Global Research

The great victory of the Movement to Socialism (MAS) – Evo Morales’ party – in Bolivia opens the way for a new era of change in the South American country. The positions on the Bolivian national political scene are currently so polarized that the socialist victory brings with it a series of uncertainties and arouses fears of a possible return to violence, which could reverse what was achieved at the polls.

The difference Arce has achieved so far does not allow him to wait any longer to announce that he is the new president of Bolivia. According to the count, he got 53% of the votes, while Mesa got 30%; the third, rightist Luis Fernando Camacho, won in the region to which he belongs, Santa Cruz, but obtained only 14% of the national votes. According to calculations, the difference between the official results and the data that was already released will be only 1% to 2%, so Arce is truly the new President.

Interestingly, the victory has been reasonably well accepted and recognized among opposition leaders. Jeanine Áñez acknowledged on the same night of the elections, through a tweet, that Arce is the new president of Bolivia. Hours later, the secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro (who opposed Morales and supported the coup), published his own congratulatory tweet. Finally, it was Mesa’s turn to congratulate the new president also through social media.

Apparently, the Bolivian opposition “accepted” the defeat – that is, the result of the elections and the democratic process. But one candidate does not seem to be satisfied with the popular choice: Luis Fernando Camacho, the biggest agitator of the Bolivian right. Camacho has gained prominence since the maneuvers that led to Morales’ resignation last year and has since become the main name of the Bolivian right. In South America, Camacho is commonly referred to as “Bolivian Bolsonaro”, due to some similarities with the Brazilian president: radical far-right speech, automatic alignment with the US and religious fundamentalism. Camacho did not congratulate Arce nor was satisfied with the third place and the insufficient 14% of the national votes. While Añez and Mesa, who represent a more moderate wing of the opposition, have shown themselves willing to accept the victory of the MAS’ candidate, Camacho has not yet made clear which will be his attitude.

It is with this backdrop that we can analyze the current Bolivian political conjuncture and make some predictions for the country’s near future. Opposition to MAS no longer exists as it did while Evo Morales was in power. At that time, various sectors of the Bolivian political scenario came together in a coalition to overthrow Morales. This coalition was certainly financed and coordinated by foreign agents who were also interested in the end of the Morales government, which was characterized by a strong anti-American socialist policy. Now, with Morales out of Bolivia, the scenario is different: the opposition’s common enemy has already been defeated, so there is no reason for coalitions.

There is yet another factor that cannot be ignored: the current lack of strategic coordination by the opposition. The capacity for foreign interference in Bolivian national politics has decreased significantly in recent months, mainly due to the social chaos in which the US is inserted. The turmoil in the presidential elections undermines any form of strategy for American foreign policy: the priority of the Trump administration is to be re-elected; that of Democrats is to come to power; in any case, none of them are really concerned about the next Bolivian president – as long as Morales remains barred from running for president.

In this sense, the Bolivian opposition was left to its own devices and, having to face the popular will, saw the inevitable result: the victory of the party preferred by the Bolivian people. But this is far from representing a return to Morales’ national project. Arce’s victory represents a party’s victory in the elections, not Morales’s personal victory, despite the support received from the former president. The party previously recognized the “legitimacy” of the coup that overthrew Maduro, accepting the democratic pact to continue disputing power in institutional structures. In other words, in one way or another, the coup has been legalized and Morales will not return to power – precisely because of that, American concern is minimal.

However, a president’s journey only begins with elections. The future is absolutely uncertain. And that is why Camacho’s refusal to accept the result can be worrying for Arce. The American elections will soon be consummated, and someone will again be outlining clearer and more specific strategies for foreign policy. When that happens, what will Washington do with Arce? If it is in the American plans to make Bolivia even more subordinate to its interests, something like a new colorful revolution, judicial maneuver or institutional coup will be done to remove Arce quickly. And, certainly, Camacho and his supporters will again be a central figure if that 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.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics. 

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

It’s been more than three months since the March-April economic rescue package, called the Cares Act, expired at the end of July. Since then both political parties, Republican and Democrat, have played a ‘hot potato’ bargaining game: i.e. “here’s my offer, the ball’s in your court…Here’s mine, now it’s your turn”. This week the game continues, showing no indication of ending.

Last March’s ‘CARES ACT’ was not a fiscal stimulus. It was instead about ‘mitigation’–meaning the various measures contained in that $2.3 trillion package (actually nearly $3T when the additional $650 billion in business-investor tax cuts are added to the Act) were designed only to put a floor under the collapsing US economy–not to generate a sustained economic recovery. Even the politicians voting for it publicly acknowledged at the time that it was not a stimulus bill, but rather a set of measures designed to buy time–no more than 10-12 weeks at most–until a more serious economic recovery Act could be implemented.

The real fiscal stimulus bill was to follow, designed to pick the economy up off the floor and generate a sustained recovery as the economy reopened. The reopening began in May and gained a little momentum over the summer. But not enough to generate a sustained recovery by itself that was expected by late summer.

In a typical Great Recession trajectory, the reopening over the summer resulted in a roughly two-thirds recovery of lost economic activity by end of July. It was thought by politicians and mainstream economists that, when the reopening crested at two-thirds in July, a subsequent real stimulus bill would follow. The two forces–reopening and fiscal stimulus–would together generate a sustained recovery.

But it just didn’t happen that way. Nor is it to date.

The Democrats in the US House of Representatives presented their version of a fiscal stimulus bill–called the HEROES ACT-in late May. But the Trump administration and the McConnell led Republican majority in the US Senate balked at joining in passing a stimulus bill.

McConnell & friends looked around and it appeared big business and corporations and banks were doing just fine by June–even if small business and working households were not. A few exceptions to big business doing well were the airlines, hotels and some leisure and hospitality industries. But banks and other big corporations were fat with cash. The Federal Reserve had already pumped nearly $3 trillion in virtually free money into the banks. And big corporations had raised trillions of dollars more by selling corporate bonds at record historical levels, at cheapest rates, also made possible by the Federal Reserve. Trillions more were hoarded by borrowing down their credit lines with banks, saving on facilities operations, and temporarily suspending dividends and stock buybacks.

McConnell, Trump and their business constituencies didn’t need more stimulus. Indeed, they didn’t even need the Cares Act even. That Act, passed in March, included among its provisions no less than $1.1 trillion in loans for medium and large businesses, along with $650B in tax cuts for the same. But as of this past August, less than $150 billion of that $1.1 trillion had actually been borrowed by big businesses and spent into the economy, and it appears little of the tax cuts resulted in production increases or hiring as well.

So in June, McConnell and the Republican Senate simply dug in their heels for two months and simply ignored the Democrat House stimulus proposal in the form of their late May passed $3.4 trillion HEROES ACT bill.

In July McConnell eventually put forth his proposal, called the ‘HEALS Act’. It totaled $1.5 trillion, but was loaded withambiguous and onerous language like exempting all businesses from any and all legal claims for negligence for failing to provide safety and health conditions for their workers.

By end of July the only real provisions of the Cares Act that provided any semblance of economic stimulus ran out. That was the $500 billion in extra unemployment assistance to workers, the $1200 checks, and the $670 billion in grants and loans (mostly grants) to small businesses. The unemployment, checks and grants amounted to government spending of only $1.2 trillion of the Cares Act’s $3 or so trillion. That $1.2 trillion was, and remains, the only actual spending to hit the economy, since the $1.1 trillion in loans to large-medium corporations has never been actually ‘taken up’ and spent into the economy by business. Ditto for the $650 billion in business tax cuts in the Cares Act. So only a little more than a third of the Cares Act resulted in any economic spending.

That $1.2 trillion, moreover, amounts to barely 5.5% of US GDP. In GDP percentage terms, that’s roughly the size of the 2009 stimulus of $787 billion spent during the previous Great Recession of 2008-09. That $787 billion proved insufficient at the time to generate a prompt recovery from that recession. It took six years just to get back to the level of jobs in 2007 before that recession, for example. But today’s 2020 Great Recession 2.0 is four times deeper in terms of economic contraction compared to 2008-09. And it’s still only an effective 5.5% spending package as contained in the March Cares Act.

A much more aggressive stimulus bill was desperately needed as a follow up as the Cares Act spending ran out at the end of July. The May HEROES ACT was an attempt to provide that follow up actual stimulus but, as noted, McConnell, Trump and Republicans weren’t interested. Their banker and big business constituencies were doing quite well by early-summer. No doubt Trump-McConnell further believed the reopening of the economy, as Covid 19 disappeared, would prove sufficient to lead to a sustained economic recovery.

Of course, history has already proven them wrong

By late July many sectors of the US economy began to weaken again. And a second, worse wave of Covid 19 hit the economy in July-August, just as the weak Cares Act spending ran out at the end of July. Unemployment claims began to slowly rise again through August and into September. Small businesses began to closure, many permanently now, in greater numbers. Large corporations began to announce mass layoffs, more permanent than just furloughs now. Evictions of renters by the millions began to occur. Low income homeowners began to miss mortgage payments. And the much predicted V-shape recovery began to look increasingly like a ‘W-shape’.

But instead of seeing the trend, Trump and McConnell doubled down and refused to negotiate seriously with the Democrat House on its HEROES Act proposal. In early August, House Speaker Pelosi, thinking the Trump administration might bargain in good faith, reduced her proposal from the HEROES Act $3.4 trillion cost to $1.2 trillion. Instead of following up, however, the Trump negotiators, led by Trump’s Staff Secretary, Mark Meadows, abruptly broke off all negotiations–without making a counter offer. What he did leave though was a bad taste in the mouths of Pelosi and Shumer, who now could not trust the Trump team should further negotiations resume. Nor could they trust McConnell and his Republican Senate, who followed Trump and withdrew their prior HEALS ACT $1.5T and refused to consider anything more than $650 billion if brought to the Senate by the Trump-Pelosi negotiators in the future.

