DO NOT GET VACCINATED.
• STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED.
• INFORM PEOPLE ACROSS THE LAND ON THE HEALTH RISKS. 
• TAKE A FIRM STANCE AGAINST THE VACCINE PASSPORT. 

The legitimacy of politicians and their Big Money sponsors must be challenged.

We must act with a single voice nationally and internationally.

Our First Task is to disable the fear campaign

The COVID-19 “vaccination” programme should be halted immediately worldwide.

Please forward this article to friends, colleagues, family. Global Research is the object of censorship. The search engines will not pick it up.

For a more detailed and comprehensive analysis. See Michel Chossudovsky’s recently released book on the Worldwide Corona Crisis. Click here: FREE Download

---

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity

Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression

By Michel Chossudovsky

Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

 

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.

Price: $11.50. FREE COPY Click here to download.

---

In this September interview, Michel Chossudovsky outlines recent developments pertaining to the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine.

Video: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

 

click here to leave comment and access Rumble
Odysee version currently unavailable

To access Odysee, leave a comment

Is the Vaccine Safe?

If your remain unconvinced on the dangers of Big Pharma’s Vaxx, have a look at the following carefully research video which according to Dr. Gary G Kohl is:

“a must-watch, totally-truthful, science-based, vaccinology-literate video for anyone who is considering getting a booster (or even an initial jab)”.

Video, click lower righthand corner to enlarge screen

Source: JRickey Productions Studio

Global Research is glad to announce our publication of five e-Books. 

They are made available free of charge with a view to reaching out to people worldwide.

 

 

 

---

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity

Edited by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

After more than one year of “lockdowns” all over the world, the issue of “global warming” and “climate change” is back on the table of the international debate.

It seems that natural catastrophes have started to surround us everywhere – from the animal world next to us as well as from the sky above us. Is “nature” the enemy that has to be combatted today, be it by vaccinating humanity against the coronavirus that allegedly jumped out of the wilderness attacking us, be it by tearing down industrial production and consumption in order to avoid the alleged greenhouse gas CO₂ emissions, being officially identified as the sole culprit of a so-called global warming? Or be it by applying methods of an alleged civil “geoengineering” against an ongoing climate change that seems to threaten the world?

Click here to read the e-Book.

---

“The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity”

by Michel Chossudovsky

PDF Ebook. 15 Chapters

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

Click here to read the e-Book.

---

The US-NATO War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

This e-Book is a retrospect. It takes the reader back in history. Several of the texts were written at the height of 1999 bombing campaign or shortly thereafter.

Twenty-two years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named “Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker” according to Nebosja Malic.

In 1999, when Belgrade was bombed, the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target.

NATO stated that to “save the lives” of the newly borne, they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, instead they targeted the building which housed the power generator, which meant no more power for the incubators. What this meant that was that the entire hospital was for all sakes and purposes destroyed and many of the children died.

I visited that hospital, one year after the bombing in June 2000 and saw with my own eyes how they did it with utmost accuracy. These are war crimes using NATO’s so-called smart bombs.

Click here to read the e-Book.

---

Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes

By David Skripac

When the alleged “pandemic” was declared in March of 2020, I, like millions of other people around the world, was paying close attention to politicians and public health officials as well as to bureaucrats from the Rockefeller Foundation-created World Health Organization (WHO), all of whom announced, in almost perfect synchronicity, “This is the new normal until a vaccine can be developed.”

How odd, I thought. Why is it that the immediate default position is a vaccine? And why is it that a single coronavirus is being blamed for causing people to fall ill in every corner of the earth? Could something else—perhaps one or more toxins in the environment—be the real culprit?

Click here to read the e-Book.

---

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.

Click here to read the e-Book.

---

Please help us in this endeavor. Kindly forward to family, friends, colleagues, and your respective communities.

If you wish to make a donation to support the e-Book Project click below.

 

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

---

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

This article entitled “Diabolical” Agendas and “Fake Democracy” in the U.K. by Michel Chossudovsky was first published by Global Research

click link

Introduction

What is the 21st century meaning of “diabolical”?  The repeal of real democracy, wherein prime ministers and presidents are appointed by the ”Deep State”.

In January 2024, Keir Starmer, leader of  Britain’s remodelled Labour Party was invited to Davos by the World Economic Forum.

