It was all a fitting reminder of Bertolt Brecht’s remark that bank robbery lies in the province of amateurs. The real professionals of plunder establish banks. Last month, the labours of Buzzfeed and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed just that. Centre stage: international banking misbehaviour. And my, was there much to go on.
The journalists had been combing through leaks comprising 2,121 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed with the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) between 2000 and 2017. The relevant amount in terms of transactions: somewhere in the order of $2 trillion. It was awfully good of the banks themselves to be filing such reports with the US Treasury. But such matters are mere formalities; there is no incentive for the bank in question to stop trading with a shady client, despite what is suspected in the report. The point is to merely keep an account of it.
The criteria for an SAR are not sharply defined. Matthew Collin of the Brookings Institute suggests a few: unclear sources and ill-defined beneficiaries; a nexus with a jurisdiction historically noted for financial crime and irregularity. Another “common sign of suspicion is one in which a client attempts to avoid attention from the authorities by making several deposits below $10,000, which is the automatic reporting threshold.”
The FinCEN Files highlight five stellar performers in the movement of illicit cash: JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon. A few instances are worth mentioning. Despite being fined $1.9 billion in the US for money laundering, HSBC moved money through its US operations to accounts in Hong Kong in 2013 and 2014. Central to this was a Ponzi investment scam known as WCM777.
The brainchild of Chinese national Phil Ming Xu, self-styled “Dr Phil,” the World Capital Market scheme promised returns of 100 percent profit in 100 days. Xu vigorously promoted this version of monetary paradise through social media, webinars and seminars. Gullible investors obliged, seduced by a rather grotesque combination of God and Mammon. (Xu was courting the evangelical market.) $80 million was raised and, for the unsuspecting investors, lost.
In the aftermath of the losses, direct physical harm resulted. Santa Rosa investor Reynaldo Pacheco extolled the virtues of WCM777 to family and friends. One acquaintance Pacheco had recruited to the scheme took umbrage at having lost $3,000. Taking matters rather seriously, she enlisted the services of three men in April 2014. They kidnapped the doomed Pacheco and bludgeoned him to death with rocks, leaving his remains in a creek bed in Napa, California.
Despite such events, and the knowledge that WCM was the subject of investigative interest in three countries, HSBC continued moving money for the investment fund. As the ICIJ describes it, over “$30 million tied to WCM flowed through the bank in 2013 and 2014 – at a time when HSBC was under probation as part of its deferred prosecution deal with America authorities.”
Not to be outdone, JP Morgan is also revealed to be more than the obliging middleman in dirt-caked transactions. An SAR filed by the bank in 2015 reveals that its London office might have assisted moving some of an amount totalling $1.02 billion. JP Morgan had provided services to ABSI Enterprises, a shady offshore company, between 2002 and 2013, despite being unclear of the firm’s provenance and ownership. The filed SAR disclosed how the parent company of ABSI “might be associated with Semion Mogilevich – an individual who was on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list”. Such relationships demonstrate that capitalism lacks nationalist allegiances: Mogilevich is, after all, the emperor of Russia’s organised crime network.
JP Morgan’s reaction to such unmasking was an excuse all the banks have used at some point. “We follow all laws and regulations in support of the government’s work to combat financial crimes. We devote thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to this important work.”
The amounts involved boggle, but they really ought to boggle more. Minds have been tasked with trying to comprehend the deep sea of money laundering, and they have been left baffled in the drowning. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has an estimate: each year, between 2-5 percent of global GDP, or $800 billion to $2 trillion – is laundered. In all this we see the tarnished, and, in banking circles, the acceptable fruits, of globalisation.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime puts it down to various vectors: the development in financial information, the innovation of technology, the advance of communications. All “allow money to move anywhere in the world with speed and ease. This makes the task of combating money-laundering more urgent than ever.” Using the image of depth, “dirty money” becomes more difficult to identify as it plunges into the system, being rinsed and laundered.
The root of the problem is a deeply conventional one. Money is to be made. Banks make money handling money. Rinsing and washing, they still earn fees for the service. They are also encouraged by their staying power as indispensable international citizens. Politicians of various shades come and go. They occasionally spout demagogic promises about reforming and regulating the banking sector, but these voices will eventually pass.
Mechanisms are also in place that serve as damp slaps on the wrist than genuine incentives for reform. The deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is a central part of the US government’s approach to induce change within a bank’s transaction practices. The reporting system is also feeble. Banks often filed SARs months after the suspicious transaction, often several with the same client. No action would be taken. A corollary of such filings is the value of such SARs. In the hope of preventing regulatory consequences, banks may issue an avalanche of them for regulators at FinCEN to investigate. Since 2003, the number of SARs from banks has quadrupled. FinCEN’s staffing has not kept the pace 178 in 2001; 300 in 2020.
This is not to say that kid gloves have always been the order of the day. Penalties have resulted. Since 2008, $36 billion worth in financial institution fines have been issued, with the bloc of North America taking about $27.9 billion. But such punishments have done little to chasten the sinners. Like thorny flagellation for the pious, the expectation of such treatment is built into the belief system. The sin is permitted to continue.
This is the institutional understanding that permeates the regulators and the regulated. Little wonder that FinCEN was unimpressed by the leaks. “As FinCen has stated previously,” the body asserted in a statement, “the unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime and can impact the national security of the United States, compromise law enforcement investigations, and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports.”
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
The current electoral campaign differs from that of 2016 in that the media, both conventional and online, has realized its power and has been openly playing a major role in what might well prove to be a victory across the board for the Democratic Party. At least that is the expectation, bolstered by a flood of possibly suspect opinion polls that appear to make the triumph of Joe Biden and company inevitable while at the same time denigrating President Donald Trump and covering up for Democratic Party missteps.
Most Americans no longer trust what is being reported in the mainstream media but when they look for “real” information they frequently turn to online resources that they believe to be more politically objective. That has never been true, however, and what most newshounds are actually seeking is commentary that reflects their own views. In reality, the news provided is almost always either spun or distorted and sometimes completely blocked, note particularly the resistance to reporting the tale of the shenanigans of Hunter Biden.
The New York Postis claiming that a trove of emails from a laptop reveals that “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”
The emails include a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the oil company Burisma’s board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
The correspondence, if authentic, disproves Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.” One would think that the story would be a real blockbuster, welcomed by self-respecting journalists but the reality has been that the mainstream media is doing its best to kill it. Facebook and Twitter have both blocked it though Twitter has since relented, and much of the rest of the liberal media is regarding it as a hoax.
Facebook has in fact become something of a leader in reversing its self-promotion as a site for free exchange of ideas. It has removed large numbers of users and alleged suspect sites and has blocked any “denial or distortion” of the so-called holocaust in response to what it regards as a surge in anti-Semitism. It has hired a former Israeli government official to lead the censorship effort on the site.
As Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can legally do whatever they want to set the rules for the use of their sites, but when the two most powerful social media companies choose to censor a major newspaper’s story about a presidential candidate’s possibly corrupt son less than three weeks before the election it suggests a more sinister agenda. They are quite likely banking on a Democratic victory and will expect to be rewarded afterwards.
Indeed, it should be assumed that Facebook and the other social media giants are reconfiguring themselves for the post-electoral environment in expectation that they will be more than ever politically and economically indispensable to aspiring politicians. This willingness to engage with politically powerful forces has led to increased involvement in the various mostly left-wing movements that have shaken the United States over the past five months. Television and radio stations as well as corporations and local businesses have rushed to endorse and even fund black lives matter without considering the damage that the group has been doing to property and persons that have had the misfortune to cross its path, not to mention some of the group’s long-term more radical objectives. Individuals identified as blm leaders have demanded mandatory training to reprogram whites as well as punitive reparations, to include “white people” turning over their homes to blacks.
Some of the developments are quite dangerous, most notably the compiling of lists of organizations and individuals that are considered to be “enemies” of the new social justice order that intends to take over the United States. One has noted the desire for revenge permeating many of the comments on sites like Facebook (which claims to delete “threats” from its commentary), to include some material in recent weeks that has called for the “elimination” of Americans who do not go along with the new normal.
One of the most invidious steps taken by any of the corporate social media is a recent decision by Yelp to allow Antifa to compile the raw material on so-called “fascist businesses” that will be included on a list of “Businesses Accused of Racist Behavior Alerts.” The list itself was set up to appease demands coming from the blm movement.
Yelp is a review site that provides grades and commentary on a broad range of goods and services, to include many businesses that cater to the public. The potential for abuse is enormous as Yelp is an information site that has no capability to investigate whether complaints of “racism” are true or not and Antifa, which is recognized as being at least in part behind the devastating Portland riots, is far from an objective observer. In fact, this is what Antifa has tweeted about its new role, which will allow group members to submit names of “non-friendly” businesses, defined as “also known as (AKA) any company that’s hanging blue lives garbage in their store or anything else that’s anti the BLM movement.”
The Antifa intention is clearly to put unfriendly shops and restaurants out of business, so it will not exactly be interested in engaging in constructive criticism or changing behavior through negotiation. Using the intimidation provided by the “Alerts” list and direct threats of violence from Antifa and blm, businesses will be coerced into supporting radical groups lest they be targeted. It is somewhat reminiscent of the old Mafia protection rackets, and who can doubt that demands for money will follow on to the verbal threats?
The rise of the internet oligarchs might indeed do more serious damage to the freedoms that still survive in the United States than will victory by either Biden or Trump. What Americans are allowed to think and how they perceive themselves and the world have taken a serious hit over the past twenty years and it can only get worse.
*
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.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Most of our leaders are still hell-bent on preserving America’s imperial power at any cost: endless wars, climate catastrophe, mass extinctions, and the terrifying risk of a final, apocalyptic mass-casualty war—most likely a nuclear war.
Toward the end of Joe Biden’s October 15 town hall session, a Trump supporter asked Biden the only foreign policy question of the night. “So peace is breaking out all over the world,” the questioner claimed. “Our troops are coming home. Serbia is talking to Kosovo. And the Arabs and Israelis are talking peace, which I believe is a modern-day miracle, what’s going on. Does President Trump’s foreign policy deserve some credit?”
Instead (Biden) endorsed some of the most deceptive elements of Trump’s propaganda, dropped some clangers of his own and, in a classic Freudian slip, laid bare his own enduring commitment to American imperialism.
This question encapsulated all the smoke and mirrors that Trump has used to confuse the public and obscure his broken promises to end America’s wars, bring our troops home and build a more peaceful world. This was a fantastic opportunity for Biden to clarify the reality of Trump’s abysmal record and explain what he would do instead. But he didn’t. Instead he endorsed some of the most deceptive elements of Trump’s propaganda, dropped some clangers of his own and, in a classic Freudian slip, laid bare his own enduring commitment to American imperialism.
In response to the questioner’s designation of Israel’s deal with the UAE and Bahrain as a “modern-day miracle,” Biden simply rolled over and said, “I complement the president on the deal with Israel.” What he should have said was something like this:
“The UAE and Bahrain are ruled by dictators with absolute, despotic power who represent neither their own people nor the Arab world, let alone the people of Palestine—who gained nothing from these deals. Since these countries were not at war with Israel to begin with, these accords have nothing to do with peace. They are more about flooding the Middle East with even more U.S. weapons and forming new military alliances against Iran. Yes, we need peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, but they must be deals that truly bring peace, end Israel’s illegal military occupations and advance the equal rights of Palestinians and Israelis.”
Biden didn’t respond to the mention of the White House meeting between Serbia and Kosovo, but he could have explained that it had to be postponed when President Hashim Thaci of Kosovo was indicted for war crimes by an international court at The Hague. Thaci is charged with organizing the killing of hundreds of Serbian prisoners of war to sell their internal organs on the international transplant market under cover of NATO bombing in 1999. When the indictment was unveiled in June 2020, Thaci was literally in his plane on the way to meet Serbian leaders at the White House, and had to make a U-turn over the Atlantic to return to Kosovo.
Twenty-one years after NATO dropped 23,000 bombs on Serbia and illegally annexed Kosovo, neither Serbia nor nearly half the countries in the world have recognized Kosovo’s independence from Serbia. Biden could have pointed to this as a case study in why the U.S. must stop waging regime change wars, organizing coups in other countries, and installing CIA-backed gangsters and war criminals like Thaci to rule them.
As for the critically important statement by the town hall questioner that “Our troops are coming home,” Biden claimed that there are more troops in Afghanistan now than when he and Obama left office. That appears to be incorrect, since there were 11,000 troops there in December 2016 and 8,600 U.S. troops as of September 22nd, despite the lack of confirmation from the Pentagon on further reductions that Trump had promised.
However, Biden could have simply compared the number of troops brought home by Obama and Trump, which would have been an impressive comparison. Obama reduced U.S. troop levels abroad from 483,670 in December 2008, just before he took office, to 275,850 by December 2016. If the latest figures from the Trump administration are correct, there are still over 238,000 U.S. military personnel overseas.
So Obama reduced the U.S.’s overseas military presence by 43%, while Trump has reduced it by no more than another 14%. With Trump claiming he is “bringing our troops home” in every stump speech, why on Earth is Biden not trumpeting the fact that he and Obama brought home five times more troops than Trump has? Why is Biden running from that record? Is he planning to reverse that trend if elected? Millions of American voters would like to know.
A disappointing aspect of Biden’s response was his habitual readiness to take the low road, smearing China’s President Xi Jinping, criticizing Trump for even trying to make peace with North Korea, and repeating an unsubstantiated story about Russia paying “bounties” to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops. A better response from Biden would have been to fault Trump for not following through on the peace initiative with North Korea and for stirring up new Cold Wars with Russia and China, when the American people want their leaders to focus on existing threats like the pandemic, our devastated economy and the climate crisis.
The U.S. did indeed rule an empire in the twentieth century, albeit a neocolonial empire in an anti-colonial and post-colonial world that had to be sustained by a whole web of myths and lies.
But perhaps the most revealing moment of the evening was Biden’s Freudian slip about the imperial character of America’s relations with its allies and the rest of the world:
“You know, we’ve always ruled – (corrects himself) we’ve been most effective as a world leader, in my humble opinion – not just by the exercise of our power – we’re the most powerful nation in the world – but the power of our example. That’s what’s led the rest of the world to follow us, on almost anything.”
The U.S. did indeed rule an empire in the twentieth century, albeit a neocolonial empire in an anti-colonial and post-colonial world that had to be sustained by a whole web of myths and lies. But now we are standing at a crossroads in American and world history. America’s history of war, militarism and international coercion has reached its final stage in the terminal decline of an increasingly corrupt and decadent American empire. Yet most of our leaders are still hell-bent on preserving America’s imperial power at any cost: endless wars, climate catastrophe, mass extinctions, and the terrifying risk of a final, apocalyptic mass-casualty war—most likely a nuclear war.
But there is another path leading away from this crossroads, one that Joe Biden should embrace, which involves redirecting our country’s resources and energies away from unsustainable imperial power through a peaceful transition to a sustainable, prosperous post-imperial future.
It would have been inspiring to hear Biden say that his goals would be to put an end to U.S. efforts at regime change; to significantly reduce the threat of nuclear war and join the UN Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons; to free up hundreds of billions of dollars per year for domestic needs by right-sizing the Pentagon budget; and to put peaceful diplomacy front and center.
That would have been a paradigm-changing answer that would have motivated millions of Americans across the political spectrum—from leftists to anti-imperialist Republicans and libertarians—who long to live in a peaceful, just and sustainable world.
*
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.
As the modern day world grows more and more isolated in both a literal and a figurative manner, the view points we put forth are not selected in the interest of pushing a specific narrative, but rather in breaking down walls and building a dialogue. We believe that dialogue is imperative for change to occur, especially within the context of the current global crisis. We publish pieces by a wide variety of specialists including journalists and scholars, political analysts and historians, ex-military and intelligence personnel, doctors, scientists and environmental experts, to name but a few.
Our team works tirelessly day in, day out, to promote articles by renowned experts as well as young up and coming writers. The diversity of topics covered coupled with our ever-growing list of contributing authors from all over the globe truly make Global Research a unique resource worth preserving.
To ensure the longevity of Global Research, we need your help! Our content will always be free, but your donations and membership subscriptions are essential to the functioning of our website. Free content involves some very real costs. We cannot meet these costs without your support. Please click below to make a donation or become a member now.
We understand that times are tough for everyone. If you would like to help out but cannot make a financial contribution, please see below for details on becoming a Global Research Volunteer…
With measures being put in place to reduce our reach (such as tacit online censorship of independent media) there are a number of ways you can help us make sure that the questions we ask continue to be heard:
Establish an email list of some fifty friends and family and forward the Global Research Newsletter and/or your favourite Global Research articles to this list on a daily basis.
Use the various instruments of online posting and social media creatively to “spread the word”. Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our article pages for starters.
Post one or more Global Research articles to internet discussion groups and blogs to build a dialogue around the subject matters we cover.
Do you have friends who would benefit from our articles? Consider signing them up for our daily newsletter.
Are you part of a community group or organized discussion group? Submit a topic we have covered or a specific article from our website for discussion at your next meeting.
Corporate bankruptcies, mass unemployment and poverty: The closure of the planet’s real economy has triggered a global debt crisis affecting all sectors of economic activity.
No matter how much you dislike Trump, only a fool can fail to see the implications for public access to information of the massive suppression on the internet of the Hunter Biden leaks.
While the schools of public health collude with industry in vaccine manufacture and testing, and oppose“vaccine skepticism”, they evidence no willingness to confront valid concerns aboutpotential dangers.
In two bombshell reports, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge of the New York Post have leveled damning allegations of Hunter Biden’s murky financial dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs.
As journalist Caleb Maupin explains in his new book Kamala Harris and the Future of America: An Essay in Three Parts, the prospect of her becoming president is no laughing matter.
Why does Trump think he can expect a representative of the military/security complex to help him wind down Washington’s hegemonic policeman of the world routine?
Donald Trump is not the first politician to use demonisation of foreigners, whether Arabs or Muslims, as a campaign tactic. And his administration is not the first to implement policies that have adversely affected these communities. But while we have a century of such policies, the Trump era has elevated them to a level so dangerous it is imperative that they now finally be confronted and defeated.
A bit of history is in order. During the 1920s, in the midst of the nativist wave that was sweeping the country, Congress added the Arab East to the list of regions from which immigrants would be banned. In presenting the legislation, the sponsoring senator, a Democrat, said, “We don’t need any more Syrian trash in America.” This exclusion lasted more than two decades, during, which time there was no legal Arab immigration to the US.
In the early, 1970s the Nixon Administration launched Operation Boulder, a sweeping COINTELPRO operation designed to surveil, infiltrate, harass and deport Arab students who were engaged in constitutionally protected activities on college campuses. Though formally terminated in 1975, the FBI continued the infiltration and surveillance of Palestinian student groups until the late 1980s, despite the protests of FBI field agents that because the programme had yielded no results it was a waste of manpower and resources.
The Reagan administration took advantage of the prevailing anti-Arab and, specifically anti-Palestinian, mood targeted Arabs as the weak link in the civil liberties chain. In two important court cases, using Palestinians, they pressed for changes that weakened US extradition law and criminalised support for specified Palestinian groups, even where that support was limited to protected first amendment activities. They also advanced an ominous initiative to build secret mass detention camps that would house tens of thousands of Arabs in case of a “national emergency”.
During their time in office, the Clinton administration issued directives designed to further criminalize support for a number of mostly Arab groups, even when this “support” was limited to benign activities such as contributing to a charity or selling a newspaper. It also implemented the practice of subjective profiling at airports. Spotters were assigned to routinely identify “Arab-looking” men and women at check-in counters, pull them out of line, and humiliate them by going through their luggage in full view of other passengers.
Following the “terrorist attacks” of 9/11, the Bush administration responded in contradictory ways. On the one hand, the president cautioned Americans against singling out Arabs or Muslims for blame. At the same time his Department of Justice implemented a number of policies that did exactly that.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the DOJ launched massive roundups of thousands of recent Arab and Muslim immigrants, many of whom were summarily deported. This was followed by two “call-ins” in which thousands of Arabs and Muslims were contacted by mail and ordered to report for interviews with immigration officials. Some of those who received “invitations” were in fact citizens.
All of these practices were only the prelude to the notorious National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) also known as the “Special Registration” programme. This programme required 180,000 recent immigrants, students, and visitors, from mostly Arab and Muslim-majority countries, to report for interviews, on specified dates, at local immigration offices. Special Registration was poorly conceived, badly implemented, and arbitrarily administered, resulting 13,000 individuals ordered held for deportation, many on technicalities. It is important to note that no terrorists were ever apprehended as a result of any of these programs.
All they did was create fear and uncertainty in our communities and foster suspicion of Arabs and Muslims in the broader public.
The Bush Administration also made use of embedded informants to entrap young susceptible Muslims. These “non-cases” of entrapped individuals then became highly publicised arrests exploited by law enforcement. Also, during this period, we witnessed, the expansion of surveillance, the most extreme example being the notorious “Demographics Unit” programme of the NYPD in New York City. This joint NYPD/CIA effort used coerced informants to infiltrate businesses, community centers, and places of worship to spy on and report on such banal activities as TV programs watched, conversations overheard, and the names and ethnicities of those present. Extensive reports were issued on the Syrian, Palestinian and Egyptian communities. When revealed by the Associated Press, Arabs and Muslims across the city felt both violated and vulnerable.
Even the Obama Administration proved not to be immune from taking measures that would negatively impact Arabs and Muslims. While the Bush Era NSEERS program was suspended, Obama did not officially terminate it until the end of his final term. And after years of internal debate, profiling was “ended” by the Justice Department but with a “national security” loophole that allowed law enforcement free rein to target and humiliate Arabs and Muslims at the border and to continue surveil to them in their communities. While Obama expanded outreach to Muslims, it was all too often done in the name of fighting terrorism, tainting the entire effort.
After a Nigerian man who intended to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight was apprehended, the instinctive response of the Obama administration was to place special onerous restrictions on passengers coming to the US from specially designated countries, the overwhelming majority of which were Arab.
What should be clear from this review is that discriminatory policies that unfairly target Arabs or Muslims did not begin with Donald Trump and will not automatically end with a change in the White House. Their toll has not only impacted our communities, but they also normalised law enforcement practices that contributed to the erosion of civil liberties for all Americans. Regardless which party is in the White House, these onerous policies must finally be challenged and defeated.
James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
*
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.
The annual spring congregation of egg-laden horseshoe crabs on the east coast provide a vital food source for annual migrations of millions of shore birds.
The $18 billion gold rush for liability free COVID vaccines now threatens that ancient Atlantic coast ritual. COVID vaccine makers plot to harvest tens of thousands of these primitive and beloved sea creatures. The horseshoe crab’s blue blood is the only known natural source of limulus amebocyte lysate, a substance that detects and eliminates a potentially deadly vaccine contaminant called endotoxin.
In 1990, biologists estimated 1.24 million crabs spawned in Delaware Bay, a main egg-laying nursery grounds and prime collection point for the companies. By 2019, that number had dropped to 335,211. Conservation groups feel that the planned harvest by vaccine manufacturers may lead to the species’ extinction.
Starting in July, Swiss-based Lonza will begin manufacturing a COVID-19 vaccine for human clinical trials. The company will use lysate in the vaccine it plans to sell it in the U.S.
The horseshoe crab is already on the brink of extinction. Conservationists fear that the demand for horseshoe crab blood for COVID-19 vaccines may exterminate the crabs and destroy the shore birds and the marine ecosystem that depend on them.
Conservationists observe that the harvesting of wild animals like sharks and horseshoe crabs for exploding vaccine manufacturing is unsustainable.
There is a lot to cheer about when it comes to most of President Trump’s foreign policy statements. He regularly tells us he is ending foreign wars and bringing troops home. But do the people who work for him even listen? It seems as soon as the president makes a strong foreign policy statement, one of his appointees grabs a microphone to explain what the president “really meant.”
Earlier this month, President Trump Tweeted that, “we should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas!”
It was a very encouraging statement. But almost immediately his statement was “clarified” – actually refuted – by two Administration officials.
First, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Mark Milley, directly contradicted his boss – who also happens to be his Commander-in-Chief – stating, “It’s a conditions-based plan. We’re continuing to monitor those conditions.”
Then President Trump’s National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien told us that the president’s statement was merely an expression of his “desire.” “All presidents, all GIs, want the troops home by Christmas,” he said on Friday.
Then Milley and O’Brien launched a war of words against each other over troop withdrawal, with Milley attacking O’Brien’s “clarification” that 2,500 troops would remain in Afghanistan until at least early next year. Milley called it “speculation.”
O’Brien fought back, stating that it “has been suggested by some that that’s speculation. I can guarantee you that’s the plan of the President of the United States.”
It’s hard to follow!
While President Trump’s statement on bringing the troops home is to be applauded, he has a real problem getting his policies implemented by the very people he has hired to do the implementing. It has long been said that “the personnel is the policy,” and we have seen this very clearly in this administration.
President Trump ran on a sensible foreign policy, defining “America first” as getting the US out of endless and counterproductive wars. Many, me included, believe this position may have provided his margin of victory. The “peace candidate” nearly always wins.
But you cannot pursue an “America first” foreign policy if you put people like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mark Milley, and others in charge of carrying it out. They simply won’t do it. We are seeing that again when it comes to withdrawing our troops from the long and foolish war in Afghanistan.
For a president once made famous for uttering the line “you’re fired,” Trump seems unwilling or perhaps unable to dismiss those who actively seek to undermine his policies.
There is no need for endless negotiations with the Taliban on what the country might look like or should look like when we get out. The only way to get out of Afghanistan is to just get out of Afghanistan. To just come home. Nineteen years fighting a losing battle to re-shape a country thousands of miles away about which the “experts” know nothing is more than enough.
But if there is ever a “danger” of a war coming to a close, Washington’s warmongers are right there trying to stir up another conflict. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said late last week that would like to see huge military spending increases to counter the “threat” of Russia and China.
Robbing Middle America to enrich the millionaires in the military-industrial complex seems to be the one issue universally supported in Washington. But it is not at all what the American people want. Will Trump have another chance to pursue an actual “America first” foreign policy? Soon we will know…
With the 2020 U.S. presidential election less than a month away, there is widespread speculation concerning Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness at 77 years of age if he were to defeat incumbent Donald Trump on November 3rd. The former Vice President and Senator from Delaware would surpass his opponent as the oldest to ever hold the office of the presidency if victorious, while his generally acknowledged cognitive decline has led many to question whether he is even capable of serving a single term. Given the concerns about his health, the likelihood that Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, would become his successor has put the controversial former prosecutor and California Attorney General’s own politics under scrutiny, though not to a degree sufficient with the odds she could very well become commander-in-chief in the near future.
Trump himself suggested it was the hidden motivation behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent introduction of a 25th Amendment commission on removing a “mentally unfit” president to enable the replacement of an incapacitated Biden with Harris after the election. Even Saturday Night Live recently joked about Biden’s poor first debate performance as a Harris term in-the-making — but as journalist Caleb Maupin explains in his new book Kamala Harris and the Future of America: An Essay in Three Parts, the prospect of her becoming president is no laughing matter.
Maupin’s ambitious essay surpasses the redundant analysis of the vice-presidential nominee by placing her political success in a broader historical context while forewarning the unique danger of a budding Harris administration waiting in the wings. The majority of the critical examinations of Harris during the campaign have critiqued her rebranding as an outwardly “progressive” figure in stark contrast with the reality of her career as a prosecutor turned establishment politician. While that is true, Maupin’s analysis takes an important step further by formulating the rise of Harris, who is the first Jamaican and South Asian-American nominee on a major party ticket, as the culmination of the U.S. left’s failures in the last several decades resulting in its present deteriorated state preoccupied with liberal identity politics. More specifically, a result of the defeats suffered by the so-called New Left of the 1960s and 70s which had long-term consequences for progressive politics in America today.
Although not a biography, Maupin does link Harris’s psychological profile, personality traits and upbringing with her political career which he parallels with the life stories of previous presidents and other political figures. Born in 1964, Harris was raised in a hub of the organized left in the Bay Area by immigrant parents who were politically active during her early childhood in Northern California. While not a communist, her estranged Jamaican-American father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University professor and Marxian economist whose work influenced the progressive domestic reforms in his native island country during the administration of Prime Minister Michael Manley, a democratic socialist who introduced land redistribution, socialized medicine and free education until Jamaica’s neocolonization by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decimated the Carribean nation with enormous debt, as explored in the documentary Life and Debt (2001). Young Kamala grew up attending civil rights protests in Berkeley with her parents until their bitter divorce which resulted in her Indian-American mother gaining sole custody. Maupin dares to ask — is her chosen career path as a criminal prosecutor and top legal officer disproportionately locking up black men unconsciously motivated by a vendetta against her father? Could it even explain her thinly-veiled contempt for the progressive politics she now pretends to uphold as a politician?
Maupin also argues that Harris was likely groomed for her present role as Biden’s running mate by the Clintonite wing of the Democratic Party once it became apparent Hillary was not in a position to run again in 2020, citing a 2017 closed door meeting in the Hamptons with elite party donors and apparatchiks. Despite her own early exit from the primaries after a knockout blow in the debates delivered by Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii who sharply criticized her record as a prosecutor, Harris was already vetted by the party leadership to be Biden’s heir apparent. For the Democratic establishment, she is the perfect choice to derail the emerging progressive faction of the party led by Bernie Sanders which champions a similar brand of the social democratic politics championed by her father. This could also hold disastrous geopolitical implications, as the world is still reeling from the four years spent ravaged by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton’s State Department which oversaw the wholesale destruction of several nations in the global south. We can only expect the same regime change policies from Harris if she is cut from the same cloth.
Maupin then uses Harris and her Berkeley upbringing to explore the history of leftism in the United States, tracing the New Left’s ceding of leadership roles to students and marginal groups while discarding labor rights and the class struggle back to the influence of the Frankfurt School of Social Theory. The philosophical movement of intellectuals and academics associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, otherwise known as ‘critical theory’, put forward that both capitalist societies and Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union were equally rigid “totalitarian” systems. The interdisciplinary sociological school viewed Marx’s prediction of revolutionary emancipation in the 20th century as an evident failure and rejected the historical materialism of orthodox Marxism, arguing that forces of economic change were undermined by the dominant ideology of the ruling class represented in mass media which produced false consciousness in the working class. Theorists such as Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse attempted to reformulate Marxism with Freudian psychoanalysis and other disciplines while critiquing mass consumer culture and modern technology.
As the impact of the Frankfurt School gave rise to the New Left in the U.S. and Western Europe, mass social movements became housed in the universities instead of the factories. This was favorable to the ruling class, as student-led counterculture revolts were much easier to control in comparison with a revolution organized by the workers. If any authentic revolutionary leaders did emerge, they were quickly neutralized. After the student protests of 1968, the New Left withdrew further to its comfort zone in the realm of ideas and out of the streets, which was perfectly alright with the powers that be since they were intellectuals who denounced Marxism-Leninism. Soon the academy would be dominated by an even more pessimistic and “anti-authoritarian” ideology, postmodernism, which rejected the value of all universal truths and grand narratives. How did this all happen?
Maupin emphasizes that the intelligentsia of the New Left were actively supported by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) through its clandestine Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) program during the Cold War, which sought to subvert the sympathies of liberals and the non-communist left with the Soviet Union through the covert funding of prominent literary magazines, journals, international conferences, modern art exhibitions, and other cultural activities. The objective was to promote an intellectual consensus on the Western left that the Soviet Union was to be opposed as much as capitalism and it was indisputably successful. Meanwhile, the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commissions of the 1970s exposed how in the previous decade the CIA had played an enormous role in introducing drugs to the counterculture as part of its domestic espionage against the anti-war movement in Operation Midnight Climax, a sub-program of Project MK-Ultra, where the Bay Area became a petri dish for its human experimentation. With the drug culture came the popularization of eastern mysticism and eventually, the New Age movement.
As it happens, the relationship between the CIA and the New Left’s intellectuals goes back to its origins. One of the most prominent idealogues of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse — often referred to as the “father of the New Left” — spent almost a full decade during the 1940s working for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, and as an anti-Soviet intelligence analyst in the U.S. State Department. This was not just during wartime but continued well after WWII was over in West Germany until 1951 when Marcuse immigrated to the United States to work as a professor at universities on the east coast, the same year that the CCF was founded. However, one interesting fact that Maupin overlooks is that while Kamala Harris was growing up in Oakland in the 1960s, Marcuse relocated his teaching career out to the west coast at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), where his work continued to be cited as an influence by the middle-class student activists and radicals of the counterculture as the left drifted further away from the socialist countries and the working class. The documentary Herbert’s Hippopotamus: Marcuse and Revolution in Paradise examines Marcuse’s time in Southern California in the late 60s.
Prior to his work in the OSS, in Weimar Germany the young Marcuse had been a pupil of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as his mentor infamously joined the ascendant Nazi Party, though the relationship came to an end once Marcuse’s own academic career was obstructed by the Third Reich in the early 1930s. One of the major thinkers associated with the New Left promoted by the CCF was a former lover of Heidegger’s, Hannah Arendt, who penned one of the most seminal and harmful works in equating the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany as twin pillars of authoritarianism in The Origins of Totalitarianism. In particular, Maupin takes aim at Arendt’s essay Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil where she famously observed Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann’s thoughtless conformism and ministerial disposition in his lack of remorse for his atrocities while covering his trial. Maupin interprets her notion as implicitly concluding that lurking underneath the surface of every ordinary hardworking person is a potential fascist, therefore anyone who would try to organize them for a collective cause is a threat to society. This cynical, psychoanalytic definition of fascism as rooted in what Adorno called the “authoritarian personality” replaced the Marxist economic understanding. Yet in spite of her work, Arendt controversially participated in the shameful post-war apologia and rehabilitation of Heidegger’s reputation.
Critics might say that Maupin’s diagnosis of the Western left as the manipulated brainchild of Western intelligence agencies is oversimplistic, conspiratorial or risks espousing a form of vulgar Marxism. Indeed, it is a touchy subject for those too personally connected to the artistic and intellectual milieu of the time to accept the undeniably significant role played by the CIA in subverting leftist politics, arts and culture in the second half of the twentieth century. Some on the left will inevitably try to dismiss his analysis by likening it to the right-wing canard of “cultural Marxism” spoken of by paleoconservatives simply because of the overlap in mutual subjects of criticism. Nonetheless, there is a small kernel of truth at the heart the right’s mostly fictitious narrative of Western Marxism’s control of academia but unfortunately, what they misinterpret as a plot to “subvert Western culture” was hatched at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia — not the former Soviet Union. Today’s pseudo-left which recoils working people is truly an imposter generated by the CIA’s cultural cold war program to replace actual Marxism, the real casualty of the pervasiveness of Western Marxism in universities.
Others may find Maupin’s assessment of the Frankfurt School and thinkers of the New Left to be too dismissive of their contributions. Ironically, Adorno’s worthwhile conception of “actionism” applies to the left-wing anti-intellectualism and leaderless, spontaneous voluntarism of the very movement to which the Frankfurt School gave birth and is even more relevant per Maupin’s thorough description of what he calls the “synthetic left” today. Look no further than the ‘propaganda of the deed’ which dominates Antifa and the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests this year. In Thesis on Feuerbach, Karl Marx articulated the predicament of revolutionary politics in his day being restrained by the gap between thought and action, or “philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” One could say the mantra of the Western left now seems to be taking action without any thought whatsoever. Or as Lenin wrote in What is to be Done?, “without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.”
If the idea that Kamala Harris represents an apotheosis of the New Left’s failures feels like a bit of a stretch, it is only because the examination warrants further inquiry which Maupin should continue in his work, regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election. Nevertheless, in just a little over 125 pages he manages to comprehensively piece together the trajectory of the Western left from the end of WWII to what can only be described as its “stinking corpse” today, a term once used by Rosa Luxembourg to describe the treacherous Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) after it voted to support the imperialist bloodbath of WWI in 1914. Maupin’s use of Harris and the environment she grew up in as a springboard to investigate the shortcomings of the Western left generally is a formidable exploration that is desperately needed at a time where the American people are faced with the probability of enduring yet another destructive administration and no authentic left to represent it.
*
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.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His writing has appeared widely in alternative media. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Max may be reached at [email protected].
Imagine! – Tomorrow, or one of these days, a gigantic earth or seaquake would shake the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific, or god-forbid, a meteorite would hit one of these Great Seas – triggering a monster tsunami that would devastate most of the US East Coast – New York, Washington, all the way up to Boston and all the way down to Miami; as well as the Western European Coastline, including the UK; London under water, the Bretagne (Britany) flooded – and flood waters would reach all the way to Paris.
Or, imagine a similar scenario at the US Pacific Coast: San Francisco, Los Angeles, devastated and Baja California outright disappeared under gigantic tidal waves. No global warming. Just Mother Nature. The cosmic forces.
Or, in yet another scenario, imagine, one of Washington’s presumptuous warmongers would through a preemptive act of arrogant stupidity trigger a nuclear war… the worst of all situations.
What would happen?
Covid would be gone at once.
From one moment to the next. The, oh-so deadly “pandemic”- that never was – but we were made believe – the so heavily touted contagion that just devastated during the months past the entire world economy, caused unfathomable suffering, misery, death by desperation, death by famine – death by suicide and mass human auto-destruction, death by associated causes by the millions, hundreds of millions, billions perhaps – that worst of all viral diseases humanity has ever known and suffered from – would suddenly come to a shrieking halt.
A genius virus – so genius, must be man-made – that hits the entire world, summer or winter – 193 UN member countries – at once – coincidentally beginning with the tolling of the bells into the Decade of the 2020s, triggering a global lockdown of 193 nations exactly at the same time – mid-March 2020. That genius non-visible enemy induces all 193 UN member governments to impose the same measures to save humanity – face masks that deprive you from properly breathing your life-supporting oxygen, social distancing – that prevents sharing and socializing with friends, lockdown of everything, shops, workplaces, entertainment, even a walk in the park is forbidden – all at once.
Every one of the 193 UN members experiences simultaneously the same predicament – a humongous danger to humanity. An invisible enemy that hits at once all corners of the globe indiscriminately, the South, North, East and West. Nowhere to escape. Only the moon, but the moon is already controlled and monopolized by one of our planet’s richest billionaires.
The corrupt politicians and so-called leaders of all the 193 UN member countries, sadly, they are all puppets of a Higher Power, all of them had let themselves be bought or coerced into the diabolical game plan of total digital control of body and mind, using this dubious invisible enemy – a virus – with a monstrous fear-propaganda, with falsified and manufactured statistics, leading 7 billion people into believing that they are at risk of death, and that only a total lockdown, in other words, annihilation of the global economy, can save them. Never mind your life-support activity and livelihood.
A catastrophic event, hypothetical, for sure, as described before, and Covid is gone. As if it never was.
All coopted and/or coerced – or generously remunerated politicians of the 193 UN member nations, would now scramble to get into their readily prepared bunkers and other safety holes. Suddenly, they couldn’t care less about the deadly virus that threatens the rest of the world. They were never threatened themselves; they were always safe.
Occasionally to strengthen their covid propaganda the one or the other announced with big-big brouhaha how suddenly covid-sick he or she became. Ambulance- and airlifting them into emergency rooms, with hourly media reporting, is part of the game. The public is in sympathy and believing that if they are not obedient… this nasty virus may hit them too.
A few days later, the “cured-again” politician emerges from his or her emergency situation – a brilliant PR stint. And very successful. It helped the bought and betraying government officials increasing their handle on the necks of people, their repression, and heightening their tyranny a notch or two. Their egocentric selves would seek the highest points to save themselves from the tidal waves, or the deepest bunkers to protect themselves from the nuclear dust and radioactive fallout, from the all-burning and obliterating mushroom cloud.
And then there are leaders (sic-sic leaders), who this very moment boldly, non-apologetically and without any scruples and empathy for their frightened-to-death co-citizens, declare, “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is never.”
And Boris Johnson, the self-styled czar of the United Kingdom, continues, “We have been through too much frustration and hardship just to settle for the status quo ante – to think that life can go on as it was before the plague; and it will not… We are resolving not to go back to 2019.”
Mr. BoJo shamelessly quotes from the infamous and diabolical book, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’, by Klaus Schwab, founder and President of the WEF – World Economic Forum, as reported today, 8 October by RT. The Great Reset is a disaster foretold – see this and this.
The 8th of October 2020, may be just a short time away from the hypothetical Blast of Nature, that would make Covid go away for good and forever – and would obliterate the UK czar’s and WEF’s dreams.
All those mediocre and outright immoral politicians have known all the time and know today, that the luciferian game they are playing is against the very people of their countries they were elected by. Can you even call this worthless lot ‘criminal’? Doubtful. Criminal requires some kind of value. These abject individuals have none. They know they are betraying the people, their co-citizens, their compatriots, with the masquerades, with the social distancing, with the segregation into solidary confinement. They know they are killing “their people” with fear and constant, everyday fear.
They know that all of what they are propagating and lying about to make you scared, is but a miserable farce, a scam. They know the fear they impose day after day, hour after hour, makes you vulnerable to diseases, all kind of diseases, because fear kills your immune system. These masters of evil do it anyway – and coopt their aids, doctors, scientists, by threatening them, directly or indirectly with job loss, with loss of reputation — and yes, they have families and many oblige for the sake of their families.
Not all. Thanks-god for the brave who come forward in Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, the United States – and from ever more countries, to speak the truth. Speaking Truth to Power can never be defeated.
All these high-ranking government officials, the sold-and bought ones, those without conscience, those that have sold you, who would also sell their mothers for the sake of being rewarded with positive recognition by the little dirty, devoid-of-any-ethics elite; an elite, who just want to control the world, its resources. And, not to forget – an elite who assume for themselves the right to dispose of how many people they deem worthy to live on this Blue Marvelous Planet. The masters of eugenics.
Before the hypothetical catastrophe hit, this little elite was able to buy the entire United Nations system, so as to have all 193 members, and countless UN agencies, with the World Health Organization (WHO) as their forerunner. They adopt the same cruel and unbelievable measures against a virus, that may not be more than a flu-virus, called Covid-19, a derivation of the SARS-Cov-2 virus – a virus that is no threat at all, and least a pandemic. But with the power of WHO and her billion-dollar-profit interest groups, a pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020. No justification, and no questions asked.
Covid is a man-made virus, part of a bio-war arsenal, that can at will be mutated to become fiercer. Indeed, it may most likely already exist in such mutated strings and invade different parts of the world in various forms of severity.
Now, with Covid gone – hypothetically, that is – these un-people, at the helm of the 193 UN members, as they are not deserving being called people, these 193 heads of states and their obeying lackeys, they are now fighting for themselves. The vaccines that they so cruelly were coercing you to accept – or else; or fearing you into wanting – these meekly beings, are now at the mercy of nature. And so, would be the arrogant little politician, who unwittingly triggered the hypothetical nuclear blast, that, in turn triggered other blasts of worldwide dimension, catastrophe no end. – But, but honestly – who is to blame? Of course, Russia and China.
These covid-king politicians couldn’t care less about you. These now angst-ridden politicians, once seemingly preoccupied for your health, who insistently told you to get covid-inoculated to save your skin, they so easily abandon you to safe their own skin.
They are now so adamant to seek refuge — from nature. They let covid go.
Nature may know no mercy.
Not with them, not with the rest of us, Global Northerners, who have been sleepwalking like zombies in pre-lockstep conditions, despite the numerous warnings: Decades, if not more, of preparation, the 2010 Rockefeller Report, numerous WHO commissioned preparatory reports, then Event 201, that struck on 18 October 2019 in NYC, in full sight, just a few weeks before the well-planned worldwide “outbreak of the fierce covid disease”.