Trump had set up Pelosi and then ‘sandbagged’ her, in bargaining parlance. Within 24 hours Trump publicly announced four executive orders as his personal fiscal stimulus offer. But the EOs were no stimulus in fact. Just a diversion of already existing government funds and payroll tax cuts that would have to be repaid in 2021.

Both sides maneuvered in the press thereafter, as the US economy weakened further throughout September and into October–and as the Covid 19 infection rates surged once again. The Virus was not cooperating with economic recovery. And there was no stimulus to assist in that either. Meanwhile, millions more were becoming unemployed–at least 30 to 35 million remained jobless as of mid October. Food deprivation worsened and food lines began emerging again. Rent evictions were now escalating as well. Hundreds of thousands more small businesses were closing their doors, with predictions by the National Federation of Independent Business that millions would fail in coming months–even as bankers, big corporations, and stock and financial markets attained record levels.

Trump then shot himself in the foot by declaring there would be no further negotiations on a stimulus until after the November 3 election. McConnell said that was fine since 20% of his Republicans were against any further stimulus out of concern of its negative impact on the US deficit, which by October hit a record $3.1 trillion for the 2020 fiscal year–the largest in modern history.

Trump’s walking away from any further negotiations hurt his political chances, since not only were workers, renters, and small businesses being ‘thrown under the bus’, but the announcement had serious negative effects on stock market values. Now big corporations were worried too. So Trump back-tracked and made another bargaining offer.

Which brings us to events of the last 10 days. Trump offered Pelosi-Shumer an $!.8 trillion counter offer–complete with loophole language permitting him to renege on items of his choice. But it was an offer he couldn’t deliver, since McConnell in the Senate quickly added he wouldn’t even bring the $1.8T up for a Senate vote because he couldn’t get it passed within his own Republican ranks.

What the $1.8T did achieve was to get the corporate wing of the Democrat party, including its mainstream media arms–MSNBC, CNN, etc.–to raise the pressure on Pelosi to accept Trump’s phony $1.8T offer that he couldn’t deliver. What Trump wanted, and still wants, is just an announcement of a ‘deal’ that he can take credit for as he campaigns across the country before the election. What big business wants is the same, an announcement, not necessarily a deal. Stock prices and especially tech sector stocks have begun seriously wavering on news of no stimulus negotiations. An announcement would quell that issue and ensure stock prices remain strong through the election. Even some ‘left’ Democrats like Rho Khanna and Andrew Yang–both from silicon valley–chimed in and demanded Pelosi accept the Trump offer.

So what happens next, this week? Trump’s negotiator, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Pelosi have begun to talk yet again. Trump wants to announce a deal before the next presidential debate with Joe Biden this thursday, only 72 hrs away. So it’s likely he’ll instruct Mnuchin to increase his offer to $2T or even to Pelosi’s $2.2T. He’s got nothing to lose, and he knows McConnell’s ‘hard cop’ is there backing him up to stop (or at least change the terms of any tentative deal) for him. Trump gains a campaign message. McConnell blocks any deal. And Pelosi and the Democrats get nothing once again except more negotiations, now with McConnell. It’s a clever ‘double-teaming’ of the Democrats by the Republicans, once again!

*

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. Jack Rasmus writes on his blog site where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In November, US orchestrated fascism replaced freedom in Bolivia.

President Evo Morales’ legitimate reelection was overturned by a cadre of US recruited traitors. 

Generals and others were bribed to betray their country for the right price.

Fascism tied to US interests usurped power.

Militarized rule, inequality, and harsh crackdowns on supporters of equity and justice became official coup d’etat regime policy — aided and abetted by hardliners in Washington.

Months after the coup from exile in Argentina, illegally ousted President Evo Morales explained the following:

“…Bolivia is…paralyzed (and) going backwards…”

The country was “return(ed) to neoliberal times with more unemployment, poverty, hunger, corruption, nepotism, criminalization of the protests, persecutions and violation of the freedom of expression.”

“Fascism and racism have been reborn.”

The US-installed coup d’etat regime is responsible for “massacres, persecutions, imprisonments, dismantling of public companies and inability to deal with the pandemic.”

“Only (ordinary) people can save the people, and we will regain democracy.”

A coup d’etat “transitional” regime is making “illegal decisions that compromise our future, such as GMOs for human consumption, debts with the International Monetary Fund, changes in economic model, reversal of land (distribution), and mining concessions in favor of big entrepreneurs.”

The coup regime is also involved in drugs trafficking, Morales explained.

Since illegally replaced as president, state terror against the Bolivian people has been official coup regime policy.

In August, PeoplesDispatch.org (PD below) said the coup d’etat regime “criminaliz(ed) national mobilizations” and right of assembly.

“Despite…increased repression, the people of Bolivia remain on the streets.”

The day before Sunday’s presidential election, PD asked:

“Will free and fair elections be held in Bolivia?”

Tyrannical regimes don’t relinquish power easily. The answer to the above question remains to be determined.

After polls closed Sunday, PD cited a Unitel-Ciesmori estimate of results.

It showed that Movement for Socialism (MAS) candidates for president and vice president, Luis Arce and David Choquehuanca respectively won overwhelmingly by a 52.4 to 31.5% margin over former right-wing president Carlos Mesa.

A separate exit poll conducted by group of universities and Catholic institutions showed similar results — Arce defeating runner-up Mesa by a 53 – 30.8% margin.

To win a first round triumph, Arce and Choquehuanca needed over 40% support with at least a 10% margin over the closest runner-up challenger — or over 50% of the vote for a clear majority.

PD reported that shortly after this estimate was publicly known, coup d’etat interim president Jenine Anez acknowledged MAS’ triumph, tweeting:

“We still do not have an official count, but from the data we have, Mr. Arce and Mr. Choquehuanca have won the election,” adding:

“I congratulate the winners, and I ask that they govern thinking of Bolivia and of democracy (sic).”

Last November, fascist dark forces usurped power, replacing democratic governance.

In the days and weeks ahead, it remains to be seen if governance of the people returned to Bolivia.

Before estimated election results were released, Evo Morales explained that tabulations by MAS showed its candidates won.

The party now controls the executive and legislative branches, the coup d’etat regime soundly defeated — if it sticks.

Separately, Morales tweeted:

“We are going to return dignity and freedom to the people.”

“Very soon our country will begin a new stage of great challenges.”

“We must put aside differences and sectoral and regional interests to achieve a great national agreement.”

Late Sunday, head of the coup regime’s electoral council failed to say when official results would be released.

“We need to be certain about the results,” he said.

PD explained that voting on Sunday “was largely peaceful and was marked by a high turnout,” adding:

In the run-up to the election, “there was a huge amount of uncertainty about whether a free and fair election would be permitted and if its results would be recognized.”

Uncertainty persists despite Anez’s acceptance of the outcome.

Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro tweeted the following in response to the result:

“Great victory! The united and conscious Bolivian people defeated with votes the coup that (ousted) our brother Evo.”

“Congratulations to President-elect Luis Arce, Vice President David Choquehuanca and our South Indian Chief @evoespueblo. Jallalla Bolivia!”

Ousted by an Obama regime coup in 2009, former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya tweeted:

“They overthrew @evoespueblo and from exile I WON them. @LuchoXBolivia is the President! The Bolivian people defeated GOLPISM and fraud.”

On Monday, Reuters reported that MAS’ candidate “is set to win the country’s presidential election without the need for a run-off, an unofficial rapid count of the vote indicated.”

The CIA-linked Washington Post said

“(e)xit polls (on) Monday showed Bolivia’s Socialists taking a seemingly insurmountable lead in the country’s bitterly fought presidential election, a result that, if confirmed by the official tally, would amount to a massive popular rebuke of the right-wing forces that drove the left from power a year ago.”

Arce served as MAS finance minister under Morales. He ran against two hard-right opponents — former president Carlos Mesa and Luis Camacho.

Mesa is linked to right wing elements in the US, Big Oil, and other regional corporate interests.

The Camacho is connected to a Christian fascist paramilitary group called the Union Juvenil Crucenista, based in Santa Cruz, Bolivia’s largest city.

Before last year’s coup, he expressed support for Colombia’s narco terrorist regime, US-designated Venezuelan puppet-in-waiting Guaido, and Brazil’s right-wing government under Jair Bolsonaro.

In La Paz at his campaign headquarters, Arce said “(w)e have recuperated democracy and, more than anything, the Bolivians have recovered hope,” adding:

“We promise to respond to our pledge to work and bring our program to fruition.”

“We are going to govern for all Bolivians, and construct a government of national unity.”

Following establishment of a US republic in 1776, Benjamin Franklin warned the nation’s founders that creating it depends on “if you can keep it.”

The warning applies to MAS leadership in Bolivia.

The same goes for ruling authorities of all nations on the US target list for regime change.

If Arce’s election is officially confirmed, it remains to be seen how he’ll govern.

Will pledges to ordinary Bolivians be fulfilled or will he and MAS bend to a higher power in Washington and internal monied interests?

It’ll take a while to find out.

*

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.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Recently, US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released a statement on his promise to end his country’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen saying that “under Biden-Harris Administration, we will reassess our relationship with the [Saudi Arabia] Kingdom, end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil.”

It’s an absurd statement coming from a former vice-President to Barack Obama who supported Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen in the first place.