Ironically, Starmer started his election campaign in the Swiss Alps, in conformity with Klaus Schwab’s  Great Reset.

Was he elected or was he selected?

It’s what you might call a “Democratic Regime Change” decided in Davos.

He won the general election on July 4, and was confirmed as Britain’s Prime Minister on July 5. 

And “Just four days later, at the NATO Summit in Washington, Starmer confirmed  that his Labour government supports the unrestricted use of its long-range weapons against Moscow”.

“Starmer gave the statement while en route to the NATO summit in Washington DC. As per usual, he insisted that it was “up to Ukraine how it uses the missiles”, a ludicrous excuse that nearly all Western “leaders” like to use, despite being fully aware that the Neo-Nazi junta [Kiev government] has no actual sovereignty to speak of.

Worse yet, it relies solely on instructions from NATO on what to attack next.

Namely, in yet another move tantamount to a declaration of war, the new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fully supported the use of UK-sourced “Storm Shadow” air-launched cruise missiles against targets within Russia’s undisputed territory, with no apparent limitations.” (Drago Bosnic, July 11 2024)

Prime Minister Starmer at the July 2024 Washington NATO Summit

Provides a Renewed Anglo-American Twist to the Atlantic Alliance

Video. Starmer in Washington: “Rubbing Shoulders”

Britain’s “War Prime Minister” on All Fronts?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “extended his warm congratulations to Keir Starmer Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.”

“I am confident that we will continue working together to strengthen the historic friendship between the UK and Israel and to advance the twin goals of security and peace,” wrote Netanyahu. (June 5, 2024)

 

In recent developments, on July 19, 2024 Zelensky was at Downing Street for bilateral discussions with Britain’s Prime Minister.

Starmer confirmed HM government’s commitment to supporting the Kiev regime.

On August 1, 2024

Starmer reiterated “Britain’s commitment to Israel’s right to self defense”, and said he would “continue to work with partners to uphold regional security.” This statement was made at a press conference on August 1st 2024 following clashes after the Southport stabbing.

Restricting Fundamental Civil Rights in the U.K.

On the domestic front, in recent developments, the Starmer Labour government is committed to law and order, and the repression of mass movements including the British people’s campaign against Israel.  

My number one priority is to make sure our communities are safe.

Thanks to our police forces, those who participate in violence online and offline will face the full force of the law. pic.twitter.com/hIaZ8pAzrY

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) August 9, 2024

The solidarity movement against Israel, is being repressed by the Starmer government? 

Police State in the U.K.?

Anti-immigration protests across Britain. The video below depicts the actions of Britain’s police under the new government.

“British Prime Minister Keir Starmer chaired another emergency Cobra meeting on Tuesday evening [August 6, 2024] as police prepare for more far-right riots. Starmer told reporters inside Downing Street after the meeting that “those involved will feel the full force of the law”, adding, “Nobody, but nobody, should be involved themselves in this disorder.”

The police actions consist in mass arrests –which include arresting people who express themselves online–, i.e. those who are against the genocide instrumented by the Israeli government.

Listen carefully to his statement. 

Those who break the law will feel the full force of the law. pic.twitter.com/FNCIw7tRzH

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) August 6, 2024

That far-reaching August 6 statement of arresting people expressing  their opinion online was formulated a week or so prior to Prime Minister Starmer’s order  to arrest the renowned British  journalist Thomas Medhurst  under the UK’s Terrorist Act. (August 15).

While The Times of Israel casually identified Medhurst as an Anti-Israel commentator, “known for his anti-Israel activism”, Prime Minister Starmer ordered his arrest on charges of terrorism.

Thomas Medhurst was arrested for endorsing Hamas and the State of Palestine against the conduct of genocide by the Netanyahu government. Who are the terrorists? 

My name is Richard Thomas Medhurst. (complete text)

I am an internationally accredited journalist from the United Kingdom.

On Thursday [August 15, 2024], as I landed in London Heathrow airport, I was immediately escorted off the plane by 6 police officers who were waiting for me at the entrance of the aircraft.

They arrested me—not detained—but arrested me under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and accused me of allegedly “expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization” but wouldn’t explain what this meant.