We were and are being clouded by cognitive dissonance – to remain voicelessly in our comfort zones. Yes, I’m talking about us in the Global North, or we, westerners, who are so much superior to those poor people in the Global South, those that we in the Global North have exploited and ransacked for centuries, have stolen their resources and deprived them of education and of a decent livelihood.
We of the Global North, we who have obeyed the 193 crooked and dishonest heads of states and their obedient servants, their bought medical crews, we too, are now exposed without mercy to this – hypothetical – natural catastrophe – or nuclear blast – whatever fate may hypothetically have in store for us. We too deserve it.
For the grace of being recognized by our immoral leaders, puppets to a higher force, a deep state, a dark state or a non-state monster, for that recognition, for that egocentric flaw of being accepted by the powerful, we have closed our eyes and let the devil walk right over us – and into us.
Covid is gone. For good. Never came back.
Hypothetically, the world as we knew it, is gone. By Nature. Mother Earth’s cleansing. Reset, yes, but not WEF-style. So easy. Universal Reset, caused by the real forces of Mother Universe – not by our lousy, man-made, bribe-prone fiat money.
Covid is gone – from one instant to the next. That shows once more how ignorant, selfish, and unconscious we are; unconscious of our fellow human beings, those from the Global South, whom we deprived of their wealth and education, and whom, to this day, we colonize with debt and by using them as guinea pigs, for example, to test all kinds of dangerous and controversial medication, including vaccines. In their wisdom as victims they may understand sooner than we do, what the 193 tyrannical governments are up to.
Hail to Covid. It may bring us the Light by suddenly disappearing – compliments of Nature’s Wrath.
*
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.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Herman and Chomsky call it the age of manufactured consent. Surrounded by propaganda, unable to determine motives behind selective presentation of content on an illusory spectrum of media choice, we yet depend on mainstream news to edify, inform our knowledge and sensibility. That cartel-like centralised media authority over discourse may be criticised by some on the ultra left, but for many it is still worth having, with a totemic and actual role holding the horrors of power to account. And sometimes they do. Op-ed policy? Political discourse? Let the experts handle it.
The result is that the big conglomerates, Newscorp and The Guardian group dominating the fore, increasingly modulate the national psyche and the information, stories and investigations it is privy to; they ostensibly articulate the true in a deceit ridden politics.
But that cliche is precisely that and one that has spawned critical complacency on the part of the public and self-appraisal on the part of the press.
In all truth publishing is as wont to be corrupted by dirty agendas as politics. The indictment is most obvious at The Sun following The Guardian’s exposure of systematic interception as a policy which targeted vulnerable adult’s and dead children’s mobile phones.
The story of press ethics, however, runs deeper, begets indictments against adversarial outlets across the opinion spectrum, incriminating the whole industry: publishers are not interested in public interest value but the vacuous flux of the “newsworthy.” Since income streams from ad revenue dwarves budgets managed publically it is the vested interests of corporate benefactors that triumphs in the boardrooms, op-eds, opinion, features and news. A disgrace for a fourth estate founded as a check and balance against corruption and no doubt a source of global shame.
The barons of spin are experiencing unprecedented power of persuasion. Internet echo chambers which serve a tension between empowering lively exchange of diverse ideas and reinforcing dogma are serviceable for the self promotion of elite propaganda.
For example the liberal Guardian and radical Intercept too frequently abscond from dispassionate appraisals of public interest stories and spoon feed ideological sermons, joining their tabloid adversaries in giving the megaphone to ideology over ideas incorruptible by agendas. The fourth estate idea against institutional corruption caught on in part because it prevented the powerful from abusing the public in impunity which is, now, systemic in the media itself, simultaneously a setter of hidden agendas alloyed to wealthy interests.
This scandal runs deeper. It asks fundamental questions firstly of the purpose of the media as a functionary of free speech and constitutional integrity, but also about the validity of defunct news institutions.
Are they hand in hand with power, doing more harm than good? Are they corrupt? Are they hurting a lively exchange of diverse ideas?
There are plenty of independent minded commentators like John Pilger who argue that corrupt power and its propaganda is enhanced by large amounts of obscure capital flowing in to authoritarian boardrooms. Concurrently, dependence on corporations for their existence reduces their effectiveness speaking truth to power of a corporate state, in the interests of citizens.
That is precisely what happened after the post-2016 election Russiagate scandal. The rumours flew in and took over the discourse, with vague conspiracies bypassing critique of the real collusion between the CIA and Russian agents, atop the intervention of UK spies in foreign elections. The Russia conspiracy industry created a vacuum that led to a diversion from the truth shadow fronts operate globally and not on simple national polarities, abusing and undermining the public’s intelligence. They were there to save us from Russian malpractice, they told us, while they guilty of gross misspeaking. Mueller’s disclosures have only partly indicted Russia. Thirteen alleged agents are a symptom of Russia’s powerlessness: Western news, its management, its dissemination, its hidden hand, is deliberately, or under duress, inflating the threat of Facebook advertisements published only after the election.
Far away from the op-ed in a radical corner of the Internet is a website marking the spot where a cryptographer and team of researchers communed to found Wikileaks. Their aim was to empower, protect whistleblowers shining a bright light on corruption caused largely by deregulated neoliberal governance exported globally through hyper interventionist military adventurism, the playtime of venture capital. After Iraq, through Libya, Syria, Wikileaks flooded the data commons with robust documentary evidence from the epicentres of global injustice. Along with Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg and a legion of socially conscientious citizens Wikileaks never doubted that sabotage is solidarity where telling the truth is treason.
Yet along the way from the Glasnost moment when they arrested international attention, attitudes changed. After the chase for Assange was enacted and long after Sweden dropped its charges outlets in both the liberal and radical media had to revise their belief that his organisation could prevent abuse and malpractice in states under the totalitarian spell. The left expanded its personal fallacious attacks more comprehensively than the right; The Guardian content to speculate about about personal hygiene. Ironically its pledge “Facts are free/sacred” was bastardised in an endgame to write the obituary the CIA always wanted.
“The (CIA) mission was to destroy the “trust” that was Wikileaks’ “centre of gravity” with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” says veteran dissident John Pilger, who has served speaking truth to power in dozens of conflict zones.
The Iraq War of 2003, waged by US-UK led NATO forces, between them, Sadaam’s Baathist regime, and insurgent separatists triggered bloodshed from a moral abyss. Evidence of US forces opening fire in a premeditated attack on innocent, unarmed, peaceable journalists in a leaked video was a turning point not only for Pilger and Assange but the whole international community. It was televised warfare only unredacted, and seemed to start a new era of dissent: 20 years after the Samizdat press was successful, a new mood for Glasnost from inside the American empire swept across the world.
“Wikileaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes” says Pilger. By the time the “wholesale” murder of civilians became public, Assange was a senior threat to the war cartel. Their operations were riskier, no longer securely secret. So they turned their siege on him. Rape, so often a weapon of war, was cynically and reprehensibly weaponised as propaganda. And when the UN motioned his persecution illegal and of high humanitarian concern much of the media joined the UK state in disregarding its expertise, judgement and auditing role, a common trait of states that abuse human rights. His crime was to rehabilitate the media’s role of telling the truth. He uncovered the effacement of democracy and human rights at western hands in cahoots with murderous cartels and guerillas. When he submitted his evidence to the media, he was fired.
Political lying is the world’s worst kept secret. Since Orwell standards have not improved. The scale of abuse has only worsened. Citizen journalism is present with the overwhelming task of undercutting old privilege network discourses, but with technology in our hands, we can confine them to, back them in to their castles, and release truth from the trebuchet. Where media fails its duty to report responsibly, we must write and research for ourselves.
*
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.
Dr. Eric Rubin, an adjunct professor at Harvard’sT.H. Chan School of Public Health, has been Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) since 2019. On October 8, 2020, an editorial in the Journal,“Dying in a Leadership Vacuum”, excoriated the Trump Administration for having mishandled the Covid19 Pandemic, with editors concluding that such leadership should be thrown out of office. Coming shortly before the Presidential election makes the editorsde factocampaigners for a Biden Presidency, which is unseemly for a scientific journal, as objectivity and freedom from political involvement is expected for such a designation.
Below editorial text is a link to“Disclosure forms provided by the authors”. Scroll to Section 3 and “Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work”, and see that author and NEJM Deputy Editor Lindsey Baden has received grants from the Wellcome Trust, the Ragon Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH/NIAID (the latter headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, mainstream media’s highest profile health expert). The reason for the grants, in every case, is “vaccine development”.
There is also a link to theNEJM Groupthat takes one to a site filled with the slick photographic imagery characteristic of medical insurance brochures and the TV ads of the pharmaceutical industry: handsome models, setup scenes, the too-perfect age/gender/race balance, dramatized happy people. Rather than a mission statement, the Group has a“Learn about NEJM Group” page.
The NEJM Group is a division of theMassachusetts Medical Society(MMS) that authorizes the same lockdown-related “mask up!” model deriving from theindustry-funded World Health Organization (WHO)— nearly half a billion $$ from the Gates Foundation plus the vaccine allianceGAVI— its declarations descending to the likes of the MMS, the CDC and their equivalents in states around the world, thence to political figures who rely on officially designated “health experts”, and finally to policing powers that inflict the rules on populations.
This highly organized arrangement advances unabated, thanks to a firmly controlled media insuring that the many countering voices of expert opinion are carefully excised from public awareness (seehere,here,here,here,here,hereand beyond). It is perhaps material that the MMSExecutive Vice Presidentwas 24 years Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel with theTufts Health Plan, as well has having trained at the Executive Leadership Program ofAmerica’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Scan AHIP’s list of member organizations for an indication of the industrial interests — insurance and pharmaceutical — its leaders would be likely to serve.
The NEJM connection to Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health prompts association with Johns Hopkin’sBloomberg School of Public Health, named after billionaire donor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg certainly invests strategically, as does businessman and fellow billionaire Bill Gates, leading WHO funder-cum-self appointed global health authority and a key figure at the World Economic Forum (WEF). Bloomberg School was one of the three hosts ofEvent201, the pandemic exercise that presaged the actual Covid19 Pandemic by 20 weeks. That the other two hosts of the Event201 simulation were the Gates Foundation and the WEF begs questions regarding the relationships and common interests of the three. So why aren’t journalists reporting on the many connecting threads?
Here in Wisconsin, public masking has been made mandatory by the Governor. Two health experts on whom he would rely recently proclaimed during televised interviews that public masking is effective in controlling Covid19. The state’s Chief Medical Officerstated thatstudies in many countries had yielded “hard evidence thatrisk of transmission goes down dramatically when people wear masks.” A Dean of theUW-Madison Schoolof Medicine and Public Healthdeclared thatresearch studies had demonstrated that “universal mask” has been able to “cut in half” the number of predicted Covid19 infections, and that public masking should be accepted as “the new social norm.” Both experts have not only medical degrees, but also academic degrees in public health, one from the Bloomberg School, and the other from theMinnesota School of Public Health.
Understand this: There is actually no science at all to support mandated masking. Requests to both Wisconsin health experts for citations to scientific studies establishing the effectiveness of public masking were answered with opinion pieces rather than controlled trials that would justify invoking “Science!”Between May and July of 2020, the decades and dozens of studies establishing the ineffectiveness of public masking to curb viral transmission were abruptly rendered invalid. Suddenly, all over the world, the word from governmentally authorized health experts was “mask up” to save lives, because “We have the science.” It was, and remains, a patently false claim. TheDirector of the CDCin September, 2020 told a U.S. Senate committee “We have clear scientific evidence they [masks] work, and they are our best defense.”, and he knew that was false even as he spoke.
If public health is not a valid reason for masks, one is led to conclude that the power of the mask to isolate individuals, and to divide society into warring camps, was perceived early in the Covid19 Pandemic as so potent that enforcement was made a key component in lockdown strategy. The mask had become a powerful tool for behavior modification and social control on grand scale. And to what end?
Both public masking and mass vaccination are advanced within the context of governmental mandate. Reactions to mandated masking demonstrate to governments how best to overcome resistance when the time comes to require vaccination. Already, judgement that enforcement of such a requirement is both legal and moralis being establishedin the public mind. Meanwhile, massive infusions of money flow to schools of public health from such as the Gates Foundation, which focuses on vaccination of the entire world’s population (e.g.,here,here,here), and from the pharmaceutical industry (here,here,here) as it prepares for a future of trillions of dollars in profits.
Never before have the words “science” and “expert” been bandied about so carelessly and with so little justification.
Never before has one seen such a careful selection of certain, unanimous “health experts” to showcase for the public, while at the same time there has been a scrupulous censoring of dissenters.
Science so politicized, so controlled, and so in the thrall of profiteering interests, is not merely a betrayal of the public alone, but also of science itself.
*
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.
Recent attacks on Syrian positions from terrorists of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and the release of thousands of prisoners in US-occupied eastern Syria illustrate how Washington is demonstratably prolonging instability in Syria as part of its promise to transform the nation into a “quagmire” for Russia and Iran.
Newsweek itself, in an article titled, “US Syria Representative Says His Job Is to Make the War a ‘Quagmire’ for Russia,” had admitted earlier this year that:
The US special representative for Syria has urged continued American deployment to the war torn country in order to keep pressure on US enemies and make the conflict a “quagmire” for Russia.
The article further elaborated:
Assad—who now controls the majority of the country—is backed by Russia and Iran, both of which the US is trying to undermine. Jeffrey said Tuesday that the US strategy will both weaken America’s enemies while avoiding costly mission creep.
“This isn’t Afghanistan, this isn’t Vietnam,” he explained. “This isn’t a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”
Toward that end – efforts in US-occupied eastern Syria to properly deal with ISIS prisoners and their family members has been neglected – creating conditions aimed at breeding extremism rather than defusing it. Even the Washington Post – in a recent article titled, “Kurdish-led zone vows to release Syrians from detention camp for ISIS families,” would admit:
Conditions inside al-Hol displacement camp, a sprawl of tents perched in the desert west of Hasakah city, have alarmed humanitarian groups and in some cases aided the radicalization of women and children who spent years under Islamic State rule.
The “release” is depicted by the Western media as lacking planning – however – if the goal of the US is to compound Syria’s crisis rather than help resolve it – releasing thousands of prisoners – many of whom are likely only further radicalized – is the plan.
US media also reported on a major and recent clash between Syrian forces and ISIS militants requiring the use of Russian airpower to repel.
Western headlines like Defense Post’s article, “90 Dead as Syria Govt Forces Clash With IS: Monitor,” claimed:
Clashes in the Syrian Desert between pro-government forces and holdouts of the Islamic State group have killed at least 90 combatants this month, a war monitor said on Wednesday.
Russian aircraft carried out strikes in support of their Syrian regime ally, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
The militants are alleged to be based in Syria’s desert regions just west of the Euphrates River. However, in order to sustain ISIS’ fighting capacity in an otherwise desolate region, weapons and supplies need to be continuously brought in.
Since it is unlikely the Syrian government is supplying ISIS fighters determined to kill Syrian troops and move westward toward government-held territory – it is the US and its regional allies supplying them instead.
The combination of the deliberately destructive administration of US-occupied territory in eastern Syria and the continued supply and arming of militants – including those affiliated with ISIS – are clear components of Washington’s strategy of creating a “quagmire” for Syria and its allies in addition to the continued US military occupation itself and ongoing efforts to maintain crippling sanctions aimed at Syria’s economy.
The US has made “quagmires” for Russia in the past. This included its support of militants in Afghanistan through the supply of weapons and training via Pakistan.
The Syrian conflict – since 2011 – has been the result of similar efforts by the US to create, arm, supply, and otherwise back militants attempting to overthrow the government in Damascus. Having failed this primary objective and after having spent whatever credibility the US had upon the international stage – Washington has now moved toward openly obstructing peace and hampering Syria’s recovery from the ongoing conflict – admittedly to spite its international competitors including Russia, Iran, and even China.
When comparing America’s “rules-based international order” with the emerging multipolar world presented by nations like Russia and China as an alternative – it is difficult to believe Washington sees its continued destabilization of nations and even entire regions of the world as a selling point for its world view rather than the primary reason nations around the globe should both oppose it and back desperately needed alternatives to it.
Attempts by Washington to continue depicting itself as a partner for combating global terrorism rather than a source of global terrorism seems to have fully run its course with the US all but admitting its presence in Syria is aimed at prolonging conflict rather than contributing to efforts to end it. This has been repeatedly illustrated by America’s confrontation with Russia in Syria – including a recent incident in which US military vehicles unsuccessfully attempted to block a Russian military patrol.
It was Russia’s 2015 entry into the conflict on Syria’s behalf that decisively turned the tide of the conflict – using its superior airpower to target ISIS and Al Qaeda supply lines leading out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory into Syria, collapsing their respective fighting capacities and allowing Syrian forces to restore order to nearly all major population centers of the country.
Today, remaining hostilities are centered on both Turkish and US-occupied territory inside Syria – the resolution of which will mark the conclusion of the conflict – a conclusion and resulting peace Ankara and Washington appear opposed to.
While Western pundits have argued that a US withdrawal would lead to a resurgence of ISIS – it is clear that ISIS thrives everywhere Syrian forces have been prevented from retaking because of America’s illegal presence inside the country. A US withdrawal would be the first true step toward eliminating ISIS from both Syria and the region.
*
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.
Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The 13-year-long anti-Iranian arms embargo expired on the 18th of October, which creates opportunities for the Islamic Republic to strengthen its national defense capabilities and cultivate even deeper relations with its top strategic partners such as China and Russia, possibly even playing them off against one another in a “friendly competition” so as to derive the greatest benefit.
The End Of The Embargo
The US is enraged that the UN let the 13-year-long anti-Iranian arms embargo expire on Sunday without extending it like America wanted. Secretary of State Pompeo humiliated himself on the world stage by fearmongering about the impact that this development could have on regional security only to be almost completely rebuffed by the international community. In response, America once again resorted to waving its “sanctions stick” by threatening to impose unilateral economic restrictions upon anyone who sells arms to Iran after the embargo’s expiration, but that probably won’t deter the Islamic Republic’s top Chinese and Russian strategic partners who are eager to expand such ties with Iran. Not only will this allow Tehran to strengthen its national defense capabilities, but it could also leverage its new arms trade with those countries and perhaps even others in order to comprehensively deepen its relations with them.
Possible Chinese & Russian Deals
Prior reports strongly suggested that Iran and China are in the process of agreeing upon (or have already secretly agreed upon) a massive strategic partnership deal that could be worth up to $400 billion. This pact would also presumably include a military component of an unclear nature, most likely related to military-technical cooperation though instead of the scandalous reports of Chinese bases in the Islamic Republic. As for the Russian dimension of Iran’s new opportunities, earlier reports said that Tehran was considering purchasing S-400 defense systems and possibly even Su-35 fighters or other similar jets. Whatever it ultimately decides to buy from whichever partner, though, the question naturally arises of how the country will pay for all of this considering its ongoing economic crisis and all the difficulties that it’s created for the country. It’s here where a de-facto “barter system” might play an important role.
Military Bartering?
Iran isn’t a stranger to such arrangements after having already entering into related agreements with Russia in the past. This time, however, it might offer up preferential stakes in its energy industry, transport and logistics networks, and other attractive spheres such as the commercial one in order to court more meaningful investment. Through this manner, Iran could actually attempt to play China and Russia off against one another in order to secure the most advantageous deals. In fact, it might already have succeeded in doing so depending on whatever details eventually emerge about its reported strategic partnership with China. It might very well be the case that China beat Russia before the competition even formally started, though the Iranians might have not given Beijing everything in order to retain the possibility of bartering with Moscow on military-related deals considering the Eurasian Great Power’s global reputation as a premier provider of such wares.
Strategic Sensitivities
The author acknowledges that the above contains an ample amount of speculation, but it should also be recognized by the reader that agreements of this nature are usually opaque for national security reasons, especially considering just how sensitive the issue of the Iranian arms trade is in light of the US’ “secondary sanctions” threats. It might very well be the case that a few big ticket items might be publicly promoted for soft power sake (both related to showing Iran’s willingness to defy the US as well as its Chinese and/or Russian partners’ equal intention to do the same) but it’s more likely that these agreements or at least most of them will remain in the shadows for as long as possible. The resultant strategic ambiguity would be meant to keep Iran’s rivals on their toes, but considering China and Russia’s excellent relations with each of them, it can’t be discounted that they might seek to secretly reassure such actors that their deals won’t threaten their interests.
“Friendly Competition”
Remembering the “friendly competition” between China and Russia throughout parts of Eurasia, whichever of the two ends up clinching major arms deals with Iran might lose out to related business from the Islamic Republic’s GCC rivals. As such, it might actually turn out that this is a win-win for all parties involved whether they consciously recognize it or not. If Russia is the one that reaches such agreements with Iran for example, then China could just double down on its military exports to Saudi Arabia, which might be less inclined to purchase Moscow’s wares if Riyadh feels uncomfortable with its sales to Tehran. The opposite scenario would probably take place in the event that China cuts such deals with Iran whereby Russia would then seek to profit from this by pushing more of its arms onto the Wahhabi Kingdom in response. Either way, everyone “wins” in the sense that a “balance” is upheld, indirectly managed through the dynamics of Chinese-Russian relations.
Concluding Thoughts
The expiration of the Iranian arms embargo opens up some exciting opportunities for the Islamic Republic since Tehran can now leverage potential military deals as part of its grand strategic goal to comprehensively improve relations with its Chinese and Russian partners. Even better, it can attempt to play them off against one another in a “friendly competition” so as to derive the greatest benefit, though it should also keep in mind that whichever of the two “loses out” on the deals in question will probably redirect their military export focus to Iran’s GCC rivals so as to make up for the lost business. It’ll be interesting for observers to monitor the military-technical dynamics between Iran, China, Russia, and the GCC over the new few years. It would also be useful for everyone if they track his predictions and possibly modify the model that he put forth if future developments necessitate it in order to arrive at more accurate forecasts.
*
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.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency
A Norfolk in Virginia (Usa) è nato un nuovo comando Nato: il Joint Force Command Norfolk, definito «Comando Atlantico», un clone del Joint Force Command Naples con quartier generale a Lago Patria (Napoli). La sua costituzione era stata approvata dal Consiglio Nord Atlantico a livello dei ministri della Difesa (per l’Italia Elisabetta Trenta del primo Governo Conte), nel giugno 2018. Come il comando Nato di Napoli, agli ordini dell’ammiraglio che comanda le Forze navali Usa in Europa di cui fa parte la Sesta Flotta, il comando Nato di Norfolk è agli ordini dell’ammiraglio che comanda la Seconda Flotta Usa. L’«area di responsabilità» della Seconda Flotta copre la metà occidentale dell’Oceano Atlantico e dell’Artico, mentre l’altra metà è coperta dalla Sesta Flotta delle Forze navali Usa. Il nuovo comando «Alleato» di Norfolk rientra quindi di fatto, come quello di Napoli, nella catena di comando del Pentagono.
Con quale motivazione è stato creato il Comando Atlantico? Per condurre la «Quarta battaglia dell’Atlantico», dopo quelle delle due guerre mondiali e della guerra fredda, contro «sottomarini russi che minacciano le linee di comunicazione marittima fra Stati uniti ed Europa nel Nord Atlantico». Secondo tale strategia, enunciata in particolare dall’ammiraglio Foggo che è stato a capo del comando Nato di Napoli, sottomarini russi sarebbero pronti ad affondare le navi che collegano le due sponde dell’Atlantico, così da isolare l’Europa prima dell’attacco russo. Scenario da film hollywoodiano sulla Seconda guerra mondiale, in cui gli U-Boot tedeschi affondano i mercantili diretti dagli Stati uniti all’Europa. Scenario fantapolitico: mentre la Battaglia dell’Atlantico della Seconda guerra mondiale durò 5 anni, la «Quarta battaglia dell’Atlantico» durerebbe 5 minuti. Se per assurdo sottomarini russi affondassero nell’Atlantico navi degli Stati uniti e dei loro alleati europei, sarebbe l’inizio della guerra totale con uso da ambo le parti di missili e bombardieri nucleari. Quale sarebbe allora il ruolo del Comando Atlantico? «Il Nord Atlantico è vitale per la sicurezza dell’Europa. – dichiara Stoltenberg, segretario generale della Nato – Il nostro nuovo Comando Atlantico garantirà che le rotte cruciali per i rinforzi e i rifornimenti dal Nord America all’Europa restino sicure». In altre parole: l’Europa, esposta a quella che Usa e Nato definiscono «aggressione russa», avrebbe bisogno, per resistere, che gli Stati uniti le inviino in continuazione forze militari, armamenti e rifornimenti. Le forze navali degli alleati europei devono quindi affiancare quelle statunitensi e, agli ordini del nuovo Comando Atlantico, dare la caccia a fantomatici «sottomarini russi che minacciano le linee di comunicazione marittima fra Stati uniti ed Europa nel Nord Atlantico».
È una sorta di gioco della battaglia navale. Molto costoso poiché comporta l’aggiunta di altri stanziamenti alla spesa militare complessiva dei paesi Nato, che già supera ampiamente i 1.000 miliardi di dollari annui in denaro pubblico sottratto ai reali bisogni dei cittadini. Molto pericoloso poiché serve da messinscena per far crescere nell’opinione pubblica l’idea del nemico, ossia di una Russia che minaccia l’Europa e si prepara a isolarla tagliando le sue linee di comunicazione marittima con gli Stati uniti. Fabbricando tale scenario, si giustifica il crescente schieramento in Europa di forze e armi statunitensi, anche nucleari, affiancate da quelle dei paesi europei della Nato, con la conseguenza che anche la Russia accresce le proprie forze, anche nucleari. Poiché il primo governo Conte ha approvato due anni fa la costituzione del nuovo Comando Atlantico della Nato, vorremmo sapere che cosa ne pensa il secondo governo Conte. Vorremmo inoltre sapere se in parlamento qualcuno sia stato consultato prima che l’Italia approvasse la costituzione del nuovo comando Nato, decisa dal Pentagono; o almeno se in parlamento c’è qualcuno a conoscenza del fatto che, oltre che dal comando di Napoli agli ordini di un ammiraglio Usa, la marina italiana dipende ora anche da quello di Norfolk, anch’esso agli ordini di un ammiraglio Usa.
It was highly probable. Given the howls of concern that social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook nurse and nurture a bias (every choice on content entails one), a gift was made to critics to show just that. Last Wednesday, Twitter prevented users from posting links to a New York Post story. The story, claimed Twitter, was “potentially unsafe,” replete with “hacked materials”. Those attempting to post links to the article faced a terse message. “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Facebook followed suit by restricting the story’s spread, placing it in the hands of third-party fact checkers.
The article in question featured Hunter Biden, making mention of an alleged email from April 2015 suggesting that he had introduced his father, Democratic presidential contender and former Vice President Joe Biden, to Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy firm. “Dear Hunter,” goes this email supposedly obtained by the Post, “thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent[sic] some time together. It’s realty[sic] an honor and pleasure.”
The email correspondence had been purportedly obtained from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, though the owner of the computer repair store who passed on the material to the FBI and one Rudy Giuliani was unsure if Hunter had left the computer with him. Thin stuff to go on.
Father Biden repeatedly claims to have never discussed his son’s “overseas business dealings” with him. The Biden election campaign has also denied that the meeting ever took place. “We have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”
At another time, the move by the platform might have caused a shrug of indifference. But Biden is leading in the polls. Every anti-Trump agitator is concerned to ease the pathway for the president’s defeat. Every advocate for Trump is keen to ensure that flames are lit under his opponent.
Republicans saw horror and golden opportunities, using a narrative long deployed by the Democrats against the Trump administration and the GOP: that social media platforms had become the unwitting, or even witting accomplices to electoral interference and misinformation glee. “This is a power grab from big tech billionaires drunk on their own power,” fumed Texas Senator Ted Cruz in a Saturday press call. “This is a direct act of electoral interference,” asserted GOP House Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). “We ask: did anyone at Twitter communicate with the Biden campaign? Did the Joe Biden campaign have any communications with Twitter, Facebook?”
Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, could also lay some claim to being victimised – in a fashion. Her personal Twitter account was locked after she posted the article late on Wednesday. On Thursday, Twitter momentarily blocked a link to a House Judiciary Committee webpage.
It was all too much for the Republican National Committee, which filed a Federal Election Complaint against Twitter on Friday arguing that censoring Post’s article constituted an “illegal corporate in-kind political contribution” to Biden’s campaign. Twitter, the complaint argued, had “engaged in arguably the most brazen and unprecedented act of media suppression in this country’s history, and it is doing so for the clear purpose of supporting the Biden campaign.”
For his part, President Donald Trump released a few volleys of rage. “So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of ‘Smoking Gun’ emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in the @NYPost.”
With what can only be seen as another twist of Cleo’s irony, Trump again suggested the repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the very same provision his detractors also argue should be confined to legislative oblivion. The section grants legal immunity to internet platforms for enabling users to post content. It also provides a “Good Samaritan” clause enabling platforms to remove or block material deemed offensive.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration issued a scrappy, clumsy proposal to reform section 230 that would penalise companies for removing material while sparing others. The proposal attempts to challenge company immunity for hosting material provided by a third party. Platforms, or “interactive computer services” would only be able to claim immunity from suit if they removed or restricted access or availability to such content falling within a range of objectionable categories. These include material “promoting self-harm,” and “promoting terrorism or violent extremism” though definitions are left begging. As to how one is to arrive at such a standard, it is that of an objective, reasonable belief.
Biden is of like mind – at least in terms of his loathing for section 230. The stance there, as it has been for the entire anti-Trump coterie, is holding social media companies to account for knowingly disseminating misinformation and falsehoods. (The knowing element tends to be the problem.) In his January interview with The New York Times, Biden argued for its immediate revocation. “For [Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms.” A company such as Facebook was not “merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods we know to be false.” There was “no editorial impact at all.” It was “totally irresponsible.”
The decision by Twitter and Facebook regarding the New York Post article recklessly adds fuel to GOP claims. While it was being celebrated by Kevin Roose in The New York Times as an indication that Facebook and Twitter were “finally starting to clean up their messes,” there was little by way of elucidation. Cristina Tardáguila of the International Fact-Checking Network had a few questions for Facebook. What was their methodology in such cases? “How do they identify what needs to be less distributed?” Could such decisions ever eschew partisanship?
Twitter’s decisions had not been well-argued or well-reasoned. The Post episode moved chief executive Jack Dorsey to an admission. “Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM [direct message] with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable.”
The storm duly caused a change of heart. The high priests of social media went about their business of tinkering and readjusting content policies. “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong,” Dorsey reiterated, “and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix. Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that.”
Vijaya Gadde, speaking for the Twitter collective as the company’s global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety, claimed “that labelling Tweets and empowering people to assess content for themselves better serves the public interest and public conversation. The Hacked Material Policy is being updated to reflect these new enforcement rules.”
According to Gadde, Twitter would no longer remove hacked content except the sort “directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them”. Not exactly a rousing change. Tweets would also be labelled “to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter.” Contextualised editorialising – of a sort.
The implications for such a decision are not small fare. Twitter’s decision to limit dissemination of the article for having content supposedly hacked was a scolding gesture to the way material is obtained. In the miasmic terror of foreign interference, bias and how electoral contests might tip in favour of or against the ogre in the White House, perspectives on what can be discussed and spread have been skewed. What of purloined material that exposes state or corporate misdemeanour, the bread and butter enterprise of such groups as Anonymous? With this rationale, as Glenn Greenwald noted with characteristic seriousness, reporting on everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers would find itself restricted, if not blocked altogether. A real boon for the censors.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
On March 11, the governments of 193 member states were ordered to close down their national economies as a means to combating V-The Virus.
Corporate bankruptcies, mass unemployment and poverty: The closure of the planet’s real economy has triggered a global debt crisis affecting all sectors of economic activity.
In country after country, tax revenues have collapsed, the public debt has gone fly high.
The real economy Worldwide is in a state of shambles. According to the OECD (July 15 report) “45% of US businesses experienced disruptions in supply chains; 25% of businesses have less than 1-2 months cash reserves.“ (OECD).
According to a survey of over 5 800 small businesses in the United States: ” … 43% of responding businesses are already temporarily closed. On average, businesses reduced their employees by 40%. Three-quarters of respondents indicate they have two months or less in cash in reserve. … (OECD)
These estimates were based on April-June figures.
In June, the possibility of a Covid-19 “Second Wave” was announced. In course of the last three months, the fate of the real economy Worldwide in country after country has been marked by a renewed string of bankruptcies (large corporations and Small and Medium Sized enterprises).
The Concentration of Money Wealth
While the real economy is in shambles, the concentration of money wealth has increased. The combined wealth of U.S. billionaires has increased by $850 billion since March 18th, 2020, an increase of over 28 percent. (See IPS study).
Those who have enriched themselves in the course of the corona crisis have generously offered to help. They are the global creditors.
The financial establishment including America’s billionaires are the creditors of real economy capitalism, including the State apparatus which is slated to be privatized.
Under the “new normal”, the entire State structure will be under the control of powerful creditor institution. What is envisaged is The Great Reset: a so-called public-private partnership under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The US Budget Deficit and the Public Debt
The US federal budget deficit has hit an all-time high of $3.1 trillion in the 2020 budget year (September), “more than double the previous record, as the coronavirus pandemic shrank revenues and sent spending soaring”:
“…the deficit for the budget year that ended on September 30 was three times the size of last year’s deficit of $984bn. It was also $2 trillion higher than the administration had estimated in February, before the pandemic hit”
It was the US government’s largest annual shortfall in dollar terms, surpassing the previous record of $1.4 trillion set in 2009. At that time, the administration of President Barack Obama was spending heavily to shore up the nation’s banking system and limit the economic damage from the 2008 financial crisis.
The 2020 deficit, in terms of its relationship to the economy, represented 15.2 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP), the sum of all the goods and services produced by the country. That was the highest level since 1945, when the US was borrowing heavily to finance World War II.
The administration’s final accounting of the 2020 budget year shows that revenues fell by 1.2 percent to $3.42 trillion, while government spending surged 47.3 percent to $6.55 trillion. That spending reflects the relief programmes Congress passed in the spring to support the economy as millions of Americans were losing their jobs. Al Jazeera
*
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.
It recounts events one is familiar enough from reading the papers or watching the news, but then it takes you from what you think you know to what you need to know.
As expected, the pandemic has triggered massive losses in different sectors of the economy which can be reflected in metrics like the real Gross Domestic Product.
Forty-seven years ago, Egypt and Syria launched a massive surprise attack on Israeli forces dug into fortifications along the Suez Canal and Golan Heights.
The dominant dynamic defining world geopolitics is the appearance of a genuine irregular conflict between the 2 most formidable powers on the planet: China & the US. Only this time the aim is a universal totalitarian system. David Rockefeller called it a “one world government.”
The UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL has been monitoring the disputed land boundary since Israel’s’ military withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation.
Alternately known as the Rhodesian Bush War and the Zimbabwe War of Liberation, it was characterised by an unceasing brutality which claimed the lives of many non-combatants.
In his new book, The United States of War, David Vine cites research by the U.S. Army showing that since the 1950s, a U.S. military presence has correlated with the U.S. military starting conflicts.
In two bombshell reports, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge of the New York Post have leveled damning allegations of Hunter Biden’s murky financial dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs. As expected, $50,000 remuneration paid by Burisma Holdings of Ukraine annually for Hunter’s “consultancy job” was only the tip of the iceberg. Hunter was paid millions of dollars bribes that sustained his “rockstar lifestyle” over the years.
Although it was the first report [1] published on Thursday, October 14, and titled “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad” that gained most attention on the mainstream media, it was the second report [2] published on Friday, October 15, in which the authors have furnished documentary evidence of Hunter Biden’s dealings, amounting to millions of dollars and stakes in equities and profits of a private Chinese oil company doing business in Africa, with a Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming that raises serious questions whether the loyalty of the Biden campaign to the American electorate has been compromised due to Hunter Biden’s illicit financial transactions with the representatives of the Chinese government.
Image on the right: CEFC’s founder Ye Jianming. Photo: SCMP/Handout
It’s noteworthy that the name of Ye Jianming came up in the Johnson-Grassley report released last month, too.
“The Suspicious Activity Reports of the Treasury Department flagged millions of dollars in transactions from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, a Russian oligarch named Yelena Baturina, and a Chinese businessmen with ties to Beijing’s communist government,” the Senate report said.
The Johnson-Grassley report further alleged:
“Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen, and other Chinese nationals linked to the communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.”
Corroborating the Senate investigation, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge noted in the second report of the New York Post:
“Another email — sent by Biden as part of an Aug. 2, 2017, chain — involved a deal he struck with the since-vanished chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, for half-ownership of a holding company that was expected to provide Biden with more than $10 million a year ‘for introductions alone.’
“’The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned by him,’ Biden wrote.
“A photo dated Aug. 1, 2017, shows a handwritten flowchart of the ownership of ‘Hudson West’ split 50/50 between two entities ultimately controlled by Hunter Biden and someone identified as ‘Chairman.’
“According to a report on Biden’s overseas business dealings released last month by Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a company called Hudson West III opened a line of credit in September 2017.
“Biden’s email was sent to Gongwen Dong, whom the Wall Street Journal in October 2018 tied to the purchase by Ye-linked companies of two luxury Manhattan apartments that cost a total on $83 million.
“The documents obtained by The Post also include an ‘Attorney Engagement Letter’ executed in September 2017 in which one of Ye’s top lieutenants, former Hong Kong government official Chi Ping Patrick Ho, agreed to pay Biden a $1 million retainer for ‘Counsel to matters related to US law and advice pertaining to the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm or Lawyer.’
“In December 2018, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Ho in two schemes to pay $3 million in bribes to high-ranking government officials in Africa for oil rights in Chad and lucrative business deals in Uganda. Ho served a three-year prison sentence and was deported to Hong Kong in June.”
“Ye Jianming had made inroads with Joe Biden’s brother James Biden, as well as Hunter Biden, as the Chinese tycoon sought to build influence in the United States. In early 2018, Hunter Biden was paid $1 million to represent Ye’s aide while he was facing the federal bribery charges in the United States.
“In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye’s company wired $5 million into the bank account of a US company called Hudson West III, which over the next 13 months sent $4.79 million marked as consulting fees to Hunter Biden’s firm, the report said. Over the same period, Hunter Biden’s firm wired some $1.4 million to a firm associated with his uncle and aunt, James and Sara Biden.”
Ironically, it was the mainstream media that first broke the story of the illicit financial transactions between the Biden family and Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming in December 2018, though that was a year before Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic presidential candidate in April.
Giving a detailed biographical account of Ye Jianming from his rapid ascent to a sudden fall from grace in 2017, as the FBI closed in on the Chinese billionaire’s company and aides, a December 2018 New York Times report [4] revealed:
“Ye Jianming, a fast-rising Chinese oil tycoon, ventured to places only the most politically connected Chinese companies dared to go. But what he wanted was access to the corridors of power in Washington — and he set out to get it.
“Soon, he was meeting with the family of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was then the vice president. He dined with R. James Woolsey Jr., a former Central Intelligence Agency director and later a senior adviser to President Trump. He bestowed lavish funding on universities and think tanks with direct access to top Washington leaders, looking for the benefits access can bring.
“‘This is a guy who courted and maintained networks with the People’s Liberation Army and took the strategy of ‘friends in high places,’ said Jude Blanchette, a senior adviser and China head at Crumpton Group, a business intelligence firm.
“He seemed to have the blessings of Beijing. State banks offered CEFC billions of dollars in loans. The company also hired a large number of former military officers, whom Mr. Ye told visitors he prized for their organizational skills. He was deputy secretary of a Chinese military organization from 2003 to 2005 that congressional researchers called a front for the People’s Liberation Army unit that has ‘dual roles of intelligence collection and conducting People’s Republic of China propaganda.’
“From 2009 to 2017, CEFC’s revenue jumped from $48 million to $37 billion. [a time period incidentally coinciding with Joe Biden’s vice presidency.]
“‘It’s been clear for some time that this is not just a Chinese commercial company, that they had some intelligence ties,’ Mr. Martin Hala, an academic based in Prague, said. ‘People from the U.S. intelligence agencies should have known something was going on.’
“Five years ago, CEFC approached Bobby Ray Inman, a retired admiral and national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, about setting up a joint venture, Mr. Inman said in an interview. The company promised it would pay him $1 million a year, without specifying what business they would go into. He turned down the offer.
“On a 2015 trip to the United States Ye met with Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, to discuss the economy, according to CEFC.
“CEFC also donated at least $350,000 to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a politically connected think tank, according to court testimony. The think tank counts Robert C. McFarlane, the Reagan-era national security adviser, as its president and Mr. Woolsey, a Clinton-era C.I.A. director, as its co-chairman.
“Mr. Ye also further loosened CEFC’s purse strings, donating as much as $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Outside the Beltway, a CEFC foundation donated at least $500,000 to a Columbia University research center.
“CEFC also organized forums in Hong Kong and Washington that brought together retired American and Chinese military officers, among other events.
“By 2015, Mr. Ye had begun working on perhaps his most politically connected quarry yet: the family of Mr. Biden, the vice president.
“An aide to Mr. Ye met the vice president’s second son, Hunter Biden, in Washington. Mr. Ye then met privately with Hunter Biden at a hotel in Miami in May 2017. Mr. Ye proposed a partnership to invest in American infrastructure and energy deals.
“During this period, the vice president’s son was managing Rosemont Seneca Partners, an investment firm he formed with Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, the former secretary of state.
“The trial and conviction in New York in December 2018 of one of his top lieutenants, Patrick Ho, showed that company officials used bribery to win oil and energy contracts in Africa.
“In 2017, as American authorities closed in on Mr. Ye’s company, the first call made by one of his emissaries in custody was to Mr. Biden’s brother.
“James Biden, a financier and brother of the former vice president, was in a hotel lobby in November 2017 when he got a surprise call on his cellphone. The call was from Patrick Ho, Mr. Ye’s lieutenant. Mr. Ho, 69, was in trouble.
“In a brief interview, James Biden said he had been surprised by Mr. Ho’s call. He said he believed it had been meant for Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son. James Biden said he had passed on his nephew’s contact information.
“‘There is nothing else I have to say,’ James Biden said. ‘I don’t want to be dragged into this anymore.’
“Federal agents who had monitored CEFC’s rise since at least the summer of 2016 had sprung into action, arresting Mr. Ho in New York on allegations that he had bribed African officials in Chad and Uganda.
“Mr. Ye, meanwhile, has disappeared into the custody of the Chinese authorities. He was last seen in February, 2018, when his private jet touched down in the Chinese city of Hangzhou. CEFC is struggling under $15 billion in debt, and was dissolved early this year.”
After reading all this revelatory information regarding suspicious financial transactions between prominent former officials of the US government and the “disappeared” Chinese billionaire, it becomes abundantly clear that Ye Jianming, most likely a pseudonym, was a frontman for the Chinese government who was sent on a clandestine mission to nurture business relations with the Beltway elites, and later made to disappear after his cover was blown once his aides were charged with criminal offenses in the US courts.
China is known to follow the economic model of “state capitalism,” in which although small and medium enterprises are permitted to operate freely by common citizens, large industrial and extraction companies, especially a multi-billion dollar corporation the size of CEFC, are run by the Communist Party stalwarts masquerading as business executives.
In addition, China is alleged to practice “debt-trap diplomacy” for buying entire governments through extending financial grants and loans, and what better way to buy the rival government of the United States than by financing the Biden campaign through bestowing financial largesse on the profligate son of the former vice president and current presidential candidate.
Notwithstanding, in a tit-for-tat response to the New York Post’s explosive report alleging Hunter Biden introduced a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm he was working for to his vice president dad, the Daily Beast came up with a scoop [5] on Friday, October 16, that the hard disks in which Hunter’s emails were found were provided to Rudy Giuliani by a Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui on behalf of dissident members of the Chinese Communist Party.