Saudi Arabia’s intervention was to regain its once influential hegemonic power over Yemen since the Houthis gained power by ousting President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi who fled to Saudi Arabia soon after. The Saudi-led coalition and its air force began using American and British made weaponry targeting mostly civilians and helped create al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Earlier this month, the prime minister of Yemen’s National Salvation government, Abdulaziz bin Habtoor issued a powerful statement that condemned Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for murdering the Yemeni people with Western and Israeli support. They are “commemorating the death of thousands of Jews during Germany’s “Nazi era” he said. Abdulaziz bin Habtoor was referring to the recent peace agreements sponsored by the Trump administration between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel that was signed in Washington on September 15th. He said that “the Houses of Saud and Nahyan must first and foremost remember that they are killing their (Arab) brethren in Yemen, than to commemorate Jews killed by Nazi forces” and that “the neo-Nazis are Al Saud and Al Nahyan families as well as all those who stand with them against Yemeni people, and support their unjustified killing of civilians” according to AhlolBayt News Agency (ABNA) based in Iran.

Yemen is in a never-ending war.

The Yemeni people are facing a catastrophe with more than 91,000 people dead, an economy that has basically collapsed, diseases, famine with an increase of refugees who left the war torn country. Since the start of the war, the Yemeni people experience death and destruction on a daily basis due to their opposition to the Saudi-backed President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently said that 20% of the Yemeni population is currently suffering from mental health disorders because of the ongoing war. Hadi was part of a long-list of political puppets of the US and Saudi Arabia who were responsible for the continued economic and political policies that favored his foreign backers for decades. The Yemeni people’s only crime was their resistance to Western hegemonic powers and its Saudi lap-dogs in their own country, and they pay the ultimate price.

The civil war in Yemen began in September 2014 when the Houthis, a shia-led movement and other elements including Sunni and Shia factions who were disenfranchised began a popular revolt to overthrow the Hadi government. The Houthi-led movement and military forces that are made up of both Shia and Sunni loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh began an offensive by advancing to the southern provinces defeating Hadi loyalists as time went on. Since then, the Saudi Coalition whose warplanes, attack helicopters, bombs, missiles, naval fleets and mid-air refueling planes which are all supplied by Western arms dealers allowed them to wage a bombing campaign on the Yemeni population targeting their schools, hospitals, mosques, funerals, family homes, farms, power utilities with reports of even graveyards being hit. Military personnel from the US and the UK has played a major role in the destruction of Yemen by providing intelligence, mid-flight aerial refueling assistance to both the Saudi and UAE Air Forces while targeting Houthi positions that has killed numerous civilians in the process.

As the Houthis gained territorial control, Saudi Arabia began Operation Decisive Storm and launched military operations with airstrikes attacking positions held by the Houthi militia and loyalists of the former President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh who the West and Israel claim is backed by Iran. Saudi Arabia’s coalition included the Gulf State puppets of the West including the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain who was joined by Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and long-standing US ally since its Frankenstein creation, Israel. The coalition was allowed to operate from military bases in Africa that included Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia. The US and the UK in many cases supported the coalition with intelligence and logistical support and to add insult to injury, saw an economic opportunity for its arms industry that sold weapons to the coalition.

Washington’s long-standing relationship with one of the coalition’s members is with the UAE. The US and the UK currently has thousands of military personnel in the UAE along with its fighter jets and an array of drones. The UAE is probably one of the most loyal subjects to Western Imperial powers next to Saudi Arabia that has “expeditionary forces” in a number of countries including Afghanistan and Yemen. The UAE also has overseas bases even in Africa. The UAE is a former British protectorate became a country in 1971 with its national military force made up of a federation of several ‘sheikhdoms’ that entered the US-led 1991 Gulf War that pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. In 1999, the UAE joined NATO-led forces into Kosovo in what was called a peace mission. After the September 11 false flag attacks, the UAE sent special forces to Afghanistan alongside its Western allies against the Taliban. It is well-known that the UAE hosts US and other Western forces at its military bases. Since the start of the war on Yemen, the UAE has joined Saudi-led forces in attacks against rebel strongholds. In other words, the UAE is a complete puppet regime.

The Mainstream Media’s Silence on US Involvement in Yemen

The Western powers with help from its mainstream-media (MSM) all repeat the same narrative and that it is Iran who is sponsoring the Houthis thus allowing Saudi Arabia and the UAE to justify the bombing of Yemen into oblivion. The MSM including CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Sky News and the BBC to name a few, all repeat the same propaganda that the Houthi movement is “Iran-Backed.” A perfect example of propaganda is from a recent article published last month by The Washington Post who headlined with ‘U.S. launches new terrorism review of Iran-backed rebels in Yemen’ claiming that “The Trump administration is considering new steps to intensify pressure on Yemen’s Houthi rebels, including a potential foreign terrorist organization designation, according to several officials, in a bid to further isolate the group’s patron, Iran.” To be clear, Iran and the Houthis do have a common faith, but not a military alliance, it can be best described more or less as a political and diplomatic relationship.

To this day, the MSM is involved in a cover-up of the US and its allies involvement in Yemen’s genocide. In March of 2018, MSM watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Fair.org) published a story by Adam Johnson based on MSNBC’s reporting on the war in Yemen who he compared to Breitbart ‘In Run-Up to Vote to End Yemen War, MSNBC Remains Totally Silent: MSNBC outflanked from the left by Breitbart’:

MSNBC’s three major stars—Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell—haven’t used their sizable social media followings to highlight the issue either. None of the well-paid pundits has tweeted about the topic of Yemen in 2018. While Hayes has handwrung about the topic on Twitter in the past, he hasn’t covered it on his show since summer 2016. O’Donnell has tweeted about Yemen once in 20,000 tweets since joining the social media platform in June 2010; Maddow has mentioned it in four out of 7,000 tweets, two of those mentions in 2010. Even as frequent MSNBC guests Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy, as well as celebrities like Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon, lobby directly for the bill, MSNBC has not dedicated a single segment to the war, or to the recent high-profile efforts to end it

An article by Johnson from 2017 ‘Ignoring Washington’s Role in Yemen Carnage, 60 Minutes Paints US as Savior’criticized one of the MSM’s longest running news programs ’60 Minutes’ on their coverage of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis without mentioning the role the U.S. has played in the genocide:

In one of the most glaring, power-serving omissions in some time, CBS News’ 60 Minutes (11/19/17) took a deep dive into the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and did not once mention the direct role the United States played in creating, perpetuating and prolonging a crisis that’s left over 10,000 civilians dead, 2 million displaced, and an estimated 1 million with cholera. Correspondent Scott Pelley’s segment, “When Food Is Used as a Weapon,” employed excellent on-the-ground reporting to highlight the famine and bombing victims of Saudi Arabia’s brutal two-and-a-half year siege of Yemen. But its editors betrayed this reporting—and their viewers—by stripping the conflict of any geopolitical context, and letting one of its largest backers, the United States government, entirely off the hook 

Once a Salesman, Always a Salesman: Trump Sells Weapons to the House of Saud

In March 2018 and with the war in full-force, the Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) decided to meet Trump for a business meeting with the intentions of buying weapons from US arms manufacturers. Bloomberg Newsreported what was the purpose of the visit by the prince of Saudi Arabia:

The 32-year-old prince will meet Donald Trump on March 20, his first trip to the U.S. since taking over as de facto leader of the world’s largest oil exporter. The aim is to strengthen their bond after he rolled out the red carpet for the U.S. president last May in Riyadh. On that visit, both sides played up their mutual interests in containing Iran, tackling Islamic extremists and enhancing business ties

And of course, the Bloomberg report also mentioned that MBS and the former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster who was replaced with neocon warmonger John Bolton spoke about Iran as a threat and “the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” they helped create:

Since then, things have changed. Prince Mohammed locked up dozens of the Saudi business elite in November for about three months in a declared crackdown on corruption. The kingdom is also likely to delay the sale of a stake in oil giant Aramco until next year. Cuts to government subsidies are proving trickier and there’s uncertainty about how the country’s ultra-conservatives are reacting to social changes.

Prince Mohammed “will try to convince the U.S. business community that the anti-corruption campaign is not a threat to commercial operations in Saudi Arabia,” said Hani Sabra, founder of New York-based Alef Advisory. “He will play up his social reform agenda to try to repair the image of Saudi Arabia in the U.S. He will advance the narrative that he’s the steward that will take the country in a more liberal direction.”