One officer took my bags, and when I asked why he was still back in the aircraft, I was told “look mate, you can get nicked right here in front of everyone, or in there. Your choice.”

I was taken to an adjacent room, patted down, my phone confiscated.

I was not allowed to inform my family.

Despite being calm and cooperative, I was handcuffed with something that placed my shoulders in an awkward position, and my wrists on top of, rather than next to each other. The handcuffs were extremely tight. Despite the police loosening them, they left marks on me for two days (Read Complete Testimony of Richard Medhurst),

Clamping Down on Covid-19 Anti-vaxxers

At the outset of the Covid Vaccine rollout in mid-December 2020, Starmer as leader of the Opposition called for clamping down on the covid-19 anti-vaxxers:

Kier Starmer, likely the next UK PM: “We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns, because they will cost lives.”

“And if we need to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I’ll be quite prepared to work with the government on that… And the sooner we do that, frankly,… pic.twitter.com/GejVND0nTu

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 25, 2024

“Anti-Vax Misinformation” Says Starmer? 

The COVID-19 vaccine was rolled-out in several phases in England and Wales starting on December 8, 2020 

While  PM Starmer has endorsed the continuation of the campaign against anti-vaxxers, he fails to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the Covid-19 mrNA Vaccine has resulted in excess mortality and morbidity in the United Kingdom. Confirmed by official UK data on mortality and morbidity

Specifically we are referring to the study on vaccine related excess mortality conducted by the team of Edward Dowd. which is acknowledged by the Health authorities.

The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).

The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.

The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine. 

The VAERS data for the United States. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

What Next? “Plandemics”, Lockdowns, Monkeypox Viruses, Vaccines…Fear ?

Going after the anti-vaccine campaign, arresting journalists and scientists, endorsing Netanyahu, going after alleged Anti-Semites in solidarity with Palestine, implementing the monkeypox plandemic coupled with lockdowns, sustaining the fear campaign, and MORE.

If you are against Genocide, you can be arrested, despite the fact that “Genocide is a Crime”. And it’s happening simultaneously in several Western countries. It’s the criminalization of the State apparatus.

Artificial Intelligence and Facial recognition to instate “Fake Democracy”? Yes, it is “diabolical”. Starmer describes the unfolding  “Police State, with Humanitarian Characteristics”

I’m angry about Starmer’s address tonight.

His alarming pledge to roll out facial recognition in apparent response to recent disorder is a pledge to plunder more vital police resources on mass surveillance that threatens rather than protects democracy. pic.twitter.com/hFDqEAYM49

— Silkie Carlo (@silkiecarlo) August 1, 2024

And who is behind this atmosphere of Civil Unrest, which indelibly creates divisions within an increasingly fragile social structure.

Since the onslaught of the Covid Crisis, people have been impoverished and marginalized. It’s the total demise of  what was once called Britain’s Welfare State.

Monkeypox “Worldwide Emergency”

According to Sky News:

“Vaccinations for mpox – previously known as monkeypox – are currently available in the UK in London and Manchester, with two groups eligible for the jab according to the NHS.

The first is men who are gay, bisexual, or have sex with other men, and who have multiple partners, participate in group sex, or attend sex-on-premises venues.

The second is staff who work at sex-on-premises venues.”

This statement on Male Sex Male (MSM) emanates from the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros, who in May 2022 called for a Worldwide Health Emergency on behalf of the LGBT community. It is based on an outright Lie. There is absolutely no evidence. 

See Global Research’s Analysis on this issue:

---

Towards A Worldwide Monkeypox Pandemic? Big Money behind “Fake Science”

When the Lie Becomes the Truth

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 19, 2024

---

Is Prime Minister Starmer setting up what may be designated as “A “Humanitarian Police State”, which bears the imprint of his stint in Belfast as a “human rights adviser” to the (controversial) Northern Ireland Policing Board. 

That is what is happening with “fake representative governments”, in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union. “When the Lie becomes the Truth”

In the 21st Century, that is what we might call “diabolical”. 

“Hell is Empty and the Devils are All Here”. William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, 1623 

Our response to Shakespeare:

“Send the Devils Back to Where They Rightfully Belong”

***

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

[Excerpted from my book Royal Bloodline Wetiko & The Great Remembering: Chapter 12: The Bloodline Take Down of America: Part I]

During the American Revolution, many Crown agents were trying to steer the outcome in favor of the hated Crown.