According to the report,
“Weeks before the New York Post began publishing what it claimed were the contents of Hunter Biden’s hard drive, a Sept. 25 segment on a YouTube channel run by a Chinese dissident streamer, who is linked to billionaire and Steve Bannon-backer Guo Wengui, broadcast a bizarre conspiracy theory.
“According to the streamer, Chinese politburo officials had ‘sent three hard disks of evidence’ to the Justice Department and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing damaging information about Joe Biden as well as the origins of the coronavirus in a bid to undermine the rule of Chinese President Xi Jinping …
“While Guo’s ties to Steve Bannon have long been known—Bannon was arrested for defrauding donors in August on a 152-foot-long yacht reportedly owned by Guo—the billionaire appears to have also joined forces with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani in the former New York mayor’s relentless anti-Biden dirt-digging crusade.”
Besides posting pictures of Rudy Giuliani and Guo Wengui “cavorting and smoking cigars together” and leveling unsubstantiated allegations that Giuliani has stakes in Guo’s fashion lineup, the Daily Beast hasn’t challenged the authenticity of Hunter’s emails but only questioned the source of origin of hard disks containing irrefutable evidence of the Biden family’s murky financial dealings and made a paradoxical claim that dissident members of Chinese Communist Party are trying to sabotage Joe Biden’s electoral campaign on Trump’s behalf.
Nevertheless, the report raises startling questions that why Chinese dissidents would form “a government-in-exile” in the United States and allegedly support the Trump campaign against Joe Biden’s bid for the presidency unless the Biden campaign had received financial support from the government of People’s Republic of China whom the Chinese dissidents want to subvert.
The report further alleges:
“Guo Wengui has been in the Trumpworld orbit pretty much from the beginning, paying the $200,000 initiation fee to become a member of the president’s Florida golf resort Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has dubbed the ‘Southern White House.’ But Guo’s membership soon became a headache for the administration in the run-up to Trump’s first summit meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2017, due to Guo’s fugitive status in China.
“At one point, Trump had reportedly considered deporting Guo after the Chinese government called for his extradition in a letter delivered to Trump by casino mogul Steve Wynn in 2017. After presenting the letter during a policy meeting, the president reportedly said, ‘We need to get this criminal out of the country,’ only for aides to remind him that Guo was a Mar-a-Lago member, eventually talking him out of the decision and ensuring the deportation was scuttled …
“Guo has framed himself as a stalwart critic of the CCP and China’s corrupt elite, but his efforts have divided China’s exile community. Guo has enthusiastically attacked other critics of Beijing as jealous poseurs, including most recently a Texas Christian pastor and Tiananmen protester named Bob Fu—who was imprisoned in China for his faith before escaping to the U.S.—whom Guo accuses of being a secret agent for the CCP. Fu has lobbed the same charge back at Guo and his followers.”
Instead of debunking Trump’s witty remarks following the publishing of Hunter Biden’s emails that “the Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation,” the information contained in the Daily Beast article lends further credence to the investigative reporting by Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge for the New York Post exposing Hunter Biden’s sleazy financial dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs.
In an exclusive report [6] for the Breitbart New on Friday, October 16, Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner allege that newly obtained emails from a former business associate of Hunter Biden’s inner-circle reveal that Hunter and his colleagues used their access to the Obama administration to peddle influence to potential Chinese clients and investors—including securing a private, off-the-books meeting with the former vice president.
The never-before-revealed emails, unconnected to the Hunter Biden emails being released by the New York Post, were provided to Schweizer by Bevan Cooney, a one-time Hunter Biden and Devon Archer business associate. Cooney is currently in prison serving a sentence for his involvement in a 2016 bond fraud investment scheme.
Cooney believes he was the “fall guy” for an investment scheme in which Hunter and business associate Devon Archer avoided responsibility. He reached out to Schweizer after the journalist published a book “Secret Empires” in 2018. Archer was initially spared jail and handed a second trial, however, a federal appeals court reinstated Archer’s fraud conviction in the case last week.
The report notes:
“On November 5, 2011, one of Archer’s business contacts forwarded him an email teasing an opportunity to gain ‘potentially outstanding new clients’ by helping to arrange White House meetings for a group of Chinese executives and government officials.
“The group was the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the delegation included Chinese billionaires, Chinese Communist Party loyalists, and at least one ‘respected diplomat’ from Beijing. Despite its benign name, CEC has been called ‘a second foreign ministry’ for the People’s Republic of China—a communist government that closely controls most businesses in its country. CEC was established in 2006 by a group of businessmen and Chinese government diplomats.
“CEC’s leadership boasts numerous senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, including Wang Zhongyu (vice chairman of the 10th CPPCC National Committee and deputy secretary of the Party group), Ma Weihua (director of multiple Chinese Communist Party offices), and Jiang Xipei (member of the Chinese Communist Party and representative of the 16th National Congress), among others.
“‘I know it is political season and people are hesitant but a group like this does not come along every day,’ an intermediary named Mohamed A. Khashoggi wrote on behalf of the CEC to an associate of Hunter Biden and Devon Archer. ‘A tour of the white house and a meeting with a member of the chief of staff’s office and John Kerry would be great.’
“The email boasted of CEC’s wealthy membership: CEC’s current membership includes 50 preeminent figures such as: Liu Chuanzhi, Chairman of the CEC, Legend Holdings and Lenovo Group; Wu Jinglian, Zhang Weiying, and Zhou Qiren, China’s esteemed economists; Wu Jianmin, respected diplomat; Long Yongtu, representative of China’s globalization; Wang Shi (Vanke); Ma Weihua (China Merchants Bank); Jack Ma (Alibaba Group); Guo Guangchang (Fosun Group); Wang Jianlin, (Wanda Group); Niu Gensheng (LAONIU Foundation); Li Shufu (Geely); Li Dongsheng (TCL Corporation); Feng Lun (Vantone) and etc.
“The gross income of the CEC members’ companies allegedly ‘totaled more than RMB 1.5 trillion, together accounting for roughly 4% of China’s GDP.’ The overture to Hunter Biden’s associates described the Chinese CEC members variously as
‘industrial elites,’ ‘highly influential,’ and among ‘the most important private sector individuals in China today,’ dubbed as the China Inc.
“Hunter Biden and Devon Archer apparently delivered for the Chinese Communist Party-connected industrial elites within ten days … The Obama-Biden Administration archives reveal that this Chinese delegation did indeed visit the White House on November 14, 2011, and enjoyed high-level access.
“The visitor logs list Jeff Zients, the deputy director of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as the host of the CEC delegation. Obama had tasked Zients with restructuring and ultimately consolidating the various export-import agencies under the Commerce Department—an effort in which the Chinese delegation would have a keen interest.
“Curiously, the Obama-Biden visitor logs do not mention any meeting with Vice President Joe Biden. But the Vice President’s off-the-books meeting was revealed by one of the core founders of the CEC. In an obscure document listing the CEC members’ biographies, CEC Secretary General Maggie Cheng alleges that she facilitated the CEC delegation meetings in Washington in 2011 and boasts of the Washington establishment figures that CEC met with. The first name she dropped was that of Vice President Joe Biden.”
Schweizer suggests that the meeting may have opened the door for Hunter and Devon Archer down the road—as just two years later they formed the Chinese government-funded Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund which saw Chinese money pour into it for investments in CEC-linked businesses.
According to the report,
“One of BHR’s first major portfolio investments was a ride-sharing company like Uber called Didi Dache—now called Didi Chuxing Technology Co. That company is closely connected to Liu Chuanzhi, the chairman of the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the founder of Legend Holdings—the parent company of Lenovo, one of the world’s largest computer companies. Liu is a former Chinese Communist Party delegate and was a leader of the 2011 CEC delegation to the White House. His daughter was the President of Didi.”
The report adds:
“Liu has long been involved in CCP politics, including serving as a representative to the 9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the National People’s Congress of the PRC and as a representative to the 16th and 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Liu was the Vice Chairman of the 8th and 9th Executive Committee of All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC), an organization known to be affiliated with the Chinese United Front.”
After reading the names of these high-profile Chinese business and political elites visiting the White House and cultivating personal friendships and commercial relationships in the highest echelons of the Obama-Biden administration, one wonders whether the latter devised trade and economic policies serving the interests of the American masses or took care of financial stakes of global power elites.
With his anti-globalist and protectionist agenda, Trump represents a paradigm shift in the global economic order. Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties, restructuring trade agreements and initiating a trade war against China are a revolution against globalization and free trade of which China is the new beneficiary with its strong manufacturing base and massive export potential.
Thus, it’s only natural for the Chinese government to be “anti-Trump”, while supporting his neoliberal Democratic rivals, who favor globalization and free trade, in the upcoming US presidential elections.
*
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.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] Chinese Billionaire’s Network Hyped Hunter Biden Dirt Weeks Before Rudy.
No matter how much you dislike Trump, only a fool can fail to see the implications for public access to information of the massive suppression on the internet of the Hunter Biden leaks.
This blog has been suffering a ratcheting of social media suppression for years, which reached its apogee in my coverage of the Julian Assange trial. As I reported on 24 September:
Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.
It was not just me: everyone reporting the Assange trial on social media suffered the same effect. Wikileaks, which has 5.6 million Twitter followers, were obtaining about the same number of Twitter “impressions” of their tweets (ie number who saw them) as I was. I spoke with several of the major US independent news sites and they all reported the same.
I have written before about the great danger to internet freedom from the fact that a few massively dominant social media corporations – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – have become in effect the “gatekeepers” to internet traffic. In the Assange hearing and Hunter Biden cases we see perhaps the first overt use of that coordinated power to control public information worldwide.
The way the power of the “gatekeepers” is used normally is insidious. It is quite deliberately disguised. “Shadow banning” is a term for a technique which has many variations. The net result is always that the post is not ostensibly banned. Some people see it, so that if the subject of the suppression claims to be banned they look stupid. But it is in fact shown to far, far less people than it would normally be. So even members of my own immediate family find that my posts no longer turn up in their timeline on either Facebook or Twitter. But a few followers, presumably at random, do see them. Generally, though not always, those followers are apparently able to retweet or share, but what they are not told is that their retweet or share is in fact put in to very, very few people’s timelines. The overall audience for the Tweet or Facebook post is cut to as little as 1% of what it might be without suppression. As 90% of the traffic to this blog comes in clicks from these social media posts, the effect is massive.
That was the technique used on the Assange hearing. In normal times, the ratchet on traffic can be screwed down or released a little, from week to week or post to post.
In the Hunter Biden case, social media went still further and without disguise simply banned all mention of the Hunter Biden leaks.
What I find deeply reprehensible in all the BBC coverage is their failure to report the facts of the case, and their utter lack of curiosity about why Joe Biden’s son Hunter was paid $60,000 a month by Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, as an entirely absent non-executive director, when he had no relevant experience in Ukraine or gas, and very little business experience, having just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy Reserve for use of crack cocaine? Is that question not just a little bit interesting? That may be the thin end of it – in 2014-15 Hunter Biden received US $850,000 from the intermediary company channeling the payments. In reporting on Trump being potentially impeached for asking about it, might you not expect some analysis – or at least mention – of what he was asking about?
That Hunter Biden received so much money from a company he never once visited or did any legitimate work for, located in a country which remarkably at the same time launched into a US sponsored civil war while his father was Vice President, is a question which might reasonably interest people. This is not “fake news”. There is no doubt whatsoever of the facts. There
is also no doubt that, as Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden secured the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for corruption.
The story now is that Hunter Biden abandoned a laptop in a repair shop, and the hard drive contained emails between Hunter and Burisma in which he was asked for, and promised, various assistance to the company from the Vice President. This hard drive was passed to the New York Post. What the emails do not include is any incriminating correspondence between Hunter and his father in which Joe Biden agrees to any of this – which speaks to their authenticity, as that would be the key thing to forge. Given that the hard drive also contains intimate photos and video, there does not seem to be any real doubt about its authenticity.
However both Facebook and Twitter slapped an immediate and total ban on all mention of the Hunter Biden emails, claiming doubts as to its authenticity and an astonishing claim that they never link to leaked material or information about leaked material.
Alert readers will note that this policy was not applied to Donald Trump’s tax returns. These were extremely widely publicised throughout social and mainstream media – and quite right too – despite being illegally leaked. Twitter may be attempting to draw a distinction between a “hack” and a “leak”. This is difficult to do – the Clinton and Podesta emails, for example, were leaked but are frequently claimed to have been hacked.
I am astonished by the online comment of people who consider themselves “liberals” who support the social media suppression of the Hunter Biden story, because they want Trump to be defeated. The truth is that those in control of social media censorship are overwhelmingly Atlanticist figures on the Clinton/Blair political spectrum. That embraces the roles of Nick Clegg and Ben Nimmo at Facebook. It explains the protective attitude of Blairite Wikipedia boss Jimmy Wales (also a director of Guardian Media Group) toward the Philip Cross operation.
Censorship from the self-satisfied centre of the political establishment is still more dangerous, because more stable, than censorship from the left or right. It seeks rigorously to enforce the “Overton window” on social media. It has a “whatever it takes” attitude to getting Joe Biden into the White House and removing a maverick element from the political stability it so prizes. Its hatred of public knowledge is behind the persecution of Assange.
The Establishment’s problem is that inequalities of wealth are now so extreme in Western society, that the attempted removal of access by the public to radical thinking is not protecting a stable society, but is protecting a society tilting towards structural instability, in which the lack of job security and decent conditions and pay for large swathes of the population contrasts vividly with the spectacularly flourishing fortunes of the ultra billionaires. Our society desperately needs thinking outside the box into which the social media gatekeepers are attempting to confine us.
An early part of that thinking out of the box needs to relate to internet architecture and finding a way that the social media gatekeepers can be bypassed – not by a few activists, but by the bulk of the population. We used to say the internet will always find a work-around, and there are optimists who believe that the kind of censorship we saw over Hunter Biden will lead to a flight to alternative platforms, but I don’t see that happening on the scale required. Regulation to prevent censorship is improbable – governments are much more interested in regulation to impose more censorship.
The development of social media gatekeeping of internet traffic is one of the key socio-political issues of our time. We need the original founders of the internet to get together with figures like Richard Stallman and – vitally – Julian Assange – to find a way we break free from this. Ten years ago I would not have thought it a danger that the internet would become a method of political control, not of political freedom. I now worry it is too late to avert the danger.
*
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.
When you ask any Israeli government official or diplomat about the borders and map of the State of Israel, surely you will not get a clear answer. Successive Israeli governments, backed up by the Zionist movement worldwide, have ambitions to gain control of most of the occupied Palestinian territory, far exceeding the armistice lines of 1949.
Israel is carrying out this enterprise by strategically confiscating C classified areas amounting to 60% of the West Bank, in addition to its complete control over the city of East Jerusalem, which has been occupied since 1967, and keeping the Gaza Strip separate from the distant Palestinian cities and villages in the West Bank.
The announcement by the Israeli government, on the day of the ratification by the Israeli Knesset of normalization agreements with Arab countries, of the plan to build five thousand new settlement units, and the statements of its Prime Minister and his Cabinet Members that the land- for peace formula has fallen, and that an independent Palestinian State will not be established alongside the State of Israel, and that unified Jerusalem, with all its sanctities, will remain fully united under Israeli sovereignty, is the best evidence of the occupation state’s determination to go ahead with its colonial plans, as it no longer fears anyone and acts as an authority above international law, because it is simply not afraid of the consequences, but rather gets rewards through “opening doors” to it in some countries of the world, and some Arab countries respond to it by establishing normalization relations under pretexts, all of which are not convincing.
Israel’s continuation of settlement and annexation plans will inevitably undermine the two-state solution according to the 1967 borders, and will lead to the one-state reality under an apartheid regime, which will not bring security, peace and stability to the Middle East and the world.
The pretext of Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal, F-35 aircrafts, and other modern types of weapons that it will not withdraw from the Palestinian areas in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea, which is about a quarter of the area of the West Bank, under the false pretext of security, is aimed at maintaining its occupation and continuing its settlement program and annexation plans that it has not abandoned.
If Israel is not stopped and obligated to conclude a peace agreement with the State of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders in accordance with the two-state solution and international legitimacy decisions, then its expansionist ambitions at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people and the occupied Palestinian land will not stop, but will extend to the extent of extending its influence and control to its neighboring states under its dream of a “Greater Israel”.
But the bigger question remains: What can be done to oblige Israel to respect international legitimacy and international law to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, at a time when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is showing the Palestinians’ willingness for serious negotiations on the basis of international legitimacy, and has invited the Secretary-General of the United Nations to organize an international peace conference early next year? The answer to what can be done consists of several points:
All states have to affirm that the two-state solution is based on the 1967 borders in accordance with international legitimacy and international law, and that Israel must withdraw from all occupied Palestinian lands, including East Jerusalem and not accept settlements and annexation plans, and affirm that this is the only way to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Second, world countries must refrain from concluding any agreement that involves any portion of the Palestinian occupied territory since 1967 and a special clause to confirm this must be added in any agreement.
Linking the development of relations with Israel to the extent of its commitment to international law, and that violating this will have consequences or a reduction in the level of relations.
As a matter of justice and preserving the two-state solution, the states that recognize Israel and have not yet recognized the State of Palestine, should recognize the Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in order to preserve what remains of a slight chance to reach the existing just and comprehensive peace based on the international legitimacy and international law, in a manner that guarantees security, stability and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, the region and the whole world.
Finally, in order to erase the Sykes-Picot and Balfour Declaration stigma and put an end to Jewish emigration to Palestine and Palestinian expulsion from their homeland, countries who have been directly or indirectly responsible for that stigma must voluntarily assist the Palestinian people to obtain their right for self-determination. These countries must as well recognize the State of Palestine on pre-June 1967 borders and find a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem that has been in existence for more than 72 years, in accordance with international legitimacy.
The Palestinian cause is a just cause, and for this reason, it has gained international support since its inception. Several UN resolutions have been issued in its favor awaiting implementation. We need to build on the brave voices that have stood with justice, freedom and peace, and denounced the Israeli practices, including the Israeli annexation plan. Those voices have unequivocally called upon Israel to abide by international legitimacy as a foundation for resolving the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
The voices include that of the EU calling for the two-state solution and labeling Israeli settlement products. There is also the voice of the brave Indonesian government that based its relations with Australia on the latter’s decision whether to move its embassy to occupied Jerusalem.
In addition, we have the statement of His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan calling for the establishment of relations with Israel based on the level of Israel’s commitment to the realization of peace. Moreover, there is the article of the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which he calls on Israel to refrain from the annexation process because it contradicts international legitimacy. Furthermore, there is the decision of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman to name the Dhahran summit the “Jerusalem Summit”, and the Algerian President Abdel Majid Taboun strong stance rejecting all forms of normalization with Israel and reaffirmed his support to the Palestinian people.
Lastly, the EU, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, China, Russia, Japan, India, Egypt, South Africa and other major countries have supported and called for the implementation of UN resolutions in order to speed up the realization of peace and grant the Palestinian people their right to freedom, independence and self-determination.
Within the same context, we would like to caution countries, eminent personalities, students and business people who are invited to take part in conferences or open offices in the city of Jerusalem, to be aware lest they become partners with the Israeli occupying forces in their plans for annexation and illegal practices. In this context, it is possible to build on many positive models that stand firmly for justice, truth and freedom.
Currently, the entire world is unified in its fight against global warming. International decisions and warnings have been issued to limit heat emissions and mobilize efforts to measure international performance in order to preserve our planet. The same kind of measurement can be carried out with regard to the implementation of international law and concerning the Palestinian just cause that has been victim of historical injustice, distortion and falsification of factual narrative.
Accordingly, if serious steps are not taken and energies are not mobilized to stop the occupation from continuing its incursion on the Palestinian people, and its violation of international law we might reach a catastrophe the results of which can be devastating.
Therefore, we need to make up for the lost time. Unless we take collective measures to stop Israel, demand an end to its occupation and draw up its borders with the State of Palestine, there will be disastrous consequences on the international theater and not only on the Middle East.
There are 13 million Palestinians around the world of whom 5 million suffer under the fire of the Israeli military forces, while the rest are refugees or are living in the diaspora, dreaming of the time when their flights would land them at the airport of their country and their hearts beat with hope for peace and freedom like all other nations in the world.
*
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.
Majdi Khaldi is Senior Diplomatic Advisor to Palestinian President.
Support for the independence of Scotland has been growing steadily and has remained at 58% for several months. As the latest poll adds, as many as one third of those voting against independence in the 2014 referendum – would support a divorce from the UK today. The key to achieving this goal will be the Scottish Parliament elections next year.
The Scots Parliament consists of 129 members – 73 are elected in single-member constituencies and 56 come from regional lists, 7 from each of the 8 constituencies into which Scotland has been divided more or less according to traditional geography. This system was intended to ensure a balance between a strong majority of the winning party and the proportional representation of the remaining ones.
And as with everything in Scotland – the general assumption had to give way to the most important issue: does it help or harm The Independence cause?
Three Brakes on Independence
A country whose inhabitants in last few decades have never given the Conservative party a majority – for the last 13 years is ruled by the Scottish National Party. And, as it happens in such situations – some like it, others less, some like SNP definitely progressive course, others just grit their teeth, because it is our party, and the time for divisions and programs after regaining independence will come. However, it is not the sympathy for the SNP or the lack of it that is combined with the problem of taking this completely last step, which the Scots have to make to regain their own state.
In fact, this process is hampered by three factors. First, that is the Party’s institutionalization, and paradoxically, its continued successes and growing support.
Since Scots who want independence feel obliged to vote for the SNP regardless of whether they support individual elements of its policy – it is not difficult to guess that the party elite must have sprouted the idea of independence as the Holy Grail, which everyone is constantly looking for, which is constantly pursued, but which is really better never to find.
Thousands of Scottish independence supporters march through Glasgow during an All Under One Banner march on January 11, 2020 in Glasgow, Scotland. (Photo by Ewan Bootman/NurPhoto)
The party feels… just too comfortable. It ossifies, has lost its dynamics, and in addition, the SNP has inevitably become the property of its own apparatus, and the party leader, Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, flanked by her own husband, Peter Murrel, who is the Party’s Chief Executive Officer (i.e. the head of this apparatus) hardly accepts differences of opinion or even any more capable personality in her surroundings.
In addition, the Scottish National Party (which has been a kind of national Social Democracy since the 1980s) is shifting more and more clearly towards the Social-Liberalism agenda, typical for Western democracies, focusing on moral issues, the LGBT question (?), the fight against “hate speech“, while maintaining an active social policy, but too left-wing for the local middle class, and too conservative and too submissive towards possessing class from the point of view of genuine socialists. Finally, all this is poured with preaching principledness (according to observers aggravating Scottish politics since John Knox), as a result of which all national Government strategies bear the mark of “moral rightness” (as in the case of the unequivocal commitment of most SNP against BREXIT, and recently a fierce anti-COVID campaign performed by Ms First Minister).
As far as it all is concerned it cannot be surprising that although the SNP noted record support, which remains firmly at the level of 54 percent. – it is at the same time among both in the Party’s officials and the activists of the much wider social movement for independence (generally identified as YES) there is ferment and reflection whether waiting for political changes only after regaining sovereignty is not a mistake and at the same time obstruction against the road to victory.
Why Ms Thatcher Has Not Biten Her Tongue?
The second factor blocking the victory is the consistent resistance of Westminster, which is firmly in the position of a “referendum once in a generation” – although no one from the Scottish side ever agreed to this, even before the previous, slightly lost vote in 2014. On the contrary, Scots prefer to get a quote from one of the idols of Boris Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, widely hated in Scotland, who, with her inherent lack of foresight and insight, once said:
“Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. She just needs to send a majority of nationality MPs to Westminster to have a mandate to independence”.
What seemed unreal or even surreal in the 1980s – has become a fact. Scotland sends mainly nationalists to the House of Commons (48 MPs out of 59 per country). Also, in the national Parliament, the SNP has a clear advantage – 63 MSPs, who can count on the support of six more of the even more pro-independence Scottish Greens. According to the polls, therefore, there should be no problems with a repetition of these results in the national elections in May 2021 as well. And this, however, brings us to the third problem.
Trick the System
And this problem is mentioned at the beginning … mixed ordination. It was constructed in such a way that it naturally reduces the number of seats won from party lists by the party that won the election in constituencies. Too complicated? Well, let’s examine an example.
In 2016, the SNP get 1,059,897 votes in the constituency elections, i.e. 46.5 percent, what gave 59 seats. In turn, in the regional part, with the strategy “Both votes for the SNP” – the Party won 953,987 votes / 41.7 percent. – what gave, however, only 4 seats.
In comparison, the Tories who finished second received 501,844 votes / 22 percent in constituencies – which was enough for 7 MSPs and 524,222 votes / 22.9 percent in voting on lists – which transferred into 24 MSPs.
Can you see already? To win one regional seat – SNP needed as many as 238,471 votes, while one conservative seat was worth only 21,842 votes. How did that happen?
Well, the Tories decided to… trick the system.
With the highest poll support among all the unionist parties, they based the entire campaign on the slogan “Only we can stop the SNP! Conservatives = No More Referendum!”.
As a result, they obtained these additional 23,000 votes from Liberals and Labour voters, which allowed them to consume the bonus. On the contrary, the SNP’s wrong tactic led to the waste of hundreds of thousands of Indy votes of which only a little over 100,000 were saved by shifting wisely to the Greens (13,172 or 0.6 percent in the constituency elections, but 150,426 and 6.6 percent in the proportional elections), which ensured a pro-independence majority in Parliament).
And so, we come to the most important issue of Scottish politics for today and for the next year. Namely – who this time will take the independence votes in regional elections when the SNP will again win in constituencies the with a large advantage?
Life Is Awakened in Scottish Politics
At least three centres are willing. Of course – still Scottish Greens, even quite normal as for ecologists, with an extensive social program, with lot of positively crazy people as members and supporters – but also with traditional prejudices of this trend: car-banning in the cities, suppression of diesel engines, too blind faith in the full replacement of Scottish gas and oil by the green energy (although the companies producing it not only failed to deliver on their promises to create jobs in place of those closed in more carbon dioxide industries, but also represented mainly foreign capital, swung the Scottish market, making it one of the more foreign-dominated even as on the realities of Western Europe). To put it even more simply – not everyone is an avid ecologist on an electric scooter, and the Greens, even as nice as the Scottish ones, inevitably encounter a glass ceiling in their campaigns.
The second proposal is a new formation from exactly the opposite side, a de facto split, technically founded by former SNP and partly the YES activists – the Independence for Scotland party. Although it carefully avoids speaking on any more explicit topic – in the opinion of voters it positions herself, if not to the right (which sounds at least suspicious in Scotland), then certainly more in the centre than the SNP.
In addition, it is not in favour of joining the European Union, proposing instead the Nordic Council and the Norwegian and Icelandic routes, and is cautiously sceptical about the various Genderism ideas of the Scottish Government. However, the ISP also refrains from more right-wing affiliating, what was proved by the quick removal of one of the original founders who, in a private entry on Twitter dared to express sympathy and support for Donald Trump, truly hated in Scotland, where some of his businesses are located.
And finally, the third, perhaps the most interesting offer is the party of the parties, the alliance, and more recently Action for Independence. AFI was appointed by veterans of the independence movement, such as Dave Thompson, a former SNP MSP, who for this party … won the first elections in 2007, catching the Electoral Commission with an error in the distribution of seats, which could cost an independence majority in parliament. Thompson, despite his merits, has always maintained a lot of autonomy (including voting in 2014 against the legalization of same-sex marriage), he is also known for his commitment to the vision of Scottish independence without getting involved in post-British international agreements (like NATO and EU). However, the AFI, which he is creating after the return from retirement, does not fall into such nuances so far, wanting to be a broad platform for all smaller groups, from the left to pro-independence right-wing (e.g. Libertarians) – based on one goal: tricking the electoral law even more effectively than the Conservatives did in 2016.
The calculation is easy as a child’s play. If at least half of the voters voting for the SNP in the constituency elections – transfer a vote to another independence group in a regional vote, then it will win second place, obtaining up to 24 seats from the lists, thus ensuring, along with the SNP, an absolute independence majority in Holyrood. And it will either force a new referendum on Westminster or finally stop looking at it, dissolving the Union of the Crowns and unilaterally announcing the creation of the Scottish state.
The first partners are already embracing the AFI concept – first, the left-wing Solidarity, a party of Tommy Sheridan, one of Scotland’s most charismatic politicians and journalists (we can read his analyses i.e. on the Sputnik International). At the same time, there are promising talks with the small, but very active community of the Scottish Libertarian Party (the only one so consistently criticizing the anti-COVID restrictions of the Sturgeon’s Government). Of course, the bigger the partner, the more difficult the talks are, but there are many indications that both the ISP and the Greens, and perhaps smaller socialist organizations, will ultimately have no choice but to start together – for a common goal.
And that for the Scots always and exclusively – will be Independence.
*
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.
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.
After the Ufa declaration in 2015, BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, has made energy cooperation one of its priorities besides attaining an admirable significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage.
That 7th summit held in July in the Russian provincial city of Ufa in Bashkortostan, under Russia’s initiative the BRICS have adopted the key guideline for expanding among many other spheres, development of energy cooperation, bridging the scientific and technological gap, as well as finding solutions to the challenges in the energy sector among the members.
The Ufa Declaration (point 69) states
“Recognizing the importance of monitoring global trends in the energy sector, including making forecasts regarding energy consumption, providing recommendations for the development of energy markets in order to ensure energy security and economic development, we call on our relevant agencies to consider the possibilities of energy cooperation within BRICS.”
“Taking into consideration the role of the energy sector in ensuring the sustainable economic development of the BRICS countries, we welcome balancing the interests of consumers, producers and transit countries of energy resources, creating the conditions for sustainable and predictable development of the energy markets,”it further stated.
Worth to remind here that it was Russia’s proposal to hold the first meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Energy during the fourth quarter of 2015. While reaffirming the importance and necessity of advancing international cooperation in the field of energy saving, energy efficiency and developing energy efficient technologies, the BRICS look forward to developing intra-BRICS cooperation in this area, as well as the establishment of the relevant platform.
In 2020, Russia holds the rotating chair of BRICS. BRICS has neither a secretariat nor a charter. The country that chairs BRICS organizes the group’s summit and coordinates its current activities. Russia has been holding series of conferences focusing on different directions. In mid-October, the BRICS Energy Ministers held their meeting and approved a roadmap for cooperation in energy sphere that runs until 2025. Due to coronavirus pandemic, it was video conference chaired by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.
The influence of BRICS nations on the international arena is increasing due to the increasing economic power of the participating states, and it is imperative for them to coordinate their positions in energy cooperation, Minister Novak said during the meeting.
“Today, the BRICS nations represent nearly one fourth of global GDP and over a third of global consumption and production of energy. In this regard, it is very important to coordinate the positions of our nations where we have common interests and speak from a unified position in global platforms which concern themselves with matters of international energy cooperation,” he said.
“We have already begun to implement this idea in practice. Our nations have launched informal consultations on the sidelines of the G20 and on the sidelines of the World Energy Council. Beginning our work this year, we have collectively determined three key vectors of the energy dialogue. These are the support for the development of the national energy systems of BRICS nations, technological cooperation and facilitation of improved terms for investment in energy, contributing to the stability of energy markets and increasing the role of BRICS in the global energy dialogue,” Novak emphasized.
The roadmap adopted at the end of the meeting is the first comprehensive document that sets out agreed plans for the development of the energy dialogue between the five countries. The meeting also issued a communique confirming the intention to strengthen their strategic partnership in the energy sector and the area of energy security, and noting the important role of all types of energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The ministers affirmed that energy transition should correspond to national conditions and each country should determine the optimal policy without being compelled to adopt models that do not fit BRICS countries, according to the Russian ministry statement.
On October 15, Moscow hosted the first Annual Meeting of the BRICS Energy Research Platform, where analytical reports by the BRICS countries presented. That was followed by the largest youth energy event in BRICS. This year, delegations from all five countries comprised of representatives of Line Agencies responsible for the implementation of energy and youth policies as well as over 150 young scientists and experts from 40 leading universities and industrial organizations took part in the summit.
According to surveys conducted by the VTsIOM, Russian public opinion research centre, the number of families that have been taught to save energy has doubled over the past five years. That the BRICS countries are taking part in the #TogetherBrighter International Energy Saving Festival, as part of the BRICS Energy Week (October 16 – 20) was a landmark event of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship.
Notably, the Energy Research Platform designed to encourage the research community’s involvement in the practical activities on drawing up energy resource plans. Two major events took place as part of the Energy Research Platform. The results submitted for consideration by the heads of state for effective industrial interaction and practical cooperation in developing and implementing new joint energy.
Based on national statistics and forecasts, leading BRICS experts have prepared the “BRICS Energy Report” – a review of the energy sectors in the five countries, and the “BRICS Energy Technology Report” – focuses on the priorities of technological development of the fuel and energy sectors in BRICS. The reports came from leading experts, representatives of major research institutes and energy companies from the BRICS countries as well as international energy organizations, such as OPEC, GECF, the World Energy Forum, the Clean Energy Ministerial and the World Energy Council.
In September, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held an online meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council in Moscow. That was second of such meetings this year under Russia’s chairmanship. The first one was dedicated exclusively to mobilizing efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus infection.
Within an updated Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership to 2025, Russia has drawn proposals on developing a new mechanism for the five member’s interaction in securing sustainable economic development in the post-pandemic age.
The theme of the Meeting of the Leaders of BRICS countries is “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth” which is planned for November 17 via videoconference, to be coordinated and moderated in Moscow. This year the five countries have continued close strategic partnership on all the three major pillars: peace and security, economy and finance, cultural and people-to-people exchanges.
“Despite the current global situation due to the spread of the coronavirus infection, the activities under the Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020 are carried out in a consistent manner. Since January 2020, more than 60 events have been organized, including via videoconferencing. The BRICS Summit will provide impetus for further strengthening cooperation together with our partners and ensure well-being of BRICS countries,” – noted Anton Kobyakov, Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation, Executive Secretary of the Organizing Committee to Prepare and Support Russia’s SCO Presidency in 2019 – 2020 and BRICS Chairmanship in 2020.
Since 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at formal summits, with Brazil having hosted the most recent 11th BRICS Summit in November 2019. Russia is pushing forward significant issues of five-sided cooperation in the bloc’s three areas of strategic partnership: policy and security, economy and finance, and cultural and educational cooperation. The five BRICS countries together represent over 3.1 billion people, or about 41 percent of the world population.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who writes frequently about Russia, Africa and BRICS, is a passionate contributor to Global Research.
Nenhuma “pressão máxima” cerebrada por Washington conseguiu embargar evento crucialmente importante nesse domingo: o fim do embargo à venda de armas ao Irã, imposto pela ONU, nos termos da decisão do Conselho de Segurança da ONU n. 2.231, que endossou o ‘acordo nuclear para o Irã’ (tecnicamente “Plano de Ação Abrangente Conjunto Global”; ing. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA) de 2015.
O governo Trump abandonou, por decisão unilateral, o ‘acordo nuclear’. Mas esse movimento, como se sabe, não impediu o governo Trump de se engajar em massiva campanha, desde abril, para convencer os proverbiais “aliados” a estender o embargo de armas e, ao mesmo tempo, acionar um mecanismo de revide, que reimpunha todas as sanções da ONU contra Teerã.
Foad Izadi, professor de Estudos Internacionais da Universidade de Teerã, resumiu: “EUA queriam derrubar o governo do Irã. Fracassaram, obviamente. E passaram a tentar arrancar novas concessões do Irã, também sem sucesso. Na verdade, perderam concessões. A campanha de política de pressão máxima falhou. ”
No jogo de sombras que marca as eleições em curso nos EUA, não se pode dizer o que acontecerá a seguir. Um segundo mandato de Trump, quase com certeza turbinaria a “pressão máxima”; e Biden-Harris tenderia a reintegrar Washington ao ‘acordo nuclear’ para o Irã. Nesses dois casos, as monarquias do petróleo do Golfo Pérsico estão fadadas a aprofundar a proverbial histeria em torno da tal “agressão iraniana”.
O fim do embargo à venda de armas não significa nova corrida armamentista no sudoeste da Ásia. A verdadeira história é o modo como a parceria estratégica Rússia-China colaborará com o Irã, seu principal aliado geoestratégico. Nunca se destacará suficientemente que esse trio pró integração euroasiática é visto, por Washington como a principal “ameaça existencial”.
Teerã esperou pacientemente pelo dia 18 de outubro. Agora está livre para importar uma gama completa de armamentos avançados, especialmente de Moscou e Pequim.
Moscou deu a entender que, se Teerã continuar a comprar Su-30s, a Rússia está disposta a construir para o Irã uma linha de produção desses jatos de combate. Teerã tem alto interesse em produzir seus próprios caças avançados.
A indústria iraniana de armas é relativamente avançada. De acordo com o brigadeiro-general Amir Hatami, o Irã integra o seleto grupo de nações capazes de fabricar mais de 90% de seu equipamento militar – incluindo tanques, veículos blindados, radares, barcos, submarinos, drones, jatos de combate e, principalmente, mísseis cruzadores terrestres e embarcados, com alcance de 1.000 km e 1.400 km respectivamente.
O professor Mohammad Marandi, da Faculdade de Estudos Políticos da Universidade de Teerã, confirma: “A indústria militar do Irã é a mais avançada da região e a maioria de suas necessidades são supridas pelo Ministério da Defesa”.
Então, sim, Teerã certamente comprará jatos militares, “mas os drones iranianos são os melhores da região e estão sendo aprimorados” – acrescenta Marandi. – “Não há urgência e não se sabe o que o Irã tem na manga. O que se vê em público não é tudo”.
Caso clássico da faceta pública de algo que não pode ser visto aconteceu na reunião no último domingo na província de Yunnan, na China, entre dois excelentes amigos Mohammad Javad Zarif, ministro das Relações Exteriores do Irã, e seu homólogo chinês Wang Yi.
Claro que é parte de parceria estratégica que liga os dois países – a ser selada pelo agora notório acordo comercial de $ 400 bilhões, 25 anos, para comércio, investimento e energia.
China e Irã estão rodeados por anéis do Império das EUA-Bases, e já foram alvos de várias modalidades implacáveis de Guerra Híbrida. Desnecessário acrescentar que Zarif e Wang Yi reafirmaram que a parceria prossegue e avança, em contraste direto com o unilateralismo dos EUA. Devem ter discutido o comércio de armas, mas nada vazou.
Decisivamente importante, Wang Yi quer criar um novo fórum de diálogo “com participação igual de todas as partes interessadas” para lidar com importantes questões de segurança na Ásia Ocidental. A principal pré-condição para participar do fórum é apoiar o JCPOA – sempre firmemente defendido pela parceria estratégica Rússia-China.
Não haverá ‘surpresa de outubro’ cujo alvo seja o Irã. Mas então vem o período crucial entre a eleição presidencial dos EUA e a posse. Todas as apostas estão suspensas.
Pepe Escobar
Artigo original em inglés : No US October surprise for Iran. A second Trump term would turbocharge maximum pressure; Biden-Harris would look to restore the JCPOA, Asia Times,18 de Outubro de 2020.
Traduzido por autorização do autor por Roberto Pires Silveira
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is a former Raytheon lobbyist and another example of President Trump’s penchant for frustrating his own policies by appointing to power people who oppose his policies.Why does Trump think he can expect a representative of the military/security complex to help him wind down Washington’s hegemonic policeman of the world routine?
Esper is out making speeches that the military/security complex needs 5% real increase annually in order to counter Russia and China (see this).It is Washington that is aggressive toward Russia and China, not the other way around.The military/security complex desperately needs foreign enemies in order to maximize its budget and power.Russiagate’s purpose was to prevent Trump from removing a valuable “enemy” by normalizing relations with Russia.
The US defensebudget could be cut in half and still be larger than the combined defense budgets of Russia and China.China spends about half as much of its economy on defense as the US.If Russia and China intended aggression against the US, wouldn’t you expect to see much higher spending on military?
You could make a case that US defense spending is so high because of inefficiency and enormous profits hidden in “cost overruns.”If so, then increased real spending should come from strict budetary measures and oversight.We should not be accepting a military spending system that cannot account for trillions of dollars and is so poorly controlled that it cannot be audited.Will patriotic conservatives ever realize that blind support for the Pentagon allows the massive rip-off of taxpayers and the neglect of real needs all for nothing but out-sized profits of arms makers?
The military/security complex makes certain that no moves toward peace can succeed.Its lobbyists have succeeded in undoing all the arms control agreements reached with Russia since the 1960s.Russia’s President Putin has made repeated offers to extend the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty, but Washington has rejected his offer out of hand.The reason is obvious.The corrupt puppet regime of Obama agreed to a trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons spending, and the military/security complex means to get that money.
*
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.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
This article was first published on History.com in November 2009.
On October 9, 1967, socialist revolutionary and guerilla leader Che Guevara, age 39, is killed by the Bolivian army. The U.S.-military-backed Bolivian forces captured Guevara on October 8 while battling his band of guerillas in Bolivia and executed him the following day. His hands were cut off as proof of death and his body was buried in an unmarked grave. In 1997, Guevara’s remains were found and sent back to Cuba, where they were reburied in a ceremony attended by President Fidel Castro and thousands of Cubans.
Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna was born to a well-off family in Argentina in 1928. While studying medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, he took time off to travel around South America on a motorcycle; during this time, he witnessed the poverty and oppression of the lower classes. He received a medical degree in 1953 and continued his travels around Latin America, becoming involved with left-wing organizations. In the mid 1950s, Guevara met up with Fidel Castro and his group of exiled revolutionaries in Mexico. Guevara played a key role in Castro’s seizure of power from Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and later served as Castro’s right-hand man and minister of industry. Guevara strongly opposed U.S. domination in Latin America and advocated peasant-based revolutions to combat social injustice in Third World countries. Castro later described him as “an artist of revolutionary warfare.”
Guevara resigned from his Cuban government post in April 1965, He left Cuba, traveled to Africa and eventually resurfaced in Bolivia, where he was killed. Following his death, Guevara achieved hero status among people around the world as a symbol of anti-imperialism and revolution. A 1960 photo taken by Alberto Korda of Guevara in a beret became iconic and has since appeared on countless posters and T-shirts. However, not everyone considers Guevara a hero: He is accused, among other things, of ordering the deaths of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons during the revolution.
*
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.
In July I hypothesized that “Germany’s presidency over the EU may be the most important junction in the bloc’s history since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world is on the cusp of a multipolar order with a more evenly distributed power structure – Germany representing the EU must decide to join this new world order or remain stuck in the old one.”
This was written in the context of Germany assuming the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in July, a position it will hold until December 2020. Germany, the most important economic power in the EU, has always been the architect of the pan-European project. It’s Presidency heralded hope that the EU would break more freely from the interests of the U.S. and pursue policies that would be to the benefit of Europe and not to those across the Atlantic.
However, the hope of the EU being put on a path of self-confidence and sovereignty was quickly dashed. Germany not only continued enacting Washington’s interests, but the areas where it can pursue its sovereign policies has been dominated by self-interest rather than what benefits the entire EU. Just as French President Emmanuel Macron twice emphasized the “brain dead” status of NATO, the EU itself must also be determined as a failed pan-European project that has only been used as a tool to enforce and enact German economic interests over the continent.
The Atlantic Council last week published a joint letter from 29 Ukrainian MP’s who claim the Nord Stream 2’s “role is not commercial but geopolitical: to menace the world. That’s why the Kremlin spends so incessantly on redundant pipelines and fights so fiercely to get them going.”