The White House said the visit will strengthen ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed will also dine with National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to discuss $35 billion of business deals, Iran’s threat to their interests and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, according to a National Security Council spokesperson

Since the meeting between Trump and MBS, the Saudi coalition has increased its bombing campaign in Yemen. In August 2018, the Arab coalition conducted an airstrike in Yemen that targeted a busload of children and the surrounding area that killed more than 100 people. Now a Yemeni court has sentenced high-ranking members from Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and members from Hadi’s government. The incident took place in the Sa’ada province where a missile strike hit a school bus killing more than 40 children with ages that ranged from 10 to 13 years old and wounding more than 79 other people close to the bombing. Mehr News Agency which is based in Iran said that “According to Saba news agency, the Specialized First Instance Criminal Court in Saada province has ruled to execute ten of the defendants in killing Dhahyan’s students by the aggression coalition’s warplanes. The verdict sentenced ten of the defendants to death for targeting and killing the students in Dhahyan in Saada.” Those convicted are high-ranking officials from the Houthis enemy list:

According to the ruling issued in the session presided over by the court Chief Judge Riyadh al-Ruzami, the court sentenced to death ten of the convicted for targeting and killing students in Dhahyan in the airstrikes, they are as follows: 

1) Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 2)Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 3)Turki bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 4)Donald John Trump, 5)James Norman Mattis, 6) Giselle Norton Allen Schwartz, 7) Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, 8)Ali Mohsen Saleh al-Ahmar, 9) Ahmed Obaid Bin Dagher, 10) Mohammad Ali Ahmad al-Maqdashi

The report mentioned the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) which produced an analysis in 2019 that paints a clear picture of the Saudi Arabia’s war crimes that has claimed the lives of more than 91,600 Yemenis since 2015. “The war has also taken a heavy toll on the country’s infrastructure, destroying hospitals, schools, and factories. The United Nations has already said that a record 22.2 million Yemenis are in dire need of food, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger. According to the world body, Yemen is suffering from the most severe famine in more than 100 years.” The report on casualties is grim and there is no end in sight:

ACLED records over 91,600 total reported fatalities1 from the start of 2015 to the present

Approximately 17,100 were reported in 2015; 15,100 in 2016; 16,800 in 2017; 30,800 in 2018; and 11,900 in 2019 thus far

More than 39,700 conflict events have been reported since the start of 2015

Approximately 7,700 in 2015; 8,700 in 2016; 7,900 in 2017; 10,200 in 2018; and 4,900 in 2019 thus far

Overall, 2018 is the war’s deadliest and most violent year on record

Yemen’s war continues unabated. The world is witnessing one of the worst catastrophes in modern human history with the majority of Yemen’s population including more than 12 million children caught in the crosshairs in a brutal civil war since 2015. The Saudi Coalition with help from its Western allies including the US and the UK has carried out numerous deadly airstrikes on Yemen. Despite what’s going on in Yemen, the drumbeats of war grows louder by the day as the US and Israel increase tensions with Iran, Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East will continue to suffer a humanitarian crisis. The MSM remains silent on the issue while Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh continue their quest for dominance in the region which confirms that Yemen is just another victim of Western Imperialists, Israel and their puppet Monarchs from the Gulf states. As long as the Western powers continue their support of the Saudi coalition and their war on the Houthi-led resistance, more bloodshed is only guaranteed. This war needs to end now before it becomes the most catastrophic period in Yemen’s history.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

In 1971, early one morning on a Steinway piano on his resplendent Berkshire estate, John Lennon reflected on the seismic uprising of a peaceful counterculture, of united students and workers, which could have scared a thousand kings by reviving the egalitarian ideals of the 1871 Paris commune.

Against this raw new zeitgeist, and against the backdrop of uprising in America, he sung, famously, to the times: “imagine all the people… living life in peace.” Of all the memorable, piquant and mordant comments he made, that one is the one which has most transcended time; everybody is touched by those words with their beauty time can not erase with the bludgeon of her years. They are words worthy of being spelled across the stars.

Moreover, as a form of acknowledgement of the critical influence of the radicals on the febrile atmosphere of protest worldwide, he hailed, in the song’s middle eighth, with an equally breathtaking lyricism: “you may say I’m a dreamer… but I’m not the only one,” paying heed to a fresh generation of activists who had proclaimed an era of permanent struggle, a species of rebellion in which intellectual renegades like John and themselves saw possibilities for the collapse of the system of domination today.

Within John’s diligently – yet spontaneously – developed philosophy of personal and social liberation – evident not only in his literature but his lyrics, letters and interviews – which came to become a highly regarded and influential source of guidance to the oppositional movements of the New Left, the goal of every serious writer and musician became to enlist their progressive arsenal to help establish a non-repressive society based on fundamentally different existential relations to the oppressive ones incarnate in contemporary society.

It was imagined that meditation on revolutionary art could help to manifest this utopia, and so Lennon invested serious time and attention in his development as a writer and musician who could bring his power to bear on peaceful revolution. According to Lennon’s view, nascent protest movements brought utopia closer to fruition because they mobilised against all manifestations of oppression perpetuated by the dominant institutions of civilisation, namely money and war and organised religion.

Lennon’s meditations on the backlash against imperialism, the craven society it beget, the vast misery it engineered, made in the zenith of the New Left’s activity, reveal his thoughts on liberation in their broader cultural and historical context. It was a time of transition, a seismic era: imperialism was increasingly assailed by protest and revolt organised diligently by those no longer invested in the rigged game of society. They worked together towards laying the foundations of a qualitatively different and unique society, one which transvaluated – transformed the values of – the corrupt civic order they lived in.

The 60’s counterculture, and the tide of protest movements which succeeded it, were passionately abloom with a protest against imperialism, a movement to: transcend its conditions of alienation which cuts to the roots of its existence, which argued vehemently against its henchmen in the third world, and despised, mocked its culture, its morality of nihilism and wastefulness.

By this point it had become clear to Lennon that the growth and success of the imperial state was an expression of a project at the centre of which is the experience, transformation and organisation of life and people as the mere subjects of domination. Civilisation entrenched tyranny, subjugation, exploitation and alienation of the masses and nature. But Lennon, like the counterculture, was incandescent for bubbling with optimism about change. There was a world to win.

The culmination of Lennon’s later lyrics, letters, loves, and learning experiences represented an attempt to realise the revolutionary potential of radical philosophical experimentation that marked Lennon as truly a man of the 60’s counterculture. Whilst the historical trend had been towards the continuation of war and aggression as a policy of the dominant powers on the world stage, Lennon nevertheless remained committed to the project of global peace and peaceful enlightenment, in which he saw the potential to manifest a rational and moral utopia banished of social ills and wants such as war, pollution and greed.

He believed in this project because the conquest of the war machine over the natural instincts of love and peace – symbolised most negatively by the atomic bomb – and the exponential development of the productive forces of the war machine in the advanced industrial states signified to him that the utopian designation for revolutionary ideas had ceased to be an operative truth, because the means really existed to rationally and creatively plan society in such a way as to create solidarity, abundance, happiness, and peace.

If that social vision was to be dismissed as utopian, then realism can be called into disrepute. That is to say ideology had concealed the reality of domination and alienation inherent in imperialism. Lennon’s message implicitly implored people to think about the terrifying truth of the world we currently live in by imagining one that was better.

The life, lyrics, loves and literature of Lennon place him as the crux of an opposition of youth and intellectuals and persecuted minorities against a corrupt authoritarian state which engaged in military warfare against its own citizens, insofar as it coldly perceived how powerfully they could subvert the continuum of repression perpetuated by the hegemonic and hawkish military-industrial complex.

What made Lennon and his disciples so dangerous to the status quo was the way they acted beyond the continuum of repression, conscientious about liberating themselves from its demanding repressive imperatives, those of a society which they could see was constrained by a carefully managed ideological conformism. Lennon’s anger at social injustice and organised repression developed through the sixties and seventies to focus on the ways in which war-makers and the political classes were tightening control of their societies not only through the rule of the iron fist, but also through new technologies like telly, the new religion, which integrated the working classes into regulated modes of thought and behaviour.

Moreover, the doom cloud of the Cold War loomed large on Lennon’s mind, in his mind the battle being, like in the mind of the militants, as two systems equal in degrees of totalitarianism, transcending the Cold War demonology which cast communism as the oppressor against the liberal democratic state. Lennon saw that, save for the nascent counterculture movement, liberal democracies were static societies in which there was a dearth of opposition to the status quo, in which people were integrated in to regulated systems of thought and behaviour.

Imagine aimed to surprise and stimulate, and it helped give inspiration and joy to the parties and groupings that constituted the international solidarity movement of the sixties, making stone hearts bleed and people united. In the spirit of a genuinely radical critique of society Lennon bequeathed a vision rare in its passion, a seminal song of the liberation era which distinguished the new vision and ideas of the anti authoritarian left. It pays well to flash our eyes on Lennon’s lyrics, for their insight in to the terrifying truth of a culture that alienates the essence of our humanity.

*

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.

Those who have watched the police state grow over decades have known that as the UK goes, so does the rest of the Western world.

Unfortunately, the UK population the testing grounds for intrusive and totalitarian policies that will be implemented in the rest of Western Europe and, after that, the United States.

Many researchers warned about early on (when the COVID hysteria was reaching fever pitch) that the threat of a pandemic would be used to usher in methods of control the world has scarcely seen. Contact tracing, lockdowns, mandatory masks, and now COVID passports..

Everyone who warned us of what was coming was labeled “conspiracy theorists” by media, government “officials,” and hysterical citizens. Now contact tracing is in full effect, lockdowns have been ongoing for months, mandatory masks, and now COVID passports. 

The UN Security Council arms embargo on Iran from 2007 has expired Sunday, which will allow the nation to buy weapons.  While Iran has repeatedly stated it has no intention of buying weapons of mass destruction, and WMD had no place in their defense.

The Foreign Ministry of the Islamic Republic of Iran said Iran may now buy any necessary arms and equipment from any source without any legal restrictions and solely based on its defensive needs while adding that Iran could export defensive armaments based on its policies.

In August, the Trump administration began a process aimed at restoring all the UN sanctions against Iran unilaterally, after the UN Security Council rejected a US bid to extend the conventional arms embargo on the country.

The Iran nuclear deal

In July 2015, Iran and six countries reached a historic agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.

The UN Security Council’s five permanent members: the US, France, the UK, China, and Russia, plus Germany formed the six major powers involved in the deal with Iran.

The deal took two years of difficult negotiations and was aimed to restrict Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against Tehran.

Iran agreed to reduce its number of by two-thirds, agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, and limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%, which would allow it to have enough enriched uranium to maintain the country’s energy needs, without having the ability to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran agreed to give access to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, to its nuclear facilities, among other facilities, and the IAEA has repeatedly found Iran to be complying with the terms of the pact.

January 2016 saw the IAEA declaring Iran was living up to the deal, and all nuclear-related international sanctions against Iran were lifted, which coincided with Donald Trump taking office as President of the United States.