The Crown’s Freemason “knights” had already established lodges in the colonies to this end. Many scholars believe that the American Revolution was allowed to happen since the British Parliament would no longer control the US, but through various mechanisms, the Crown could still exert control.

The most important of these mechanisms was usury, which they controlled through their cartel banks. Indeed, the US national debt now stands at $31.5 trillion.

click to access

When the US was founded, there was a big debate over whether or not we should have a public or a private central bank. Arguing on the side of a public bank were people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and James Monroe. None were Freemasons.

On the other side, arguing for a privately-owned bank were George Washington, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. All were high-level Freemasons.

Hamilton was also acting as a Crown agent on behalf of the Rothschild family, bankers to the British Crown.

The Freemasons won out and in 1789, Alexander Hamilton became the first US Treasury Secretary. But the real power would be wielded by the new Rothschild-controlled private central bank – the Bank of the United States – which was founded in 1791.

Hamilton, who also went on to found the powerful Bank of New York (now Bank of New York Mellon), exemplified the contempt that his long-indoctrinated Freemason faction held for humanity, once stating,

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many.  The first are the rich and the well-born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right.  Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government.  They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”

Thomas Jefferson replied to this nonsense,

“A country which expects to remain ignorant and free…expects that which has never been and that which will never be.  There is scarcely a King in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever…banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy.”

Nevertheless, the Bank of the United States held its 20-year charter until 1811. Public opposition to the bank was strong, but the Crown plunged the country into the War of 1812, through which the US accrued debt to the Bank of the United States (BUS). With the country facing economic ruin, the Bank’s charter was renewed in 1816.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson ran for President on an anti-BUS platform railing,

“You are a den of vipers.  I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out.  If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

Jackson won the election and immediately revoked the BUS charter saying,

“The Act seems to be predicated on an erroneous idea that the present shareholders have a prescriptive right to not only the favor, but the bounty of the government…for their benefit does this Act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly.  Present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with government.  Should its influence be concentrated under the operation of such an Act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the independence of our country in war…controlling our currency, receiving our public monies and holding thousands of our citizens’ independence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.  It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government for selfish purposes…to make the rich richer and more powerful.  Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress.  I have done my duty to this country.”

In 1835, Jackson was the target of the first assassination attempt on a US President.  The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was “in touch with the powers in Europe”. But under Jackson’s leadership, the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our history.

Enraged by Jackson’s opposition to Crown usury, BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging America into a depression.  Biddle’s boss was the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. Eager to expand their Southern slave trade into Mexico and Central America, the Crown also sprang the Mexican-American War on Jackson.

The Civil War began a short time later, with the Crown funding both sides in an attempt to destroy their unruly colony. They were also funding Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico to harass the US from the southern border. The Austrian was the Emperor of the Second Mexican Empire from 1864 to 1867. The archduke was also a member of the powerful House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. He was installed after the Crowns of Spain, France, and the UK invaded Mexico in 1861 over unpaid debt. By 1861, the US was $100 million in debt to the Crown.

But newly-elected President Abraham Lincoln showed a similar attitude towards Crown usury, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills.  The Crown mouthpiece, the Times of London, now called for the “destruction of the US government”.

The Euro-banker-written Hazard Circular was exposed and distributed throughout the country by angry populists.  It said,

“The European Bankers favor the end of slavery…the European plan is that capital money lenders shall control labor by controlling wages.  The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the valve of money.  To accomplish this government bonds must be used as a banking basis.  We are now awaiting the Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase to make that recommendation.  It will not allow Greenbacks to circulate as money as we cannot control that.  We control bonds and through them banking issues”.

The 1863 National Banking Act reinstated a private US central bank and Chase’s war bonds were issued.  Lincoln was re-elected the next year, vowing to repeal the act after he took his January 1865 oath of office.  But before he could act, he was assassinated at the Ford Theater by John Wilkes Booth.  Booth had major connections to the international bankers.  His granddaughter wrote, This One Mad Act, which details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” just before the Lincoln assassination.

Following the Lincoln hit, Booth was whisked away by members of a secret society known as the Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC). KGC had close ties to the French Society of Seasons, which produced Karl Marx.  KGC had fomented much of the tension that caused the Civil War and President Lincoln had specifically targeted the group. 