The published letter cannot be underestimated as the Washington DC-based think tank is one of the most influential in the world. Even before the letter’s publication, U.S. Senators submitted a bill to sanction the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project on June 4. In July, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream projects fall under CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions). Undoubtedly the U.S. is exerting immense pressure to ensure the Nord Stream 2 project is not completed in the hope that Europeans will lessen their reliance on Russian energy.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said “I proceed from the assumption that Nord Stream 2 will be completed. The question is when [this will happen].” Then in a message directed at Washington, Mass said “We make decisions about our energy policy and energy supply here – in Europe.”
This begs a question however – if Nord Stream 2 will be completed, why is it delayed instead of being completed?
It suggests that Germany does not have enough confidence to complete the crucial project for European energy security without approval from Washington despite Maas’ claim that Europe will act sovereignly to complete the pipeline.
What Germany effectively does by not immediately completing the Nord Stream 2 demonstrates a tier system. Maas earlier this month threatened “targeted and disruptive sanctions” against Russia for the poisoning of opposition figure Alexei Navalny, without providing evidence that Moscow was responsible. This was also followed by immediate calls for sanctions against the administration of Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus.
Berlin understands that despite its sanctions against Moscow, Russia needs Nord Stream 2 operational to end its reliance on Ukraine to delivery energy to European markets. As Ukraine is openly hostile to Russia, it is an unreliable partner. With Russian energy bypassing Ukraine to reach European markets via Nord Stream 2, Kiev will lose significant leverage over Moscow, which is why Russia for now is willing to sideline German-led sanctions and accusations to ensure the pipeline project is completed.
However, Turkey continues to violate the sovereign rights of EU member states Greece and Cyprus in the East Mediterranean, threatens them with war on a near daily basis, and even broke United Nation Security Council resolutions by opening the beach of Varosha in occupied northern Cyprus. Despite this hostile actions against EU member states, German diplomats have openly announced that sanctions against Turkey will not occur. This is directly linked to German economic and domestic political interests. With over three million Turks living in Germany, they form a major voting bloc. Coupled with over 5,000 German businesses operating in Turkey, Germany consistently ranks as Turkey’s largest trading partner.
With this we see a tier system in the unipolar world order where Washington stands at the top but Germany will defend its own economic interests with Turkey at the expense of EU member states so long as it does not clash with the interests of the U.S. At the bottom of the tier are the smaller EU states, especially those on the periphery of Europe, like Greece and Cyprus.
Germany’s European Council Presidency came at a time when the global financial market is down as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Nord Stream 2 project is near completion, and when external states are directly threatening the interests and security of EU member states. These crises and major shifts in the European geopolitical and economic landscape gave Berlin the opportunity to demonstrate its leadership position and the EU’s sovereignty from Washington as a unified bloc. Rather, Germany continually demonstrates to EU sceptics that the bloc is nothing more than a front for a German Fourth Reich, as many critics describe it, because of Berlin’s indifference to aggression by its Turkish allies against Europe’s periphery so it can protect its economic interests.
Parliamentary elections in 2021 could radically shift German foreign policy as Angela Merkel’s near 15 years chancellorship is beginning to receive heavy criticism in Germany. While Merkel’s so-called Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) has been indifferent to Turkey’s sponsored invasion of the Armenian-majority Artsakh region, or more commonly known as Nagorno-Karabakh which is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan, a delegation of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) arrived in the warzone today to express solidarity directly to Armenian authorities. In fact, the AfD has maintained relations with the de facto Republic of Artsakh for at least five years, expressing its concern for Turkish expansionism and the existential threat Armenian Christians face.
The CDU portrays itself as a Christian, conservative and pro-European party, but has demonstrated neither Christianity, conservatism or pro-Europeanism in their dealings with Russia or Turkey. The AfD are certainly filling this void left by the CDU’s own failure to uphold its own ideology and it can be expected that in 2021 more AfD members will enter parliament at the expense of the CDU. Germans are becoming frustrated that Berlin’s policies are enabling Germany’s subordination to Washington’s interests while simultaneously pursuing anti-European policies. Berlin’s opportunity to enter the new Multipolar World Order has been wasted in favor of maintaining a tier system where Germany can continue to dominate the EU but only with Washington’s oversight.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Chile has been experiencing violent popular protests for over a year. The general dissatisfaction with the government of Sebastián Piñera and his allies has generated strong unrest in the country, which has worried the Chilean political elite. In this sense, fear of the consequences of the rebellions has led government officials to propose an agreement to stop the violence, but, apparently, the proposal is intended only to serve the interests of the government itself.
The Agreement for Social Peace and the New Constitution was then signed, celebrated between the political parties allied with the government and a large part of the opposition. This agreement provides for a plebiscite – scheduled for October 25th – in which Chileans must define whether they want a new Constitution and whether it should be elaborated by means of a Mixed Convention or a Constitutional Convention. These conditions are generating rejection in several social, political and territorial organizations that consider it lacking in popular legitimacy.
This pact does not include an original and sovereign Constituent Assembly as an option, but two mechanisms, which differ in integration. In the case of the Mixed Convention, it would be composed of 50% of representatives of the Congress and 50% of elected citizens; on the other hand, the Constitutional Convention would be 100% composed of representatives expressly chosen for that instance. The total impossibility of calling for a new Constituent Assembly demonstrates how it seeks to implement reforms that do not fully meet popular interests but prioritize the agendas of the government and the current congressmen.
The current Chilean Constitution does not allow a new Assembly to be convened, because this constitution is the same as it was during the military dictatorship. This means that the transition to a democratic regime has not been completed in Chile, which still has a dictatorial constitution. For the country to become a democratic nation, it is necessary to change the constitution and the government must agree to do so. The purpose of calling an Assembly is precisely to change the Constitution, so the excuse that the formation of the Assembly is “unconstitutional” cannot be evoked: if the government agrees to change the Constitution, it must do so democratically.
Faced with this scenario, many popular leaders pointed out that the agreement does not allow a true popular participation or citizenship, and is therefore insufficient to meet the demands of people, representing nothing more than a political maneuver to deceive the Chileans and contain the protests. It was also emphasized that the agreement remains silent about the several cases of abuse of authority and violation of human rights reportedly perpetrated by the Chilean police during the demonstrations. Obviously, the most correct thing to do on this issue would be to establish a committee to investigate such crimes, with judgment and punishment of those responsible, but this is not mentioned in the “agreement” proposed by the government.
Although the opinions of participants from different organizations are similar with regard to the constitutional process, the way of facing the plebiscite differs among them. There are many assemblies that campaign for the population to ignore this process, abdicating from voting in the referendum and focusing on direct action calling for the Constituent Assembly, but there are other organizations that allow freedom of action for its members, not openly opposing the vote in the referendum. This neutral attitude towards voting happens mainly because of a “despair” that has been seen in the population: in the absence of other means and in the hope of improvement, people tend to vote, even if everything indicates that there will be no changes, regardless the result. Still, there is a strong media campaign in favor of the referendum. The main Chilean news agencies maintain agreements with the government and campaign to support the referendum as a “peaceful resolution” measure. As a result, many people are deluded and decide to vote.
In fact, there is no possibility that the referendum will guarantee real changes in the life of the Chilean population, simply because the “agreement” was imposed unilaterally, without any popular endorsement. The only way to really achieve a more just society is by calling for a new Constituent Assembly, which will completely change the Chilean political structure, prioritizing popular interests, such as the social principles of work, citizenship and democratic participation. In addition, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the crimes allegedly committed by the Chilean police against the demonstrators.
But there is no institutional way to achieve these goals. The government obviously has a privileged situation in relation to the protesters, as it is in power and can unilaterally decide the conditions of peace. Therefore, it only remains for popular organizations to continue protesting. However, many organizations tend to capitulate and adhere to the “agreement” for the reasons explained. Apparently, the referendum will take place, the protests will continue, but they will decrease significantly and, in short, there will be no real change in Chilean society.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The coronavirus induced recession has plunged many countries into economic uncertainty as a result of the severe containment measures. As expected, the pandemic has triggered massive losses in different sectors of the economy which can be reflected in metrics like the real Gross Domestic Product.
Data presented by Buy Shares projects that the global real GDP will plunge by $3.94 trillion in 2020. The research also shows that the ten most impacted countries will cumulatively lose $696.56 billion in real GDP due to the pandemic.
According to the research, the United States will be the biggest loser at $174.68 billion. South Korea will be the tenth most impacted nation with a loss of $3.76 billion. Elsewhere, China is the only country to emerge with a positive growth of 1.8% or a $51.12 billion gain in real GDP.
The global economy begins recovery with the lifting of containment measures
Real GDP refers to the macroeconomic statistic that measures the value of the goods and services produced by a country during a specified period, adjusted for inflation. It measures a country’s total economic output, adjusted for price changes. Governments use the metrics for analyzing economic growth and purchasing power over time.
During the pandemic, most global economies stalled due to containment measures like nationwide lockdowns. The economy went into a sudden shock with global trade declining while labor markets witnessed massive layoffs. The decrease in real GDP is also driven by a drop in consumption and investment. However, the drop in real GDP could have been worse if some governments had not intervened to partially offset the negative contributions.
The economic projections remain conditional as they largely depend on the evolution of the pandemic and measures put in place to contain the crisis. For example, the development of a vaccine will spur rapid recovery. On the other hand, with some countries like the United States facing a second wave, they might revert to severe containment measures like lockdowns, slowing down the recovery. However, it is largely expected that most governments will be prepared for local sporadic outbreaks giving way for targeted local containment measures as opposed to a national outlook.
Despite China being the Covid-19 epicenter the country has benefitted from the pandemic. As the rest of the world is still struggling to contain the virus, China’s economy has taken off after the containment measures began to pay off. Notably, the country is witnessing a surge in local consumption.
China which is the leading global manufacturer has seen most of the companies resume normal operations. The country is now exporting consumer electronics, personal protection equipment, and other goods in high demand during the pandemic. Additionally, China has been able to create jobs with fewer imports coming into the county. Most of the countries exporting to China have not resumed full operations hence it’s embarking on self-sustainability. Generally, China’s positive growth is not having a similar impact on other economies.
Notably, it is still too early to know how long the economic upheaval will last, or the real direction path. However, the impact has been severe and is widely felt, and the road to recovery might be long.
*
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.
Justin is an editor, writer, and a downhill fan. He spent many years writing about banking, finances, blockchain, and digital assets-related news. He strives to serve the untold stories for the readers.
2020 is a year of disguises. Some examples include computer models/modelers disguised as “science/scientists,” Tyrants/Dictators/Totalitarians disguised as “elected officials,” propaganda machines disguised as “news sources,” brainwashing disguised as “information,” censorship disguised as “public health safeguard,” panic and fear disguised as “social responsibility.”
Even the virus itself has been disguised by humans as an “apocalypse.” But, the last part is not the doing of the virus, but the doings of a select number of humans who are responsible for many of the other disguises as well. And if you look at the totality of events in 2020, it is clear that the average citizen has been treated generally less than human, certainly not as adults in any case.
I believe we are in as great a crisis as a species as we have ever been. The crisis is not from some seasonal virus (which is a health issue), but it is from ourselves and what we have devolved into as a species (social, cultural, ideological issues).
I have debated with myself on how to approach the following essay. Under normal circumstances, it would be easy. But, the topic has been so warped and sensationalized into political and social hyperbole, it is difficult to get a handle on it. I could go at it strictly from a scientific perspective, but that would tune many people out.
After about two weeks of my own internal debate and several versions, I have decided to treat the readers of this essay as Human Adults. I will try to not get too technical but rather use rational arguments to approach the issue of a viral infection from the perspective of the virus molecule outside of the host, i.e., the natural environment.
Computer modeling is “a” tool, not “the” tool. The model is only as good as the assumptions put into the model. It has been clear from the start that the modelers have NO idea of how a virus works in the natural world. They have based their modeling on the assumption that the culprit is the human being. The human being must be controlled in order to control the virus. This is completely wrong. I hope to present arguments that illustrate the weaknesses of the modeling concepts.
Human Perception
The natural perceptive abilities, i.e. the physical senses, of human beings are quite poor. For example, we can see only a very, very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, illustrated as follows:
Consequently, humans have difficulty understanding that which is not directly observable by their senses. Size and mass we do okay at, providing we can see it. We tend to have better abilities with larger things that we can observe. But, even size perception has its limits. For example, many people cannot grasp the scope of our universe.
Smaller things, things we cannot see we have trouble with. We live, and have always lived, in a world with things that are far smaller than our ability to detect without some instrumental aid. For example, when I tell people that their bodies are mostly empty space, they scoff. We have solid substance, they say, we can feel it. I respond that the reason we feel it is solid is because that is how our brain interprets it.
For example, neutrinos are subatomic particles with no mass. They do not interact with matter. We are bombarded by interstellar neutrinos throughout our lives. They pass right through us. It makes no difference where you live because they pass right through the Earth, too. You can live a whole lifetime and never have experienced a collision of a neutrino with a cell in your body. Think about it; is it difficult to grasp?
Yes, neutrinos are exotic and basically of interest to physicists. But we exist in a constant interaction with other not-so-exotic things.
Bacteria and fungi, at the cellular level, exist at the micron scale (see the scale diagram below). But, they have the cellular machinery to grow on their own, i.e., their cells will divide and multiply as long as they have nutrients. We cannot see them normally without a microscope. But, if they keep growing, eventually we can see them (as things such as moldy bread, or mildew on the wall), or even feel them (old vegetables that get a “slimy” feeling actually have a bacterial plaque on their surface). Both bacteria and fungi can form “spores” to protect themselves under harsh conditions. It is a form of hibernation.
We have bacteria and fungi in our bodies constantly. Our immune system usually keeps them at bay, or more accurately, keeps them in balance. However, if our immune system weakens, or if a balance is shifted towards the bacteria/fungi, the balance can tip in their favor and we can experience disease. We tend to have more difficulty with control of bacterial/fungal infections than viral infections. In fact, the most common cause of a fatal outcome due to viral infection, including coronavirus, is a bacterial infection.
The reason the second week of infection is considered the worry stage is NOT because of the virus; rather this is the time when a weakened immune system, either by exposure or by losing the balance battle cannot prevent the bacteria/fungi from taking off. Most people who die from influenza, coronavirus, even rhinovirus, do so primarily from pneumonia (bacterial infection) or some other systemic bacterial infection.
Other things, besides fighting a virus, can weaken the immune system. Aging, diabetes/obesity, liver disease, kidney disease, cancer, lung disease, other infections (viral/bacterial/fungal), stress, circulatory problems, cardiovascular disease, and several others all can cause weakened immune systems (that is why they are called “comorbidities”). Clearly, the number and degree of conditions that weaken your immune system greatly increase the risk of severe disease or death from any infectious disease (bacterial, fungal, or viral).
All of these things occur at a level where our senses cannot perceive them. Fortunately, our bodies recognize these things at the molecular level and it is our own chemistry (we call “biochemistry”) that intervenes, mainly in the form of our immune system.
The Virus: What are we dealing with?
My Doctoral degree is in “organic” chemistry, specifically, chemistry involving carbon-based compounds. Chemistry is about working with problems at a molecular level. Guess what a virus like coronavirus is? It is a complex organic molecule. Organic chemists would call it a “macromolecule” where “macro” means large. It is only considered “large” in comparison to small molecules. I am naturally inclined to look at a virus like coronavirus as an organic molecule.
Coronavirus (CV) and influenza (IF) are very similar at the molecular level. Both are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses and both are enveloped helical (meaning that they have a similar 3- dimensional structure with a protein outer part and the RNA inside). CV is a positive strand RNA and IF is a negative strand RNA. This means they have opposite structures much like you have a left hand and a right hand. Their viral class identification is different partly for that reason.
Both CV and IF behave almost the same outside of the body and this is due to their size, structure, and relative chemical similarities. On average, both are about the same size, ranging around 100 ±30 nanometers or nm (CV can range smaller in size than IF). For consistency purposes, I will refer to both of them at the 100 nm size, which is reasonably accurate (nm is 10-9 meter (0.000000001 meter), a micron (μm) is 10-6 meter (0.000001 meter). The meter is about 10% longer than a yard, or 39.37 inches so 1 micron is 0.00003937 inch.
I have created the following scale for a reference point using font sizes, and I hope that the fonts are reasonably accurate. Note that our eyes cannot see 5 micron, so this is enhanced.
As the chart shows, both CV and IF as a molecule outside of the body are VERY, VERY small. They are undetectable without the use of an electron microscope. We simply cannot detect it in the natural environment. The tip of your finger, maybe 1 square millimeter, can literally pick up tens of millions of virus particles and you could not see any of them.
Because of the small size, we really do not know how they truly exist in the environment. They could be floating around as individual molecules, i.e. as single CV/IF particles. They could “aggregate,” meaning that they form clumps of molecules (again, too small to detect). They could attach to any other particle in the environment. Since they are so small, they could hitch rides with dust particles, pollens, leaves, just about anything that they may have an affinity for. The list of possibilities extends to anything you could think of in the environment, including living creatures. In short, they simply could be anywhere and everywhere.
Molecules can react with other molecules (reactivity), or they can remain as they are or fall apart into smaller molecules (stability). For the purpose of this essay, I will focus mainly on stability.
Most molecules have conditions that can render them either more stable or less stable. Clearly, with an infectious disease molecule, we would want to try and break it apart, or not give it stability. Breaking it apart usually renders it inert; i.e. non-infectious.
In an outdoor environment, we know that the CV/IF molecule will start to break apart within minutes or maybe last an hour or two. The local environmental conditions will determine how fast the molecule breaks up. We know that heat and ultraviolet (UV) radiation are pretty good at breaking it up.
There are things that chemically will help break it up. For example, saline conditions, like in an ocean are good (it may be considered a “natural disinfectant”). There are man-made disinfectants such as bleach. We know that CV/IF are not stable under pH of 3 or over a pH of 10. So if the molecule encounters either natural or man-made conditions that deal with these pHs, the molecule will break up. Common soaps are good for breaking up the molecule. This is why there is the recommendation to wash with soap and water.
Likewise, there are conditions that increase the stability of the molecule. Both CV/IF survive longer under colder conditions. This is probably one reason why they tend to favor winter months and colder climates.
We know that certain types of surfaces can make it more stable. For example, CV has good stability on plastic (1/2 life of almost 8 hours) and has even been detected up to one week on surgical masks. Some types of metals, such as copper, can speed up decomposition and some metals lend stability (such as stainless steel).
Skin can actually be good at destabilizing because of not only sweat but also the natural oils and detergents that are produced in the skin can break apart these types of molecules. That is a reason that skin absorption is not considered a vector of infection. Serious breaks in the skin, however, such as from burns or injuries, could lead to infection due to the decreased natural inhibition.
So, in general, we would want to try and increase exposure of the molecule to conditions that destabilize while trying to minimize the stabilizing conditions.
The Virus in Disease Transmission
The “rationale” for lockdowns, masks, distancing, etc. all rest on the assumption that human direct transmission is the greatest risk for disease. Anyone, at any given time, in any place can pass the virus to another. It sort of reminds me of the character “Cofi” in the movie “The Green Mile.” People seem to be convinced that somehow, the only way to catch this virus is because it makes a beeline from person to person. In other words, we are the culprits.
But, is this really the case? In short, “No” and here is why.
Because of the modeler’s view, if we imprison people (“lockdown” – a term used in penal institutions when prisoners become unruly), cover their faces (“masking”), and keep them from doing what people do, i.e. socializing (“distancing”), we can stop the virus. This concept is what “wanna-be” dictators all over the world have embraced.
This is NONSENSE. Certainly, you can get infected that way but that is only one way of many ways. It may not even be the main way. It is “losing sight of the forest for the trees.”
To examine the path to infection more closely, let’s make the following assumptions (which you can see are more or less worst case assumptions):
Assumption 1. A person has CV/IF and is shedding, i.e. releasing virus from their bodies. Further, let’s focus on the nasal/oral route for shedding as the only route, even though we know that the virus can be shed from feces.
Assumption 2. All shed virus is infectious. This may sound like a strange assumption but we really do not know HOW infectious shedding viruses truly are. What is being shed could be combinations of fragmented virus and more intact virus. The reason it is not clear is because a main method that is used for identification of samples is PCR. PCR cannot tell whether what is being amplified is actually infectious or not.
When we exhale breath, speak, sing, laugh, cough, shout, sneeze, hiss, scoff, grunt, etc., air is expelled from our, mostly, upper respiratory tract. This air MAY or MAY NOT contain particles of moisture (mostly water). These moisture particles MAY or MAY NOT contain mucus, cellular debris, bacteria etc. from our respiratory tract. These moisture particles MAY or MAY NOT contain virus particles. In other words, there MAY be virus particles hitching a ride or there may be NONE.
There is no scientific evidence that when a person is infected that they are continually expelling virus, but that goes to a different essay. Please note, I am not referring to the playground use of the “spitball,” which is a massive collection of saliva, which may or may not contain any of the above. However, I think that we all can agree that amorous kissing when there is an infected person involved runs the highest risk of transmission. But this has more to do with direct contact. I want to deal with indirect routes of transmission.
The expelled moisture particles range in size from very, very small to much larger and for scientific purposes are divided typically into two categories: (1) aerosols, which are the very small particles usually below 1 micron, and (2) droplets, which are particles larger than 5 micron. The range between 1-5 micron is sometimes ambiguously defined either as an aerosol or a droplet but that is not really important for this discussion. You can see the whole range is involved.
Once expelled (egress) away from the nose/mouth, moisture particles will travel certain distances depending on their sizes. Larger droplets fall closer to the individual while aerosols can travel much farther or remain suspended. We have imaging techniques to see droplets using special high speed cameras, but we cannot visualize aerosols.
Clearly, independent virus particles that are NOT hitching rides are expelled as nanoparticles and go out into the environment. We cannot begin to see these. But, as nanoparticles, we should assume that they can remain air suspended for long periods of time and are taken up by the local air movement patterns.
Aerosols and droplets, after leaving the mouth/nose will quickly lose their moisture, i.e. the water base will evaporate. The smaller the particle, the quicker this will happen. With aerosols, it may be within a fraction of a second. Environmental conditions will also affect the timing. Warmer and dryer conditions will speed up evaporation while colder and more humid conditions will slow it down. Studies have indicated that under most normal temperature conditions, aerosols and droplets less than 100 micron in size evaporate before they hit the ground.
What happens to the hitchhiking virus? IT IS STILL THERE! It does not evaporate. It has lost its ride but it is still there.
What happens to it now? It can go anywhere, i.e. it can be dispersed just like the free molecule. It will last as long as it is stable. It can be carried by the wind (outdoors) or by air movements or HVAC (indoors). It can hitch a ride with other carrier things (outdoor examples such as above). It can land on surfaces, any surface, whether indoors or outdoors. Animals or even insects can carry the molecule if it lands on them. If it lands on another person, it can land on their clothes, hair, skin, etc. and be carried by them. If it happens to get sucked into the respiratory tract or absorbed on the eye, it may eventually lead to infection if it can survive the body defenses. The possibilities really are endless.
Indoors, the picture becomes even more complicated because now the vectors of movement, displacement, and contamination possibilities increase. Air handling units can redistribute the molecules to other areas far from the original source. Surface contamination is now a real consideration. Simple items can become sources of infection.
For example desk pens and pencils, office equipment, telephones, notebooks, furniture, electronic devices, cups/glasses, dishes, light switches, etc. Just look around the room that you are sitting in and remember about when you (or someone) “dusts.” At least anywhere that a “dust” can go so can a molecule like a virus. In fact, the very act of “dusting” could reintroduce the molecule back into the environment. Anything in that environment that you touch is a potential source.
It should be easy to see why a lockdown is disastrous. A single sick person can spread a virus throughout a whole building and no one would know it until too late. Clearly, air handling, sanitation, people movement, shared items, all will play a significant role in transmission risk.
Further, indoor conditions are better generally for stability and survival of the molecule. Why are meat processing/packing plants at risk? They are refrigerated facilities. There are many people so there is a lot of movement. There are many surfaces for the molecule to sit, like carcasses, that are handled often and routinely.
I think people can start to see the problem that we are dealing with and why the virus doesn’t just go away so easily.
Don’t “Masks” Make A Difference?
Before going into that question, I want to provide both some personal background and maybe a little comic relief.
The photo below was taken about 30 years ago, and yes, that is me. I was being fit tested for my own respirator. In my first position after the Ph.D., I was given charge of developing a molecule that was so lethal (yes, it is used medicinally but in very dilute solutions and under strict controls) that even the tiniest of amount contacting my skin, nose, eyes, etc., could knock me out and kill without my ever knowing it; the risks I faced were far greater than any coronavirus. I had to undergo serious Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training as a result. When your life hangs in the balance, you learn all that you can. I was also a member of an isolator design team to develop a manufacturing unit to contain the production process.
Yes, I do know something about PPE.
The type of respirator that I am wearing in the photo is designed to protect the wearer from chemical agents, mostly, although there are biological filters available. It has unidirectional airflow. That means that the air that I would breathe in would be pulled through a series of filter cartridges (the round canisters on the sides) in order to remove the potentially offending compounds. After inhalation, a valve would close off the incoming air (ingress) and my exhaled breath would exit via another one way valve (egress), which you cannot see but it is located in the middle of the canisters directly in front of my mouth. Of course, this was used with other head and body protection since ALL physical contamination had to be guarded against.
This kind of respirator required both fit and physical certification. I had to be certified on an annual basis to show that my lungs were capable of breathing with this apparatus since the pressure differential was great. That means, I had to be able to suck in the air through the filters as well as deliver out through the valve. Lung capacity was very important; it was NOT a normal breathing experience. You also had to take periodic breaks, as well as a thorough and careful decontamination after each use. The respirator worked only as long as the filter cartridges were effective. They could reach a saturation point or a point where the cartridge was spent and beyond that there would be no protection.
The idea of “masks” on people did not suddenly appear in March of 2020. The usage of face protection with infectious diseases has been well studied, especially with influenza. Do not forget, the mechanics of these two viruses (CV/IF) are essentially the same so what works or doesn’t work for one is the same for the other.
The understanding has been that a “mask,” and that term usually refers to either a SURGICAL mask or N95 mask, has no benefit in the general population and is only useful in controlled clinical settings. Further, it has been considered a greater transmission risk than a benefit in the general population. If people still have a memory, you may recall that this was still the advice in February 2020. That understanding has not changed and I will explain why.
The term “mask” by itself means nothing. It is like saying “car.” You have to identify it more specifically because there are many different types and varieties, just like cars. So, for this essay, I will use two terms as follows:
Face Coverings: In this category I will include homemade cloth, dust, non-fitted utility, custom stylish, and any other common “mask,” i.e. something that is intended to cover your mouth and nose and that is by and large used in the general population (because they are cheap and inexpensive).
Mask: In this category, I am referring specifically to the SURGICAL mask and N95 mask (which is recommended for use in clinical settings by health care workers). If necessary, I will specify between them.
One of the big mistakes by modelers is the concept of a face covering or mask as a “barrier.” I see many references to so-called “experts” who make this claim. This is completely false. No face covering or mask is a barrier. Either they do not know what they are talking about or they are misleading people.
Masks and “Face Coverings” ARE:
FILTERS, not barriers. They FILTER only the things that they are designed to filter, to a level of efficiency based upon design, usually not at 100% efficiency. For example, the N95 mask is designed and rated to filter particles greater than 300 nm at 95% efficiency (note: there are masks with greater efficiency than 95%, such as the N99 and NHEPA, but these are very expensive).
Bidirectional, or two-way street flow (unlike my respirator above). That means the air is intended to go in and out through the same place – breathe in, breathe out. The filtering ability affects both ingress and egress, but MOST are intended to be used towards ingress, i.e. to protect the wearer (Surgical masks are the exception).
Designed for normal breathing patterns, not exertive force (although the Surgical mask has a pressure rating). This is an important point!
NOT designed to filter infectious agents but rather inert particulates (except the Surgical mask which is intended to preserve a sterile/sanitary operating field).
Designed for minimal usage time. They are NOT intended to be stuck on your face for hours.
I understand the psychological crutch that people feel with something covering their mouth/nose. I am sorry, but that is a false sense of security. Perception is NOT reality, just like the neutrino. The mind says that you have some solid thing covering your mouth and nose but that is not really the case, it is porous; things get through (or go around)..
I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations.
In Part III above, the expulsion of the virus into the environment was examined. So, what happens if a person wears a mask/face covering? There are two different views of how the mask operates depending on whether it is ingress (protecting the wearer) or egress (protecting the environment). But, both add up to more or less the same thing.
First, what happens on EGRESS. We will look at droplets because most face coverings will not stop an aerosol and the 2020 propaganda has been focused on droplets.
Assuming that a person is shedding virus and they produce droplets that contain hitchhiking virus, and assuming the face covering actually stops ALL droplets (best-case scenario), the following molecular pathway will likely occur:
The droplet will lose its moisture. The timing may be different than just going out into the environment but moisture will be lost. However, the expelled droplets may accumulate faster than evaporation. If that happens, the facial covering starts to become saturated with moisture, mucus, cellular debris, bacteria, etc. as well as virus molecules.
The virus molecule DOES NOT EVAPORATE and no matter what happens as far as the droplet is concerned, the virus is now on the face covering, at least initially. This means that the face covering is now contaminated and is a possible source of transmission, both contact and airborne.
The virus is not somehow magically “glued” to the mask but can be expelled, whether or not there is still moisture. This can happen the next time a person breathes, speaks, coughs, sneezes, hisses, grunts, etc. So, the virus can be expelled out INTO THE ENVIRONMENT from the face covering.
So, the face covering acts as an intermediary in transmission. It can alter the timing of the virus getting into the environment, but it now acts as a contact source and airborne source; virus can still get into the environment. Since we know that the stability is good on most covering and mask materials, it does nothing to break down the virus until the covering is removed and either washed or discarded (appropriately).
Here is an important point, as more virus molecules accumulate, more are expelled. The face covering is not some virus black hole that sucks the virus into oblivion.
Second, what about INGRESS?
What works for egress works for ingress. So, if a person is wearing a face covering and they encounter virus, aerosols, or droplets, the virus and aerosols will likely penetrate. If the droplet is stopped, the surface is now contaminated. This means that if the surface of the covering touches the mouth or nose, you can become contaminated, i.e. infected.
This is a common sight with most face coverings, including the “stylish” coverings that people are wearing (I often see the covering moving back and forth against their mouth and nose even as they breathe, like a diaphragm), as well as with the cheaper dust masks and homemade cloth masks. If you inhale, you can become contaminated. If you touch the face covering, such as pulling it up and down, you can become contaminated.
Further, because the surface is contaminated, a person can also expel the virus back out into the environment just as with egress. This can be done by talking, breathing, coughing, etc.
Stopping a *droplet* is NOT the same as stopping the virus!
This molecular evaluation only assumed the best case contact scenario; that is, 100% contact between the face covering and any virus particle that may be encountered. I have NOT examined low efficiency coverings, inappropriate use and handling, non-fit (air will circumvent the covering and go around it since air flow follows the path of least resistance – where the air goes so does a virus). I have NOT examined the eyes or ears as entry points. I have NOT examined the other modes of molecular movement on the surface of face coverings, such as osmosis. I have NOT examined the almost 100% misuse of any covering by the population at large simply because they have not been trained and have been misinformed and are using ineffective coverings.
It boggles my mind when there is some notion that by wearing a face covering you are actually doing a “service” to your neighbor and therefore everyone has to protect everyone by this. Actually, the opposite is true. You are now becoming an additional potential source of environmental contamination. You are now becoming a transmission risk; not only are you increasing your own risk but you are also increasing the risk to others.
To better illustrate, let’s look at my respirator above. If I had been exposed to the molecule that I described, the filters would have protected my breathing function (my other protective equipment such as gowns, hoods, etc. would protect the rest of me). But, the respirator surface would have been contaminated (as would the other gown surfaces). If I had gone out into an uncontrolled environment with that respirator (and/or gown, etc.), I could have released those molecules into the environment endangering any person, possibly fatally. I had to de-gown and decontaminate, very carefully, in a controlled environment to prevent that possibility. Even though I had been protected, I was still a risk to others.
Before March 2020, the standard Good Respiratory Practice (GRP) was to cover your mouth/nose when coughing or sneezing. It is especially effective if you use a tissue or handkerchief as a receptacle and cup your hand around them. The hand now actually DOES serve more as a barrier.
Plus, you will more likely remove the potential virus molecule from the environment by proper disposal of the tissue or washing the handkerchief. That is a practice we should be getting back to. I see people now who believe the misinformation and do nothing to shield their cough or sneeze because they believe that wearing a face covering is a barrier on its own. This is not good. So, at the very least, cover your face covering with your hands if you cough or sneeze!
I cannot tell people to not wear a face covering. I chose not to wear face coverings for two reasons, the first is all of the above, and the second is that I have experienced this virus. When I see people with them, I think of virus heaven. But, I am also not afraid because this virus does not frighten me.
I cannot tell people not to erect plastic sheets. But, when I see them, I see a virus motel-check in, stay a while, and then leave. This concerns me more because of the much larger surface area that can act as a virus repository. I have actually advised some places that have done this to either disinfect regularly, or move to glass where disinfection is easier. If there is virus stuck to these surfaces, there is both contact risk and expulsion risk back into the environment.
My view of dealing with the virus is at the molecular level. Do what we can to actually deplete the molecule, not give it stability.
We cannot eliminate this or any other upper respiratory virus. Maybe someday we can advance our immunological techniques to the point that it might be possible to make it a minor player in humans, but we are not there yet. But, we can defend against it by our immune systems and by trusting those with stronger immune systems to protect the weaker. Despite the propaganda, herd immunity was the standard before March 2020; it is not a “fringe” concept.
Here are some important points to consider:
People who have experienced this virus do NOT need to wear face coverings, period.
In the open environment, no one should be wearing face coverings. This is the one place where we can get an assist from nature to help reduce the virus molecules. Considering that less than 5% of transmissions have been associated with open environments (and identifiable activities not random encounters), the risk is truly small.
A face covering may be useful when visiting an at-risk elderly person or in a controlled health care setting such as a hospital or nursing home. But, I think that these should be dispensed by trained personnel and should be focused on using Surgical masks wherever possible. The protection is not so much from viruses but face coverings may be more effective in preventing the spread of bacteria and fungi.
Children should not be wearing face coverings. We all need constant interaction with our environments and that is especially true for children. This is how their immune system develops. They are the lowest of the low risk groups. Let them be kids and let them develop their immune systems..
The “Mask Mandate” idea is a truly ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction and needs to be withdrawn and thrown in the waste bin of disastrous policy, along with lockdowns and school closures. You can vote for a person without blindly supporting all of their proposals!
There may be other health risks associated with continued use of face coverings. While this is anecdotal, I have many physician acquaintances and they are all reporting increases in conditions that may be associated with face coverings, such as facial skin infections, nose/throat and sinus infections, even anxiety conditions. An area of concern is the change in breathing patterns that can be directly associated with face coverings. I train regularly. The only time that I wear a face covering is to gain entrance to the public gymnasium where I train (because it is required). The mask is discarded immediately when I start training, as most other people also do. The staff members do not make a fuss because they understand the dangers of doing exertion with a face covering.
We also do not know enough about the possible consequences of forcing whole populations to adopt face coverings for extended periods. There may be both health and social consequences that we cannot consider at this time. Humans have developed as creatures whereby we interact with our environment. Our whole upper respiratory tract has developed immense defensive systems because of that. I am worried personally about “unnatural selection.” This is when human actions force a direction of evolution that would not otherwise occur. Often, the result is not good. But that is a whole different subject that needs to be considered.
I think that people can see how truly complex and difficult it is to deal with a nanoparticle. It is something too complex for modeling, at least on the environmental scale. It should be clear that humans are only a small part of the equation.
Stopping humans from being human will not stop the virus from being a virus!
We certainly should not have let modeling be experimented with on a worldwide scale directing policy that we had no idea of the outcome; but we did. It should be readily apparent by this time that all of the lockdowns, masking, distancing, closures, etc. have had no effect on the virus. It is time to reverse course.
Modeling could be useful in evaluating conditions in very limited and controlled settings. For example, it could be helpful to design infectious disease care units in hospitals. We could use modeling to examine our knowledge and use of air-handling, people movement and interactions in combination with molecule destruction, PPE, etc. to maybe develop better procedures to protect health care workers but also help reduce viral loads of patients.
For example, would a simply designed, single pass individual exhaust unit that carries the expired air from a patient to a chemical scrubber help reduce the viral load of the environment? Could it also help the patient by reducing the local viral and bacterial load? Could it help reduce or eliminate the molecule from those environments? These and others are questions that can be modeled and then tested. Then, maybe it can be tried on a pilot scale. If that works, maybe we can expand the scale, fine tuning as we go, and maybe reach a point where it works well and it can be used on a larger scale. That is how science works. Start small, gain understanding, finetune, and expand. You do NOT use the whole world as a laboratory on the first shot!
It is time for human beings to be human beings again. Stop trying to lay blame and guilt on people for a natural virus.
If governments want to be helpful in reducing severe disease and deaths, imposing more laws and restrictions is not the answer. Rather, focus on educating people on how to better maintain their immune systems. Encourage healthier lifestyles through education and wellness programs, especially in the less fortunate of our society. Provide or encourage businesses to consider better sick leave alternatives for people in ALL jobs/vocations so that people are not driven by the choice of work to live or stay home and be sick.
The healthy people in our society should not be punished for being healthy, which is exactly what lockdowns, distancing, mask mandates, etc. do. This goes completely against the principles on which the United States of America was founded. We have lost the meaning of “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” to “Land of the Imprisoned, Home of the Afraid.”
*
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.
Roger W. Koops holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Riverside as well as Master and Bachelor degrees from Western Washington University. He worked in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industry for over 25 years. Before retiring in 2017, he spent 12 years as a Consultant focused on Quality Assurance/Control and issues related to Regulatory Compliance. He has authored or co-authored several papers in the areas of pharmaceutical technology and chemistry.
Forty-seven years ago, Egypt and Syria launched a massive surprise attack on Israeli forces dug into fortifications along the Suez Canal and Golan Heights. The ‘limited’ Arab objective was to recapture both strategic areas that had been seized from the two Arab states in Israel’s victorious 1967 War.
Re-armed with modern – but by no means top drawer – Soviet weapons, Egypt and Syria sought to drive the Israelis back, then wait for the great powers to impose a truce. It was a badly flawed strategy, which assured the heavily armed Israelis would control the military initiative with their superiority in air power and armor.
At first, the Arab surprise attack caught Israel flat-footed. Israeli reserve armored forces were still in storage when Egyptian and Syrian armor and infantry stormed across the 1967 cease-fire lines.
Warnings of the impending assault from the most important Israeli spy, Ashraf Marwan – amazingly the son-in law of the late Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser – were ignored or shrugged off in Israel which was still filled with hubris over its lopsided, US-assisted victory in the 1967 War.
This was the first big mystery of the 1973 War. Was Marwan really a Mossad spy or a double agent, as Egypt later claimed, disinforming Israel on the time of the Arab offensive? Marwan later fell to his death – or was pushed – from a London apartment.
Syria’s armor drove into the Golan Heights from their starting positions on the plains east of Golan and the Mount Hermon massif.
The opening Arab assault was a remarkable success. I walked much of the Suez Canal soon after the war and was awed that Egypt’s military engineers had managed to get so many tanks and men across the wide canal under enemy fire.
Equally amazing was Egyptian infantry using highly effective new Soviet Sagger anti-tank missiles and air defense units employing SAM-6 anti-aircraft missiles to blunt Israeli counter attacks. Hundreds of Israeli US-supplied M40 and M60 tanks and 20% of Israel’s formidable air force were destroyed.
Most of Israel’s 15 Bar Lev forts built to defend the Suez Canal were stormed. As a connoisseur of modern fortification, I was fascinated to explore the fallen Israeli forts. Syria inflicted heavy casualties on Israeli armor defending the Golan Heights and on its forts.
The second big mystery of the war concerns the savage fight for Golan. Syrian armor and mechanized divisions had managed to claw their way to the top of the Golan Heights, from where they looked down on Galilee and most of northern Israel. We don’t know whether Syria intended to drive into Galilee, formerly a heavily Arab area, or try to defend the Golan ridgeline. But orders went out from Syrian HQ to halt the Syrian offensive when the downhill road to Galilee and Jordan River bridges were wide open. Why did the Syrians halt their advance when victory was in their grasp?
The answer remains a mystery. But the best assumption is that Soviet spy satellites saw Israel move 13 Jericho missiles out of caves at two airbases and affix their 20-kiloton nuclear warheads. Moscow immediately warned Washington and its Arab allies, both of whom feared an imminent Israeli nuclear strike against targets that included Damascus and Cairo.
So, both Egypt and Syria halted their advances. Israeli forces, bolstered by the arrival of powerful reserve armored divisions, seized the initiative and went on to achieve a brilliant victory that included crossing the Canal and encircling Egypt’s III Corps. The fighting ended after Israel failed to seize Suez and towns on the way to Damascus. Threats of Soviet intervention and America’s resupply of almost all of Israel’s lost weapons brought the 1973 War to a close.
Egypt regained Sinai – Syria and the Palestinians got nothing. The US sank ever deeper into the turbulent affairs of the Arab world. After a bad scare, Israel triumphed as the Mideast’s premier military power.
*
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.
Should antiwar forces challenge power or praise government officials in the hopes of getting some crumbs for their pet issue?
Douglas Roche’s recent Hill Times column suggests the latter. In an article extolling Canada’s new ambassador to the UN Roche writes:
“When Canada lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council the second successive time last June, I thought a foreign policy review from top to bottom was the solution to get Canada back on track internationally. But I’ve changed my mind for two reasons: the world is in multiple crises revolving around COVID-19 that need to be acted on now, and Bob Rae has arrived on the scene. I don’t mean to present the estimable new Canadian ambassador to the UN as a world saviour, but he has quickly established himself as a champion of the UN humanitarian agenda, which centres around reducing the grotesque economic inequalities that the pandemic has worsened.”
In essence Roche is saying that a few months ago he was troubled by the world’s rejection of Canadian foreign policy but now that Rae and Prime Minister Trudeau have delivered a couple of high-minded, internationalist statements there’s little need to challenge government policy.
But things are far from all fine and dandy. The Trudeau government refused to join 122 countries at a UN conference to ban nuclear weapons in 2017 and has failed to sign the resulting treaty. They have announced a 70% increase in military spending, oversaw record (non-US) arms exports last year and dispatched troops on US and NATO missions to Iraq and Latvia (not to mention breaking their promise to rein in Canadian mining companies’ abuses, support for a repressive Haitian president, unprecedented campaign to overthrow Venezuela’s government, anti-Palestinian positions, etc.)
Rather than representing a break from the Liberals’ pro-US, pro-militarist and pro-capitalist policies, Rae’s appointment reflects a continuation of this outlook. As I detailed in “New UN ambassador Bob Rae pushes pro-US, militarist and anti-Palestinian positions”, Rae aggressively promoted bombing Libya in 2011, allied with Stephen Harper to extend the occupation of Afghanistan and has repeatedly undercut Palestinian rights.
A few high-minded speeches by Rae and other government officials does not make a just foreign policy. Rather than make nice with Rae, peace and antiwar minded individuals should directly confront the Trudeau government’s foreign policy. The two recent national days of action at dozens of MPs’ offices against purchasing new fighter jets and selling arms to Saudi Arabia are a good step. So was the “no Canada on UN Security Council” campaign.
Unfortunately, Roche’s perspective on this issue matters. A former ambassador for disarmament, Progressive Conservative MP and senator has significant influence in peace circles. He’s influential within the Canadian Network for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and two weeks ago Roche did an event with World Beyond War. But, Roche’s perspective is deleterious even if you stick to Roche’s main issue: nuclear disarmament.