The Iran deal was one of the crowning diplomatic achievements of former President Barack Obama’s tenure, which made it an immediate target of Trump, who wanted to dismantle everything which might be seen as part of the Obama legacy.

US President Donald Trump reneged on the deal on May 8, 2018, and returned sanctions and imposed new harsh ones, though opinion polls show a majority of Americans are in favor of staying with the deal, in what has become one of the biggest foreign policy decisions he’s made since entering the White House.

Why Trump broke the deal

Israel’s concerns about Iran’s long-range ballistic missile program caused Trump to leave the Iran nuclear deal, along with the concerns of Republicans who felt the Iran nuclear deal didn’t go far enough to limit the country’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. During the 2016 election campaign, Trump was sharply criticized by Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio for not taking Israel’s side in any future dealings with Arab nations. After the criticism, Trump immediately changed his tactics when he told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference that his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran”, which he based upon evidence provided by Benjamin Netanyahu, of Iran’s development of ballistic missiles, not addressed by the JCPOA.

Besides Trump bending to Tel Aviv, the secondary reason for leaving the JCPOA was strictly personal: Trump has attacked all of Obama’s legacy achievements, attempting to undo every success, which includes health insurance known as the Affordable Care Act, which is currently in his sights.

What has happened since breaking the deal

Since Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, his administration has pummeled Iran with crippling economic sanctions, while Iran has accused the US of waging “economic war” and has rejected proposals from Trump to hold talks unless the US lifts sanctions and returns to the JCPOA.

Trump’s presidency in the US has led to an escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran, which reached a boiling point over the summer of 2019, and again in the early days of 2020.

Oil tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman and an attack on two major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, as both sides continued to issue threats, raising concerns of a regional war in the Middle East.

Trump assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in early 2020, which the Iranian’s labeled an act of “international terrorism.” Just days later, Iran announced it would no longer comply with the JCPOA, effectively abandoning the deal altogether. Iran retaliated with a missile attack aimed at US and coalition forces in Iraq; however, there were no US casualties.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Russia and China not to disregard the imposition of all UN sanctions on Iran which Washington has demanded, and when asked whether the US would target Russia and China with sanctions if they refuse, Pompeo said: “Absolutely.”

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator, former ambassador to Germany, now a researcher at Princeton University has said Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA has dealt a major blow to world peace and security. “The JCPOA is the most comprehensive and complete document in the history of nuclear non-proliferation. By destroying the JCPOA, Trump has dealt a major blow to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and global peace and security,” Mousavian said while adding, “I believe America’s security has diminished. The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is an integral part of global security.”

“It is true that Trump has caused billions of dollars in economic damage to Iran by imposing the most extensive sanctions, but with his withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran expanded its range of nuclear activities and enrichment, which the Americans themselves consider it as contrary to the U.S. security,” he added.

On May 8, 2019, exactly one year after Trump abandoned the deal, Tehran said its “strategic patience” is over and began to partially reduce its commitments to the agreement at bi-monthly intervals, and on January 5 of this year, Iran issued a statement announcing the suspension of all limits under the JCPOA.

European position

Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw the US from the JCPOA in May 2018 was promptly condemned by US allies: the UK, France, and Germany.

“We do not accept the argument that Iran is entitled to reduce compliance with the JCPOA,” the three countries said in a joint statement.

“We do this in good faith with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPOA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue while preserving the agreement and remaining within its framework,” they said.

The three European countries added: “In doing so, our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran. Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA.”

US Presidential election possible outcomes

Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy on Iran has failed to achieve its goals and whoever wins the November 3 presidential election in America will have to reconsider the failed policy.

Foad Izadi said any US presidential candidate should change the policy because as a result of the maximum pressure, the Islamic Republic of Iran did not collapse or give up. He feels that Iran may benefit from either a Trump or Biden win.

“If Trump will be re-elected as president of the United States, he would accelerate the decline of the US, which is in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and if Joe Biden will be elected as US president, the sanctions that Trump had imposed on Iran would be decreased, which would also benefit the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Izadi commented.

The Iranian position

Iran has developed a large domestic arms industry in the face of international sanctions and embargoes that have barred it from importing many weapons and is self-reliant in its defense capabilities.

“Iran’s defense doctrine is premised on a strong reliance on its people and indigenous capabilities … Unconventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and a buying spree of conventional arms have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine,” said a Foreign Ministry statement carried by state media.

“Iran is an important regional power, and the United States is a global power, and until the cooperation of these two powers is realized, there will be no hope of resolving the regional crises,” stressed Mousavian.

America’s diminished security 

With Trump at the wheel, the US has inched closer to war and sparked a global crisis after tearing up the JCPOA.

“There is a direct line you can draw from Trump’s violation of the Iran deal and the risk of conflict today,” said Jon Wolfsthal, who served as the nuclear expert for the National Security Council under Obama.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Tasnim News Agency

I’m afraid I’m going to be the fact-checking party, again. I must call foul on those claiming that a recent CDC study shows mask wearers are more likely to get COVID-19 than non-mask wearers.

I hate face masks, but I love truth. And, while there is other evidence that does support the proposition that face masks would increase infection rates, this new study, in my estimation, is not one of them.

Here’s exactly what the study is saying:

The numbers in brackets are percentages of the total of 154 patients diagnosed with SARS-COV-2 in the sample group. What’s immediately apparent is an inverse relation between face mask use and the number of patients infected. At first glance, this makes it look like wearing a face mask will increase your chances of being infected with SARS-COV-2 by 17-fold; with 70% of patients always wearing their mask in public, compared to the 4% who never don the muzzle.

That’s a 1700% increase in viral infection from wearing face masks. That’s way too high! We’d have masked corpses all over the place. While wearing a damp cloth over your nose may certainly increase infection rates, is it not far-fetched to suggest such a dramatic increase? For example, the best study I’ve seen only showed a 50% increase in bacterial infections.

There are other ways the correlation demonstrated in this study could be explained.

For example, the reason why the majority of the infected patients were frequent face mask users may simply be because the majority of the general population wears masks. The same study found the vast majority of their COVID patient samples were white, non-hispanics. Does that mean white people are more prone to COVID-19? No, it probably just reflects that more white people live in the United States.

“People who are more inclined to wear face masks also may be more inclined to seek out PCR testing and receive positive results,” pointed out Dr. Ron Brown PhD in an email. “In other words, a limitation of this study, not mentioned by the authors, is selection bias among the sample of ‘314 symptomatic patients who actively sought testing during July 1-29, 2020 at 11 healthcare facilities.’

“Also, a person who is NOT inclined to wear a face mask may be more likely to be a ‘person who did not respond, or refused to participate’ in the study. They are more likely to crawl up in bed and sleep it off.”

I can vouch that if I have a sore throat the last place I’m going is a healthcare facility for a COVID test.

Furthermore, how much can we trust the patients? Imagine your average person in a hospital with a COVID-19 diagnosis: Their doctor asks them if they’ve been wearing their face mask like a good boy or girl. Many who weren’t might lie and say they were.

Amusingly, the study says the researchers used the PCR test to determine whether this sample group had SARS-CoV-2 or not. With all we know of the PCR test’s shortcomings, we might as well say they had the Easter Bunny flip a coin. Why do we fault the PCR test when exposing the corona scandal, but then rely on its junk data to argue that masks are bunk?

In an email, Prof. Denis Rancourt, PhD offered another perspective on this wonky CDC report:

“The study shows the same proportions [of mask wearing] for the comparison group that did not develop an illness. Therefore, there is no evidence presented in the article that masks increase likelihood of being infected by the presumed virus.”

Thus, we need to be careful about making hasty judgements simply to confirm our position on the ineffectiveness of masking. As Prof. Rancourt’s arch-enemy, David Kyle Johnson PhD, reminds us in a much-flawed pro-masking article: “…once you realize that a few pieces of proposed evidence for something is pseudoscience, you are justified in concluding that all such evidence will be similarly flawed.”

In the end, this new study is just another example of pointless CDC data; probably intended to trigger false claims and confusion. Or maybe it’s just to make it look like the researchers are researching.

What we really need are large randomly selected samples of people who wear face masks religiously like a crucifix and those who disdain the mask like a dirty diaper. Let’s see what percentage of each group gets ill with flu-like symptoms.

Oh, wait. Of course, we already have those randomized controlled trial studies. And they all say the same thing: Masks make no difference in whether people get sick or not. What more proof do we need that mandatory masking is a baseless violation of personal rights and freedoms?

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novel, Brave New Normal: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The debt-to-GDP ratio has emerged as a vital metric for determining economic prospects for a given country. Most countries usually strive to put in place measures to keep their ratio as low as possible.

Data presented by Buy Shares indicates that among the top ten countries with the highest National-to-GDP ratio, the European Union accounts for six. Japan has the highest ratio at 268.21%. Greece and Italy hold the second and third slots at 214.29%, and 156.92% respectively.

The research indicates that the US has the fifth-highest debt-to-GDP ratio at 136.69%. The United Kingdom lies in the tenth slot with a ratio of 100.87%.

Our research also highlights countries with the highest GDP and also the highest national debt. The United States has the highest GDP $19.54 trillion as of September 3rd. China has the second-highest GDP at $14.57 trillion. Japan stands a distant third with its GDP almost five times less compared to the US at $4.53 trillion.

Elsewhere, the United States has the highest national debt of $26.71 trillion which is at least double compared to second-placed Japan with a debt of $12.15 trillion. China has the third highest national debt globally at $7.32 trillion.

Importance of debt-to-GDP ratio

The National Debt-to-GDP ratio metric compares a country’s debt to its gross domestic product (GDP). The ratio reliably indicates the ability of a particular country to pay back its debts. The ratio can also be interpreted as the number of years needed to pay back the debt. When a country defaults on its debt, it often triggers financial panic in domestic and international markets alike.