Booth was a KGC member and was connected through the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin, to the House of Rothschild.  Benjamin fled to England after the war.

*

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

Dean Henderson is the author of seven books, including, Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf, Illuminati Agenda 21, Nephilim Crown 5G Apocalypse and Royal Bloodline Wetiko & The Great Remembering. Subscribe free to his Left Hook column at deanhenderson.substack.com

Author’s Note and Update

Two years ago, on July 23, 2022, the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus  went against the majority vote of the WHO expert committee (9 against 6 in favor): The committee was  AGAINST the calling of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PEIC).

“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing in Geneva on Saturday (July 23, 2022).

“I have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.”  

With Bill Gates in the background, the evidence was scanty, the motivation was “Moneypox”. The unspoken objective was to sustain the fear campaign. According to Bloomberg,

“The declaration from Tedros … underscores divisions within the organization over the severity of the threat. The pathogen typically causes flu-like symptoms, followed by a rash that often starts on the face and spreads down the belly.  (Bloomberg)

What Bloomberg failed to mention was Dr. Tedros’s Bombshell Statement: 

“An outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men”:

“Although I [Tedros] am declaring a public health emergency of international concern, for the moment this is an outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners.

That means that this is an outbreak that can be stopped with the right strategies in the right groups.

It’s therefore essential that all countries work closely with communities of men who have sex with men, to design and deliver effective information and services, and to adopt measures that protect the health, human rights and dignity of affected communities.

Stigma and discrimination can be as dangerous as any virus.

In addition to our recommendations to countries, I am also calling on civil society organizations, including those with experience in working with people living with HIV, to work with us on fighting stigma and discrimination. (emphasis added)

My Question to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Where is the science?

Did Dr. Tedros consult Bill Gates prior to making this decisive statement?

There is a long history of viral transmission pertaining to the monkeypox pathogen going back to the 1950s. The man to man transmission (MSM) is not corroborated by peer reviewed reports published prior to the ALLEGED May 2022 outbreak. 

Flash Forward: Second Monkeypox PHEIC. August 14, 2024

In August 2024, Dr. Tedros has once again called upon the WHO and the international community to adopt a monkeypox global public health emergency (PHEIC). The justification is an alleged “major outbreak” in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which according to the WHO has spread to neighbouring countries.

The 2024 PHEIC is the object of a separate article entitled

Towards A Worldwide Monkeypox Pandemic? Big Money behind “Fake Science” When the Lie Becomes the Truth

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 17, 2024

What is presented below in my May 2022 article is the history and  role of Bill Gates.

This detailed article was published two months prior to the historic decision of the WHO Director General to declare a  Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on July 23, 2022, which was largely predicated on coming to the rescue of  the gay community as outlined above.

See also

“Factual Chaos” at the WHO? Dr. Tedros: Monkeypox Outbreak Is “Among Men Who Have Sex with Men”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 23, 2024 (first published in 2022)

***

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 24  2024

 

Worldwide Monkeypox Health Emergency (PHEIC)

For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”

Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic

by Michel Chossudovsky

May 25, 2022

Another Chapter of “Fake Science” is Unfolding

Say Goodbye to SARS-CoV-2, Say Hello to the Monkeypox Pathogen

 

Screenshot of November 4 2021 Article in Evening Standard

Possible “Monkeypox Terror Attacks” Announced by Bill Gates in November 2021

In a TV interview with Jeremy Hunt in early November 2021, Bill Gates warned  governments to prepare for simultaneous smallpox terror attacks in 10 airports:

“You say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that? There’s naturally-caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today”, he said (emphasis added)

Ten Countries, Ten Airports. (That’s Where the Testing Takes Place)

Compare that to the latest news report on May 19, 2022, more than six months later (emphasis added):

An unprecedented outbreak of monkeypox virus has officially spread to 10 countries outside of Africa, with 107 confirmed or suspected cases reported as of this writing, in the United Kingdom (9 cases), Portugal (34), Spain (32), France (1), Belgium (2), Sweden (1), Italy (3), Canada (22), the United States (2), and Australia (1). (WSWS, May 19, 2022)