If we are serious about forcing Ottawa to sign the UN nuclear ban treaty we need to grow the broader peace/demilitarization/anti-imperialist movement. More specifically, if many begin agitating against fighter jets and arms exports, or for Canada to leave the nuclear armed NATO alliance the government is more likely to concede to a push to sign the nuclear ban treaty.
Roche’s column praising Bob Rae should serve as a wakeup call to antiwar activists. The movement is far too focused on insider lobbying and policy wonkery. It needs to be much more oriented towards broad principled positions and social movement mobilization.
*
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.
French President Emmanuel Macron does not want his initiative for Lebanon to fail. His initial path was not successful because he did not possess the political acumen necessary to confront the tricks of the Lebanese politicians. Macron wrongly believed that the “weight” of France was sufficient for everyone to stand “inline” and carry out the orders of the French “professor”. The French President did not realise that there are many political “professors” in Lebanon who insist on implementing their agendas and interests notwithstanding the severe financial crisis. Macron rectified the path of his initiative by encouraging and supporting Saad Hariri to form a “rescue government” that is supposed to stay for only 6 months. In reality, Hariri is expected to lead the cabinet until the upcoming elections in 2022.
What is the state of consultations now, and how have the alliances between political parties reshuffled?
For the first time, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri appeared to hold the game from all sides as he wanted it. He “burned” all the previous candidates, including Prime Minister Hassan Diab (and was efficiently assisted by Speaker Nabih Berrifrom the day Diab stepped into the Parliament). Hariri adopted the same policy even with the candidate of French President, Ambassador Mustafa Adib, overwhelming him with impossible conditions that led to his failure. The former PM disrupted the French initiative himself, by blaming the Shia duo (Hezbollah and Amal – the group led by Speaker Berri) who insisted in nominating the Finance Minister. Indeed, the duo still wants this cabinet position, but they were not the only political group with specific demands. The decision of the ‘Shia duo’ saved Hariri by blowing up Adib’s place and by allowing the leader of the ‘Free Patriotic Movement’ (FPM) to hide his requests in nominating his candidates for the new cabinet.
Today, however, the ‘political game’ is no longer under the table: Hariri – who was granted non-opposition status from Saudi Arabia to become Prime Minister – announced that he wanted this position by all means. The former PM is aware that he can form a cabinet only if he strikes a deal with the ‘Shia duo’ to secure the majority of votes at the Parliament and not the ‘majority bloc’ (which includes the Shiite duo and the Free Patriotic Movement and their allies). The House of Representatives is witnessing today a change of alliances and a sharp internal division. Fundamental and even ideological differences between old allies now appear visibly on the surface.
Hariri seized the opportunity to approach the ‘Shia duo’ and agree it can nominate the finance minister and their other ministers- as long as they are technocrats and experts in their field. This means that he fulfilled the first step he needed to return as Prime Minister, especially since Speaker Berri ensured that several Christian representatives vote for the PM, for Hariri to maintain the pact and consensus. This of course will no longer hold if and when the majority of Christians are out of the new cabinet, as they may well be.
Saad Hariri knows how to bring the Druse leader Walid Jumblatt onto his side by securing his share in the new cabinet. Thus, Hariri is able to achieve a political victory over his political arch-enemy Gebran Bassil by ignoring him and rejecting his cabinet demands.
The President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, postponed the parliamentary consultations that were, and still are, attempting to nominate Hariri as Prime Minister. Aoun accommodated Bassil, his son-in-law, who was isolated by his political ally – Hezbollah – unwilling this time to support him as it did in the formation of the previous government. The relationship between Basil and Hezbollah has endured severe differences in the past year, including “strikes below the belt”. These strikes are now no longer the exclusivity of one partner and not the other.
However, postponing the parliamentary consultations for the nomination of Hariri brought about the resentment of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who has little sympathy for President Aoun and his son-in-law. There were no endorsed justifications to postpone the consultations except the attempt to protect Basil and allow him, for another final week, to try to secure a place in the next government. Bassil was insisting on keeping the Energy Ministry, a request Hariri was not ready to accept. Bassil does not realise that there is no one currently among the political and influential leaders prepared to allow him to succeed in this ministry (even though he was in charge of it for years).
There is no constitutional reason that compels Hariri to fulfill Bassil’s desires, especially since France has intervened to express its displeasure at the delay. The French President forcefully proposed that no further delays be tolerated and that next Thursday the Prime Minister (Saad Hariri) has to be nominated. This bickering is revealing the fact that the ‘Shia duo’ was not the only one insisting on appointing its representatives in the cabinet: other parties want their share.
Hariri positively responded to the Shia, Druze, and Sunni, and left the main Christian groups out – the leaders of the “Lebanese Forces” Samir Geagea and Gebran Bassil – so they stand out as those prepared to obstruct this “reform and salvation” government.
But does this mean that the agreement between the FPM (led by Bassil) and Hezbollah has ended?
The alliance that Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah signed with the head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), General Michel Aoun (known as the Mar Mikhael Accord) in 2006 changed its complexion when its Christian leader, who became President of the Republic, gave the leadership of his party to his son-in-law Gebran Bassil.
Hezbollah considered that the “debt” owed to General Aoun (when Aoun stood by Hezbollah during the 2006 second Israeli war on Lebanon) had been fulfilled. Hezbollah froze the country for over two and a half years, blocking the nomination of a President, notwithstanding the existence of the regional and international effort rejecting General Aoun’s candidateship. Certainly, disputes have to be tolerated because they always occur within an alliance: it is not one single party and the inherent differences becomes obvious to all.
However, in this case, these differences were not appropriately organised to maintain political unity and solidarity all the way through. The two parties benefited from each other and showed that they could be separate. In the last parliamentary elections, Gebran Bassil wanted to confront his ally Hezbollah in numerous regions, allowing Samir Geagea the victory of 15 MPs and the loss of Hezbollah in Jbeil. Of course, the Geagea-Bassil alliance during the elections crumbled quickly when the FPM did not hold to its promises to the LF once the results of the elections were out. The struggle around the “Christian leadership” remains a continuous saga between the two leaders. This is what brought back Bassil to Hezbollah notwithstanding this temporary split. However, It seems that Bassil believes that he can get away with ‘flirting’ with Israel, by stating that there are no ideological differences with the Israelis, facilitating the release of Amer al-Fakhoury, the ‘butcher of Kiyam’ (when the chief of the Army, nominated by the President, pressured the general head of the military court for a temporarily release allowing al-Fakhoury to reach the US embassy where he was smuggled out of the country), promoting “direct negotiations” with Israel (as the FPM parliament member Ziad Aswad said); and forming a delegation to the maritime negotiation dispute with political members to please the US administration.
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.
The war fought during the 1970s in the nation state formerly known as Rhodesia was an asymmetric conflict which pitted the Rhodesian Security Forces against the militias of Black African liberation movements, most prominent of which were ZANLA and ZAPU. Alternately known as the Rhodesian Bush War and the Zimbabwe War of Liberation, it was characterised by an unceasing brutality which claimed the lives of many non-combatants. Both government and guerrilla forces participated in the brutalisation of civilians. However, with the passage of time, many Old Rhodesians, who feel vindicated by Zimbabwe’s political and economic malaise, have sought to characterise the war as having been prosecuted by the White minority government in an ethical, rules-abiding manner. Among its forces, the Selous Scouts is often touted as a model of martial efficiency and resourcefulness, whose codes of behaviour were beyond reproach. This could not be further from the truth. While the Scouts were effective in destroying enemy guerrillas, they were at the heart of a counter-insurgency strategy which waged chemical warfare not only against guerrillas, but the wider African population. The unit was also responsible for initiating False Flag attacks which it sought to blame on Black Nationalist groups; a mode of operation which while central to its founding aim of providing the Rhodesian state a dimension of psychological warfare, its supporters erroneously claim was alien to the unit.
The Selous Scouts were a multi-racial unit formed in 1973 to wage unconventional warfare. The methods employed included infiltration, assassination, abduction, torture, sabotage, and blackmail. The unit committed “False Flag” atrocities as part and parcel of their modus operandi. The Rhodesian “Bush War”, as is the case with a multitude of wars, had a psychological dimension in regard to which the Selous Scouts, with their expertise in “pseudo operations”, consistently undertook missions which relied on deception, and such deception was utilised to either kill a large number of the insurgent enemy (Black Nationalist) or to kill specific civilian targets in order to blame the Black African insurgents.
One example of a Selous Scout False Flag operation was conducted in February 1980. Named “Operation HECTIC”, it involved two Black African Selous Scouts named Lieutenant Edward Piringodo and Corporal Morgan Moyo bombing churches in the Salisbury area. Piringodo and Moyo used explosives captured from ZANLA guerrillas to blow up two churches; taking care to leave behind ZANU literature near the ruins caused by each blast. However, both Scouts died after a third bomb they were carrying prematurely exploded inside the car they were driving. They were near an Anglican church at the time of the final explosion which took their lives.
“Operation HECTIC” was designed to discredit Robert Mugabe’s ZANU at the forthcoming elections by making his organisation appear to be anti-Christian and anti-freedom of religion. The irony is that although influenced by Marxist-Leninist thinking, Mugabe did not totally cast off his Jesuit upbringing. For instance, he named one of his younger children, a son Bellarmine, after a not-very-well-known Catholic Saint.
Th 1980 operation suggests that the frequent allegations made by Black Nationalists that the Selous Scouts carried out atrocities against African villages and Catholic missions are extremely credible. They would have used Black African members of the force in the way Piringodo and Moyo were used to disguise themselves as guerrillas to carry out such atrocities. Mugabe, who revelled at Piringodo and Moyo being “caught and destroyed in their own devilish trap”, specifically blamed the Selous Scouts for having carried out the attack against the Catholic missionaries in February 1977, as well as for the gunning down of 27 Black African tea workers on a White-owned estate in the Honde Valley in late 1976.
Why would the Selous Scouts have committed these deeds? The answer is that alongside the war of bullets and bombs was the propaganda war. The Rhodesian state sought to discredit the Black African guerrillas among the Black populace, as well as in the international court of public opinion. History is replete with examples of states using militarised sections to carry out acts of terror. The Red Hand, the terror organisation which assassinated members of the Algerian FLN, and its West German arms suppliers was a creation of the French Secret Service. And the Military Reaction Force (MRF), a construct of British Army Intelligence, was formed by Brigadier Frank Kitson to not only gun down Irish Republican guerrillas, but to stage operations that would discredit them.
This does not mean that the disputed atrocities may not have been committed by Black African guerrillas who murdered those who they considered to be traitors to their cause, but it ought to encourage those disbelieving Old Rhodesians to remove their rose-tinted lenses and confront the brutalities perpetrated by their side.
Lt. Colonel Reid-Daly, the Commander of the Selous Scouts, was a veteran of the Malaya conflict during which time he would have seen and imbibed the more nefarious aspects of counterinsurgency employed by the British Army. While Frank Kitson’s name is often projected as the key authority in the practice of British Army counter-insurgency, the foremost exponent of what came to be known as anti-Maoist rural counter-insurgency warfare, was applied in Malaya by General Robert Thompson.
The Selous Scouts were created precisely to conduct ruthless and “ungentlemanly war”. In fact, the unit came to be known for “murder, rape, smuggling and poaching”, and its members gained a reputation as “psychopathic killers” and “vainglorious extroverts”.
The Rhodesian military began to develop counter-insurgency chemical warfare in the early 1970s, and the Scouts metamorphosed from being a tracking unit to being the central purveyors of the Rhodesian state’s chemical warfare strategy. Glenn Cross’s 1999 book, Plague Wars gives a good account of this aspect of the war. An academic article written in 2002 by Ian Martinez for Third World Quarterly which was titled “The History of the Use of Bacteriological and Chemical Agents during Zimbabwe’s Liberation War of 1965-80 by Rhodesian Forces” is also very enlightening about the role of chemical warfare in the counter-insurgency.
The Selous Scouts were instructed to poison watering holes, stagnant water, slow moving streams, and other bodies of water near guerrilla camps inside Mozambique, near the border. In one operation, the Selous Scouts poisoned a well in Mozambique which led to the deaths of at least 200 civilians because the well was the only source of drinking water in the area. The Scouts were also instructed to spread cholera. Under cover of “Operation Long Walk” in August 1973, members of the unit poured cholera agents into the Ruya River. This also caused deaths among innocent civilians in Mozambique but was discontinued because the agent dissipated quickly in water, and it could spread back to Rhodesia including areas where the Scouts were operating.
The unit was responsible for injecting thallium into canned meat which was given to insurgents under the deception that they were being supplied from a friendly source. In one situation, the guerrillas gave their poisoned canned meat to villagers on Tribal Trust Land who were short of food, and the villagers subsequently died.
The authorities acquired double agents within the structures of the Black African guerrillas who soaked clothing and food in toxic organophosphates. This resulted in many newly recruited revolutionaries dying on the journey to guerrilla training camps in Zambia and Mozambique. This meant that those who had not yet engaged in attacking the Rhodesian state (they could after all have given up or have been told they were not guerrilla material by instructors) were pre-emptively murdered in a cruel manner. Also, because the double-agent perpetrators could be easily fingered, they were themselves killed.
Those captured Black African guerrillas who the Selous Scouts could not “turn” were either subjected to an extrajudicial execution or were used as human guinea pigs in biological experimentation, which of course inevitably led to their deaths.
While certain Old Rhodesians may claim an ‘end justifies the means’ rationale, the results contradict their frequent argument that the war was fought to defend Black Africans as much as Whites, for the Rhodesian authorities did not seem to mind that their chemical warfare programme was by the end of the 1970s causing health problems among the Black civilian population.
In 1979, Rhodesia recorded the largest recorded outbreak of anthrax, a development which has been interpreted as the deliberate use of a weaponised biological agent. Ken Flower, Chief of Rhodesia’s Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and a CIO officer named Henrik Ellert confirmed in their memoirs that the Ian Smith-led regime used biological and chemical weapons against the guerrillas, against rural Black Africans to prevent their support of the guerrillas, and against livestock like cattle in order to reduce rural food stocks.
The application of chemical warfare[1], at the heart of which was the Selous Scouts amounted to war crimes because it arguably contravened The Hague Convention of 1907. Furthermore, the deliberate and systematic killing of livestock in Black African populated areas infringed Common Article III of the Geneva Convention, 1949. Additionally, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 embodied the renunciation by the world community of nations of the use of biological weapons against human beings.
There are of course difficulties associated with specific application to Rhodesia which was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and, after its Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965, was an illegal regime. Nonetheless, the use of such weapons in both internal and international conflicts is now recognised to be a violation of customary international law. The problem of affixing the successor state to Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, with the responsibility of these crimes can be overcome by affixing responsibility of these actions onto individuals who acted on behalf of the Rhodesian state. This would mean that members of the Rhodesian Security Forces including those who served with the Selous Scouts could be prosecuted by a Nuremberg-style court for a range of offences including the murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the use of biological weapons of war against both civilian and military targets as well as compelling prisoners of war to serve with a hostile army.
It should be noted that as part of the war of deception, the deaths of humans and cattle from these poisoning incidents were used as Rhodesian government propaganda to blame the guerrillas. Thus, part of the strategy of the state was geared towards sowing discord between the insurgents and rural populations. On the one hand, villagers were conditioned to believe that food shortages were been caused by guerrilla activity, while the insurgents were encouraged to believe that their food was being poisoned by villagers. In several instances, they launched attacks on those villages they held responsible.
Admissions by Selous Scouts veterans in regard to these actions and objectives have been rare, but a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cable from Harare to Washington D.C. in 1990 revealed that a member of the Selous Scouts admitted in 1978 that they had “tried both chemical and biological warfare techniques to kill terrorists”. And the recollections of the likes of Ken Flower and Henrik Ellert regarding Selous Scouts atrocities are highly relevant because the Scouts were directly under the control of the CIO and not the Rhodesian Army. What is more, the Rhodesian government had a tight control over the media which facilitated the psy-ops motives of the Selous Scouts. The White population were thus subject to brainwashing by government propaganda which included a great deal of disinformation.
This partly explains the reluctance of many Old Rhodesians to accept this less than salubrious aspect of the fight to maintain the status quo.
*
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.
Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He writes on his blog where this article was originally published.
Note
[1] A key aspect of the chemical warfare programme concerns its funding. Researchers have pinpointed Britain as the point of origin, from where the money was funnelled through Saudi Arabia and South Africa before reaching Rhodesia. The “British-betrayed-us” mantra by Old Rhodesians forgets that the “Kith and Kin” attitude remained strong until the end when the British and the government of Ian Smith realised that the financial and manpower burdens imposed by the war on the Rhodesian state, made it impossible to continue. The emigration of Whites who wanted to avoid compulsory service, sanctions, as well as the moral contradictions inherent in maintaining a racial state, made its continuation impossible.
Featured image: Emblem of the Selous Scouts Special Forces unit of the Rhodesian Security Forces. Although nominally part of the Rhodesian Army, the Scouts were directly under the control of the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and not the Rhodesian Army. (Photo is from the author)
Twitter, the Censor and Explainer Controller for the Deep State, removed a tweet from White House Covidadviser Dr. Scott Atlas who reported accurately that the masks people are wearing do not prevent the transmission of Covid-19.
As I have reported to you from the beginning, the only mask available to the public that provides protection against Covid is a N95 mask.Even this mask does not provide 100% protection.The masks people are wearing provide zero protection.
This is simply a fact. Dr. Atlas knows it as does every one familiar with masks, including Fauci at NIH and Redfield at CDC.Indeed, both Fauci and Redfield along with the World Health Organization originally advised people not to wear masks.If the masks people are wearing were effective—and they are not, just look at the containers they come in which do not say that they protect against viruses—there would be no point for masks that are effective such as N95.
A N95 mask fits tightly and, is engineered to prevent the transmission of virus and bacteria along with other pathogens.A N95 masks restricts breathing more than the pretend masks that people are wearing. It is difficult to wear one for very long.These masks, now that they are available, are worn by medical personnel treating Covid patients.Those who wear them have to take breaks to avoid oxygen depletion.
Allan Smith, possibly simply an uninformed NBC News reporter, but more likely a person who needs to hold on to his job by accusing Trump and his advisor of false and misleading content that violates Twitter policy, used an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services to contradict President Trump and his advisor. See this.
CNN, of course, joined in.Uninformed CNN reporters Jeremy Diamond and Paul LeBlanc also gave approval to Twitter’s censorship of a White House advisor and said, falsely, that both Atlas and Trump’s claims about masks were “misleading information” that Twitter needed to remove. See this.
Think about this for a minute.It is an established fact that any mask less than a N95 offers ZERO protection from the transmission of Covid-19, yet Big Pharma shills Fauci and Redfield and NBC and CNN presstitutes contract the known fact and claim that ineffectual masks are effectual.
What is going on here? Obviously, Fauci, Redfield, and the presstitutes are playing the fear factor, but why?Why deceive people into believing that masks that do not protect do protect?
The only answer to this question that I can think of is that fear is needed for mass vaccination, and the fear has to be kept alive until Big Pharma has a vaccine approved.
In other words, the answer is money for the pharmaceutical companies.Every company has to be in on the money.According to reports there are four pharmaceutical companies, each with its own vaccine.So fear is kept alive until all four vaccines are available.
Another reason for the false presstitute information about masks is to try to discredit Trump, thereby hurting his reelection chances, by presenting him as a person who gives advice dangerous to people’s heath and lives. The Democrats want the economy locked down so that the economic hardship is blamed on Trump and prevents his reelection.
We are told by presstitutes that Covid cases are exploding, but we are not told that this is the result of a test, declared faulty by its inventor, that produces false positives.The rise in cases merely reflects the deficiencies of the test.
We are not told this, because the propaganda about the rise in cases adds to the fear and willingness to accept questionable vaccines.
The “Covid pandemic” is about money, not a public health threat, unless, of course, they have a more potent Covid virus to release this winter.
*
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.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blogsite, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Let no one say — without a vigorous challenge — that the so-called ‘new normal’ is not profoundly ab-normal, absurd, hideous, and intolerable. That conscious and concerned men and women of the world’s self-perceived beacon of freedom, liberty, and civil rights backed by the Rule of Law (we might suppose), are not being roundly castigated and marginalized for exercising the foremost important freedom. Speech and thought, by close association, are now under a sustained and coordinated attack from saboteurs in Reagan’s Shining City upon a Hill. The nation’s schools and universities have been infiltrated by advocates of an ideology so pervasive, powerful and alluring that all who come under its spell are at risk of being rendered docile automatons emptied of any faculty of reason.
Consider New York University, a citadel of liberalism and progressive thought in the heart of a metropolis known globally for its liberal policies. All pretense of progressive thought, speech, and policymaking are now crumbling, and the guiding (neo)liberal agenda is being shown for what it is. This is nothing new. Fascism is friendly only to those who acquiesce to its demands. The academy has been captured and soon too will the Republic as the trend continues. In a world where all organic and inorganic things are forced into the neoliberal meat grinder for packing, distribution, and sale, any speech act perceived to threaten this new order will be marked for marginalization. Where they fail to offer clear market value for this new political economy, speech and thought that depart from received neoliberal wisdom will be cancelled.
A world-renowned scholar and public intellectual of the first rank, Mark Crispin Miller is the latest notable figure caught in the crosshairs of the cult of cancel culture at NYU. As Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, Miller is under attack for doing what academics are supposed to do — present alternative views and evidence that sets young and inquiring minds on the path of critical studies. A peculiar post-9/11 passion for money, power, and control has, however, seemingly rendered respect for science and empirical evidence passé and contemptible. In a course titled Mass Persuasion and Propaganda, Miller surveys the history of propaganda from modern to contemporary society and expounds the danger of leaving this power in the hands of the few to frame and manage the objective world, manipulate the masses, inculcate ‘correct’ beliefs and behaviors, and mobilize populations to blind action. As a result of Miller’s efforts to broaden awareness of these issues, calls, lodged by a single disgruntled student, have risen that he be relieved of his position.
Open enquiry is now strictly taboo among adherents of the prevailing cancel culture. The times they are changin’, and the lot of us are being conditioned, too, by mainstream media, culture, and communication, to adopt the scripts of the new order outlining how to behave properly, and to accept its claims that we are living in the “new normal.” This new normal is a time and place that grants no open forum to independent thought, to critical inquiry, to physical science and social science unswayed by the corrupting influences of big money keen to surveil and commodify our social, political, economic, biological, and religious existence.
Professor Miller, along with countless other academics, researchers, and journalists around the world, are under threat for encouraging their students and fellow citizens to engage with the alternative perspectives on this current crisis. Since the full picture of such a pressing issue as Covid-19 is unlikely to appear in corporate mainstream sources, citizens keenly aware of manifold media deceptions — past and present — are forced to turn to independent expert source material. This is the crime Miller is accused of — encouraging budding scholars to take hold of and contemplate the wider story surrounding this latest global deception. It is clear that Miller and a growing number of conscientious citizens across the world recognize the threat that restricted fields of discourse can pose to human and civil rights, agency, and the sovereignty of human beings and nations.
Indeed, like other academics concerned about the absence of objective truth in reporting, Miller’s approach reflects attempts in a conference of “top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists,” who gathered from October 1-4 “to discuss the global emergency created by the unprecedented use of state compulsion.” Their Great Barrington Declaration is a product of “infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists” who “have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”
Sadly, although the conference was a noble effort by professionals to address the damaging effects of corporate-state coercion on the masses, the Great Barrington Declaration also appears to tacitly accept as inevitable the global march toward a great techno-feudal dystopia. By failing to confront the other outstanding social issues, the Declaration implicitly normalizes corporate-state sponsored predation, the profit-motive guiding policy for the ever-increasing number of childhood vaccinations, the widespread reliance upon the inappropriate and faulty PCR test, the practice of constraining the freedoms of perfectly healthy people, and of banishing the elderly to solitary nursing home confinement.
The Declaration fails to acknowledge the huge influence that tax-exempt foundations, masquerading as charities, wield over global health policies emanating from such institutions as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It fails to address the potential inherent within Big Tech and Big Data contact tracing applications to usurp the constitutional rights of citizens. It fails to confront the Orwellian biometric health passports proposed to herd populations, manage movement, and to control the major gates of access to education, work, food, and housing. The Declaration fails to address the damage that mandated masks do to the physical and mental health of perfectly healthy people and the social and communal bonds they maintain.
As a graduate student in the early 1990s contending with duties in the regular Army and the post-traumatic stress of a recent deployment in a preemptive invasion of Panama, I was invited to engage with Professor Miller’s collection, Boxed In: The Culture of TV (Northwestern University Press, 1988). Among its many illuminating essays are key lessons for students and citizens concerning the unwarranted influence of mass media to inculcate values and behaviors that free and fully-informed people would very likely find revolting. Like my comrades, I learned the hard way, from experience, that the mediated world we encounter in TV, radio, and the press is merely a representation of the power of the invisible hand of the market.
While stationed in Panama, in the years leading up to the invasion, I noticed the television and print media retooling of General Manuel Noriega’s public persona. As President George H.W. Bush’s PR campaign against Noriega unfolded, more overt signs of a looming international crisis began emerging as well. Picking through magazines at the PX on Corozal, I noticed how the February, 1988 cover of Newsweek would confirm the reasons for recasting Noriega in a negative light. The rendering had become explicit. Corporate journalism framed an image of the general’s face on the cover with the headline: “Drugs, Money and Death: The Sordid Story of Panama’s Outlaw Dictator.” A scowl and look of suspicion expressed in his pockmarked face, shaded slightly by the brim of his cap, reinforced the connotations of each word in the headline. Time followed Newsweek in March with an equally emotive cover. A cropped portrait of the general’s scarred face, his dark eyes gazing into space, serious and aloof and across his forehead: “The Drug Thugs: Panama’s Noriega proves they’re a law unto themselves.” Since public awareness of Noreiga’s working relationship with Bush had already been well established for years prior, the advertising and telegraphing of impending state belligerence became all the more obvious.
In Boxed In, Miller observes that, “Like propaganda generally, advertising must…pervade the atmosphere; for it wants, paradoxically, to startle its beholders without really being noticed by them. Its aim is to jolt us, not ‘into thinking’, as a Brechtian formulation, but specifically away from thought, into a quasi-automatic action” (1988, p. 11). Nowhere was this mass media attempt to jolt the public into quasi-automatic action more evident than in Bush’s curtain call for Just Cause. Not too many months after the invasion of Panama, I began preparing my bags for a possible deployment to Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
After Saddam Hussein’s annexation of Kuwait in early August 1990, the mainstream demonization of the Iraqi leader moved into high gear.
My own memories of the mayhem and corpses in Panama City began reemerging in early August during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, mediated now by CNN piped into my workplace. Newsweek arrived too with its cover story shortly thereafter — its front page adorned with a mugshot of a menacing Hussein and a headline questioning whether he could be stopped. Image and text demanded audience members prepare for “The War of the Future,” as my colleagues and I tried to prepare our minds to grasp the reasons behind the sudden rush to conflict. American mainstream media stoked passions throughout the summer, yet failed to move public opinion to favor invasion. In response to this failure, October saw Nayirah, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti school girl, offer her testimonial evidence of the savage Iraqi forces leaving babies in Kuwaiti hospitals to die on a cold floor. Incubators, we were told, were evidently so central to the success of invading Iraqi hordes that Kuwaiti newborns had to be dispossessed of them.
The effect of Nayirah’s testimony on American public opinion was “quasi-automatic” as outrage against Hussein’s savagery erupted across the nation. Advertising, as Miller cites a Coca-Cola executive, “is message assimilation — the respondent must be shown to behave in some way that proves they have come to accept the message, not merely received it” (1988, p. 11). Some years later, after American bombs, missiles, and cannon fire produced the necessary destruction — the corpses of several thousand Iraqis and the compliance of Saddam Hussein — we learned that Hill & Knowlton, an American PR firm, had been employed to develop a marketing strategy for the invasion. The script given to Nayirah (in actuality, the daughter of the Kuwait Ambassador to the US), the expert stage direction, and her live performance on TV could not have been more deserving of an Academy Award.
Miller notes that good advertising is, in effect, a Pavlovian project that requires audiences not to be confronted head-on and in an alien context since a direct and vivid approach might awaken us from the receptive trance that ads put us in and cause us to meditate on their deeper meanings (1988, p. 11). The ad must totally envelope the audience and, like a Broadway play, make it one with the story. Awareness of this devious PR campaign that saw no difference between higher corporate profits and higher body counts in war made recurring nightmares of Panama all the more vivid. An effective ad campaign to capture the public mind must come down on everybody like the scents of spring, ‘as though through the air they breath, and as naturally’; for, once isolated and deliberately interpreted, an ad will betray not only the devices that may enable it to work, but certain larger truths about the system that requires it, and that (therefore) require you not think about it. (Miller, 1988, p. 11)
The same strategies used against the US population in this Pavlovian project to foment wars against people and nations, are bound to reveal themselves in this present war against pathogens. In his course on propaganda and mass persuasion, Professor Miller’s intellectual exercise threatens to awaken students to the manner in which the mainstream Covid-19 narratives are effectively “isolated and deliberately interpreted,” and allow analysis of the wider story that might reveal “larger truths about the system” that the leading myth-makers urge us “not to think about.”
In many ways, Miller’s analysis throughout Boxed In reveals an ironic situation for his critics who have boxed themselves into a safe space showing no way out of this self-imposed mental dungeon. Sign the petition in support of Professor Miller, and help free from their self-imposed darkness the ideologues who are acting to set limits on thought and speech.
*
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.
Security Council Res. 2231 (adopted July 14, 2015 — effective January 16, 2016) affirmed the landmark JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran unanimously.
It also retained an arms embargo on Iran for five years, a provision its ruling authorities accepted and adhered to voluntarily.
On Sunday October 18, the arms embargo expired, Iran now legally free to buy and sell conventional weapons.
Trump regime attempts to extend the embargo failed.
In August, Security Council members overwhelmingly defeated its aim to maintain it in place indefinitely.
Only the Dominican Republic supported the scheme. Other SC members rejected the idea — by voting against it or abstaining.
Even Britain, France and Germany — E3 JCPOA signatories — refused to go along with denying Iran its legal right to buy and sell conventional weapons.
Unlike the US, NATO and Israel, the Islamic Republic wants them solely for defense, not offense.
Iran prioritizes world peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other countries — polar opposite how the West and Jewish state operate.
Last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said once the UN arms embargo is lifted in October,
“we will be able to satisfy our needs with the help of countries with which we have strategic relations, for example, Russia and China,” adding:
“We can provide for ourselves. We can even export weapons.”
“(W)hen necessary, we can buy from these countries. I doubt that secondary US sanctions will be an obstacle for them.”
As of Sunday, Russia intends to cooperate with Iran militarily.
Weeks earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the following:
“New opportunities will emerge in our cooperation with Iran after the special regime imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 expires on October 18,” adding:
Russian relations with Iran will have “nothing to do with the unlawful and illegal actions of the US (regime), which is trying to intimidate the entire world.”
“(W)e are not afraid of US sanctions. We are used to them. It will not affect our policy in any way,” adding:
“Our cooperation with Iran is multifaceted. Defense cooperation will progress depending on the two countries’ needs and mutual willingness.”
Separately, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said
“(t)here is no such thing as an arms embargo against Iran.”
“The Security Council, when it was adopting (Res 2231) settled the nuclear issue for Iran, and this was adopted by consensus under the Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter,” adding:
“The Security Council in that resolution said that the supply of arms to Iran and from Iran would be subject to consideration by the Security Council and that on the 18th of October, 2020 this regime of sales to Iran would stop.”
“There is no embargo, and there would be no limitations whatsoever after the expiration of this timeframe established by the Security Council.”
Russia and China are likeminded on relations with Iran, including issues related to normalized trade and arms sales.
The South China Morning Post earlier said the Sino/Iran “relationship (is) built on trade, weapons and oil.”
On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the following:
The “oppressive (arms) embargo (on Iran ends) on Sunday.”
Henceforth, “we can buy and sell weapons, and this was one of the measures taken by the Government of Prudence and Hope.”
Separately, Iran’s parliamentary National Security Committee head Mojtaba Zolnouri said the following:
“Countries which are parties to the JCPOA must formally announce the lifting of arms restrictions, in accordance with the JCPOA, and let the world know that the Islamic Republic of Iran is allowed to buy and sell arms.”
US threats to try blocking Russia and China from selling arms to Iran were hollow.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained the following:
In 2015, the “Security Council did not impose a weapons embargo on Iran in 2015. Tehran voluntarily undertook a number of restrictions.”
“It was done in the interests of the soonest successful outcome of the talks on the (JCPOA) to settle the situation around the Iranian nuclear program.”
JCPOA signatories “knew from the very beginning” that voluntary restrictions Iran accepted “had nothing to do with” consummating the nuclear deal.
Trump regime “maximum pressure” on Iran — economic, financial, and medical terrorism by another name — failed to achieve its aims.
The same goes for US sanctions war on China, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and other countries.
Used as weapons of war by other means — a UN Charter breach — they only achieve hardships on ordinary people in targeted countries, while hardening their leadership to resist US war by other means.
On Thursday, Iran’s UN envoy Mohammad Zareian slammed Trump regime “unilateral, illegal” economic terrorism, its “mass violation of human rights” that harms millions of people worldwide.
Farcical US elections when held change nothing.
Nonviolent resistance alone is the antidote to its war on humanity at home and abroad. There’s no other way.
A Final Comment
On Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry released the following statement in response to the arms embargo’s expiration, saying:
“As of (Sunday, October 18), all restrictions on the transfer of arms, related activities and financial services to and from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all prohibitions regarding the entry into or transit through territories of the United Nations Member States previously imposed on a number of Iranian citizens and military officials are all automatically terminated.”
“In one of the JCPOA’s innovations, the definitive and unconditional termination of arms restrictions and travel bans requires no new resolution, nor does it require any statement or any other measure by the Security Council.”
“Therefore, as of today, the Islamic Republic of Iran may procure any necessary arms and equipment from any source without any legal restrictions and solely based on its defensive needs, and may also export defensive armaments based on its own policies.”
“It should be underlined here that rejecting imposition in any form is the cornerstone of Iran’s foreign policy.”
“Therefore, the imposition of any restriction on any field—including finance, the economy, energy, and armaments—has never been recognized by Iran. At the same time, Iran’s defense doctrine is premised on strong reliance on its people and indigenous capabilities.”
“This doctrine has been and will continue to be the principal driver behind all measures of the Islamic Republic of Iran in maintaining its strong defensive power. Unconventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and a buying spree of conventional arms have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine.”
“The country’s deterrence stems from native knowledge and capability, as well as our people’s power and resilience. In contemporary history Iran—despite its power disparity—has never started a war. Regrettably lucrative weapon deals—concluded mainly between Western powers and some regional countries—have contributed greatly to, and aggravated commission of, war crimes in the region, including the ongoing aggression against the Yemeni people.”
“Notwithstanding the failed attempts by the US to withhold and eliminate Iran’s benefits from Resolution 2231, Member States are required to make their laws and regulations compatible with the resolution, which “invites Member States to give due regard to these changes.”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran draws the attention of all Member States to the unambiguous provisions of the Resolution 2231 and its relevant timetables.”
“The United States, whose unlawful and malign subterfuge in its attempts to further violate a UNSC Resolution have been categorically rejected several times in the past three months by the Security Council, must abandon its destructive approach vis-à-vis Resolution 2231; return to full compliance with its commitments under the United Nations Charter; stop violating international law and ignoring international order, and cease further destabilization in the West Asia region.”
“It is evident that any measure against the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2231—particularly paragraph 1 and its defined timetables—will amount to a material breach of the resolution and the purposes of the JCPOA. In that event, the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right to take any necessary countermeasures to secure its national interests.”
Note: In stark contrast to the US, NATO, and Israel, Iran fosters peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other nations.
Because of its independence, free from US control, its threatened by dark forces from abroad and forced to defend itself against possible aggression if launched.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
October 19th, 2020 by Dr. Galina Litvinov De Roeck
Diana Johnstone’s memoir Circle in the Darkness is immensely absorbing. It recounts events one is familiar enough from reading the papers or watching the news, but then it takes you from what you think you know to what you need to know. Is it “radical” to expect that if “regular” people are told the truth, the natural process of democracy will set things right?
This conviction reflects the values of her childhood, when her parents worked for FDR’s New Deal in Washington. Her father actually worked for Henry Wallace – who remembers him? Or maybe it’s her Minnesotan roots, where her family stems from: the state had voted for the Socialist Eugene Debb way back when…
Maybe this is why she was outraged by the Vietnam War during her graduate studies at the University of Minnesota. Her organizing finds much local support. She actually puts together a delegation to participate in the peace talks in Paris, called the People’s Commission of Inquiry into the Solution to the War in Vietnam.
But then again, Minnesotan “family values” prove disappointing because she is “a single mother” at the time. And earlier, when she had tried to enter the world of journalism in Washington, she had been summarily dismissed. Similarly, when she proposed getting her Ph.D. in history in Minnesota, she was told that her prospects would be dim, and French Literature was more suitable to her gender.
She writes her dissertation on the novels of Andre Malraux – but then, rather unexpectedly, she decides to leave. Her destination is Paris. Her father had studied in Paris and Shanghai, so the dream of faraway places had always been present. Besides, the real dream had not been teaching, (that’s what you do because the schedule accommodates raising a child) – but writing. At the time of her failed attempt to enter the journalist profession, she had encountered and married a journalist. This took her to Rome and Bonn, where she experienced the glamorous life of embassy parties. But the marriage didn’t hold, and what she took from the experience was that “mainstream” journalism is about staying within the bounds of official sources.
So now, after a stint “back home on the range” she is off to Paris under her own steam, limited resources to support herself and her daughter, but undaunted and ready to do what it takes.
In Paris she becomes part of the lively American expat scene, participates in anti- war events, and writes a book on the history of Vietnam. But genuine knowledge, she discovers, counts for naught without the contacts needed to publish the results – preferably less challenging results. The manuscript she puts away in a trunk is discovered years later, eaten by worms.
She had been observing the French version of the 60s, particularly the “Revolution” of 1968. But even though the whole country comes to a standstill as the result of a general strike there is a basic dichotomy of purpose. While the students enact primarily a cultural revolution on the Paris barricades, the labor movement, headed by the French Communist Party, is intent on improving workers’ conditions.
The realities of “making a living” catch up with her as well, and she is hired to the English desk of Agence France Presse. Once again, she observes the inevitable triage of information that occurs before disclosure to the public. This prompts her to write her own Newsletter, titled “The Owl” because she has chosen to work on the night shift to facilitate the exigencies of child care. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky are early subscribers to her Newsletter.
As the 70s develop, the focus shifts from the Vietnam War to human rights, and this seems to mean primarily human rights in the Soviet Union. Diana Johnstone is tasked to translate Andrei Sakharov’s statement for the Russian Helsinki Group in 1976. He is the scientist who had been responsible for the success of the Hydrogen bomb, and then had become a dissident, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. However, none of this could have happened without Soviet cooperation: “Leonid Brezhnev was making every effort to promote “détente.” However, the Western media chose to highlighted the “plight” of the “Refuseniks” instead, i.e., the Soviet Jews presumably forbidden to emigrate. It turns out that the Soviets were concerned about the “brain drain” such emigration would create, and merely imposed a “tax” to recoup the advanced education invested in those now interested in leaving.
But such an evaluation clearly identifies Diana Johnstone as NOT a member of the Anglo-American Press Club. The French authorities are suspicious: is she “an American dissident?” Luckily, James Weinstein, the founder of In These Times, is interested in supporting the ideals of the American Left. In the hope of finding inspiration in Eurocommunism, he invites Diana Johnstone to become their fulltime European correspondent.
One of her assignments takes her to Italy. The powerful communist movement which had fought against Mussolini’s fascists is not exactly favored by Italy’s American liberators. As she explains, the CIA allied itself with the remnants of the fascist elements, and supported the Christian Democrats. In response, a “revolutionary romanticism,” in the guise of the Red Brigades, declares war on the “imperialist state of the multinationals.” One of their “actions” is the kidnapping of Aldo Moro, Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party. The stalemate during the negotiations of his release between the Italian Government, which seems half-hearted, and his uncompromising captors results in his “execution,” presumably by the Red Brigades.
These extreme events in Italy, also echoed in a different style by the German Baader-Meinhof Band, are the last gasp of the ambitious revolutionary hopes of the 60s. In Paris it is the intellectuals, as always, who set the pace. But now Paris becomes the seat of “new philosophers.” Taking left sides in the Cold War or militating for third world liberation by the “old philosophers” like Jean-Paul Sartre is history.
As the 80s are ushered in, “social democracy was pretty much taken for granted on the continent… the only obstacle to universal democratic socialism was the negative image of Stalinism.” Gorbachev’s pledging the needed reforms (perestroika) to set that record straight is promising. But “mysterious” assassinations of the Palestinian negotiator Dr. Issa Sartawi and Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme undermine hopeful peace prospect. Diana Johnstone concludes that their assassinations are not acts of terrorism, but liquidations: by the Israeli Mossad in the case of Dr. Sartawi, and the Swedish security police in the case of Olof Palme.
But what about Willy Brandt in Germany and Francois Mitterrand in France, both confirmed socialists? Theirs proves an uphill battle in a world dominated by Maggie Thatcher’s and Ronald Reagan’s economic monetarist policies. Willy Brandt “Ostpolitik” is undermined and in France “Capital began to flee and nationalizations were stalled by litigation… a new policy of budgetary rigor was adopted.” Later under Macron, the spontaneous resistance by the “Yellow Wests” against more austerity measures is brutally repressed by the police.
The West’s “free market” policies also have a military component. NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) had been formed in 1949 “to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” When President Reagan went ahead with the plan to deploy nuclear-armed cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe in 1983, the Germans rally in opposition: the threatening East-West confrontation is likely to be fought out on their soil. General Bastian and young Petra Kelly, co-chair of the Green Party, are the “odd couple” representing the full range of the German popular movement.
The peace movement could claim victory when President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev shake hands in Reykjavik in 1987. But Gorbachev’s trading of East Germany against the promise that NATO would not “move an inch” past the new border subsequently demonstrates that he was hoodwinked. And the exhilaration of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 turned into West Germany pretty much “annexing” East Germany into its own neoliberal system.
Still, these events reorient the goals of the Left in Europe. This also questions Diana Johnstone’s usefulness to In These Times. Her next job is as the press secretary for the new Green Group in the European Parliament. Her six-year stint observing European politics from this front-row seat is enlightening. Since peace work is her primary interest, the fact that the usually contentious Greens unite to oppose “Desert Storm” in Iraq is gratifying, but beside the point. This is also the case in their opposition to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which “gave vital decision-making power on the choice of investments to private financial institutions.”
Basically, the European Parliament has more or less symbolical advisory but no legislative power. Just the same, the media love the antics of Dany Cohn-Bendit “the red” (because of his red hair, not his politics). He used to be the inspiration of the 1968 Paris rebellion, and now is elected to “represent” the Greens. This, for Diana Johnstone, is the last straw. “That evening, by a single vote, the Green Group lost its soul.” She quits.
In 1996 and 1997 Diana Johnstone sets out in her little Opel to what is now Former Yugoslavia. The contested secession of Slovenia and Croatia had already taken place in 1991, and the fighting had shifted to Bosnia. The highly publicized massacres of Srebrenica had taken place in 1995, followed by the American-sponsored Dayton Peace Agreement. But this did not really resolve the issues of the large Serb enclaves in Croatia and Bosnia. And then there was the looming issue of Kosovo and the bombing of Belgrade in 1999.