The higher a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbs, the higher its risk of default on debts becomes. Although governments strive to lower their debt-to-GDP ratios, it can be challenging especially during periods of economic recession like the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. In such situations, governments usually increase borrowing in an effort to stimulate growth and boost aggregate demand.

Notably, Japan’s high debt can be managed since it is majorly owed to its citizens. Countries like Greece, owe their debt mostly to foreign creditors. In this case, Japan has the lowest risk of default compared to Greece. Japan is still well-off because it can adjust interest rates at low levels so that repayment values stay low relative to the overall debt level.

The US national debt on the verge of surpassing the economy

On the other hand, the United States has seen it’s national debt spike into crisis levels even surpassing the GDP. The massive spending in stimulus packages to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic is projected to push the national debt beyond the size of the economy. Interestingly, despite the US debt hitting historical highs, the stock market in August saw the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average recover from March losses.

In contrast, the US’s closest economic rival China enjoys low national debt. For China, the economic output is enough to make payments for debts owed. China, whose economy has been growing rapidly in recent years relies heavily on credit financing to spur rapid growth. However, the country might see an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio due to the stimulus plan to invest in its ambitious infrastructure projects.

Despite the US debts skyrocketing, there is less effort to reduce it. From time immemorial the US economy has outpaced its debt. For years, Congress has held the view that current debt will be dwarfed by tomorrow’s economic growth. However, with the pandemic, the tables have been turned. Additionally, political factors have come to play where if the federal government cuts spending on essentials like social security, it will impact reelection plans for the sitting government.

In cutting the national debt, some governments resort to practices like issuing debts with bonds. This enables the treasury to avoid raising taxes and offer funds to pay expenditures, while also stimulating economic growth. Additionally, through maintaining low-interest rates, governments are able to spur economic growth, generate tax revenue, and reduce the national debt. Lower interest rates make it easier for individuals and businesses to borrow 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.

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.

Featured image is from Buy Shares

The novel coronavirus pandemic both revealed and accelerated the irreversible crisis of the global capitalist system and, consequently, the domestic conditions shaping the 2020 U.S. presidential election and every level of U.S. governance.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) asserts the deepening structural crisis is causing unprecedented forms of capitalist structural violence that can be measured in unnecessary deaths, sickness, hospitalizations, mass hunger, homelessness and collective trauma. This crisis, along with climate change and the interlocking issues related to imperialist war, militarism and domestic repression, are the main challenges facing the public.

Yet, the diversionary psychodrama passing itself off as politics in the United States has consigned these issues outside of the pre-approved range of items for public discussion.

However, BAP took on the task to raise the issues that others have avoided during this election season to suggest the people must demand from public officials a minimum program that opposes war, repression and imperialism.

We launched the Candidate Accountability Pledge as part of our broader campaign, No Compromise, No Retreat: Defeat the War Against African/Black People in the U.S. and Abroad, to say public officials coming to our people for support must embrace an agenda that in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., addresses the ongoing issues of “racism, materialism and militarism” that characterize the politics of the United States as the “greatest purveyor of violence on the planet.”

In these last few weeks of this effort, we highlight our demands. They go beyond the election because we know the state is increasingly relying on the use of violence domestically and abroad, and that both Democrats and Republicans are committed to this strategy to maintain the power of the capitalist dictatorship. So, we suggest the people demand their elected officials and candidates:

• Oppose the militarization of U.S. police through the Department of Defense’s 1033 program
• Oppose Israeli training of U.S. police forces
• Call for and work for the closure of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)
• Advocate for the closure of 800+ U.S. foreign military bases
• Oppose Trump’s “Operation Relentless Pursuit”
• Commit to opposing all military, economic (including sanctions and blockades) and political interventions
• Advocate for an end to U.S. participation in NATO
• Support efforts to cut the U.S. military budget by 50%
• Demand the U.S. Department of Justice document and investigate the use of lethal force by domestic police officers
• Commit to passing resolutions that commit the U.S. to uphold international law and the U.N. Charter
• Sponsor legislation and/or resolutions to support the U.N. resolution on the complete global abolition of nuclear weapons

Over the last few weeks, we have attempted to raise the visibility of these demands.

For example, our September 24 webinar, “Full Spectrum Dominance: From AFRICOM to Indo-Pacific Command”, focused on our ongoing work to shut down AFRICOM, but we also drew attention to another U.S. command structure, the Indo-Pacific Command, which is being used to strengthen U.S. offensive capabilities against China.

Then on October 1, over 300 organizations from global civil society joined us by endorsing and taking action in support of the International Day of Action on AFRICOM. For that day, we asked organizations and individuals to call on the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to investigate the impact of AFRICOM on the African continent. The effort to sign onto that letter continues.

We are disseminating an especially important conversation BAP members hosted and presented on October 7 on Black Women and Anti-Imperialism.

On October 14, BAP co-sponsored and National Organizer Ajamu Baraka participated in a discussion on policing in Nicaragua and the Caribbean that is receiving international attention.

BAP member organization Friends of the Congo yesterday launched “Congo Week in Harlem”, an annual 7-day event that draws attention to the ongoing struggles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to its rich history and culture. Many believe the DRC would be one of the richest countries if it was allowed to exercise real national sovereignty, free from predatory U.S. and Western companies.

BAP is a member of the Black is Back Coalition (BIB), which is organizing the “Black People’s March on the White House” on November 7-8. For BIB, the election’s outcome will not change that Black and Brown colonized workers in the United States and abroad have no choice but to resist the U.S. state’s criminal activity as it desperately attempts to shore up the capitalist order.

And we are still moving toward our fundraising goal of $30,000, so we can continue to work for peace and People(s)-Centered Human Rights. Help us.

*

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.

“Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School

Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”

The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.

There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.

Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.

Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.

Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.

Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.

Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”

In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.

Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.

Indeed, a study from Southern Methodist University found that Washington, DC—our nation’s capital and the seat of power for our so-called representatives—ranks highest on the list of regions that are populated by psychopaths.

According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp,

“In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”

The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virusamong the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded,

“[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”

People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.

Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”

The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”

We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.

Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.

Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.”

But what does this really mean in practical terms?

It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal: through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that remind the powers-that-be that “we the people” are the ones that call the shots.

Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is doing and how to hold it accountable. Don’t allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.

For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don’t allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, “A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”

That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.

Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.

Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.

This much I know: we are not faceless numbers.

We are not cogs in the machine.

We are not slaves.

We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.

The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free, and until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.

*

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 The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Despite a year of unbridled state repression, including massacres committed against supporters of former Bolivian President Evo Morales, who was deposed just weeks after being declared the victor in the country’s October 2019 election, the left-wing Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) secured a resounding victory on October 18 for candidate Luis Arce, Morales’s former finance minister.

MAS won by such a wide margin that it even surprised many of its supporters in Bolivia and around the world. According to official exit polls, Arce and his vice-presidential candidate David Choquehuanca won 52.4 percent of the vote compared to centre-right candidate Carlos Mesa, who garnered only 31.5 percent.

In order to win in the first round, a candidate must secure more than 40 percent and a margin of at least 10 percent over the nearest rival to avoid a second round runoff. Arce won by an astonishing 20 percent.

Bolivian President-elect Luis Arce (centre) shortly after the announcement of the election results, October 18, 2020. Photo courtesy of Luis Arce/Twitter.

Winning the presidential election under the shadow of a US-backed right-wing coup (supported by Canada), was made all the more remarkable by MAS winning a majority in both houses of the Bolivian parliament, This was a veritable left-wing landslide. The majority Indigenous and poor defeated the white, upper-class candidates all down the line. It was one of the most courageous chapters in recent Latin American history.

Even de facto coup president Jeanine Añez conceded defeat through her Twitter account at about midnight.

“We do not yet have an official count, but from the data we have, Mr. Arce and Mr. Choquehuanca have won the election,” she said. “I congratulate the winners and ask them to govern with Bolivia and democracy in mind.”

Significantly, it was Morales who broadcast the first official victory speech from exile in Argentina.

“Brothers of Bolivia in the world, Lucho [Arce] will be our president,” he proclaimed. “For our country, for the path of economic, political and social development and especially it will contribute to economic growth. From a distance I want to send my brothers Lucho and David my sincerest congratulations.”

This was followed by a speech from president-elect Arce. “We want to thank the Bolivian people […] we thank all for their militancy. We have taken important steps, we have recovered democracy and hope,” he said. Arce also reiterated his commitment to fulfill MAS’s campaign promises. “Our commitment is to work, to carry out our program. We are going to govern for all Bolivians. We are going to build the unity of our country,” he added. “We are going to recover the country’s economy. We have the obligation to redirect our process of change without hatred, learning and overcoming our mistakes.”

Challenges

This victory was a proverbial slap in the face to the United States and its allies, including Canada, who backed the coup in 2019.

Morales’s initial electoral victory in 2005 was a game-changer of historic proportions for Latin America. For the first time in its history, the Indigenous majority had one of their own as president. What’s more, he was a socialist committed to wealth redistribution, helping the country’s poor majority, and nationalizing key industries to take back the nation’s wealth from unaccountable multinational corporations.

This October 18 victory has reaffirmed the strength, political consciousness and courage of the majority poor and Indigenous population of Bolivia, even more than Morales’s initial rise to power more than 15 years ago. The election of December 2005 was fought in a relatively calm environment, while the October 2020 vote took place against a backdrop of ongoing unrest after the chaos unleashed by the year-long interim government.

The objective of the coup was to suppress the majority and cleanse it of Indigenous values and pride, with violence when necessary. However, Bolivians resisted for a full year, strengthening their resolve, as well as their social and political organizations. The October 18 elections proved to be a de facto year-long electoral campaign for the MAS party.