To watch the video interview with Bill Gates click here or image

---

Video: Michel Chossudovsky and Peter Koenig on the WHO Monkeypox Agenda

With thanks to Stephen Frost, Webinar presentation, recorded on August 2, 2022

---

Video Interview with Michel Chossudovsky on Monkeypox

click lower right corner for fullscreen

---

Bill Gates’s February 2017 Warning of Bioterrorism: Deadly Strain of Smallpox Virus. Munich Security Conference

This is not the first time that Bill Gates has warned governments of the dangers of a bioterrorist attack involving a deadly strain of the smallpox virus. The following announcement was made at the 2017 Munich Security Conference:

“The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus … or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu.” (Munich Security Conference, February 2017, emphasis added)

Click Screen to access video:

Munich Security Conference, 2017

 “Investing Billions in Research”. For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”

Another Warning by Bill Gates of a Smallpox Terror Attack,  November 2021

On November 4, 2021 Bill Gates warned governments “to prepare for future pandemics and smallpox terror attacks by investing billions in research and development”. 

“Mr Gates made the warning during a Policy Exchange interview with the chair of the Health Select Committee Jeremy Hunt.

The Microsoft founder also called for the formation of a new billion-dollar World Health Organisation Pandemic Task Force.  

He said that countries like the US and the UK must spend “tens of billions” to fund the research.

“I’m hoping in five years, I can write a book called, ‘We ARE ready for the next pandemic’, but it’ll take tens of billions in R&D – the US and the UK will be part of that”, he said.

“It’ll take probably about a billion a year for a pandemic Task Force at the WHO level, which is doing the surveillance and actually doing what I call ‘germ games’ where you practise.” (Evening Standard, emphasis added).

But there is more in this unfolding multibillion dollar monkeypox saga.

Is a New Fear Campaign in the Making?

The monkeypox simulation agenda was planned well in advance. It started in December 2020 with a meeting of senior U.S National security officials.

The Monkeypox Time Line

The Time Line is as follow:

• December 2020: US National Security and Biological Weapons Experts’ Meeting under the auspices of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Planning and Formulation of a Simulation of a Monkeypox Pandemic,
• July 2020: FDA approval of Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine, “first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product” in US. (For details see below)
• March 2021 Tabletop Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Pandemic at Munich Security Conference 2021
• November 2021. Bill Gates warns governments of the likelihood of a monkeypox terrorist attack (see statements above)
• May 2022. WHO announcement. Towards a Monkeypox Pandemic? Unfolding Fear Campaign.
• Commencing May 2022. The marketing of Smallpox vaccines, effective against monkeypox.
• May 2022- : Ongoing propaganda in support of the WHO Pandemic Treaty (coupled with the QR Code).

December 2020: The Expert Planning of A Tabletop Simulation of a Monkeypox Virus Pandemic

As early as December 2020, a simulation of a monkeypox pandemic had been envisaged by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a nonprofit organization, founded by former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner. 

Ted Turner has a close relationship with Bill Gates. He is a member of The Good Club which includes Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey and many more. The Good Club is known for its resolve to “Try to Shrink World’s Population” according to the WSJ.

The NTI National Security and Biotechnology Advisory Group

At the December 2020 meeting, the NTI convened a group of experts to “advise” on the tabletop exercise scenario. Among the experts were senior officials, scientists and experts in bioterrorism and national security,  from U.S. entities including the Department of Homeland Security, USAID, State Department, National Defense University, John Hopkins, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health,  Department of Health and Human Services, etc.  (See page 27 of report)

The following NTI report entitled:

Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conference,

by Jaime M. Yassif, Ph.D., Kevin P. O’Prey, Ph.D., and Christopher R. Isaac, M.Sc.,

A Note on the History of “Scenario Simulations” of Pandemics

Scenario Simulations of Pandemics were initiated  with Rockefeller’s “Lock Step Scenario” in 2010 which consisted in  the use of “scenario planning” as a means to carry out “global governance”.  In the  Rockefeller’s 2010 Report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development Area” scenarios of Global Governance and the actions to be taken in the case of a Worldwide pandemic were contemplated.

More specifically, the report envisaged (p 18) the simulation of a Lock Step scenario including a global virulent influenza strain. The 2010 Rockefeller report was published in the immediate wake of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic.