Surely venturing into this literal and political minefield, taking the time to interview people on the ground, and doing diligent research qualified Diana Johnstone as a foremost “expert” on the issues of Yugoslavia? Yet when she writes two long articles on her findings, her former journal In These Times refuses to publish them, as does the reputedly “left” magazine, The Nation. Evidently, the “liberal” leaders Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had the power to set in stone the “humanitarian intervention” version of the narrative. And for that they needed the atrocities of the convenient “villain” Milosevic: but then was he not also the last Socialist holdout in the region?
Diana Johnstone’s expertise is beside the point, because the job of the “media,” as has been eloquently demonstrated by her friends Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, is “manufacturing consent.” After all, as Walter Lippman had argued earlier, are they not properly called upon to support our leaders whose onerous task it is to run the world? NATO, an organization in search of a mission since the dismantling of the Soviet Union needs salvaging. And if I may add a question of my own, what about all those newly acquired “Stans” in Central Asia, which are reeking with oil and gas? Where should the pipes conveying the golden liquid be laid? Should the American base Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo not oversee the job?
From the perspective of this “big picture,” who cares about the locals who happen to be in the way, whether in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia? As to the “common” people Diana Johnstone counts on to exercise their democratic judgment, do they even know where Kandahar or Srebrenica are? The “mainstream news” will happily take on the job of entertaining them with stories of “saving women” in Afghanistan or, alternatively, “mass rape of women” in Yugoslavia. So, when her book, Fools’ Crusade, is published in 2002, is it any surprise that she is taken to task for being a “genocide denier” regarding the “well established facts” of Srebrenica?
As she puts it, writing her kind of “truths” is “more like sending a message across the sea in a bottle.” This is also true of her Memoir. But are we prepared to read the message in the bottle which spells out the increasingly alarming “truth” of our own ignorance? For example, on the occasion of attending a session of the International Criminal Court in Tripoli in 2007, she writes positively about Muammar Ghaddafi. She states that he created “a functioning state out of a tribal society,” that he is generous in distributing the country’s oil revenues, that he is working on the task of creating an African Union – and perish the thought – its own currency? This even questions the position of her erstwhile supporter Noam Chomsky.
And when the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proclaims “the responsibility to protect” (R2P) in 2012, her reaction is unambiguous. The various interventions in the name of democracy and human rights against the likes of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya, Bashar al Assad of Syria, Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine is but an exercise of “the West against the world.”
From her beginnings in the tradition of FDR and her father’s example of ethical commitment Diana Johnstone has been a “world watcher” from the independent perches she had managed to find for herself. Rather than the beneficiary of “revelations” emanating from the likes of “Deep Throat” made famous during the Watergate scandal, she has stuck to “open sources and thoughtful analysis of known facts.” And as she witnesses the relentless advance of what she calls “the age of destruction,” the heading of her next to last chapter “It Can’t Go on Like This” is an urgent appeal for sanity.
But then her life-long commitment to contesting the “will to war” may “get her into bed” with some libertarian anti-war folks, and likely open to fatwas from doctrinaire Antifa purists. This happened to her Aussie namesake and fellow anti-war stalwart Caitlin Johnstone. But here’s the rub. Caitlin Johnstone also offers a very hard “truth” to take: do we get it that if peace broke out, our lives in the West, based as they are on the proceeds of imperial plunder, would be in the toilet?
Is it the case then that we can’t have our cake and eat it too? Still, Diana Johnstone, having devoted her life to “telling the truth in an age of deceit,” as John Pilger salutes her, ends on a positive note: at least she has shown the way to the next generation of truth tellers.
*
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.
Galina Litvinov De Roeck was born in Bihach, Bosnia. Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from CUNY. Taught French, German and Russian language and literature at various institutions of higher learning, now retired. Published scholarly articles in her field. Memoir forthcoming in Spring.
Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
A hospital president and the director of the health commission in the northern Chinese city of Qingdao have been fired after China’s latest coronavirus outbreak, authorities said Thursday.
A brief notice on the Qingdao city government’s official microblog Thursday said Health Commission Director Sui Zhenhua and Deng Kai, president of Qingdao’s thoracic hospital to which the cases have been linked, were placed under further investigation. No other details were given.
Authorities ordered testing of all 9 million people in the city after a total of 12 cases, including those not displaying symptoms, were discovered over the weekend, accounting for China’s first local transmissions in about two months.
Similar mass testing campaigns have taken place after previous outbreaks. Testing began with “close contacts, close contacts of those close contacts and more casual contacts,” gradually expanding to all districts of the city, Qingdao’s health department said.
Qingdao is a major commercial harbor and industrial center known for electronics and the country’s most famous brewery, as well as the home of the Chinese navy’s northern fleet.
China, where coronavirus was first detected late last year, has largely eradicated the virus domestically but remains on guard against imported cases and a second wave of domestic transmission.
Qingdao on Wednesday reported more than 8 million tests have been conducted, with no additional cases discovered among the almost 5 million results returned.
On Thursday, the National Health Commission reported 11 new cases over the past 24 hours, 10 of them imported. The other case listed as asymptomatic was discovered Sept. 24 and had been recategorized as a confirmed case.
Hospitals were treating 240 people for COVID-19, with another 392 people being kept under observation in isolation for having tested positive without showing symptoms or for being suspected cases.
China has reported 4,634 deaths among 85,622 cases of the disease.
*
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.
Featured image: People enjoy sunset on a plank road at the Donghu Lake in Wuhan, capital of central China’s Hubei Province, March 18, 2020. No new infections of the novel coronavirus were reported on Wednesday in Wuhan, the epicenter of the epidemic, marking a notable first in the city’s months-long battle with the microscopic foe. (Xinhua/Shen Bohan)
The inevitable is happening before our eyes. The long predicted – and carefully curated – collapse of talks with the EU has happened as the die-hard Brexiteers who prorogued parliament and ejected long-standing members of the Conservative Party complete their mission.
In June last year Boris Johnson had promised to leave “Do or Die”. While everyone could see their strategy they watched him lie: “It is vital that we are prepared for a no-deal outcome if we are going to get the deal that we need. I don’t think that is where we are going to end up, I think it is a million-to-one against.”
Writing to colleagues yesterday with his usual bonhomie he talks of proceeding with “high hearts and complete confidence” to “embrace the alternative”.
To be clear the “alternative” is, according to figures based on modelling with the London School of Economics, likely to hit Britain’s economy three times harder in the long term than coronavirus, and will lead to queues at the border and shortages of fresh food and medicine.
One study predicts that by the year 2030, the UK economy could lose 14% of GDP or €57bn or €873 per head. The Scottish Government’s Chief Economist predicts No Deal could see a 6% fall in GDP by 2030, worth over £1,600 per person in Scotland and that an economic slowdown would be expected to double unemployment. Unemployment is forecast to rise by around 100,000.
These predictions were made BEFORE covid hit the economy.
This is stark economic harm foisted upon us. It’s shamelessly ideological, it’s profoundly undemocratic. It’s been pushed through against the wishes of the Scottish people and against the wishes of the UK parliament. We should be furious but we should not be surprised.
As the reality that Boris Johnson was using public money to pay Jennifer Arcuri for sex is exposed (she received £126,000 in taxpayers money), the levels of corruption, and the PM’s seeming impunity is astonishing.
Predictably the “collapse” of talks is blamed on the EU.
Let’s be clear, there have been no negotiations. As Philippe Lamberts MEP says:
This is wildly irresponsible behavior by the government we didn’t elect. It’s completely unnecessary and it’s astonishing to watch it being played out with “high hearts and complete confidence” in the face of the coronavirus depression that is about to hit us all.
A No Deal Brexit means a No Deal Britain.
*
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.
Since his arrest nearly three years ago on trespassing charges after invading a nuclear submarine base with six others as part of a symbolic nuclear disarmament action, the Rev. Stephen M. Kelly has been held in a Brunswick, Georgia, county jail.
On Oct. 15, Kelly, a 71-year-old Jesuit priest, considered the leader of the group that came to be known as the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, was sentenced by a U.S. District Court judge to 33 months in jail, three years’ probation and restitution fees.
Because Kelly has already served 30 months and under federal law is owed 54 days a year of “good time credit,” he could essentially walk out of jail tomorrow.
“Father Kelly, it has been clear to me you are sincere in your beliefs,” said Judge Lisa Godbey Wood. “However, I would be remiss to discount the nature of the offense that we’re looking at today and the risk to safety that you knowingly undertook.”
Kelly described himself in a pre-sentence statement as a “prisoner of conscience for Christ,” and one who preaches against “the sin that flourishes in weapons of mass destruction.”
He is part of a group of Catholic pacifists who quietly and with little fanfare continue to undertake nonviolent action protesting nuclear weapons, which they say will lead to omnicide, or the destruction of the human race.
The group’s members say that they take their cues from Catholic teachings and the Bible, particularly the saying of the Prophet Isaiah:
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
Kelly and his collaborators believe their action was intended to prevent nuclear war. The only ordained member of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, Kelly said he was not concerned with the effectiveness of his protest, but rather with being faithful to his Christian calling.
“I answer to a higher authority in that my faith imperative, as outlined in the tenets of the Catechism, missions me to respond to the needs of the poor, oppressed, disenfranchised, in any locality and without any exclusion to those with felony record,” Kelly wrote in his statement to the judge.
He also repeatedly invoked the Nuremberg principles, enacted after World War II, which established international laws to stop crimes against humanity.
Kelly, who is a member of the Jesuits’ Western U.S. region, based in Oregon, has spent at least a decade behind bars, including six years in solitary confinement. He has refused to work during his confinement because in so doing he would support what he has called the prison industrial complex.
It remains to be seen whether Kelly will agree to probation or restitution as ordered by the court. He has indicated he will not.
In this 2018 file photo, peace activists hold a Catholic prayer service of repentance near the White House for the use of nuclear weapons on Japan during World War II. Kelly is considered the leader of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, a group that takes cues from the saying of the Prophet Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (CNS/Tyler Orsburn)
“He’s a fearless person,” said Patrick O’Neill, one of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7. “He’s not burdened by the normal self-constraints of most of us. He’s very driven in his effort to save the world from its own hand.”
On the night of April 4, 2018, the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 cut a padlock and later a security fence at Kings Bay Naval Base in Georgia, which houses six Trident submarines carrying hundreds of nuclear weapons. The intruders spilled blood on a Navy wall insignia, spray-painted an anti-war slogan on a walkway and banged on a monument to nuclear warfare.
More than an hour into their action they were apprehended and taken to jail. While four of the seven were released on bail, three refused the terms of the bail and remained in jail — none for as long as Kelly.
Last year, all seven were convicted of destruction of property on a naval installation, depredation of government property, trespass and conspiracy.
With the exception of Elizabeth McAlister, who was sentenced in June to time served, none of the other Plowshares activists has been sentenced, largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. Four of the seven have asked to postpone the sentencing because of a surge of COVID-19 sweeping through prisons across the U.S. O’Neill, another member of Plowshares 7, will be sentenced on Friday.
The Rev. Scott Santarosa, the provincial in charge of Jesuits West, said Kelly was commissioned to a peace and justice ministry.
“He’s really a wonderful guy,” Santarosa said. “I have great personal respect and affection for him.”
The two have communicated through postcards during the time Kelly was in jail.
His friend Dennis Apel, a Catholic worker who runs Beatitude House in Guadalupe, California, and who served as a character witness at the sentencing Thursday, said that upon Kelly’s release, he expected that the priest would go on an eight-day meditation retreat based on the spiritual practices of Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order.
*
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.
Featured image: Seven Catholics who call themselves the Kings Bay Plowshares are seen April 4, 2018, before they entered the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia to protest nuclear weapons. On Oct. 15, Rev. Stephen M. Kelly (center, wearing glasses) a 71-year-old Jesuit priest, was sentenced to 33 months in jail, three years’ probation and restitution fees after he and others infiltrated a nuclear submarine base as part of a nuclear disarmament action. (CNS/Kings Bay Plowshares)
If, like me, you have the unfortunate habit of pointing out the dishonesty of the cases made for various wars, and you begin to persuade people that the wars are not actually for the eradication of the weapons of mass destruction that they proliferate, or the elimination of the terrorists that they generate, or the spreading of the democracy that they stifle, most people will soon ask “Well, then, what are the wars for?”
At this point, there are two common mistakes. One is to suppose there’s a single answer. The other is to suppose that the answers must all make rational sense. A basic response that I’ve given a gazillion times is that wars are for profit and power and pipelines, for control of fossil fuels and territories and governments, for electoral calculations, career advancement, and media ratings, payback for campaign “contributions,” for the inertia of the current system, and for an insane, sadistic lust for power and xenophobic malevolence.
We know that wars do not correlate with population density or resource scarcity or any of the factors used by some in U.S. academia to try to pin the blame for wars on their victims. We know that wars hardly overlap at all with the locations of the manufacture of weapons. We know that wars do correlate strongly with the presence of fossil fuels. But they correlate with something else as well that provides a different sort of answer to the question of what the wars are for: bases. I mean, we’ve all known for decades now that the latest U.S. permawars consist largely of coating various countries with bases, and that the goals include the maintenance of some number of permanent bases and over-sized embassy-fortresses. But what if the wars are not only motivated by the goal of new bases, but also driven in significant part by the existence of current bases?
In his new book, The United States of War, David Vine cites research by the U.S. Army showing that since the 1950s, a U.S. military presence has correlated with the U.S. military starting conflicts. Vine modifies a line from Field of Dreams to refer not to a baseball field but to bases: “If you build them, wars will come.” Vine also chronicles countless examples of wars begetting bases begetting wars begetting bases that not only beget yet more wars but also serve to justify the expense of more weapons and troops to fill the bases, while simultaneously producing blowback — all of which factors build momentum toward more wars.
Vine’s previous book was Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. This one’s full title is The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, From Columbus to the Islamic State. It’s not, however, a detailed account of every U.S. war, which would require many thousands of pages. It’s also not a move away from the topic of bases. It’s a chronicle of the role bases have played and still play in the generation and conduct of wars.
There is, in the back of the book, a long list of U.S. wars, and of other conflicts that for some reason are not labeled wars. It’s a list that rolls on steadily from before the beginning of the United States to today, and that doesn’t pretend the wars against Native Americans didn’t exist or weren’t foreign wars. It’s a list that shows distant wars around the globe long-predating the completion of “manifest destiny” to the U.S. west coast, and shows small wars happening in numerous places at once and right through the occurrence of major wars elsewhere. It shows short wars and extremely long wars (such as a 36-year war against the Apache) that render obscene the constant announcements that the current war on Afghanistan is the longest U.S. war ever, and that render ridiculous the idea that the past 19 years of war is something new and different. While the Congressional Research Service once claimed the United States had been at peace for 11 years of its existence, other scholars say the correct number of peaceful years is zero thus far.
The mini-U.S. suburban paradises sprinkled across the globe as military bases are gated communities on steroids (and Apartheid). Their residents are often immune from criminal prosecution for their actions outside the gates, while the locals are only admitted within to do the yard work and cleaning. The travel and conveniences are great perks for military recruits and for budget-controlling Congress members touring base world. But the notion that the bases serve a protective purpose, that they do the opposite of what Eisenhower warned of, is just about upside down from reality. One of the main products of U.S. bases in other people’s countries is the bitter resentment that Vine reminds us pre-U.S. residents felt toward the British military occupation of North American colonies. Those British troops behaved lawlessly, and colonists registered just the sorts of complaints of looting, rape, and harassment that people who live near U.S. bases have been lodging for many decades now.
U.S. foreign bases, far from first sprouting up in 1898, were built by the budding new nation in Canada prior to the 1776 Declaration of Independence and grew rapidly from there. In the United States there are over 800 current or past military sites with the word “fort” in their names. They were military bases in foreign territory, as were countless other locations without “fort” in their current names. They preceded settler colonists. They provoked blowback. They generated wars. And those wars generated more bases, as the frontier was pushed ever outward. During the war for independence from Britain, as during most major wars that most people have heard of, the United States went right on waging numerous smaller wars, in this case against Native Americans in the Ohio Valley, western New York, and elsewhere. Where I live in Virginia, monuments and elementary schools and cities are named for people credited with expanding the U.S. empire (and Virginia’s empire) westward during the “American Revolution.”
Neither base construction nor war-making has ever let up. For the War of 1812, when the U.S. burned the Canadian Parliament, after which the British burned Washington, the U.S. built defensive bases around Washington, D.C., that did not serve their purpose remotely as well as most U.S. bases around the world do. The latter are designed for offense, not defense.
Ten days after the War of 1812 ended, the U.S. Congress declared war on the North African state of Algiers. It was then, not in 1898, that the U.S. Navy began establishing stations for its ships on five continents — which it used during the 19th century to attack Taiwan, Uruguay, Japan, Holland, Mexico, Ecuador, China, Panama, and Korea.
The U.S. Civil War, fought because the North and South could agree only on endless expansion but not on the slave or free status of new territories, was not only a war between North and South, but also a war fought by the North against the Shoshone, Bannock, Ute, Apache, and Navajo in Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico — a war that killed, conquered territory, and forced thousands into a military-run concentration camp, Bosque Redondo, of the sort that would later inspire the Nazis.
New bases meant new wars beyond the bases. The Presidio in San Francisco was taken from Mexico and used to attack the Philippines, where bases would be used to attack Korea and Vietnam. Tampa Bay, taken from the Spanish, was used to attack Cuba. Guantanamo Bay, taken from Cuba, was used to attack Puerto Rico. And so on. By 1844, the U.S. military had access to five ports in China. The U.S.-British Shanghai International Settlement in 1863 was “Chinatown reversed” — much like U.S. bases across the globe right now.
Prior to WWII, even including much of the base expansion of WWI, many bases were not permanent. Some were, but others, including most in Central America and the Caribbean, were understood to be temporary. WWII would change all that. The default status of any base would be permanent. This began with FDR’s trading of old ships to Britain in exchange for bases in eight British colonies — none of which had any say in the matter. Neither did Congress, as FDR acted alone, which created a horrible precedent. During WWII the United States built and occupied 30,000 installations on 2,000 bases on every continent.
A base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, was supposedly for fighting the Nazis, but after Germany surrendered, the base construction was still completed. The oil was still there. The need for planes to land in that part of the globe was still there. The need to justify the purchase of more planes was still there. And the wars would be there as surely as rain follows storm clouds.
WWII was only ever partially ended. Huge military forces were kept permanently stationed abroad. Henry Wallace thought the foreign bases should be handed over to the United Nations. Instead he was quickly shuffled off the stage. Vine writes that hundreds of “Bring Back Daddy” clubs were formed across the United States. They didn’t all get their way. Instead the radical new practice was begun of shipping families off to join their patriarchs in permanent occupations — a move largely aimed at reducing rapes of local residents.
Of course, the U.S. military was significantly reduced after WWII, but not nearly to the extent it had been after other wars, and much of that was reversed as soon as a war could be started up in Korea. The Korean war led to a 40% increase in overseas U.S. bases. Some might call the war on Korea an immoral horror or a criminal outrage, while others would call it a tie or a strategic blunder, but from the point of view of base construction and the establishment of weapons-industry power over the U.S. government, it was, exactly as Barack Obama claimed during his presidency, a tremendous success.
Eisenhower spoke of the military industrial complex corrupting the government. One of many examples offered by Vine is that of U.S. relations with Portugal. The U.S. military wanted bases in the Azores, so the U.S. government agreed to support Portugal’s dictator, Portuguese colonialism, and Portuguese NATO membership. And the people of Angola, Mozambique, and Cape Verde be damned — or rather, let them build up hostility toward the United States, as a price to pay for keeping the United States “defended” by a global array of bases. Vine cites 17 cases of U.S. base construction displacing local populations around the world, a situation that exists side-by-side with U.S. text books claiming that the age of conquest is over.
NATO served to facilitate the construction of U.S. bases in Italy, which Italians might never have stood for had the bases been called “U.S. bases” rather than being marketed under the false banner of “NATO bases.”
Bases have continued to proliferate around the globe, with protests usually following. Protests against U.S. bases, often successful, often not successful, have been a major part of the past century of world history rarely taught in the United States. Even the well-known peace sign was first used at a protest of a U.S. military base. Now bases are spreading across Africa and up to the borders of China and Russia, while U.S. culture grows accustomed to ever more routine wars fought by “special forces” and robot planes, nuclear weapons are being built like mad, and militarism is unquestioned by either of the two big U.S. political parties.
If the wars are — in part — for the bases, shouldn’t we still ask what the bases are for? Vine recounts Congressional investigators concluding that many of the bases are kept in place by “inertia.” And he recounts various military officials indulging in fear (or, more accurately, paranoia) that sees aggressive war creation as a form of defense. These are both very real phenomena, but I think they depend on an overriding drive for global domination and profit, combined with a sociopathic willingness (or eagerness) to generate wars.
Something that I never think any book focuses on enough is the role of weapons sales. These bases create weapons customers — despots and “democratic” officials who can be armed and trained and funded and made dependent upon the U.S. military, making the U.S. government ever more dependent upon the war profiteers.
I hope every person on earth reads The United States of War. At World BEYOND War we have made working to close bases a top priority.
*
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.
Featured image: Housing on the Guantanamo base. (Source: WorldBeyondWar.org)
An October 9 Russia-brokered ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh (NK below) failed to take hold.
On Saturday, warring sides again agreed to halt fighting, effective Sunday, citing humanitarian reasons.
An Azeri Foreign Ministry statement said the following:
“The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia have agreed to a humanitarian truce as of October 18th, 00h00 local time,” adding:
“This decision was taken following the statement of the presidents of the French Republic, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, representing the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group of 1 October 2020, the statement by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group of 5 October, and in line with Moscow statement of 10 October 2020.”
On Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with his Armenian and Azeri counterparts by phone.
NK’s Foreign Ministry agreed to halt fighting.
It’s unclear if ceasefire will hold this time, not so far on Sunday.
Straightaway after it became effective, Armenia accused Azerbaijan of breaching it.
Armenia’s Defense Ministry spokeswoman Shusan Stepanyan said Azeri shelling and rocket fire continued early on Sunday, adding:
Pre-dawn, Azeri forces “launched mortar and artillery fire in the vicinity of Jabrayil, as well as the liberated villages on the Aras River.”
“There are no casualties among the personnel. Our units have taken adequate response measures.”
Baku had no immediate response to the charge.
Along with Russia, France and the US were involved in brokering ceasefire in NK on Saturday.
They co-chair the so-called Minsk Group. An Elysee Palace statement said the following:
“France will pay great attention to that and will remain engaged for a lasting end to hostilities and a quick start of credible negotiations.”
Since Azerbaijan initiated fighting on September 27, hundreds on both sides were killed, many others wounded, along with widespread destruction in NK.
As in all conflicts, defenseless civilians are caught in the crossfire, their lives and well-being jeopardized.
On Saturday, an Armenian Foreign Ministry statement said the following:
“We highly appreciate the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and the direct participation of the French President (Macron) in reaching an agreement on a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds on October 17.”
“We believe that this agreement implements the joint statement adopted in Moscow, which expresses the need to introduce ceasefire verification parameters.”
Separately, Stepanyan reported calm alone “the line of contact” early Sunday.
NK’s presidential spokesman Vagram Pogosyan issued a similar statement.
Sergey Lavrov urged both warring sides to stick to ceasefire terms — in conversations with his Armenian and Azeri counterparts on Saturday by phone, according to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement.
He also urged both sides to begin serious negotiations to resolve differences and restore a durable peace — that requires compromises by warring parties.
Ceasefire terms call for exchange of prisoners and to allow for humanitarian aid to reach conflict areas.
What Russia proposed on October 9 remains in effect.
It calls for a gradual “(t)roop withdrawal from five districts at the first stage is to be complemented with the restoration of communications, economic ties and transport contacts, as well as the deployment of peacekeeping forces to guarantee the non-resumption of hostilities,” Lavrov explained.
Military observers rather than peacekeepers would be involved.
As a neutral party with good relations with both warring sides, Lavrov offered to provide them if their leadership agrees.
Turkish ties to Azerbaijan, training of their military forces, large-scale sales of Turkish heavy weapons to Baku, Ankara’s command and control involvement in fighting, along with supplying jihadist fighters against Armenia greatly fueled weeks of conflict.
In talks with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, Lavrov failed to convince him that diplomacy alone can resolve fighting, he said, adding:
“We do not agree with the position that has been voiced by Turkey and enunciated on several occasions by President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan.”
“It is no secret. We cannot share statements to the effect that there is a military solution to the conflict and that it is acceptable.”
“Regrettably, Turkey has been able to do this, confirming that it will support any actions undertaken by Azerbaijan to solve this conflict, including military ones.”
Iran borders Armenia and Azerbaijan. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif discussed the situation in NK with his Azeri counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov.
According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, he offered to help restore calm to NK and work toward achieving a durable peace — cooperatively with Minsk Group co-chair countries.
On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh expressed concern about rockets striking along its border areas, adding:
“Unfortunately, worrying reports have been received today in this regard, and that is not at all acceptable.”
Reportedly last week, missiles or rockets struck two Iranian villages, damage and at least one injury reported.
Khatibzadeh stressed that “(t)he security of our citizens living in border regions is the red line of our armed forces.”
Iran cannot “remain indifferent” to cross-border threats.
Clearly Tehran wants involvement in NK confined to helping both sides reach accommodation to halt fighting.
At the same time, its ruling authorities will act to protect the country’s security from foreign threats.
Major differences between warring parties are longstanding and deep-seated.
It’s unclear if ceasefire will hold this time or if conflict will continue.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Mark Lowcock of the United Nations gave an impassioned and apocalyptic speech on Thursday warning that 4 million Yemenis who had been receiving aid no longer are, because of a shortfall in donor contributions, and the country could be on the cusp of mass starvation.
There already is widespread malnutrition in Yemen, fueled by the war and more recently by the economic downturn of the coronavirus pandemic.
The humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen largely stems from the war on that country launched in 2015 by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which is backed to the hilt by the Trump administration. This is an American war, and Americans have Yemeni blood on their hands. A third of Yemen’s infrastructure has been destroyed, mostly by Saudi and UAE air strikes, and over 100,000 have been killed.
The United Arab Emirates, led by Mohammed Bin Zayed, is giving nothing to aid Yemen this year, despite its invasion having caused many of the problems the country is facing. The Saudis and Kuwaitis were also called out by Lowcock, and they did proffer new donations, with Kuwait offering $20 million. But the aid effort has fallen from being funded at over 60% of requested contributions to only 42%.
Lowcock, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, said:
“Aid agencies are now reaching only about 9 million people a month in Yemen – that’s down from more than 13 million at the start of the year. What is to be the fate of the 4 million we no longer have the money to help? I said earlier that the window to prevent famine in Yemen is closing.”
The country’s problems are worsening along several fronts, Lowcock reported. The nationalist government of Abd-Rabbo Mansour Hadi, backed by Saudi Arabia, has long contested the insurgent Houthis or Helpers of God for the port of Hodeidah, which is key to the provisioning of the northern part of the country. Its fighters have been preventing gasoline from being offloaded, presumably in a bid to deprive the Houthis of the ability to use armored vehicles. The Houthis are local guerrillas from the northern Zaydi Shiite branch of Islam. Although they are often called “Iran-backed,” the Iranian involvement in Yemen is not extensive, and the Houthis have local Arab grievances. The billions of dollars of high-tech weaponry sold to the Saudis and the UAE for use against Yemen dwarfs the small Iranian contributions to the Houthis by orders of magnitude. Zaydis often feel that Saudi Arabia was trying to dominate them and convert them to its hardline Wahhabi sect.
Lowcock noted,
“Only 20,000 metric tons of commercial fuel entered Hudaydah in September – that’s the third lowest figure ever recorded, and 76 per cent less than in August. Currently, 20 commercial fuel ships are waiting to enter the port and discharge the equivalent of three months of imports.”
The problem is that it isn’t only the Houthis who are being starved of fuel, but ordinary people, who need it to drive to market or to hospital when ill, and farmers who need it to deliver their crops to towns.
Likewise, the basket-case condition of the country has driven the Yemeni rial down to 850 to the dollar, a historic low. This exchange rate makes it impossible for many Yemenis to afford imports, and much of the country’s food and other staples are imported
Famines are not typically caused by a complete lack of food, but by food prices being too high for people to afford to buy it. If the nationalist government cannot find a way to put back up the value of the rial, large numbers of people could starve.
The war is also getting worse, despite this week’s prisoner exchange between the Houthis and the nationalists.
Lowcock warned,
“There are now 47 active front lines across Yemen – the most ever recorded. Over several recent weeks, the heaviest clashes have occurred in Hudaydah, Marib and Al Jawf.”
This year, another 150,000 people were displaced from their homes by the fighting, 80% to homeless shelters, bringing the total in the country to a million. The country’s population is about 30 million.
Last month, the UN announced that it was forced to slash aid to 300 medical facilities in Yemen, after a third of humanitarian programs in the country were closed in spring-summer this year.
*
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.
If we step back from the details of daily headlines around the world and try to make sense of larger patterns, the dominant dynamic defining world geopolitics in the past three years or more is the appearance of a genuine irregular conflict between the two most formidable powers on the planet—The Peoples’ Republic of China and the United States of America. Increasingly it’s beginning to look as if some very dark global networks are orchestrating what looks to be an updated rerun of their 1939-1945 World War. The powers that be periodically use war to gain major policy shifts.
On behalf of the Powers That Be (PTB), World War II was orchestrated by the circles of the City of London and of Wall Street to maneuver two great obstacles—Russia and Germany—to wage a war to the death against each other, in order that those Anglo-Saxon PTB could reorganize the world geopolitical chess board to their advantage. It largely succeeded, but for the small detail that after 1945, Wall Street and the Rockefeller brothers were determined that England play the junior partner to Washington. London and Washington then entered the period of their global domination known as the Cold War.
That Anglo-American global condominium ended, by design, in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union by 1991.
Around this time, with the onset of the Bill Clinton presidency in 1992, the next phase– financial and industrial globalization– was inaugurated. With that, began the hollowing out of the industrial base of not only the United States, but also of Germany and the EU. The cheap labor outsourcing enabled by the new WTO drove wages down and destroyed one industry after the next in the industrial West after the 1990s. It was a necessary step on the path to what G.H.W. Bush in 1990 called the New World Order. The next step would be destruction of national sovereignty everywhere. Here the USA was the major obstacle.
“A little help from our friends…”
For the PTB, who owe no allegiance to nations, only to their power which is across borders, the birth of the World Trade Organization and their bringing China in as a full member in 2001 was intended as the key next step. At that point the PTB facilitated in China the greatest industrial growth by any nation in history, possibly excepting Germany from 1871-1914 and USA after 1866. WTO membership allowed Western multinationals from Apple to Nike to KFC to Ford and VW to pour billions into China to make their products at dirt-cheap wage levels for re-export to the West.
One of the great mysteries of that China growth is the fact that China was allowed to become the “workshop of the world” after 2001, first in lower-skill industries such as textiles or toys, later in pharmaceuticals and most recently in electronics assembly and production. The mystery clears up when we look at the idea that the PTB and their financial houses, using China, want to weaken strong industrial powers, especially the United States, to push their global agenda. Brzezinski often wrote that the nation state was to be eliminated, as did his patron, David Rockefeller. By allowing China to become a rival to Washington in economy and increasingly in technology, they created the means to destroy the superpower hegemony of the US.
By the onset of the Presidency of Xi Jinping in 2012, China was an economic colossus second in weight only to the United States. Clearly this could never have happened–not under the eye of the same Anglo-American old families who launched the Opium Wars after 1840 to bring China to heel and open their economy to Western financial looting–unless the Anglo-Americans had wanted it.
The same British-owned bank involved in the China opium trade, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (HSBC), founded by a Scotsman, Thomas Sutherland in 1865 in the then-British colony of Hong Kong, today is the largest non-Chinese bank in Hong Kong. HSBC has become so well-connected to China in recent years that it has since 2011 had as Board member and Deputy HSBC Chairman, Laura Cha. Cha was formerly Vice Chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, being the first person outside mainland China to join the Beijing Central Government of the People’s Republic of China at vice-ministerial rank. In other words the largest bank in the UK has a board member who was a member of the Chinese Communist Party and a China government official. China needed access to Western money and HSBC and other select banks such as JP MorganChase, Barclays, Goldman Sachs were clearly more than happy to assist.
“Socialism with Xi Jinping Characteristics…”
All told until 2012 when Xi took charge of the CCP in Beijing, China seemed to be willing to be a globalist “team player,” though with “Chinese characteristics.” However, in 2015 after little more than two years in office, Xi Jinping endorsed a comprehensive national industrial strategy, Made in China: 2025. China 2025 replaced an earlier Western globalist document that had been formulated with the World Bank and the USA, the China 2030 report under Robert Zoellick. That shift to a China strategy for global tech domination might well have triggered a decision by the globalist PTB that China could no longer be relied on to play by the rules of the globalists, but rather that the CCP under Xi were determined to make China the global leader in advanced industrial, AI and bio-technologies. A resurgent China nationalist global hegemony was not the idea of the New World Order gang.
China:2025 combined with Xi’s strong advocacy of the Belt Road Initiative for global infrastructure linking China by land and sea to all Eurasia and beyond, likely suggested to the globalists that the only solution to the prospect of their losing their power to a China global hegemon would ultimately be war, a war that would destroy both nationalist powers, USA AND China. This is my conclusion and there is much to suggest this is now taking place.
Tit for Tat
If so, it will most likely be far different from the military contest of World War II. The USA and most of the Western industrial economies have “conveniently” imposed the worst economic depression since the 1930’s as a bizarre response to an alleged virus originating in Wuhan and spreading to the world. Despite the fact that the death toll, even with vastly inflated statistics, is at the level of a severe annual influenza, the insistence of politicians and the corrupt WHO to impose draconian lockdown and economic disruption has crippled the remaining industrial base in the US and most of the EU.
The eruption of well-organized riots and vandalism under the banner of racial protests across the USA has brought America’s cities to a state in many cases of war zones resembling the cities of the 2013 Matt Damon and Jodie Foster film, Elysium. In this context, anti-Washington rhetoric from Beijing has taken on a sharp tone in their use of so-called “Wolf Diplomacy.”
Now after Washington closed the China Consulate in Houston and China the US Consulate in Chengdu, both sides have stepped up rhetoric. High tech companies are being banned in the US, military displays of force from the US in the South China Sea and waters near Taiwan are increasing tensions and rhetoric on both sides. The White House accuses the WHO of being an agent of Beijing, while China accuses the US of deliberately creating a deadly virus and bringing it to Wuhan. Chinese state media supports the explosion of violent protests across America under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Step-wise events are escalating dramatically. Many of the US self-styled Marxists leading the protests across US cities have ties to Beijing such as the Maoist-origin Revolutionary Communist Party, USA of Bob Avakian.
“Unrestricted Warfare”
Under these conditions, what kind of escalation is likely? In 1999 two colonels in the China PLA, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, published a book with the PLA Press titled Unrestricted Warfare. Qiao Liang was promoted to Major General in the PLA Air Force and became deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security Policy Studies. The two updated their work in 2016. It gives a window on high-level China military strategy.
Reviewing published US military doctrine in the aftermath of the 1991 US Operation Desert Storm war against Iraq, the Chinese authors point out what they see as US over-dependence on brute military force and conventional military doctrine. They claim, “Observing, considering, and resolving problems from the point of view of technology is typical American thinking. Its advantages and disadvantages are both very apparent, just like the characters of Americans.” They add, “military threats are already often no longer the major factors affecting national security…these traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to these factors. They comprise a new pattern which threatens the political, economic and military security of a nation or nations… The two authors define the new form of warfare as, “encompassing the political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, and psychological spheres, in addition to the land, sea, air, space, and electronics spheres.”
They suggest China could use hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare among the methods proposed. Recent revelations that Chinese entities pay millions in ad revenues to the New York Times and other mainstream USA media to voice China-positive views is one example. Similarly, maneuvering a Chinese national to head the US’ largest public pension fund, CalPERS, which poured billions into risky China stocks, or persuading the New York Stock Exchange to list dozens of China companies without requiring adherence to US accounting transparency increase US financial vulnerability are others.
This all suggests the form that a war between China and the US could take. It can be termed asymmetrical warfare or unrestricted war, where nothing that disrupts the enemy is off limits. Qiao has that, “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” There are no Geneva Conventions.
The two Beijing authors add this irregular warfare could include assaults on the political security, economic security, cultural security, and information security of the nation. The dependence of the US economy on China supply chains for everything from basic antibiotics to militarily-vital rare earth minerals is but one domain of vulnerability.
On its side, China is vulnerable to trade sanctions, financial disruption, bioterror attacks and oil embargoes to name a few. Some have suggested the recent locust plague and African Swine Fever devastation to China’s core food supplies, was not merely an act of nature. If not, then we are likely deep into an undeclared form of US-China unrestricted warfare. Could it be that the recent extreme floods along the China Yangtze River that threaten the giant Three Gorges Dam and have flooded Wuhan and other major China cities and devastated millions of acres of key cropland was not entirely seasonal?
A full unrestricted war of China and the USA would be more than a tragedy. It could be the end of civilization as we know it. Is this what characters such as Bill Gates and his superiors are trying to bring about? Do they plan to introduce their draconian dystopian “Reset” on the ashes of such a conflict?
*
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.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from NEO
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Covid-19: The Great Reset – is the title of a book by Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the WEF, and the Senior Director of the Global Risk Network at the institution, Thierry Malleret. The present analysis is based on review of the book by Steven Guiness, of 4 September 2020 (See this).
“This important book review by Steven Guinness (UK) reveals the same old language of ‘interdependence’, collaboration and cooperation that was heard from the Trilateral Commission in 1973. The then-and-now goal is Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and will result in the biggest resource grab in the history of the world.” ⁃ Technocracy News Editor
The book presents a “carrot and stick” scenario; one of scary threats and rewards for obedience. Schwab and Malleret offer The Brave New World as the “New Paradise” after the Great Reset.
The Powers that Be behind the Great Reset, cleverly work with two invisible weapons,
i) a probably man-made virus, now called covid-19 that nobody sees but corporate propaganda makes us believe is deadly and scary – fear is the associate weapon, and
ii) 5G (and later 6G, already being prepared), a strong, never experienced before, magnetic field, not talked about, not in the WEF book, not in the official media, but being rolled out over the entire world, covering every square centimeter of the earth’s surface, irradiated from hundreds of thousands of low-flying satellites.
This electro-magnet weapon is likely inflicting long-term damage, including possibly deadly damage, has been studied by hundreds of scientists, whose work has never been officially published, but stays underground. We, the People, are kept ignorant, in the shallows. Watch 5G Weapon – 8 min. Youtube below.
The Great Reset book is full with predictions of things that will or may happen, and threats, like the world will never be the same again, and we are just at the beginning of the Reset, worse is to come – or the Great Transformation, as the IMF calls what is coming.
The authors are spreading fear for the doubters of the New World Order (NWO). If you tell someone that the world is never going to be the same again, the way we are used to live our lives – the intention behind the information is not in the first place ‘predicting the future’, but instilling fear. Fearful people are vulnerable. Fear pulls the energy out of our bodies and minds, lowers the capacity of our immune system and increases the chances that we get sick, both physically from any disease, not just covid, but also mentally.
They – Schwab and Malleret – say not only that a lot of things will change forever, but ‘the worst of the pandemic is yet to come’. Wow! Scary!
Indeed, we have barely seen the tip of the iceberg. They admit, almost with a certain satisfaction, it seems, that millions of jobs will be lost and continue to be eviscerated at breathtaking speed, and that millions of small and medium size enterprises will be gone forever, that only a few will survive, namely the globalized conglomerates – Schwab’s and Malleret’s admission of the disaster unfolding upon us, is putting the icing on the cake of fear.
The reader will start thinking, ‘what will happen to me, my family, my business, or work – my children, their education – there will be an endless row of “what will happen”, leading to despair, to angst and anxieties – all kinds of pathologies. Pathology begets pathology. Big time.
More energy is sucked out of our bodies and minds, more gullibility instilled in our brains – you want to belong, you don’t want to be discarded like all those men and women who have lost their jobs, their livelihoods – who will get sick of loneliness in social distancing isolation – and may even get the covid disease, if they don’t wear a mask. You want to wear a mask. The media’s fear campaign has scared you. And when you wear a mask, you also belong. Never mind what it does for or against your health, you want to look the same – like everybody wearing masks. Wearing a mask is like a ritual that eventually allows you to belong to the masquerade. Because, have you seen how non-mask wearers are looked and sneered at, as if they were lepers or criminals?
You want to adhere to the rules – but silently and with inherent hope you look into an uncertain future – a hope of a better world, of a return to The Normal you know. There, at the horizon, hope is still glimmering like a fading sunset. And you want to race towards that horizon, a horizon that is ever moving away from you – as horizons are known to do.
Being segregated and separated from the believers for non-obedience, is the stick. Now comes the carrot. If you behave and obey the rules, you will be eligible for a vaccine – one of about 20 or 30 (maybe more) currently being developed by a myriad of different laboratories and countries. It’s the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese, the Cubans, the French, the Africans – it’s impossible to keep track of them, let alone trusting them.
Some of the vaccines are designed to genetically modifying your DNA forever – meaning, if the vaccine leaves a lasting damage, the damage will indeed be lasting, can never be cured. It may also be transmitted as a modified genome to your children and following generations. But you don’t mind. You want to get out from under this oppression, this health tyranny. You go: PLEASE-PLEASE gimme the vaccine!
And then, they tell you, once you are vaccinated, there is a chance that some of what you are used to may go back to “normal” – meaning some things will become “normal” again. But by and large, the WEF authors, the servants of the masters of the universe, tell you also that you better get used to a new normal. They never tell you actually what the new normal will exactly entail. But they tell you what’s wrong with the current world order of consisting of a collection of sovereign nation states and what the New World Order – all under One Government – would address. But they don’t say how and by whom – and what the new role of We, the People, will be, of those who survive the imploding cataclysm. It may be close to slavehood.
But, its never too late. We have the power of will and solidarity, if we reenact it, to stop this cataclysm in its tracks. It is Now the Time to Resist. We can rebuild the devastated economy and livelihoods as a project of humankind, according to our collective needs, with the principle of do no harm to our generous and beautiful Mother Earth.
We must not follow the dictate of the Great Reset, not be tempted by the carrot of a new paradise, but resist it, and take the reins of reconstruction in our own hands and minds – pursuing the common interest of humankind.
Here is what’s wrong, even in the eyes of Schwab and Malleret. There is widespread and ever-growing poverty; rampant inequality; racism; injustice – the North-South divide – and, finally, a world population that is growing too fast and is already too large. There is of course more, much more wrong with our civilization.
The two authors avoid mentioning that greed, artificially seeded conflicts and wars – biological, as well as by guns and bombs – limitless exploitation of unrenewable natural resources, of steeling public assets to privatize them, of the monumental injustice of neo-colonization of the Global South – is driven by the very deep dark diabolical elite that wants us to adopt and succumb to the new Global Reset.
The Great Reset book does not mention that there is way enough food to aliment the current and future world population. Already several years ago, FAO – the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN – has said that there is enough food to aliment at least 12 billion people with current technologies. The food is of course not distributed properly, is held back for speculation and price gains – depriving poor countries of their fair share to feed their populations.
Hundreds of thousands of people are starving and dying due to food crops speculation – and that in plain sight of the speculators, of the well-established bourses and agricultural commodities exchanges, like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, originally the “Chicago Butter and Egg Board” (founded in 1898). There are dozens of such speculating exchange bureau around the Global North.
FAO’s assertions that there is enough food for current and future world populations, does not even account for the huge potential of technology and agrarian efficiency improvement of healthy food production. Russia’s food production today is almost entirely bio – GMOs are constitutionally banned – and food is plentiful. Russia has become the world’s largest wheat exporter – bio-wheat.