Nevertheless, the conciliatory tone expressed by Arce and Morales was strategic. MAS won the elections, but there are challenges ahead. One is likely to come from the racist, militarized state that organized the coup and tried to intimidate voters during the latest trip to the polls. This military apparatus is still very much in place.

In addition to the challenge of maintaining political power, but linked to it, is the question of control over Bolivia’s lithium resources to which many observers say the coup was linked in the first place. Who can forget the infamous tweet by billionaire Elon Musk, whose Tesla firm relies on lithium, “We will coup whoever we want!”

The process of privatizing the substantial Bolivian lithium reserves, which were nationalized by Morales, is already in motion. How will the multinationals react to the socialist victory in Bolivia? What will the new MAS government do to reverse the measures enacted by the interim regime of Añez?

Bolivian president-elect, Luis Arce, speaks after hearing the results from the polls giving MAS 52.4 percent of the vote. Photo courtesy of TeleSUR/Twitter.

Geopolitical considerations

The post-election geopolitical considerations for entire hemisphere are immense. Bolivia’s re-entry into the socialist camp may inspire Venezuelans in the upcoming December 6 National Assembly election. Elsewhere, Ecuadorians are set to go to the polls on February 7, 2021, where Lenín Moreno’s increasingly unpopular government has barred former president Rafael Correa from running.

What’s more, Venezuela’s self-declared interim president and opposition leader Juan Guaidó is seeing his international support deteriorate. As I reported for Canadian Dimension in August, a recent press statement issued by the US State Department and Global Affairs Canada featured a dwindling number of ally countries that are now “committed to the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.” This is a far cry from the formerly extensive coalition of dozens of states that have heretofore unequivocally recognized and supported Guaidó. The State Department could not even get sign-on from all of the members of the Lima Group—the multilateral body consisting of 14 countries, including Canada, that is dedicated to a “peaceful exit to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.”

The story does not end there. Bolivia became a member of the Lima Group after the coup last year. Now the tables have turned and it seems safe to say that Bolivia will withdraw from the multilateral body once the new president is sworn in. Argentina is also caught up in a controversy over its role in supporting regime change in Venezuela. Earlier this month, its centre-left government ordered its representative at the United Nations Human Rights Council to vote against Venezuela. In an act of protest, the Argentinian ambassador to Russia resigned. Will the Bolivian election result move Argentina to withdraw from the Lima Group?

At the time of writing, the Trudeau government has not issued a statement on the Bolivian election results. Neither has the Trump administration. Irrespective of when an official statement is issued, the response (or lack thereof) is already far slower than the rapid recognition of the coup perpetrators last fall, when Trudeau fell in lockstep with Trump. It will be the second major humiliating defeat for the Trudeau government on international policy this year. On June 17, the activism of thousands of Canadian citizens and hundreds of global intellectuals contributed to Canada’s failed bid for a UN Security Council seat. This was in part because of the Trudeau government’s regrettable position on Latin America.

With the partial reshaping of the geopolitical landscape in the region, would this not be an opportunity for Trudeau to withdraw from the Lima Group and recognize the rightful leaders of both Venezuela and Bolivia?

The need for a reassessment of Canada’s foreign policy—which the UN vote and now the MAS victory illustrates—may very well earn some support in parliament. For example, as soon as the Bolivia election results were made public, NDP MP Niki Ashton tweeted:

Felicidades @LuchoXBolivia! Moving to see the Movement for Socialism win the presidency in Bolivia! The people of Bolivia resisted fascists in their own country and imperialists including Canada – and voted for a movement that they built. El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido! https://t.co/wJoOWxwX0V

— Niki Ashton (@nikiashton) October 19, 2020

Canadian parliamentarians would be wise to follow her lead.

*

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 Canadian Dimension.

Arnold August is a Montreal-based journalist and the author of three books on Cuba, Latin America, and US foreign policy. His articles have appeared in English, Spanish and French in North America, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, including occasional contributions to Canadian Dimension.

Desperate to distract the national discourse from his criminal mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic, Donald Trump is promising that a vaccine will be available before Election Day. His vaccine campaign is named “Operation Warp Speed” and there is a real danger that its speed will warp the results. Ironically, the Trump administration is comparing this effort to the Manhattan Project, the highly secret government program to develop the first atomic bomb. “This isn’t a secret government weapon we’re trying to keep from an enemy,” said David Mitchell, founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs. “The enemy is the virus. This is actually a rescue mission to save Americans and humanity from the virus.”

Vaccines generally take 10 years to develop, test and distribute. The shortest time it has taken to develop a vaccine is four years. Yet four pharmaceutical companies are in late stages of clinical trials. Pfizer, apparently the front-runner in the vaccine race, says it won’t have results before mid-November. Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson say they hope to have results by the end of the year.

“Trying to produce a vaccine at ‘Warp Speed’ is a terrible gamble with public health,” Clifford Conner, a science historian and author of the new book, The Tragedy of American Science: From Truman to Trump, said in an interview with Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action USA. “If none of the inadequately tested trial vaccines kill anybody — and if one of them should actually prove therapeutically worthwhile — it will be a matter of dumb luck, and dumb luck is never a good plan in a deadly crisis.”

In July, AstraZeneca halted its clinical trials because a participant became seriously ill. Although AstraZeneca refused to identify the malady, citing privacy concerns, the patient’s symptoms were consistent with transverse myelitis, or inflammation of the spinal cord. Several researchers decried AstraZeneca’s lack of transparency.

Last week, Johnson & Johnson announced it had paused its clinical trial due to an unexplained illness in one of its volunteers. The company refused to provide details, claiming the need to protect the patient’s privacy.

Robert R. Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a Senate panel on September 16 that a vaccine wouldn’t be readily available until mid-2021. A few hours later, Trump declared, without evidence, that Redfield “made a mistake” and a vaccine would be widely available in weeks.

Shortly before Trump contradicted Redfield, four senior physicians directing the national coronavirus response team endorsed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new stricter safety rules. Those requirements mandate the approval of outside experts before the FDA will pronounce a vaccine safe and effective.

The new FDA emergency rules also require that participants in clinical trials be followed for two months after administration of the immunizations before final authorization, in order to identify possible side effects.

But desperate to win an electoral advantage in the face of Trump’s falling poll numbers, the administration stalled its approval of the FDA’s new policies for two weeks. Trump accused the FDA of preventing authorization of a vaccine before Election Day, calling it a “political hit job.” The day after The New York Times reported that White House officials were blocking the FDA’s new guidelines, the administration did an about-face and approved them.

“I have tremendous trust in these massive companies that are so brilliantly organized in terms of what they’ve been doing with the tests,” Trump said at a press briefing. “I don’t know that a government as big as we are could do tests like this.”

In the race to develop a vaccine as quickly as possible, Operation Warp Speed is “paying out billions of dollars to Big Pharma corporations in advance of any results whatsoever,” Conner told Truthout. They are not complying with regulatory oversight and traditional federal contracting mechanisms that create transparency, he noted. “Before any of the companies had done any research or developed any products, they were already reaping windfall profits from their association with Operation Warp Speed.” What that demonstrates, Conner adds, is that, “Warp Speed is not so much a scientific ‘race for a vaccine’ among competing research laboratories as it is a speculative frenzy among competing hedge funds.”

Three of the pharmaceutical companies that have contracted with Warp Speed to develop a vaccine have never successfully brought any vaccine to market, Conner said. Novavax has a Warp Speed contract for $1.6 billion, Moderna has a $1.5 billion Warp Speed contract, and Vaxart’s stock prices have soared, its owners realizing huge profits. Pfizer also has a Warp Speed contract worth $1.95 billion.

The Trump administration is pressuring the FDA to rebrand its emergency authorization of a vaccine as a “pre-licensure.” But, concerned it would appear to be politicizing scientific determinations, the FDA is pushing back. An FDA spokesperson cited “important substantive differences” between the emergency use authorization and the more rigorous process to license a vaccine. “There is no such thing as ‘pre-licensure’ or ‘pre-approval’ under the laws FDA administers,” the spokesperson said.

A data and safety monitoring board has been established to review information about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The board has the authority to fast-track or halt a clinical trial. This small panel of 10 to 15 outside scientists and statistical experts works in secret, ostensibly to shield them from company pressure. The secrecy, however, may also lead to undue influence by drug companies. “We want to know they’re truly independent,” Eric Topol, a clinical trial expert at San Diego’s Scripps Research, said. “The lack of transparency is exasperating.” The safety board is overseeing trials by Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. But Pfizer, which is funding its clinical trials, has its own five-member safety panel.

Topol criticized Moderna and Pfizer for including in their data people who had fairly mild cases of COVID-19. Topol said evidence of the effectiveness of a vaccine would be more solid if only moderate and severe cases were included. In addition, Topol faulted Pfizer and Moderna for their willingness to halt their clinical trials early, which could prove detrimental later when the vaccine is administered to millions of people.

“Take the time, the extra weeks. No shortcuts. Nobody will regret it,” Topol cautioned. “I’ve been doing clinical trials for decades. I don’t know if there’s ever been a more important one than this one. I’d like to see it done right, and not stopped early.”

Congress members, advocacy organizations and a former administration official are calling for Operation Warp Speed to release its vaccine contracts with the pharmaceutical companies. “The administration really just seems to be playing a game of hide-and-seek,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) told NPR.

The Trump administration has ignored requests by the House of Representatives for information on COVID-19 spending.

“[R]ight now, the entire process is riddled with political interference and a lack of transparency,” Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Washington), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote in a statement to NPR. “These contracts need to be made public so Congress and the American people are not left in the dark — there is too much at stake.”