And then in 2018, The Clade X Table Top Simulation was conducted under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Clade X was described by its organizers as a day-long pandemic tabletop exercise the purpose of which “was to illustrate high level strategic decisions in the United States and the world … to prevent a pandemic”.

It was  “played by individuals prominent in the fields of national security or epidemic response”.

EVENT 201 (October 2019)

Clade X was followed by another tabletop simulation entitled Event 201 (also under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in October 2019). Event 201 pertained to a coronavirus epidemic entitled 2019-nCoV. 

Among the 201 John Hopkins table top scenario “players” were key personalities holding advisory and senior positions in a number of core organizations. Less than 3 months later,  these 201 “players” became actively involved in the policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The Monkeypox Scenario Exercise Summary

Below is the executive summary of the March NTI Simulation (emphasis added) followed by relevant excerpts as well as the list of participants.

It is worth noting that while the December 2020 team which formulated the simulation project were exclusively from the US focussing on issues of national security, the participants of the Table Top Scenario were from Big Pharma, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, WHO, UN, as well as representatives from the EU, China, Africa. (See list below)

These recommendations (which in all likelihood were discussed in December 2020 by the National Security and Biotech advisors prior to the conduct of the Simulation Scenario) are intended to support the WHO Pandemic Treaty (coupled with the QR Code) which consists in establishing a global digital data bank which derogates the rights of individual member nation states. The pandemic treaty is intent upon establishing the contours of a system of “Global Governance” dominated by the financial establishment.

It should be noted that two key participants of the Monkeypox 2021 NTI simulation were involved in the John Hopkins 201 Scenario (October 2019) which consisted in the simulation of a novel corona virus 2019-nCoV pandemic. These included Dr. George Gao Fu, head of China’s CDC and Dr. Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division of the Gates Foundation, both of whom played a key role in staging the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in early 2020.

And currently [May 2022] George Fu Gao is playing a key role in the implementation of China’s Zero Covid Strategy which has led to the lockdown of Shanghai in late March 2022, as well as in several other major urban areas.

 

A New Fear Campaign? Pandemic Preparedness in America. The Smallpox Vaccine Effective against Monkeypox

Governments have already placed orders for the delivery of smallpox vaccines effective against monkeypox. 

While there were only two confirmed cases in the US of monkeypox recorded on May 18, [2022] the US government had already signed a contract with Bavaria Nordic  consisting of an order of  “millions of doses of a vaccine that protects against the virus” (Forbes).

The terms of this contract were in all likelihood negotiated prior to the announcement of the outbreak of the 92 monkeypox cases by the WHO on May 13.

Bavarian Nordic, the biotech company that makes the vaccine, has announced a $119 million order placed by the U.S., with the option to buy $180 million more if it wants. Should that second option be exercised, it would work out to approximately 13 million doses.

The order will convert existing smallpox vaccines, which are also effective against monkeypox, into freeze-dried versions, which have a longer shelf life.

How long is the “pandemic” slated to last?

“The converted vaccines will be manufactured in 2023 and 2024”, according to Bavaria Nordic (May 18, 2022.

Screenshot from Bavaria Nordic Announcement

The Role of Johnson and Johnson?

What the media has failed to acknowledge is the relationship between Johnson and Johnson and Bavarian Nordic, the Danish Biotech Company.

Bavaria North was a Partner of J and J until May 10, 2022, 3 days prior to the WHO official announcement pertaining to the alleged monkeypox outbreak.

The Global Head of J and J and Jannsen’s Public Health R&D is Dr. Ruxandra Draghia Akli, who participated in the Table Top Simulation on behalf of Big Pharma. (See list of participants above). Was the smallpox monkeypox vaccine developed by Bavaria Nordic in partnership with J and J?

The earlier Patent was registered in the US by Bavarian North. It was reviewed and first permitted for commercial marketing by the FDA on July 14, 2020, nine months prior to the NTI sponsored Scenario Simulation in March 2021 at the Munich Security Conference

Live (U.S. Patent No. 7,335,364) from Bavarian Nordic A/S, and the USPTO requested FDA’s assistance in determining this patent’s eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 14, 2020, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine, Live represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2016: Bavaria North acknowledges its relationship to Johnson and Johson. 

 

In China, Social Media has Gone Haywire

According to a Daily Mail Report

 

 

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