Given the environmental destruction by the neoliberal constant profit-greed, eternal fetish of more and more consumption and growth, a Great Reset, or a Great Transformation (IMF), may indeed be justified, but not by the imposed globalist terms of the WEF and IMF, by the very powers behind the destruction; not under the terms of the global corporate banking, of the global military complex and of the Silicon Valley, i.e. the 5G-driven (and soon 6G) Artificial Intelligence (AI), or more broadly, the Internet of Things (IoT).
A reset has to be a people’s reset, where only We, the People, call the shots, and set the terms for the reset. A reset that leaves nobody behind and does not aim at eliminating “superfluous” populations – so that the rich and powerful can live longer with the remaining resources of Planet Earth. Because that is really their – the globalists elite’s goal.
Their powerful tools are biowarfare, invisible enemies, like viruses, i.e. corona – and vaccines against the very viruses they impose on the world in the first place.
Clever: First you attack and kill, then you offer salvation to the survivors – and kill at the same time, by the tools of salvation. It’s called dancing on many weddings, and along the way, you divide to conquer.
Divide the plandemic believers from the non-believers;
Divide between the mask wearers and the mask protesters, divide between those who believe that “social distancing” is the answer, and those who know that social distancing accelerates the disease and eventually the process of dying.
They create an ambiance of animosity and conflicts among those who were friends.
The two master minds of the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab (image on the right) and Thierry Malleret, don’t touch this delicate subject in their book. Instead they talk about opportunities and risks. They argue that this covid-19 pandemic – let’s call in Plandemic, as it clearly has been planned – offers a rare opportunity to get the Great Reset right. They call it a Window of Opportunity.
They talk about the Post Pandemic Era – as the panacea of the future for mankind, because, if we grab this unique window of opportunity to cooperate and collaborate between countries towards a global state, greater interdependence, we will be able to come to grips with all the ills, poverty, inequality and injustice. But the authors fall short of explaining how. They do not talk about lost national sovereignty – lost cultural sovereignty by embracing the a globalized and a globally governed world – abandoning the Nation State, and instead submitting to a One World Power.
That’s not all. The panacea of the future will be crowned by the Pearl of the Fourth Industrialization – Artificial intelligence (AI). It will be made possible by a 5G electromagnetic field, allowing the Internet of Things (IoT). Schwab and Malleret won’t say, beware, there is opposition. 5G could still be blocked. The 5G existence and further development is necessary for surveillance and control of humanity, by digitizing everything, including human identity and money.
It will be so simple, no more cash, just electronic, digital money – that is way beyond the control of the owner, the truthful earner of the money, as it can be accessed by the Global Government and withheld and / or used for pressuring misbehaving citizens into obeying the norms imposed from above. You don’t behave according to our norms, no money to buy food, shelter and health services, we let you starve. No more travel. No more attending public events. You’ll be put gradually in your own solitary confinement. The dictatorial and tyrannical global commandeering by digital control of everything is the essence of the 4th Age of Industrialization – highly promoted by the WEF’s Great Reset.
Image below: Thierry Malleret (Source: London Speaker Bureau)
The global universal lockdown – all 193 UN members at once (what a coincidence!) – has already devastated and will continue to do so for years to come, our economy, jobs, businesses, livelihoods, society, social cohesions – you name it – what we called “normal” is gone, gone forever. That’s what Schwab and Malleret repeat time and again. As they are spreading fear, they are telling us, you better adapt to the new normal. Looking back on the ruins caused by the onset of the destructive Great Reset is no good. There is no hope, they tell us. Instead, trust in the future, the new Great Reset. It will rise from the ashes of the past and will give humanity – those who survive – in the long run a better life on a less encumbered globe. So, the WEF narrative.
The two “wise men” mercilessly hammer it in on every occasion at every corner, never can the world return to normal. They pretend to make us believe that Covid-19 has given us this unique opportunity to begin anew, with a Great Reset. It is twisting the truth, because the reality is exactly the contrary – they – the diabolical elite, the dark deep state – created Covid-19, to lock us down, in social separation, in quarantines, so they can undisturbed destroy mankind’s achievements in plain sight under the pretext of protecting us from the invisible covid virus. In reality they prepare for the Global Great Reset.
There is a real risk however which the authors recognize, namely that a strong nationalistic feeling may persevere. They call it “a broken sense of normalcy”. Nationalistic thinking may turn factions of the world ‘inwards’, more patriotic. They, the “nationalists”, will seek division or abolition of this new global government. The WEF authors see this nationalistic trend – they never call it preserving or returning to sovereignty – as dangerous. They predict, it will result in continuous conflicts and revolutions. Rebellions instead of building towards the Global Common Good. But, We, the People, know better. We can resist.
Schwab and Malleret cannot avoid mentioning the UN Agenda 2030 – the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which are the pretext as well as the backbone of the UN Agenda 2030 – which cannot be achieved without a Global and Great Reset, because they require collaboration and cooperation among nations that have the same vision – a globalized One World Order.
Agenda 2030 is intimately linked to Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. The Global Warming / Global Climate Change agenda emanates from it.
This is the trick: Nations, mostly developing countries, who subscribe to pursue the achievement of the wonderfully human-justice 17 SDGs, will get money, aid money, loans and grants from the IMF, World Bank and other similar globalized institutions, to work towards achieving these goals. But – under the condition that they follow and submit to the Great Reset.
Nevertheless, we know that these 17 noble goals of equality, justice and a balanced world are a phantasy, the same as were the 8 Millennium Development Goals (observe the 8th Goal: “Develop a Global Partnership for Development”) that ended in 2015. Hardly any of the 8 goals (plus 21 targets and 60 indicators for measuring progress between 1990 and 2015) have been met by a country. Now they are replaced by the new 17 SDGs – UN Agenda 2030 – which will not be met either. The SDGs are a tool for further enslavement of the Global South by the Global North.
The saving grace is that the world is not a uniform place with a homogenous population. That is where Schwab and Malleret are unwittingly right by predicting resistance. Mother Earth is diverse, colorful, and her populations come in all shapes, languages and cultures. The world consists of a vast, universal, heterogenous humanity that will, by nature, not submit to the dictate of a few. Impossible.
Undeniably, this may lead to a division towards two or more powers – the globalists and the nationalists or the patriots, as the globalists demeaningly call those who want to preserve their national identity, their national sovereignty – a sovereignty that does not stop at the political level, but encompasses monetary sovereignty and people’s individual and collective sovereignty. For the “nationalists” and “patriots”, the nationalistic trend may lead to real democracy – maybe a democracy we have never known may emerge from an autonomous and sovereign reset made by the people; a far more attractive option than the Great Reset forced upon humanity by a small globalist elite.
The division into two (or more) camps, may lead to conflicts and wars, to bloodshed. So, are warning Schwab and Malleret. But a group of sovereign nations with alliances among them, must not end in conflicts and wars. To the contrary. They will be thriving and prospering – an endless creation and development, with respect for each other.
Indeed, the People’s way of resetting the globe, may create unheard-of and unbelievable alliances. As friends were divided by the covid-drive for a Great Reset, so may enemies become friends and allies in the future – with the goal of remaining independent, autonomous and sovereign nations and people.
This type of unity was at the heart of the creation of the Confoederatio Helvetica, what is today’s Switzerland. We stand together in defense and mutual respect, but preserve our sovereignty in daily life. Thus, spoke the three representatives of three provinces under Habsburg’s tyranny in 1291, and the Swiss Confederacy was born 729 years ago.
Hope and light will prevail. We, the People, have the Power.
*
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.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The Lebanese population faces between six to twelve hours of electricity cuts per day, and in some rural areas, there is simply no electricity provided by the government grid. Amid the backdrop of decrepit infrastructure, government corruption, devalued currency, and widespread poverty, Lebanon began talks with Israel concerning their maritime borders in the gas-rich Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday at the UNIFIL headquarters at Naquora.
The UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL has been monitoring the disputed land boundary since Israel’s’ military withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation. The two sides met together in the same room but directed their communications through a US mediator.
The US is the mediator between the two countries which remain technically ‘at war’ while hoping to end a long-running dispute which could eventually see Lebanon producing gas to convert to domestic electricity, as well as a potential revenue producer which could pay off Lebanon’s huge debts. Lebanon’s currency has lost 80 percent of its value against the dollar over the last year, and its debt-to-G.D.P. ratio is one of the world’s highest.
Lebanon and Israel are struggling to deal with high COVID-19 infection rates, while Netanyahu is slipping in the polls due to abuse of power charges, and the Lebanese government is in limbo after being labeled as corrupt and inept, while desperate for cash from foreign donors as it faces the worst economic crisis since its 1975-1990 civil war. The financial collapse was compounded by an explosion at the Port of Beirut in August, killing nearly 200 people.
Israel is already pumping gas from huge offshore fields, and this meeting will allow both sides to proceed further within the safety of an understanding of the maritime borders.
US pressure
The talks follow years of diplomacy by Washington, and the Trump Administration had hoped to use the Naquora meeting as a dramatic media show less than a month after landmark US-sponsored normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain; however, this showy plan was aborted.
The US envoy David Schenker explained that these talks “have nothing to do with the establishment of diplomatic relations or normalization.” However, it was last month that the US turned up the pressure on Lebanon to start the talks with a deadline for the agreement before the US election on November 3, while the second round of talks is scheduled for October 28.
The Naquora meeting
President Michel Aoun is the key person managing the off-shore energy resources portfolio, and he placed a representative from the Lebanese Petroleum Administration (LPA) on the negotiating team as a nod to pressure from Washington who had insisted on civilian presentation, whereas Hezbollah requested only military and technical delegates.
There are four points on the agenda of the Naqoura talks: setting the land reference point from which to depart toward the sea; defining the southern maritime border where the disputed area is located; agreeing on the land border demarcation after the completion of the maritime demarcation, and exchanging documents and handing over copies to the United Nations.
The Lebanese Negotiating team
Brigadier General Bassam Yacine is the lead negotiator, Marine Colonel Mazen Basbous is the head of operations in the Lebanese military, Najib Masihi is a Lebanese American expert in maritime and territorial boundaries, and Wissam Shbat is a board member of LPA and head of its geology and geophysics unit.
Lebanon’s offshore possibilities
In 2017, Lebanon’s information minister announced the Cabinet had approved licenses for Italy’s Eni, Frances’s Total, and Russia’s Novatek to carry out exploratory drilling off the Lebanese coast in two of Lebanon’s 10 offshore blocks to determine whether oil and gas exist in the area.
Analyst Diana Kaissy, who heads the Lebanese Oil and Gas Initiative think-tank, said it was “impossible to know” the extent of the accessible reserves before exploration operations begin, but she said, “preliminary evaluations” showed the five blocks offered by the government were the “most promising,” with block nine bordering a sector disputed by Israel.
At issue is more than 330 square miles in the Mediterranean that Israel and Lebanon both claim is in their exclusive economic zone. The pressure to resolve the dispute has mounted as Israel and Cyprus have begun exploiting offshore gas.
Lebanon estimates it has 96 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves and 865 million barrels of oil offshore. Israel is aiming to get a percentage of a contested area of 860 square kilometers that Lebanon is claiming.
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that coastal states have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) concerning natural resources; however, the maritime dispute does not fall within the UNIFIL’s current mandate, and Israel is not a party to UNCLOS.
Lebanon reached a maritime border agreement with Cyprus in January 2007. This prompted Beirut, in July and October 2010, to deposit with the United Nations the geographical coordinates of the southern and southwestern maritime borders of that EEZ. Cyprus went ahead and signed an EEZ delimitation accord with Israel in December 2010.
Lebanon and Israel could share in the disputed 860 square kilometers, which covers Lebanon’s offshore gas Blocks 8, 9, and 10. The “Hoff line” proposal gave Lebanon 550 square kilometers, which was rejected as Beirut insists on full rights in this disputed area. Lebanon has refused to join the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum or any other regional mechanism that includes Israel; therefore, it has been more or less isolated in the eastern Mediterranean gas process given the emerging alliance between Israel, Egypt, Cyprus, and Greece.
France’s Total energy company to begin gas exploration in Block 9 by the end of the year, while Israel approved in June oil, gas exploration in Block 72, close to Lebanon’s Block 9 where exploration will soon start.
Hezbollah and Amal
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in a joint statement with Amal, the country’s other main party of resistance, released hours before the talks were due to start, called for the negotiating team to be revised to include only members of the military.
The Lebanese preconditions included having military and technical delegates, instead of diplomatic delegates, and setting no timeline to reach a deal, to avoid US pressure on the negotiations.
Last month the US placed sanctions on the top aide to Nabih Berri, the leader of Amal, for corruption and financially enabling Hezbollah.
*
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.
Alla conferenza, tenutasi lo scorso 14 ottobre, hanno partecipato i rappresentanti del Comitato No Guerra No Nato, che sta adesso portando avanti la campagna “Assange Libero per la Nostra Libertà” per il sostegno alla liberazione dell’editore e giornalista perseguitato per aver rivelato crimini di guerra. Tra questi: Manlio Dinucci, geografo, scrittore e giornalista; Germana Leoni von Dohnanyi, scrittrice e giornalista e Berenice Galli, attivista e giornalista e l’attivista Mauro Abiti. Durante l’incontro è stato proiettato anche un messaggio video da parte di John Shipton, padre di Julian Assange.
Il processo contro Assange è un processo contro tutti quelli che lottano per la libertà e la democrazia. Assange, infatti, si è contraddistinto nel panorama dell’informazione per la continua ricerca della verità a tutti i livelli politici e istituzionali, sfidando la secretazione delle informazioni da parte dei governi, superando le barriere informatiche, portando alla luce le reali motivazioni che hanno determinato la distruzione di interi Paesi, economie e comunità. Questa è la sua colpa. Intanto, mentre si svolgono le udienze e Assange in carcere continua a versare nelle peggiori condizioni – così come denunciato anche dal responsabile Onu contro la tortura Nils Melzer, Assange che nei mesi scorsi ha denunciato le “condizioni di sorveglianza e isolamento estreme e non giustificate” alle quali era sottoposto mostrando ormai “tutti i sintomi tipici di un’esposizione prolungata alla tortura psicologica” – i responsabili dei crimini denunciati continuano a beneficiare dell’impunità.
Byoblu ha seguito per voi l’intera conferenza stampa.
Everybody likes beauty, such as the beautiful things and beautiful people. It seems that humans are born to possess the ability to appreciate beauty, even though not so many people had ever thought about what it is. Obviously the sense of beauty, and the ideas about beauty had rooted into people’s daily life long before Aesthetics appeared as a well-established sub-discipline of philosophy. Art is the notable representative of this discipline.
It is certain that humans developed their sense of beauty, one of the prominent features of human feelings before they developed their logic of thinking. People also had mastered the essential skills in creating beautiful things before the theory of Aesthetics came out. I feel that the human civilization spent thousands of years in practicing art, while developing theories to interpret their art work, in a way agreeable to sensible people, not excluding the possible failure in their endeavor. Those critics might have tried to guide artists in their process of art creation, however, mostly worked out as a guide for appreciation or evaluation of art, because artists are always quicker than the critics, bestowed by their inborn sensitivity and ability to catch that artistic intuition from life. A new art style appeared usually after the economic,social or religious reforms, or science and mathematics discoveries, or birth ofnew philosophies.
The flourishing of art and literature during European renaissance period was not only due to the humanist rival of the ancient Greek culture, but also because of the influence of the new ideas appeared in the religion notably represented by Saint Augustine, as well as in discoveries in natural science and mathematics that provided the premises for the appearance of classic realism painting style, represented by da Vinci, and Michelangelo etc. who applied the one point perspective according to optical principle of human eyes, and used the shade and light effect to create the realist image. This period lasted almost four centuries. The capitalism in Europe matured around the same period after the industry revolution, coming along with it the global colonization, which brought great wealth to the capitalist, as well as the material improvement to people’s life, while it also irritated some upright intellectuals and artists, who got disgusted with some of the side effects of the economic growth and capital colonization. Those artists started searching for new artistic elements and inspiration for their art creation. Then appeared all genres of western modern art one after another, such as Fauvism, Impressionism, Post-impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Abstractionism, Dadaism, Surrealism, etc al, under the influence of a new trend of philosophies.
The work of those modern artists had encountered various resistance and attacks from the traditionalists, since it seemed either weird, ugly, or mysterious and confusing to traditional artists, However, the most significant ones eventually survived and even shined at their own time, and until now. Now days, culinary art became very popular, in which style, the way to display the art pieces, matters equally important as the art work itself, which combined with latter to create a modern art concept that is what truly matters. When Duchamp was displaying a urine tub in the museum, which idea could be disgusting to a lot of people, it was inevitably accepted as an art piece by people with avant-garde mindset and thus created an unforgettable anecdote in modern art history. Is that also beautiful thing? But according to many philosophers, art is creation of beauty. Duchamp even added the mustache to the picture of Mona Lisa, seemed an irony to the ordinary artists. However, this was just one of the modern art styles, Dadaism, the art to protest, and marked this period of human art history by boldly showing their frustration about this more and more complex society and their struggle to reach for something new and different, and also by leaving such questions to people as what is art and where the art is leading us.
Beautiful things should not be difficult to find. We could give many examples which people with sensible faculty all agree to be beautiful, however, it may not be able to be defined by one certain concept. The pity is that modern people have fallen into the habit to define any philosophical terms in a fixed formationinfluenced by the numerous discoveries in science and mathematics in late centuries of last millennium, which could be accepted in any other domains, but not in defining what is beauty. Those discoveries and creations brought new inspiration to the artists on one side, while constrained the thoughts of some art critics on the other side.
Kant argues that the kinds of ‘cognition’ (i.e. thinking) characteristic of the contemplation of the beautiful are not much different from ordinary cognition about other things in the world. The faculties of the ‘understanding’ of people’s mind is responsible for concepts, and that of ‘sensibility’ (including our imagination) is responsible for intuitions. The difference between the two is that in the case of aesthetic cognition, there is no one ‘determinate’ concept that pins down an intuition. Instead, intuition is allowed for some ‘free play’, and rather than being subject to one concept. Simply put it this way, the human’s sensible faculty made the intuition possible, and the sense of beauty is aroused by intuition, as intuition is allowed for some freedom to do some playful “games” in the mind, purporting to reach a status of harmony with other related concepts in the mind, if necessary, and leads to the best pleasure possible.
Thus,we have obtained the basic idea about the sense of beauty, which is a feeling of a biological being who possesses the faculty of sensibilities. Whenone says something is beautiful, it doesn’t simply mean this thing possesses “beauty” as its attribute, but also means this very person has the normal sensibility according the general understanding of our society, and/or to the common sense of this particular culture. It explains that evaluation of art involves two parts: the person who executes evaluation as the subject, and the piece of art to be evaluated as the object. And the sense of beauty can only be produced during the process of positive interaction between these two parts.
Humans have known the essential skills of creation of art for a long time. There is a proverb says: Art lies in concealing art and that beauty and honesty can never agree. In order to be honest, people are generally required to stick to the truth of the things, where the well-defined concepts and logic are applied, which are the jobs of another faculty of human mind, but the classical realism is built on the illusionary vision of people tricked by the realism painting techniques. The volume of the image and depth of the space that people see from the two-dimensional painting art arenothing but an illusion, and obviously not real. Plus, it is better to look at it at some distance than facing up onto it by inches, in order to get that ideal image desired. Nevertheless, most people like that painting style, since it suits the way of human’s eyes. It would be easy for people to tell the beauty of a classic realism painting than of a post-impressionism one, an abstractionism one, or a Chinese literati’s painting. It takes some aesthetical training before people came to appreciate the newstyle of beauty created by the modern painting techniques, and meanwhile, training in traditional Chinese culture is required to understand and see the beauty of the Chinese scholar’s art. However, it was not that those non-professionals simply couldn’t see anything good from those art works. Some abstractionism art and Chinese literati’s art may not be comparable to the former classic style in the sense of realistic presentation of images, but they have another type of beauty, that is the beauty of imagination associated with the freedom to unknown, available only from the art that had come through the ingenious maneuver of the master’s hand and mind.
Chinese people like to say that people need nice apparel just as the statue of Buda needs a gold finish. People need to dress nicely in order to attract the other sex, and gain the respect of their friends and colleagues, that is to say, to make the latter feel pleasant to be with them. A statue of Buda in shiny outfit in the temple would attract a lot more prayers than the one in shabby clothes. That explains the psychology of ordinary people in daily aesthetics. It works on many occasions, and came with it of some painting styles that emphasize on the visual effect of the art. Nevertheless, I am afraid that it is not the final beauty.
There is another proverb that says beauty’s sister is vanity, and her daughter is lust. Obviously, the shiny, colorful, extravagant things with fancy formalitywould feed to some people’s taste on beauty, as those things could excite and please them. Sexy pose of women and nudes are another popular source of beauty in humans, which are associated with the people’s biological need and the sub-consciousness of their mind. I guess this proverb had enlightened many artists in their art creation.
However, there is also one proverb that says the fair face needs no paint. I guess many Chinese painting artists, especially the literati’s painter would agree with this. As their painting work emphasizes on the simplicity, purity, and a natural elegance without much need of ornaments or decoration. It also suits with many western modern art that focus more on ideas and concepts than colorful presentation.
I would like particularly mention one saying by our ancestor here that is: beauty’s tear is lovelier than her smile, which had bothered me greatly before, because it is against the basic definition about beauty that is to bring the pleasant feeling to people. However, when we take our time to look into some greatest art works, whether in painting, or literature, or music. We may find some of the tragedies from the theatre, the blue music, the saddest painting work would produce the most striking feeling in the audience, by making them sad, weeping, but finally the extraordinary happiness arose from deep of their heart, after that amazing chemistry connected between them and the art, andthe sudden release of that unbearable emotional burden that had probably been hanging on there for long time, without being noticed before. That is the beauty of tragedies. All grow-ups have gone through unfortunate life experiences themselves or seeing their dear ones doing so, and would be more likely to understand that beauty.
In addition, one very popular proverb says: beauty is in the eyes of beholder. When one is in love with another person, he would undoubtedly see the other one as a beauty regardless what her real look is. In this case, the appreciator already has a pleasant image in his mind, which only waited to be triggered by that particular person associated with that image. It explains that beauty is not just about skin deep. Appearance only matters to some degree in producing the sense of beauty. Have we heard that a beauty without virtue is like a flower without fragrance and virtue is fairer far than beauty. These ideas existed in almost all cultures.
Andone proverb directly defined virtue as the beauty of mind, which means that virtue itself is just one kind of beauty. Among virtues, goodness or kindness is the most mentioned one. People believe that goodness charms more than mere beauty, as if goodness is a higher level of beauty. Since the beauty’s taste is pleasure, then we may say that goodness could cause stronger pleasant feeling among people than superficial beauty which is more focus onappearance. Furthermore, similar to goodness, grace is equally important to arouse that sense of beauty among people. Graceful people are nonetheless elegant, but pretty and stylish people are not necessarily graceful. Grace is shown in each move and manner of people with unspeakable charms shining out from a magic source hidden inside them, to silently influence and please people. As a matter of fact, grace is more lasting than beauty in its general meaning, mere beauty may fade and blast, however, grace will last with handsome appearance gone. We may say that it is another higher level of beauty.
Beautiful things can charm people by bringing them happiness with its enormous power that could be beyond the expression of art itself, which might draw much more than people can imagine. Just as if a person with full liberty would become most powerful ever, to some people, that is God. The final goal of beauty is the true freedom, so, to obtain the true sense of beauty is to achieve the true freedom of a person, that is to completely unify themselves with the universe, more concretely, is to follow the law of the universe, and to know what to do and what not to do. The real freedom is not to do whatever one likes to do, but can stop their doing when they are not supposed to do it. Especially in a complicated environment, to stay quietly by carefully listening to the revelation of the universe, or of God to some people, can gain yourself more freedom than act mindlessly.
Humans are originated from the universe, and the universe has created all kinds of models of beauties for them at the time of their birth, only waiting for them to find those beauties through their sensibility. Just like a new-born baby whose sole idol of beauty is its mother, when it is hungry, the mother’s breast is the most beautiful; when it needs to be hugged, the mother’s arms are the most beautiful ones, and when he needs to be kissed, the mother’s lip is the most beautiful. All of those are to satisfy its basic needs for nutrition and love as a baby. When the baby grows up, he would find different beauty idols functioning as his mother’s breast, arms, or lips, as his world is growing also. And they have to find out those beauties in order to achieve their freedom as a human. But in order to find those beauties, they need to learn about the universe, that’s why human’s civilization has developed so many sensible(can not only be felt by our sensors, but also make sense to our mind) disciplines to guide them, just as themother has guided the new-born baby. The first time when the baby cries because it is hungry, it probably doesn’t know where to get food, but the mother knows why and then put the tip of her breast into its mouth, and the cry stops. Next time, the baby would know where to search for its mother’s breast when it is hungry. If this baby happens to be a naughty one, and tries to bite its mother’s nose or ears to ease its hunger, then the mother probably wouldn’t understand that, and would just throw it in its cradle, letting it crying for ever, and think this baby is ugly, because a beautiful baby in parent’s eyewould behave nicely since the looks of baby are not much different at this stage of their life.
An individual who can achieve his full liberty would be the most beautiful one, and the very beautiful person should be the one that has achieved great liberty. Any one can do it, under the condition that there is no interruption of other people and other things, just like one of the laws of physics discovered by Newton, that a moved object could keep its motion permanently provided that there is no resistance against it at all. We all know that is not possible, since human is a social being with its own existence based on the coexistence of others., and the world is made of things of duo featured by its adversity. This is the dilemma of beauty, also of freedom. However, if we take all human as a unity, or as one person, then without the intervention of aliens, it would be much more simple, and it is possible for the human species to achieve its freedom to a great degree, and the human society would be so much better and much more pleasant to our senses. Thus the human’s beauty as one unity matters most to all, while all humanly beings as parts of the unity also matter in this extraordinary and inevitable task of looking for freedom or beauty. The job of an artist is to create beauty, and to be an idealist, we could all be an artist if we may.
In painting or related arts, there are warm colors and cold colors. The ones close to the warm color spectrum include red, orange, yellow. The ones close to cold color spectrum include green, blue and purple. Nonetheless, there are much more colors in nature or to be concocted by people than the ones mentioned above. People have preferences to different colors, while each color has different impact on their mood and emotions, and gives different psychological suggestion to people. Red color usually makes people feel exciting and happy, which is a color of celebration and associated with passion, power, ambition, courage; orange and yellow colors are cheerful and warm-hearted, and could be extravagant as well delightful, which conveys a sense of achievement or sublimity, also associates with wealth, ripeness and maturity, or hope and desire; blue color represents tranquility, stability, calmness, and loyalty; green brings a peace of mind, also suggest growth,health, freshness and liveliness; purple is a color of dignity, represents wisdom, integrity, solemnity and pride; pink is a very feminine and sexy color, which signifies beauty and love; white signifies grandness, perfection, confidence, and cleanness; dark is a mysterious color which conveys fear, unknown world, also graveness.
One famous painting by Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus, just used a light yellow color to paint Venus’s naked body, which successfully created a beautiful and lovely goddess of love, which, with her birth, brought love and hope to the world. In the painting of The Garden of Eden by Michelangelo, the delightfulyellow color of Eve and Adam occupies the center of the work and might indicate the desire of our first ancestors and hope of humans.
Those psychological suggestion of colors are not permanent to any person, nor the same to different people. Colors don’t carry element of emotions themselves, but only reflect color-associated light waves of different length on human’s eyes and cause different neuron reaction in their brain and accordingly produce the so-called color emotions. What people feel about different colors not only relates to the type of color, but also the culture background of the person, circumstance of event, health situation of the color viewer etc. For example, the yellow could also signifies sickness or frailness at certain circumstance, while red could express rage or hints violence, and green associates with weakness and undecisiveness quite often. White is perfection and purity ,but sometimes may suggest arrogance. Pink color is attractive, but can’t dissociate with being frivolous sometimes.
Some colors carry strong message of cultures just as people’s psychology are greatly effected by their culture background. Ancient Europeans tended to apply white color for their architecture, while Asian people favoured red color to paint the walls or pillars of their buildings or mansions. In some countries of Europe, people can find many antique architectures built by big white marble stones, with huge white pillars holding up in the front. And in some Asian countries, red or yellow-color painted temples, palaces could be found everywhere in their historical scenery sites or capital cities. European culture has got great influence from Greeks and Italians who reside by the sea and could have been brain- washed by the light blue color of the vast ocean and sky, while Asian culture, most influenced by Chinese people who originated from plains of inland with rich soil for agriculture, and had been seeing the yellow crops and colors of ripe fruits generation by generation, thus take it as a color of wealth and happiness. However, In some western paintings, we may found red color was actually used to depict the outfit of generals or garments of religious figures such as Jesus, Mother Mary etc al, which indicate the power and authority conveyed through this color, but usually it is not the case in Chinese culture.
Different ethnic groups may also incline to the different tones or saturation of the same color. Western culture tend to use bright tone of the colors with high saturation in their visual art, demonstrating the openness of their personality, the brightness in their thinking, the straightforwardness and boldness of their doing. Asian people like to use less light tone of the colors with low saturation in their painting, and very often would add water or ink to the color to make it darker and less bright, which probably reflects the introspected personality of Asian people who don’t like to be seen as too sharp or too outspoken inanything they are doing, in a way trying to demonstrate their virtue of modesty. Of course, those Chinese painters are mostly gentry class people or court officials or disciples of ancient saints, and varied from the ordinary artisan people who did all the mural paintings and ceramic decorations.
Beside color, shape is another very important element of painting art, which has square, rectangle, triangle, circle and polygons such as Pentagons, hexagons, octagons. For painters who are trained in western painting schools, they are probably told that drawing or painting images are actually the process of drawing geometric shapes and putting all of them together. At least the beginning stage of sketching is almost the same thing of drawing geometric shapes and then to round the straight lines a little bit to make them have a natural look and a better resemblance to the real image of the object. In traditional Chinese painting, the painters probably don’t go through this stage of training, due to the perception that they didn’t think the accurate forms are important. What matters to them were the quality and expressiveness of the lines, the composition of the painting and meanings conveyed through the work. Sometimes, colors are not even necessary. Still those shapes were moreor less noticeably displayed in their work without their knowing.
Different shapes also have their own psychological suggestion to viewers. Rectangles give people a sense of stability, integrity, and spaciousness. Many objects in our daily life show the rectangle shapes, such as desk, blackboard, bed, walls, doors, etc. Squares are neat and cute, and conveyed a sense of perfectness and centerness. Triangles with one side based on the bottom displays the stableness and strength, such as the Egyptian pyramid; the triangle with one point on the bottom either indicates the threat of danger such as a dagger, or the unsteady situation of impending fall-down. However, sometimes, the over-turned triangle shape could also indicate the fertile pelvisbasin of the woman, which is a good sign for the family. Also, triangles with one point directing to right or left side gives a sense of movement such as the road signs. Circles convey fullness and wholeness, or indicate movement of rolling. Such as the moon, the sun and moon cake for the former, and car wheels, balls for the latter. The polygons are used in many things in our life. The patterns of window frames used interlocked hexagons quite a lot while the patterns of design for fibers for bed sheet or the table cover also favour the shape of polygons. Actually the shape of human face could be done through drawing a vertically lengthened octagon.
Lines of the short or the long; the straight or the curved make different shapes, also directly show in the paintings or designs as an art element itself. Longstraight lines show the strength, neatness and steadiness. Short ones or even the ones shortened to be the dotty brush strokes, are lively and give a sense of vitality, motion or texture if applied properly. The curved line is also an indicator of movement, and is used quite often in painting water and clouds in Chinese paintings. The curved line used in painting the flowing bands around the ancient Chinese ladies’ shoulders or arms is elegant.
*
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.
The Azerbaijani Armed Forces have been developing their advance on Armenian positions in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region. As in the previous several days, the main clashes are taking place in the southern part of Karabakh.
As of October 16, Azerbaijani forces finally took full control of the town of Hadrat and started an operation to push the remaining Armenian units out of the town’s surroundings. Despite this, Armenian forces still conduct regular counter-attacks attempting to force the Azerbaijani military to retreat from their recently captured positions.
Azerbaijani troops also seized the villages of Arish in the Fuzuli district, Doshulu in the Jabrayil district and the villages of Edishe, Dudukchi, Edilli and Chiraguz in the Khojavend district. Earlier this week, Azerbaijan captured Garadaghli, Melikjanli, Garakollu, Bulutan, Tagaser, Khatunbulag, Kemertuk and Teke. Thus, Armenian forces lost at least 15 towns and settlements during this week of clashes.
The Azerbaijani side employs its advantage in artillery and air power. Azerbaijani special forces also conducted several raids in the rear of Armenian positions in the south of Karabakh trying to create chaos there.
The town of Fuzuli, which for the previous days remained in the contested area, is now about to fall in the full control of Azerbaijan. If Armenian forces are not able to gain back the initiative, this will become the inevitable.
Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan announced that the Armenians tried to recapture several positions taken by Azerbaijani forces, but these attacks were repelled. According to Baku, a large number of Armenian forces, including two T-72 battle tanks, a Tor-M2KM surface-to-air missile system, four BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, a D-20 howitzer, a D-30 howitzer, and two D-1 howitzers, as well as several vehicles and UAVs were eliminated.
On the morning of October 15, videos filmed in the area of Hadrut appeared online showing how Azerbaijani troops had captured two Armenian fighters, one of them was an old man (he does not even seem to be able to hold arms), then tied them with Armenian flags and had them killed. A few hours after, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry released a statement claiming that Armenians share in social media some ‘fake videos’ that are ‘not related’ to the Karabakh conflict.
Earlier, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and top Turkish officials repeatedly claimed that the Azerbaijani advance on Nagorno-Karabakh poses no threat to the Armenian population there. Nonetheless, actions like on the aforementioned videos as well as almost no reports about captured Armenian soldiers demonstrate that in fact the conflict creates a real threat of ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population in Karabakh the areas captured by Azerbaijan. In its own turn, the Armenian Defense Ministry claims that despite some ‘tactical retreats’, its forces have been successfully repelling Azerbaijani attacks.
This just week only, the Armenian side claimed that its forces had shot down 3 SU-25 warplanes and multiple UAVs of Azerbaijan. Dozens of Azerbaijani armoured vehicles and hundreds of troops were also allegedly eliminated. Nonetheless, photo and video evidence from the ground demonstrates that in fact Armenian forces are on retreat and are now trying to regroup and prevent further advances of Azerbaijan into the contested region.
Taking into account the current complex diplomatic situation in the region, the Azerbaijani military has all chances to continue its active offensive operations until the start of winter. After this, Baku will likely temporarily halt the military phase of its push to capture Karabakh and return to the negotiating table to force Armenia to surrender the region. If this does not happen, the Azerbaijani advance will likely be resumed in the spring of 2021.
*
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.
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that voter intimidation is illegal, that armed poll watchers are intimidating, that voter discrimination exists, whether the president could deny someone the right to vote based on race or that Congress has a constitutional duty to protect the right to vote.
She refused to affirm that Medicare is constitutional; that married couples should not lose their right to contraceptives; that a Black worker repeatedly called the N-word was subjected to a hostile work environment; that it’s wrong to separate children from their parents at the border; or that marriage equality, the right to consensual gay sex and LGBTQ workers’ rights should be protected. Barrett would not say that human beings are responsible for climate change or that the Constitution requires a peaceful transfer of power.
Barrett’s answers — and refusals to answer — confirm that she will be the most radical right-wing member of the Court.
Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), noted, “Voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that.” Apparently, Barrett does. Roberts also said at his confirmation hearing, “I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.”
When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) asked Barrett whether a president could refuse to comply with a court order, she refused to answer. Even Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch “made it clear [during their confirmation hearings] that a president cannot refuse to comply with a court order and the Supreme Court’s word is the final word on that matter,” Leahy told Barrett.
Even Kavanaugh wrote in a court of appeals opinion that, “being called the N-word by a supervisor suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) told Barrett.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens Voting Rights
Barrett was asked whether she agreed with her mentor Antonin Scalia’s characterization of the Voting Rights Act as “a perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Barrett refused to answer. “This should sound an alarm for anyone in our country who cares about protecting voting rights for all Americans,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, testified at Barrett’s hearing.
An Arizona case on the Court’s docket will test another anti-discrimination provision of the VRA, Section 2, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. “Given Judge Barrett’s unwillingness to recognize the threats that Black people and communities of color face in voting, I’m deeply concerned about how she would handle this case and many other such cases that will come before the Court,” Clarke told the committee.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens the Affordable Care Act
Barrett admitted to Leahy that she didn’t know how many people are covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), how many people under age 26 have health insurance under their parents’ plans thanks to the ACA, or how many Americans have tested positive for coronavirus.
If she was being straight with Leahy, Barrett is a judge wildly out of touch with the people of this country.
Barrett also refused to tell Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) that she was aware Donald Trump had opposed the ACA before he nominated her. When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) asked Barrett whether she had heard Trump’s statement committing to nominate judges who would strike down the ACA, the judge replied, “I don’t recall hearing about or seeing such statements.”
Has Barrett been hiding under a rock? Or is she lying?
On November 10, the Court will hear arguments in California v. Texas, which will determine the fate of the ACA. The Trump administration’s brief in the case says, “The entire Affordable Care Act must fall.” Barrett wrote in a 2017 law review article that Roberts’s 2012 majority opinion upholding the law “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent most of their time providing personal stories demonstrating the tragedy that would befall tens of millions of Americans who would lose their health care if the Court repeals the ACA, especially in the midst of a pandemic.
But they could have better explained why Trump is so eager to repeal “Obamacare” and why congressional Republicans have tried to abolish it 70 times. It’s the powerful insurance lobby that has Trump and GOP congress members in their pocket. Although Republicans have been promising for years that they would replace Obamacare with a better plan, no plan has ever been forthcoming.
Dr. Farhan Bhatti, CEO of a Michigan nonprofit clinic, testified that without the ACA, insurance companies could discriminate against anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19, which would constitute a pre-existing condition, as well as any other pre-existing conditions. They could refuse to provide coverage or raise costs. “Any judge who opposes the ACA endangers a lifeline that my patients count on to stay healthy, and in many cases, to stay alive,” Bhatti told the senators.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens Racial Justice and Reproductive Rights
In light of the national discourse and public protests against systemic racism and police brutality, Booker asked Barrett what books or law review articles she’s read about racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Barrett cited the sentencing guidelines, sentencing commission reports and “conversations” she’d had. Booker said there are books on the bestseller list, including The Color of Law, Just Mercy and The New Jim Crow, because “people are seeking to know what the facts are.”
Booker told Barrett that the “war on drugs” is a war on Black and Brown people “because of the outrageous disparities.” He confronted Barrett with a lengthy blog post she wrote questioning whether people sentenced under the racially discriminatory cocaine law should have their sentences adjusted retroactively after the law was overturned. Booker noted that of the 20,000 people affected, 98 percent were Black or Brown. He pointed out that Barrett never mentioned that the prior law, with its racially biased sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine disproportionately affecting Black people, was unjust.
When asked about the standard for overruling Supreme Court precedent, Barrett called Brown v. Board of Education — which held that “separate but equal” schools discriminated against Black children — a “super-precedent,” that is, “precedent that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” But Barrett refused to say that Roe v. Wade is also a super-precedent because many people are trying to overturn it. That’s not surprising as she signed a statementreferring to Roe as “barbaric” and a “raw exercise of judicial power.” She also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act, calling it “an assault on religious liberty.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) cited 14 abortion cases winding their way through the courts. They include abortion bans between six and 24 gestational weeks, bans on dilution and extraction (which account for almost all second trimester abortions), requirements that fetal remains be buried or cremated, unnecessary requirements imposed on abortion providers like transfer agreements with hospitals, reason bans, and parental notification and consent requirements.
Many of these cases could reach the Supreme Court. Although no case has yet squarely presented the issue of whether Roe should be overturned, right-wingers have erected procedural barriers aimed to cause death of abortion by a thousand cuts.
Make no mistake: Reproductive rights are on the line if Barrett joins the Court.
Dark Money Propelled Barrett to the Supreme Court
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) did a masterful job of explaining how dark (secret) money has been spent to overturn the ACA and put Barrett and other right-wingers on the high court. He described “orchestrated” campaigns with amicus briefs written by right-wing organizations and signed by GOP senators. Whitehouse cited “the Judicial Crisis Network campaigning for Supreme Court nominees, writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act, supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case, and leading the selection process for this nominee.”
Whitehouse displayed a list of 80 cases decided by a 5 to 4 vote with no Democrats joining the majority. These cases were backed by identifiable GOP donor interests and they won all of them. They’re not about Roe or the ACA, Whitehouse told Barrett. “They’re about power,” he said, listing three categories of cases: (1) unlimited dark money in politics (Citizens United); (2) diminishing the civil jury (“annoying to big corporate powers”); and (3) weakening regulatory agencies (favoring polluters like the fossil fuel industry and Koch industries).
Barrett explained the process by which a case gets to the Supreme Court: Someone suffers an injury, gets a lawyer, sues, and the case winds its way up to the high court. But Whitehouse clarified how big funders inject cases into the system to serve their political and economic interests. He described “a whole array of legal groups also funded by dark money, which … bring cases to the court. They don’t wind their way to the court, your honor, they get shoved to the court by these legal groups. Many of which asked to lose below so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there.” Whitehouse cited the example of a $45 million campaign to get rid of union dues which succeeded when the Court decided Janus v. AFSCME in 2018 and overruled its 40-year-old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
Trump has made clear he wants Barrett confirmed to the Court in time to decide election challenges. Nevertheless, Barrett refused to commit to recusing herself in any cases that come before the Court contesting the election results.
The Democratic senators repeatedly said that the GOP’s hypocritical rush to install Barrett on the Court while people are already voting in the middle of a pandemic is “not normal.” They should instead be working to pass COVID-19 relief for the millions of people who are suffering.
Barrett will be confirmed to the Court and at age 48, she could serve for decades. She will create a 6 to 3 right-wing majority on the Court. But if the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, two of the three branches of government could check and balance the judicial one.
*
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.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
Enquanto a “crise do Coronavirus” continua a provocar consequências socio-económicas devastadoras, também em Itália, uma grande parte do “Fundo para a Recuperação” é destinada não aos sectores económicos e sociais mais atingidos, mas aos sectores mais avançados da indústria bélica.
De acordo com o Fundo de Recuperação, a Itália deveria receber € 209 biliões nos próximos seis anos, dos quais cerca de 81 como subsídios e 128 como empréstimos a serem reembolsados com juros.
Entretanto, os Ministérios da Defesa e do Desenvolvimento Económico apresentaram uma lista de projectos de carácter militar no valor de cerca de 30 biliões de euros (Análise da Defesa, Fundos também para a Defesa do Fundo de Recuperação, 25-09-2020). Os projectos do Ministério da Defesa prevêem atribuir 5 biliões de euros do Fundo de Recuperação para aplicações militares nos sectores da cibernética, das comunicações, do Espaço e da inteligência artificial. Os projectos relativos ao uso militar da 5G são significativos, principalmente no Espaço, com a concretização de uma constelação de 36 satélites e outros.
Os projectos do Ministério do Desenvolvimento Económico, relacionados, sobretudo, com o sector aeroespacial militar, prevêem uma despesa de 25 biliões de euros do Fundo de Recuperação. O Ministério pretende investir num caça da sexta geração (a suceder ao F-35 de quinta geração), o Tempest, denominado “o avião do futuro”. Outros investimentos dizem respeito à produção de helicópteros/tilt rotors militares da nova geração, capazes de decolar e aterrar na vertical e voar a alta velocidade.
Ao mesmo tempo, irá investir em drones e unidades navais da nova geração e em tecnologias submarinas avançadas.Também são esperados grandes investimentos no sector das tecnologias espaciais e de satélite. Várias dessas tecnologias, entre as quais se destacam os sistemas de comunicação 5G, serão usadas com um duplo objectivo – militar e civil. Visto que alguns dos projectos militares apresentados pelos dois departamentos se sobrepõem, o Ministério do Desenvolvimento Económico elaborou uma nova lista que permitirá reduzir as suas despesas em 12,5 biliões de euros.
No entanto, permanece o facto de que se está a programar gastar uma quantia que varia de 17,5 a 30 biliões de euros retirados do Fundo de Recuperação para fins militares, que devem ser reembolsados com juros. Além desta quantia, há mais 35 biliões destinados a fins militares e a serem gastos pelos governos italianos durante o período 2017-2034, sobretudo, no orçamento do Ministério do Desenvolvimento Económico.
Esta verba soma-se ao orçamento do Ministério da Defesa, elevando a despesa militar italiana para mais de 26 biliões de euros por ano, equivalente a uma média de mais de 70 milhões de euros por dia, em dinheiro público subtraído às despesas sociais. Cifra que a Itália se comprometeu com a NATO a aumentar para uma média de cerca de 100 milhões de euros por dia, de acordo com o que foi solicitado pelos Estados Unidos.
A atribuição para este efeito de uma grande parte do ‘Recovery Fund’ permitirá à Itália atingir este nível. Na primeira fila, entre as indústrias militares que pressionam o governo a aumentar a fatia militar do Fundo de Recuperação, está a empresa Leonardo,da qual o Ministério do Desenvolvimento Económico possui 30% das acções. A Leonardo está integrada no gigantesco complexo militar-industrial USA, comandado pela Lockheed Martin, construtora do F-35 em cuja produção participa essa mesma empresa Leonardo, através da sua fábrica em Cameri.
A Leonardo que se autoproclama “protagonista mundial no Aeroespaço, na Defesa e na Segurança”, com a missão de “proteger os cidadãos”, demonstra como pretende fazê-lo, ao usar a sua influência e poder para roubar aos cidadãos, recursos vitais do “Fundo de Recuperação”, a fim de conseguir uma maior aceleração da “recuperação” da indústria bélica.
Recursos que seremos sempre nós a pagá-los, acrescidos de juros. Pagaremos assim, “o avião do futuro”, que nos protegerá, assegurando um futuro de guerra.
O planeta inteiro está estupefato, espantado, chocado e aterrorizado com o espetáculo da democracia desvelado nas sombras do imperialismo messiânico – acrescente um monte de surpresas asquerosas tipo “bala de prata” de outubro.
Estamos dentro do território de Frank Underwood. Para ficar de acordo com o suprassumo da “Sociedade do Fingimento” retratado por Baudrillard nos idos dos anos 80, todas as semelhanças com um espetáculo de Vale Tudo não são, por óbvio, mera coincidência.
Comecemos com as pesquisas
Todos os tipos de pesquisas circulam por aí como dervixes sufistas rodopiantes. A maioria delas espelha os democratas trilhando o caminho da vitória e apontam uma inevitável Rota do Inferno para Trump. Uma pesquisa feita pelo The Economist dá a Joe “Walking Dead” Biden estonteantes 91% de chance – lembram de Hillary, em 2016? – de vitória no Colégio Eleitoral.
Exsurge um consenso impulsionado pelos Democratas de que Trump – inapelavelmente descrito como um proto-fascista perigoso e alucinado, prejudicial aos negócios mundo afora – não aceitará os resultados em quaisquer estados norte-americanos com tradição Republicana no qual ele venha a ser derrotado por margem pequena, como Arizona, Flórida, Michigam, Carolina do Norte, Pensilvânia e Wiscosin.
Ocorre que no desenrolar da campanha a história é diferente. As evidências mostram que nos comícios dos “Walking Deads” há mais pessoas que surgem dos ônibus de Biden que eleitores do Partido Democrata em carne e osso. A campanha Biden/Harris, mostrando sua perícia em Relações Públicas, tratam esses comícios como segredos de campanha.
Aparentemente, o próprio presidente revelou a estratégia de longo prazo de sua equipe: “daqui a dois anos ainda estaremos contando votos … se voltarmos ao Congresso, a vantagem é nossa. Penso em algo por volta de 22 a 26, uma vez que se conta um voto por Estado.”
É uma referência à 12ª Emenda à Constituição: se eleitores de determinado estado não conseguem chegar a um resultado quanto ao vencedor, a decisão vai para a Câmara. Ali, todos os estados têm direito a apenas um voto. Pensem que estados controlados pelos republicanos com Alasca, Dakota do Norte, Dakota do Sul e Wyoming (todos com apenas um representante [republicano] na Câmara) tem o mesmo peso que California (que tem 52 representantes na Câmara, dos quais 45 são democratas).
Trump leva vantagem: no cenário atual, seriam mesmo 26 a 22, com dois – Pensilvânia e Michigam – em tese empatados.
Pergunte aos quant(1)
Enquanto as próprias pesquisas internas do Partido Republicano indicam que os Democratas ainda não estão batendo de porta em porta, os entusiastas de Trump enxameiam nas casas, já tendo atuado em cerca de 20 milhões de residências nos estados indecisos.
Junte a isso uma nova pesquisa Gallup indicando que 56% dos (norte)americanos consideram estar melhor sob Trump do que estiveram anos atrás sob Obama/Biden. Você pode apelidar isso de “a volta do ‘é a economia, estúpido’”
O Grupo Trafalgar – que previu corretamente a eleição de 2016 – aposta que Trump vencerá por pouco o Colégio Eleitoral, com 275 votos.
O principal analista quantitativo do JPMorgan mapeou exaustivamente as mudanças entre eleitores registrados para negar quase quaisquer pesquisas que apontem para uma vitória folgada dos Democratas. Isso quer dizer que Trump pode perfeitamente acabar vencendo na Santíssima Trindade: Pensilvânia (20 votos), Flórida (29 votos) e Carolina do Norte (15 votos).
Como cereja do bolo, nada mais inesperado que um buraco negro massivo engolindo uma estrela aconteceu nesse outubro de surpresas, na última semana: a CNN de repente resolveu fazer jornalismo e estraçalhou Nancy Pelosi diante das câmeras.
Isso pode ser de mau agouro para a presidente-na-espera Kamala Harris, a qual, como poucos recordam, foi ungida como herdeira do eixo Obama/Pelosi em reunião secreta no verão de 2017.
Sigamos o dinheiro
Vamos seguir o dinheiro.
É brincadeira de criança. Para os republicanos, o homem da grana é o esquematizador de cassinos Sheldon Adelson – que literalmente comprou o Congresso por uma mixaria de $150 milhões de dólares. Já para os democratas, o dono da burra é Haim Saban – que tem seu próprio think tank e é a pessoa que socorre Hillary quando esta necessita de numerário. Essencialmente, o demente democrata é o operador do “homem da mala”.
Só para melhorar as coisas, tanto Adelson quanto Saban são defensores ferrenhos de Israel-acima-de-tudo. Um agente de Inteligência dissidente bateu no fígado: “O mafioso Sheldon Adelson financiou Trump porque o achou melhor para Israel, embora Israel favorecesse Hillary”.
Há quatro anos, fontes fidedignas de Nova Iorque com as quais eu tinha contato acertaram o resultado das eleições com dez dias de antecedência.
Uma delas, magnata de Nova Iorque intimamente ligado aos Mestres do Universo que controlam Wall Street, também foi na jugular:
“O Estado Profundo governa tanto Republicanos quanto Democratas. Trump teve que trabalhar dentro do sistema. Ele sabe disso. Sou amigo de Donald e sei que ele quer fazer a coisa certa. Mas ele não manda. Claro que ele quer relações amistosas com Rússia e China. Ele é um homem de negócios. Quer negociar com eles, não lutar. Nós traçamos as linhas mestras da campanha dele em 2016: parar a manipulação e moedas que destrói as indústrias domésticas; cessar a imigração ilimitada que acaba com os salários das classes baixas e encorajar a distensão com a Rússia e a China. A grande maioria dessas coisas não aconteceu nos últimos quatro anos.”
Há gente de Nova Iorque que acrescentaria: “de um jeito ou outro, Trump fez 90% do que eles queriam. É melhor ter no poder um rufião conhecido e manter os proletários andando em círculos.”
Na frente financeira, há coisas que jamais verão a luz: Wall Street, mesmo mantendo uma fachada favorável aos Democratas, não está minimamente interessada numa vitória Democrata “retumbante”, desde que isso significaria queda imediata em ações da bolsa em Wall Street. Da mesma forma com uma eleição que pudesse ser contestada ou postergada – e nesse caso Goldman Sachs prevê um cenário de pesadelo no qual o índice S&P cairia para apenas 3100 pontos.
Então, devagar com o andor, este é o cenário preferido por Wall Street: Trump vence e produz mais cortes generosos de impostos – paralelamente, o sentimento em Wall Street é que Trump continuará a despejar dinheiro às mancheias aconteça o que acontecer. Afinal, na realidade a única “política” real é que Wall Street transformou o Fed em um fundo de investimento livre.
Por sua vez, algo que a equipe de Trump com certeza não quer é o Grande Reinício (Great Reset, no texto em inglês – nt) – a ser oficialmente lançado no encontro virtual de Davos em janeiro de 2021.
Tudo isso acontece simultaneamente, enquanto Goldman Sachs, mais uma vez, alerta estridentemente que a única maneira de “salvar” a nação de sua dívida portentosa e eternamente prestes a explodir é a desvalorização do dólar.
Hillary quer outro emprego
No teatro de sombras – ou plano de luta livre sem regras – do conflito de Trump contra o Estado Profundo (Deep State, no texto em inglês – nt) outro dos atores novaiorquinos confirma que “Trump nunca teve permissão para cumprir parte substancial de sua própria agenda o que demonstra onde está o poder real. Na medida em que ele dá tudo o que pedem, que seja o aumento de um orçamento militar já gigantesco, o complexo Militar/Industrial quer a vitória de Trump. Já Biden se recusa a assumir tal compromisso.”
Como “apenas obedeciam ordens” Clapper, Brennan Comey e Mueller estão sendo protegidos. Quanto à hiena belicista e narcisista chamada Hillary Clinton, esta precisa que Biden/Harris vençam, para, entre outras coisas, escapar da cadeia, desde que se cumpra um acordo “secreto” entre ela e Obama, que a forçou a se manter distante enquanto o ex-presidente assumia como líder de fato da vasta máquina política do DNC (Democratic National Committee – Comitê Nacional Democrata – nt).
Qualquer um que tenha um cérebro em atividade e more em Beltway tem consciência de que o Walking Dead foi escolhido justamente porque mal se qualifica como capacho dos poderosos. Admitindo-se que ele vença as eleições, o poder real por trás do trono será o eixo Obama/Pelosi – e seus mestres suspeitos de sempre. Seja muito bem vindo ao reinado da Presidente Kamala.
Hillary, claro, não dá ponto sem nó, dobra as apostas e não faz prisioneiros. Acabou de divulgar um manifesto de 5000 palavras que pode ser entendido como uma candidatura a chefia do Pentágono.
Todos esses planos e contra planos não afetam os padrões principais do Estado Profundo, que continuam inabaláveis. Compreende-se então que o pântano proverbial do Distrito de Columbia continua a proteger suas crias. Além da possibilidade real de que Trump sequer é qualificado para escolher seus subordinados, acrescente-se que na verdade não lhe foram dadas opções decentes: teve que lidar com espécimes do naipe de Gina “rainha da tortura” Haspel, O Bigode Belicoso de John Bolton e Mike “nós mentimos, nós enganamos, nós roubamos” Pompeo.
O que nos leva ao Procurador Geral William Barr – e a uma questão resiliente em muitos corredores da Beltway: qual a causa da falta de indiciamentos mesmo quando se amontoavam as evidências de malfeitos relacionados ao Estado Profundo.
Muito simples: Barr é ao mesmo tempo parte da CIA e da gang do Velho pai Bush, recrutado quando ele ainda cursava o ensino médio em 1971. Quando seu mentor se tornou diretor da CIA em 1976, Barr adentrou no Departamento Jurídico da CIA e a partir daí sua carreira decolou, culminando em 1991 com a nomeação para a Presidência da Consultoria Jurídica sob o Presidente Bush.
Nem é preciso dizer que Barr a seguir impediu quaisquer eventuais investigações contra Bush, Clinton e demais operadores da CIA, desde o BCCI até o roubo do software da PROMIS.
Não haveria voluntários dispostos a desvendar porque Trump escolheu Barr – ou como o Estado Profundo fez isso acontecer. O fato é que Barr foi alçado logo depois da morte de Papai Bush. Com ou sem os 33.000 e-mails deletados de Hillary, é muito pouco provável que Trump “tirasse” do pântano o agente da CIA William Barr
São esses fatos que levam aqueles jogadores em Nova Iorque a apostar que Barr não acionará suas baterias contra qualquer estrela na galáxia do Estado Profundo.
Mas permanece o fato de que a NSA (Agência de Segurança Nacional – nt) armazenou todas as chamadas, conversas ou e-mails em suas massivas Torres de Servidores (Servers Farms no texto em inglês – nt) e que Trump tem o poder de ordenar a divulgação de tudo – o que na realidade já fez. Mesmo assim, aos proletários foram oferecidas apenas pobres narrativas sobre espécies animais ameaçados, tipo WWF (World Wide Fund [for Nature]).
“Voltei” – em esteroides
A balcanização total da cultura dos Estados Unidos encerrada em containers blindados de irracionalidade impede quaisquer possibilidades de debate civilizado. O que resta é uma proliferação interminável de maus atores, exércitos de trolls pagos, robôs, ultraje da massa embrulhado como se fosse barras de chocolate e a histeria geral.
Aconteça o que acontecer, esteja pronto para um massacre tipo Kill Bill logo à frente.
Neste fogo cruzado – não apenas metafórico – aparece John Lydon, também conhecido como Johnny Rotten, lenda do Sex Pistol e milionário residente na melhor parte de Venice Beach, Los Angeles. Ele votará em Trump.
Para o Presidente Trump, é a consagração – mesmo que Trump esteja mais para Village People (“Young man/ there’s no need to feel down” – não é preciso se sentir arrasado, meu jovem – nt) que o Sex Pistols em “Holidays in the Sun” ou os Dead Kennedys em “Holiday in Cambodia”.
Dica para o POTUS (Presidente Of The United States – Presidente dos Estados Unidos – nt) doidão na Flórida: “Estou de volta” em esteroides, trabalhando a multidão excitada como um profissional, atingindo o clímax em passos da dança YMCA na finalização: “I’ll kiss the guys, and the beautiful women…” (Beijarei os manos e as mulheres bonitas… – nt).
Faça a comparação com o “Zé Dorminhoco” (Sleepy Joe, no texto em inglês – nt) em Ohio, encarando, bem, ninguém, na realidade: “I’m running as a proud Democrat … for the Senate”. (Estou concorrendo como um orgulhoso candidato Democrata… ao Senado (!) – nt)”
Semana passada, uma incontável multidão de oito pessoas compareceu em um comício Biden/Harris no Arizona.
A palhaçada continua inabalável enquanto uma pandemia com taxa de mortalidade de mais ou menos 0,14% – de acordo com estimativas da própria Organização Mundial de Saúde – está custando à economia global nada menos que espantosos $28 trilhões de dólares, de acordo com o FMI.
Antes que eu me esqueça: só termina quando Britney, a magrela, cantar “I did it again” …
The whole planet is enthralled, appalled, shocked and awed by the spectacle of democracy as enacted under the shadow of messianic imperialism – complete with a slew of slimy, smoking gun October Surprises.
We’re in total Frank Underwood territory. And as befits the ultimate “society of the simulacrum” pictured by Baudrillard back in the swingin’ 1980s, all those similarities with a Wrestlemania spectacular are obviously not mere coincidence.
Let’s start with the polls.
All manner of polls are circulating like whirling dervishes. Most highlight myriad Dem paths to victory and an inexorable Highway to Hell for Trump. A poll by The Economist gives Joe “Walking Dead” Biden a whopping 91% chance – remember Hillary in 2016? – of winning the Electoral College.
A Dem-fueled consensus is emerging that Trump – relentlessly depicted as a deranged, lunatic proto-fascist who’s bad for business worldwide – will dispute results in any Republican-led state which he may narrowly lose, as in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Yet on the campaign trail, it’s a completely different story. Evidence shows that on The Walking Dead’s rallies, there are more people from the Biden bus and reporters than flesh-and-blood Dem voters. The Biden-Harris campaign, demonstrating its matchless P.R. skills, spins these rallies as campaign secrets.
Team Trump’s long-shot strategy seems to have been unveiled by the President himself:
“We are going to be counting ballots for the next two years (…) We have the advantage if we go back to Congress. I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state.”
That was a reference to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution: if state electors can’t agree on a president, the decision goes to the House. And then each of the 50 states gets one vote. So picture small GOP-controlled states such as Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (each with one Republican in the House) having the same weight as California (52 members in the House, 45 of them Democrats.)
Advantage Trump: as it stands, it’s indeed 26 to 22, with two – Pennsylvania and Michigan – basically tied.
Ask the quant
Internal GOP polls show that while the Biden-Harris campaign is not knocking on any doors, Trump volunteers have actually swarmed no less than 20 million homes in swing states.
Combine it with a new Gallup Poll showing that 56% of Americans state they are better off now under Trump than four years ago under Obama/Biden. Call it the return of “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The Trafalgar Group – which correctly called the 2106 election – bets that Trump narrowly wins the Electoral College with 275 votes.
JPMorgan’s top quant Marko Kolanovic has exhaustively mapped changes in voter registration to dismiss virtually every poll showing a Dem sweep. This implies that Trump may well end up winning the Holy Trinity: Pennsylvania (20 votes), Florida (29 votes) and North Carolina (15 votes).
And to top it off, something more exotic than a black hole eating a star has happened in this October Surprise-laden week: CNN decided to practice real journalism and eviscerated Nancy Pelosi on camera.
That may be quite a bad omen for President-in-Waiting Kamala Harris, who very few remember was forged as the heir to the Obama-Pelosi axis in a secret meeting in the Hamptons way back in the summer of 2017.
Follow the money
Now let’s Follow The Money.
That’s a slam dunk. For Republicans, the top bagman is casino schemer Sheldon Adelson – who literally bought Congress for a paltry $150 million. For Democrats, it’s Haim Saban – who owns his own think tank and is Hillary’s go-to moneyman. The Dem dementia is essentially a bagman op.
To make it even more digestible, both Adelson and Saban are rabid Israeli-firsters. A dissident Beltway intel op cuts all corners: “The Mafia front man Sheldon Adelson financed Trump for Israeli insurance even though Israel was for Hillary.”
Four years ago, selected New York sources I was in touch with correctly called the election result at least 10 days before the fact.
One of these, a New York business tycoon intimate with assorted Masters of the Universe in control of Wall Street, once again goes to the jugular:
“The Deep State governs both Republicans and Democrats. Trump has to work within the system. He knows it. I am a friend of Donald and I know he wants to do the right thing. But he is not in charge. He certainly wants to be friends with Russia and China. He is a businessman. He wants to make deals with countries not fight them. We were among those who set the main campaign features for him in 2016: stop rigged currencies destroying domestic industries, stop unlimited immigration destroying the lower classes wages and encourage detente with Russia and China. Largely nothing has happened in four years.”
Still, adds another New York player, “Trump does 90% of what they want anyway. Better to keep a villain at the top to blame and keep the proles running in circles.”
On the financial front, that will never be admitted publicly: but Wall Street, while projecting a mere pro-Dem façade, is not interested in a Democrat “sweep”, because that would tank Wall Street stocks. A contested/protracted election would go the same way – with Goldman Sachs projecting a nightmare scenario of the S&P down to only 3,100 points.
Thus the preferred, hush hush, Wall Street scenario: a Trump win and more juicy tax cuts – in parallel with the sentiment that Wall Street’s priority is for the Fed to keep showering trillions of dollars in helicopter money whatever happens. After all the only “policy” in town is that Wall Street turned the Fed into a hedge fund.
For its part, what Team Trump certainly does not want is the Great Reset – to be officially “launched” at a virtual Davos in January 2021.
And all this while Goldman Sachs, once again, is adamant that the only way to “save” the nation from it humongous, ever-exploding debt is to devalue the U.S. dollar.
Hillary wants a new job
In the shadow play – or Wrestlemania plot – of Trump’s face-off against the Deep State, another of those New York players confirms that, “Trump was not allowed to do much of his agenda. That shows you where the real power is. The military-industrial complex wants Trump in as he is giving them everything they want for a giant military buildup. But Biden will not make that commitment.”
Clapper, Brennan, Comey and Mueller “were just following orders and are being protected.” As for warmongering narcissistic hyena
Hillary Clinton, she needs a Biden/Harris win essentially to stay out of jail, a follow-up to a “secret” deal struck with Obama which had her bow out to the former President as the de facto leader of the vast DNC machinery.
Anyone with a brain across the Beltway knows The Walking Dead was chosen because he does not even qualify as a place mat. Assuming he would be elected president, the real power behind the throne will be the Obama-Pelosi axis – and their usual suspect masters. Welcome to the reign of President Kamala.
Hillary though is leaving nothing to chance, doubling down and taking no prisoners. She has just released a 5,000-word manifesto which reads as an application to become head of the Pentagon.
The fact that with all the plot twists key vectors of the Deep State continue to be untouchable should be read as the proverbial D.C. swamp protecting their flock. More than the possibility that Trump is unqualified when it comes to picking minions, more realistically he was never given any decent options: so he was stuck with nefarious specimens such as Gina “Queen of Torture” Haspel, The Warring Mustache John Bolton, and Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo.
Which bring us to Attorney General William Barr – and a persistent question across many Beltway corridors: how come there have been no indictments as evidence piles up of interlocking Deep State-related shenanigans.
Simple: Barr is CIA, part of the old Daddy Bush gang, recruited when he was still in high school, in 1971. When Daddy Bush became CIA director in 1976, Barr stepped into the CIA’s legal office and started his steady climb, culminating in 1991 as Chief Legal Counsel to Daddy Bush’s presidency.
Needless to add, Barr subsequently squashed every possible investigation on Bush, Clinton and assorted CIA ops, from BCCI to the theft of PROMIS software.
No one will volunteer to be on the record showing how Trump selected Barr – or how the Deep State made it happen. The fact is Barr was appointed shortly after the death of Daddy Bush. It’s unlikely that Team Trump have “turned” CIA asset Barr away from the swamp – with or without Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails.
And that’s what leads those New York players to bet that Barr won’t go after any star in the Deep State galaxy.
Still the fact remains that the NSA has stored every possible call, chat or email on its massive server farms. Trump has the power to order everything to be released – as he did. Yet, as it stands, the proles have only been offered a WWF-themed sitcom.
“I’m back” on steroids
The total balkanization of culture in the U.S. into bulletproof containers of irrationality is precluding any possibility of civilized debate. What’s left is an endless proliferation of fake actors, paid troll armies, bots, mob outrage packaged as chocolate bars, all out hysteria.
Whatever happens, get ready for some major Kill Bill mayhem ahead.
And into this shooting war – not only metaphorical – steps John Lydon, a.k.a. Johnny Rotten, Sex Pistol legend and a millionaire resident of the tony parts of Venice beach in L.A. He’s voting Trump.
That’s the ultimate crowning of POTUS Punk – except that Trump is more Village People (“Young man/ there’s no nee to feel down”) than the Sex Pistols in Holidays in the Sun or the Dead Kennedys in Holiday in Cambodia.
Cue to POTUS Punk in Florida, “I’m back” on steroids, working an excited crowd of thousands like a pro, complete with YMCA dance moves at the end: “I’ll kiss the guys, and the beautiful women…”
Now compare it to “Sleepy Joe” in Ohio, in front of, well, nobody really: “I’m running as a proud Democrat…for the Senate”.
Last week an astonishing eight people showed up for a Biden-Harris rally in Arizona.
And the racket goes on while a pandemic with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of roughly 0.14% – according to the WHO’s own estimate – has cost the global economy no less than a whopping $28 trillion, according to the IMF.
Oh yes: it ain’t over till slim Britney “I Did It Again” sings.
*
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.
Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
What Happened: Bill Gatesrecently appeared on NBC news stating that after the first generation of COVID vaccines becomes available, a second wave of vaccines will then hit the market, letting the public know that the COVID vaccine will be a multi-dose vaccine.
Approximately 6 months ago he gave multiple interviews, in one of them stating that “It is fair to say that things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.”
In this most recent interview, he discussed how vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, but did not address the concerns that vaccine safety advocates commonly bring up, some of which you can see in the articles listed towards the end of this article. Instead, like many other mainstream media interviews and pieces about vaccines, the idea that they’re not completely safe and effective for everyone seemed to be brushed off as a mere “conspiracy theory.”
From here he was asked about misinformation that’s spread on social media outlets, and the responsibility the government has to limit, stop and slow down its spread. But this begs the question, how much of this information is actually misinformation? If scientists and various publications raise legitimate concerns about vaccines, it also seems to be pilled into the ‘misinformation’ category in the minds of people like Bill Gates.
This is a very serious issue, as legitimate safety concerns regarding vaccines continue to be completely ignored and never really addressed. That being said, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Whenever writing about this topic it’s imperative one uses credible sources and information.
Right now we have a digital authoritarian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information and sources for themselves and decide on their own what they choose to believe? Are we really so unintelligent that we can’t determine what a credible source is anymore, and require a ‘ministry of truth’ to tell us what is?
Why This Is Important: Why doesn’t mainstream media or Bill Gates actually addresses the concerns that are being raised by scientists and doctors? Why is ridicule and terms like “conspiracy theory” always used instead?
What are the concerns? Vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.
Again, it’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among physicians. Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that:
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
Are these health care professionals being had by “conspiracy theories?”
Again, there are many concerns with vaccine safety, and if you browse through our site they are not hard to find. You can refer to the articles listed below if you want to dive deeper into a few examples that are backed by proper sources. This is the information that never seems to be acknowledged by the mainstream.
The question on many people’s minds seems to be if the vaccine will be made mandatory for things like travel or to enter into certain buildings. No doubt health authorities will face many backlashes and protests if this is the case. We will see what happens.
*
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.
America, we need to have a conversation. It is a very serious and dire conversation that has been intentionally ignored and swept under the rug for far too long. It concerns a dialogue that our entire mainstream media, in its conventional blindness, refuses to acknowledge. Yet its consequences are potentially severe and perhaps deadly. It may not eventually have an impact upon you personally nor your health, but it will surely have a profound adverse effect upon someone you know or perhaps even a loved one.
It is time to finally agree on a very simple fact. It is a truth that needs to be driven into our nation’s collective consciousness: Vaccination hesitancy and opposition did not mysteriously appear out of a vacuous void. Nobody rubbed an Arabian lamp to release an anti-vaccine genie upon the public. However, this is the image that our federal agencies, the medical establishment, your average pediatrician, the vaccine tsars such as Bill Gates and his ilk, and the media project upon the visual mental screen of our culture.
In effect they reify a false narrative on our behalf. In our opinion any hope that life will return to normal is now a pipedream. The pandemic has spurred too many other financially driven initiatives that are going to propel the redefinition of “normalcy” and none of these measures will benefit the average person.
Rather than engage in open dialogue to reevaluate the causes for vaccination hesitancy, which has been increasing substantially and especially after the first announcements to develop a Covid-19 vaccine, the pro-vaccination regime has been focusing its attention on how to launch counter-measures to reinvigorate popular faith in vaccines.
Common sense should tell us this is the wrong discussion. The only real genies that have appeared in the vaccine vials themselves that have been responsible for vaccine injuries, an epidemic of neurological disorders in our children, weakened immune systems, life-long autoimmune conditions and deaths. Every parent with a vaccine-injured child at one time placed their complete faith in the safety of the vaccines that their children received. Wholeheartedly they believed the medical establishment. They believed their pediatricians and school health officials. And they listened intently to the television talking heads who convinced them with scare tactics to get vaccinated for whatever infectious outbreak was being reported that particular week. Therefore there are very rational reasons, also based on a large body of scientific evidence, for why vaccine hesitancy is on the rise. Our federal health agencies, in particular the CDC and FDA, and certainly the drug makers, have done nothing forthrightly to earn our trust. Nor should we be sucker punched into handing it over to them during this pandemic.
Many people are now eager to see a Covid-19 vaccine available under the hopeful assumption that their lives will return to 2019 before the pandemic was declared. Many are also willing to sacrifice themselves as guinea pigs in these vaccine clinical trials. As admirable as their courage may be, we must ask whether it is founded on a sound understanding of vaccine risks or is it simply an emotional reaction to the panic that has been orchestrated by our government’s health officials, the tsars of the vaccination imperium such as Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and those voices doing the bidding of the industrial pharmaceutical complex.
Not every expert in the fields of immunology, virology and genetics is buying into the Covid-19 vaccine frenzy. But sadly their voices are either muffled in the louder noise of panic control and medical propaganda or worse are being ignored or censored altogether. Yet they too now more than ever need to have a seat at the table. Not every problem requires a technological medical solution, and more often than not the irrational rush for such technological remedies makes matters far worse and costs more lives.
Lets consider one important voice now being ignored.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is no nickel-dime physician. He has practiced medicine for five decades, was a post-doctoral researcher at one of the world’s most prestigious research institutes – the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics, and later held the Microbiology Chair at the University of Mainz in Germany for a dozen years. He has impeccable credentials that in our opinion outweigh many of our so-called medical experts preaching from their official soapboxes. Dr. Bhakdi is not anti-vaccine, however he is deeply worried about the new technologies for a Covid-19 vaccine being rushed to market. One of the greatest fears being heard over the internet is that these new gene-based vaccines will recombine with our body’s DNA and cause untold health problems. But this worries Bhakdi less than other far greater risks with life-long debilitating consequences:
First, there is the possibility of mutagenesis, or mutations occurring due to the insertion of the vaccine’s viral-based gene. This is especially worrisome given the possibility that these insertions could occur in reproductive cells and will thereby be inherited by future children. These were among the safety concerns raised by the Paul Ehrlich Institut in Germany and published in the journal Methods in Molecular Biology.
Second, there is a very real danger that our body’s immune system will identify this inserted genetic material as a foreign invader and create anti-DNA antibodies that will in turn trigger an autoimmune disease. There is no certainty that an adverse autoimmune response will occur immediately or even shortly after vaccination. It may take one, two, three or more years before the vaccinated person lapses into a serious, or even life-threatening, autoimmune condition. There are over 80 different autoimmune illnesses; it is a toss of the dice as to which might appear. Nevertheless in the case of such an event, the gene-based Covid-19 vaccine cannot be ruled out as a fundamental cause.
And don’t place any bets that you will be properly diagnosed if symptoms of a chronic autoimmune disease begin to appear. During the annual European League Against Rheumatism conference in 2018, two papers were delivered that should frighten us far more than Covid. Separate studies found that approximately 95 percent of patients were misdiagnosed on at least one occasion after displaying autoimmune symptoms. About thirty-five percent were told it was psychosomatic, “all in their head.” How many parents have been told by their pediatricians after the collapse of their child into mental despondency shortly after receiving one or more vaccinations that it has nothing to do with a vaccine and is their genes or another cause?
Then there is a third and even more “terrible” danger with these new vaccines. It is wise to give heed to Dr. Bhakdi’s warnings in his bookCorona False Alarm? Facts and Figures(Chelsea Green):
“… during or after production of the viral spike, waste products of the [virus’] protein must be expected to become exposed on the surface of the targeted cells [i.e., cells which the virus has latched onto]. The majority of healthy individuals have killer lymphocytes that recognize these viral [waste] products. It is inevitable that autoimmune attacks will be mounted against the cells. Where, when and with which effects this might occur is entirely unknown. But the prospects are simply terrifying.”
Although early research shows DNA and mRNA vaccines have benefits over the current cultured viral vaccines because of their high potency, they are still experimental. Much remains unknown. And because this new generation of vaccines are very recent, there is no reliable data to reach a medical consensus about their safety profile nor their potential long-term adverse risks. It is Dr. Bhakdi’s belief that a Covid-19 vaccine is completely unwarranted. An important fact people fail to realize is that the vaccine will not necessarily prevent you from contracting the virus. Instead you are more likely to not fall ill. However, you can still contract the virus and remain a spreader and infect others. The only incentive for a Covid-19 vaccine is that it is an enormous cash cow for the drug industry.
Each of us should be deeply concerned about the above potential adverse effects from a Covid-19 vaccine. Vaccination policy is supposed to be based upon concise benefit-risk analyses. Sadly, this has never been a firm policy implemented in the US and it has been a factor largely denied by the majority of the medical community. Every vaccination is a game of Russian roulette. For safer vaccines there may be 10,000 or even 100,000 chambers in the syringe-shaped revolver but there is always that one live bullet. For other less safe vaccines such as Gardasil, MMR and DpT the odds for that single bullet drop dramatically. As in the case of Merck’s Gardasil the results can be catastrophic; for this reason Robert Kennedy Jr has filed a major lawsuit against the vaccine’s maker. And so far, the future prospects of a truly safe Covid-19 vaccine appear to be far off into the distant horizon if ever.
So why such concern over a Covid-19 vaccine?
Following AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial it was reported that at least one participant had a very serious vaccine injury. “The highest levels of NIH are very concerned,” reported the pro-Pharma news site Fierce Biotech. Yet British health authorities permitted the trial to resume. And this is where the event becomes insidious. No information about the nature of the injury nor its severity has been made public. The company has argued it cannot release further information because of patient privacy. In other words, despite the government being the appendage that will distribute the vaccine, for the maker’s financial benefit, it has no leverage to review the injuries from the clinical trials. US health officials have come to the conclusion that the participant was diagnosed with vaccine-induced transverse myelitis, a debilitating inflammation of both sides of the spinal cord. AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine is “a weakened version of a common cold virus (adenovirus) from chimpanzees that has been genetically changed so it is impossible for it to grow in humans.” Or so the Participant Information Sheet for the vaccine trial alleges.
It is also worth noting that anyone with a history of immunosuppression, immunodeficiency, angioedema, anaphylaxis, cardiovascular condition, gastrointestinal disease, liver or renal disease, a neurological illness or a psychiatric condition, allergies, a cancer diagnosis, alcohol or drug dependency, is pregnant, or received another vaccine within 30 days was excluded from participating in the trial. Of course, this is not unusual. This is not an uncommon list of exclusionary conditions used during all vaccine trial recruitments to assure that only the healthiest people are enrolled that in turn reduces substantially the likelihood of adverse reactions. Nevertheless, once launched, the vaccine will be distributed indiscriminately to everyone, except in cases of very severe prior medical conditions.
This week it was reported that an adverse reaction occurred during Johnson’s and Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine trial. Information about the actual diagnosis of the participant’s adverse reaction remains unknown. But the case must be extremely serious because it signaled a high red alert and J&J halted its trial with 60,000 enrolled participants. Vaccine–related injuries, and even casualties, are not uncommon in such trials. J&J’s press release stated it is conducting an investigation internally – meaning that outside authorities without conflicts-of-interest are again excluded — in order “to respect this participant’s privacy.” Similar to AstraZeneca’s vaccine, J&J’s relies upon a genetic engineered vector of a human adenovirus which infects our cells and then delivers the engineered blueprint it is carrying. The company plans to manufacture more than 1 billion doses for global distribution to almost a seventh of the world’s population.
Finally, there is Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine that is based on mRNA technology, a trick of genetic engineering with lipid nanoparticles (LNP) that when injected turns our bodies into their own vaccine manufacturing factories. There seems to be more secrecy behind this company over the others. Moderna managed to get past the hurdle of animal testing and leap right into human clinical trials. However, according to a preliminary article in the New England Journal of Medicine, 80 percent of the participants in the moderate and high dose trial groups reported moderate to severe adverse reactions. If we take a look at Moderna’s Form S-1 Registration submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission we discover:
“[T]here can be no assurance that our LNPs [lipid nanoparticles] will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions . . . or reactions to the PEG [a synthetic vaccine ingredient]… Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.”
This Form S-1 was filed back in November 2019 and therefore serious risks of mRNA vaccines have been well known for a sufficient length of time to elicit grave caution.
All three of these companies’ Covid-19 vaccines are now included in Trump’s Operation Warp Speed. Bill Gates, who is heavily invested in all of these vaccines, is eager to profit over their future prospects. “We need to make billions of doses,” Gates wrote on his blog page, “we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.” We might add: and, damn the regulations and high safety standards that could hinder us.
And one final warning. Don’t count upon the mainstream media to educate you about any of this. In the event you or a loved one is injured or contracts a life-long autoimmune illness from one of these new Covid-19 vaccines, lower your hopes and expectations that you will be rewarded, if at all, with adequate compensation for damages. As a consequence of Reagan’s 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the drug companies – and make no mistake, vaccines are also drugs – were left off the hook from any legal liability due to vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Don’t rely upon our word. This is recently from the media darling of the pharmaceutical dynasty, the Wall Street Journal, in its article “People Harmed by Coronavirus Vaccines Will Have Little Recourse,”
“The U.S. government paid out $4.4 billion over more than 30 years covering injuries relating to a host of vaccines—from flu to polio—but payouts for potential injuries from Covid-19 vaccines will be covered by a far less-generous program. Covid-19 vaccine injuries will be covered under a program known as the “countermeasures injury” compensation fund… The new fund has a tougher threshold for proving a relationship between an injury and the vaccine, experts say. The newer fund has a shorter statute of limitations, no avenue for appeals and doesn’t pay damages for pain or suffering like the older vaccine program does.”
The Journal article continues with reporting on the aggressive efforts underway by the vaccine companies to secure additional protection from personal liability due to vaccine injuries. In other words, they are preparing for a worse case scenario.
Do you have a fuller picture now of the larger stakes behind national governments’ hasty release of a Covid-19 vaccine? Now ask yourself why a more open and public discussion is not being conducted to address the evidence for these very legitimate concerns and fears. The warnings stated herein warrant a rise in vaccine hesitancy and opposition across the public landscape. The conspiracy theorists are not the parents caring for neurologically damaged children for the remainder of their lives. The real denialists are those in the mainstream media who are too lazy, biased or lack a moral conscience to perform proper due diligence and mine the scientific literature for answers. Do yourself a favor. Simply don’t listen to them.
And when Gates, Fauci, Trump, Biden or any state governor begin talking about the “awesome” promises of a Covid-19 vaccine or its mandate, turn off your television or computer screen. These people are only the profiteers protecting the vaccine makers and in the event of vaccine injuries we are just collateral damage in the “War Against Corona”.
*
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.
Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null co-direct Progressive Radio Network. They are frequent contributor to Global Research.
In July 2017, two journalists working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Dan Oakes and Sam Clark,wrote of a stash of incriminating documents, running into hundreds of pages. They were “secret defence force documents leaked to the ABC”. These documents gave “an unprecedented insight into the clandestine operations in Australia’s elite special forces in Afghanistan, including incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children.”
In exposing these depravities of invasion, adventurism and war, the devotees of secrecy got busy. Bureaucrats chatted; investigations commenced. On June 5, 2019, officers of the Australian Federal Police raided the Sydney offices of the ABC. It was a busy time for the police; Annika Smethurst of News Corp was also the subject of a warrant, having written about discussions about a proposed enlargement of surveillance powers already possessed by the Australian Signals Directorate. Both warrants had been executed pursuant to alleged breaches of official secrecy under the old version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Legal affairs editor of The Australian, Chris Merritt was alarmed enough to write of a less than brave new world. “Welcome to modern Australia – a nation where police raid journalists in order to track down and punish the exposure of leaks inside the federal government”.
Both warrants were subsequently challenged. The returns for journalism were mixed. In the case of the ABC, they were abominable. In February, the Federal Court Justice Wendy Abraham dismissed the effort by the broadcaster to impeach the warrant. She found the warrant validly drafted and sufficiency clear. Justice Abraham also affirmed that the implied constitutional right to communicate on political subjects was not a personal, enforceable one, merely a restraint on state power. “[T]he notion of speech as an affirmative value has no role to play.”
This formulation of Australian law, miraculously extracted from the worn teeth of the Australian constitution, is designed to render any such rights inoffensive and benign, lest the citizenry get uppity with such ideas as free speech. This state of affairs ought to encourage a move towards a bill or charter of rights, but Australia’s politicians will have none of it. Constitutionally enshrined rights would only inhibit the powers of parliament and frustrate the ever abstract sovereign will.
Smethurst had better luck in invalidating the search warrant on April 15. But the judges of the High Court found against the police the way a teacher might against an essay from a student prone to poor grammar. The warrant in question failed “to identify any offence under section 79(3)[of the Crimes Act]” and significantly misstated “the nature of an offence arising under it.” In short, go back to class and mind your punctuation before searching the homes and workplaces of journalists. The ill-gotten gains of the police – material taken from the Smethurst’s home – could still be kept, guaranteeing her a run of sleepless nights.
The AFP subsequently confirmed that a brief of evidence had been submitted to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDDP), the result of the July 11, 2017 referral received from the Chief of the Defence Force and then acting-secretary of defence. It recommended that charges be made, though only against Oakes.
With Oakes facing a gloomy prospect of being charged, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security released its report on “the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press.” The report, with its 16 recommendations, was predictably weak and timorous. At times, it reads like a cosy overview of how government institutions in the country truly appreciate the role of a free press. There are merry references to Australia’s vibrant democracy. It notes such fairly meaningless improvements as the Attorney General’s direction of September 19, 2019 that his consent would be required were the CDPP to initiate prosecutions against journalists.
The power to issue warrants against journalists was barely challenged. At most was a qualifying recommendation that the role of the Public Interest Advocate be expanded. This creature was already an oddity, given the secretive nature of the office. We know little about the credentials of those who occupy the office, nor its actual workings. The committee suggests a more active role for the advocate in dealing with warrant applications against journalists and media investigations concerning breaches of government secrecy. “The PIA must represent the interests of the principles of public interest journalism, and be authorised to request information to clarify elements of the warrant application provided by ASIO or an enforcement agency to enable the case to be built in their submission.” The monstrous chink in this already perforated armour is that that the PIA is wholly dependent on the evidence and claims of the government agency. The balancing act ceases to be credible.
With this less than comforting backdrop, it was confirmed on October 15 that the CDDP would not be taking the matter up against Oakes. According to a statement from the AFP, “In determining whether the matter should be prosecuted, the CDPP considered a range of public interest factors, including the role of public interest journalism in Australia’s democracy.” Having applied its own version of a “public interest” test (all government agencies seem to be doing so these days), the prosecutor found no reason to pursue the case despite believing that there was a “reasonable chance” of securing a conviction on three criminal charges.
As with such prosecutions, the public interest is a weapon twisted not in the name of the public’s interest, whose ignorance must be assured, but in the name of the state’s interest, ever reliant upon secrecy. To that end, “The CDPP determined the public interest does not require a prosecution in the particular circumstances of the case.”
The conclusion of the case against Oakes can only be troubling. The CDPP preferred waving the wand of deterrence just in case other journalists might wish to engage in the same practice. After all, there was a “reasonable” chance of securing a successful conviction. Clark, while welcoming the decision, claimed that “the matter should never have gone this far.”
As with the dangerous US Department of Justice indictment against WikiLeaks publisher and Australian national Julian Assange, the very fact of its existence is, in itself, threatening. It is a roaring threat, a promise that publishing national security information that reveals the dark side of state power will be pursued, and, importantly, can be pursued.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]