Rick Bright, who was fired as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, filed a whistleblower complaint, charging that some federal COVID-19 contracts were awarded based on “political connections and cronyism” instead of scientific evidence. Bright said there’s no reason to hide the contracts, which causes him to suspect “that there’s something interesting in there they don’t want discovered.”

Trump’s stubborn insistence on having a vaccine by Election Day does not comport with reality. Neither do Big Pharma’s predictions. The shortcuts they threaten to take for political gain and mega-profits endanger the public safety. That should frighten us all.

*

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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Natural News

Cooperation between China and the Philippines could easily be hindered by U.S. interference in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Washington wants to exploit Chinese-Filipino contentions in their demarcation claims over the South China Sea in an attempt to pressurize and contain China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia. However, despite Washington’s desire to steer the Philippines away from China, the two countries are currently negotiating joint oil and gas exploitation in the South China Sea and the Philippines’ energy urgency could be a powerful driver for the two sides to finally reach an agreement.

Forum Ltd., a subsidiary of one of the leading energy groups in the Philippines – PXP Energy Group, is negotiating with the China Offshore Oil and Gas Corporation (CNOOC). According to Reuters, PXP said that the parties have not reached an agreement yet. Although an agreement has not yet been made, to date CNOOC is the only foreign company asked by the Filipinos to become a potential participant in joint oil and gas exploitation in the South China Sea. This occurred after Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte approved on October 15 the lifting of the suspension on oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea that has banned since 2014 by decision of former President Benigno Aquino.

Filipino Energy Minister Alfonso Cusi stated that the decision to lift the ban was made by taking into account the outcome of negotiations between the Philippines and China on the demarcation of the South China Sea, as well as between Forum Ltd and CNOOC. Cusi did not give details on the bilateral negotiations but on October 10 there were talks between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his Filipino counterpart Teodoro Locsin in Dang Chong City in China’s Yunnan Province. It is likely that the two ministers have given approval for energy cooperation. According to the official announcement, Yi confirmed China’s interest in developing cooperation within the framework of large-scale bilateral projects. For his part, the Filipino Foreign Minister declared his readiness to cooperate with China to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Therefore, despite U.S. attempts to push Southeast Asian states away from China, the Philippines have a good opportunity to develop energy cooperation and joint exploitation of oil and gas in the South China Sea. The Philippines is currently looking for new sources of oil and gas. They cannot satisfy their domestic needs with already available resources. Manila has to import energy, which is a major burden on their budget.

Negotiations first began in 2016 after Duterte took office, but no agreement has been reached. The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily affected the Filipino economy, just like most other countries around the world. Resources are always necessary, especially in times of crisis. Under these conditions, the parties can be willing to make real concessions and real compromises to exploit the common oil and gas on the continental shelf.

China is aware that the Philippines urgently needs oil and gas, and there are about 30 drilling projects in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Southeast Asian country. Philippine Star newspaper reported that in addition to PXP Energy Corp., there are also other well-known companies such as the Philippine National Petroleum Corporation and Udenna Group, who are also looking forward to oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea after Duterte lifted the ban.

The Manila Bulletin notes that 99% of the country’s crude oil needs are met by imports. In addition, the Malapaya gas field, one of the very few functioning resource fields currently being exploited by the Philippines, will be depleted within a few years. As early as 2024, gas production from this offshore field will begin to decline. With this decline, Manila will be more desperate to finalize agreements for the exploitation of oil and gas.

It is with this that Washington will likely become more assertive against the strengthening ties between the Philippines and China.

Duterte has already built a reputation for his outbursts against both the U.S. and China, especially as he mostly pursues an independent foreign policy. At the same time, Washington is directly interfering in regional affairs by condemning Chinese claims in the South China Sea and arming Taiwan. The Duterte administration is ready to take steps to facilitate the negotiation process between China and the Philippines on energy cooperation in the South China Sea. In spite of U.S. threats an agreement of strengthening cooperation with China will be a testament to the independent foreign policy of the Duterte administration, and Beijing will certainly welcome this stance.

Last month, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Biegun said that Washington wants the defence relations with India, Japan and Australia – known as “the QUAD” – to serve as something resembling an Asian NATO. Although for now the QUAD comprises of the U.S. and the three countries it considers its closest allies in the Indo-Pacific region – India, Japan and Australia – the US Department of Defense hopes that some Southeast Asian countries, mainly those that have territorial disputes with China, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, will join the QUAD, and contribute financially and materially to the overall military structure.

Though China and the Philippines still have outstanding maritime demarcation issues, especially since Beijing refuses to accept the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration which ruled in favour of Manila and determined that Beijing has “no historical rights” based on the “nine-dash line” map, they both acknowledge the gravity of greater U.S. intervention in the region. The Chinese and Filipinos are still able to cooperate and create mutually beneficial agreements despite differences over the demarcation of the South China Sea, demonstrating that Washington has not been able to exploit this vulnerability in Beijing-Manila relations.

The US under the previous administration of Barack Obama condemned the Philippines for its heavy handedness approach in dealing with narcotic issues, which severely hampered bilateral relations. This was seen by Duterte as a direct interference into the domestic affairs of his country and soured relations. Although relations have been more cordial with President Donald Trump, the reality is that new administrations always come and go in Washington, meaning there is an inconsistent policy towards the Philippines.

From Manila’s perspective, the Chinese Communist Party leadership in Beijing is consistent, and with this it is easier for ties to be built upon and be maintained despite some issues needing to be resolved. Duterte would not be interested in joining U.S.-led efforts to contain the growing influence of China as Beijing does not interfere in the internal affairs of his country. China also offers tangible initiatives to help develop Filipino infrastructure and grow the economy. By joining an alliance aimed against China, such as the QUAD, the Philippines has more to lose by risking economic relations with China rather than what it supposedly gains security wise by aligning with Washington.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

After months of controversy and discussions, Brazil has chosen to prioritize the US as a partner in 5G technology. The decision contradicts the opinion of the greatest experts on the subject, who see the choice as Brazil’s alignment to Washington in the trade war against China, which would be a disaster for the Brazilian economy, considering that Beijing is the largest allied trading partner of Brazil.

The Brazilian choice does not come by chance: once again, Brasilia makes an important decision after talks between government officials and the American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In a virtual meeting organized on Monday (October 19) by the United States Chamber of Commerce, Pompeo said that both Brazil and the United States needed to reduce their dependence on imports from China. According to him, the Chinese participation in the economies of the two countries brings “enormous risks”. During the meeting, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro announced three trade agreements with Washington, which were signed hours later. Pompeo called for strengthening trade between Brazil and the US.

The risks mentioned by Pompeo refer to an old discourse propagated by Washington that Beijing would be using its technology exported to other countries in order to spy and steal data from the nations that consume its products and services. This has been the main American argument for trying to persuade other countries to ban China from participating in their respective technology markets. In most parts of the world, this rhetoric has been rejected, but in Brazil, which adopts a foreign policy of automatic alignment with the US, the government adhered to the speech.

It is important to note that for many months the Bolsonaro government’s automatic alignment was hampered by a more pragmatic trend that persisted in some sectors of the Brazilian political scenario. The Brazilian vice president General Hamilton Mourão himself was the first member of the government to pronounce in favor of Chinese participation. Mourão is the main name of the government’s military wing and the military are the most interested in Chinese activity because they see Beijing as an important strategic ally. In general, we can divide the Brazilian government between those who are ideologically committed to American supremacy – in this wing are Jair Bolsonaro, his family and Chancellor Ernesto Araújo – and, on the other hand, those who defend an alliance with the US for merely strategic reasons, without ideological commitments – this is the case with the military. Without ideological commitment, military are more open to possible alliances with China, as they analyze scenarios based on purely strategic and pragmatic assumptions – so if China is offering something more advantageous than the US, the military will support China.

In this sense, the “victory” of the ideological wing of the government is truly surprising, mainly due to the way it happened: in a few hours, the Brazilian government signed agreements with the US, without any satisfaction to the military, businessmen or the media and contradicting the recommendations of the military and all the experts. The most affected by this decision will be the Brazilian government itself since Brazil is in a position of absolute disadvantage in the dispute between the US and China. The neutral position in the trade war between Beijing and Washington would be the best for Brazil. If there was a national strategy truly concerned with the country’s development, the government would allow the participation of as many countries and companies in the Brazilian 5G market as possible, not damaging the image of the country by joining either side in a trade war between two powers with a level of economic and technological development much higher than that of Brazil.

Now, with the decision taken this week, Brazil is officially in favor of Washington in a dispute that does not concern it, and this can have serious consequences for one simple reason: Brazil depends on China. China is the largest importer of Brazilian products, mainly from Brazilian agribusiness. It was the partnership with China that prevented the complete economic catastrophe in Brazil during this pandemic period, precisely through the consumption of agribusiness products, mainly the purchase of meat and soybeans – which increased 51% and 22%, respectively, compared to last year. China will certainly impose sanctions on Brazil from now on, which will seriously affect the Brazilian economy. In fact, Chinese 5G will be spread around the world, regardless of whether Brazil accepts it or not. Beijing does not depend on the Brazilian market – but Brazil does depend on China.

With possible sanctions by China on trade with Brazil, the Brazilian agribusiness sector – the biggest beneficiary in negotiations with China – will be harmed and will certainly stop supporting the Bolsonaro government – which has major agribusiness entrepreneurs as one of its main bases of support . Without the support of the military and farmers, what will be the future of the government? The ideological wing is insufficient to keep Bolsonaro in power. Bolsonaro has only one option left: to go back and guarantee a neutral position in the trade war.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

This video was first published in April 2019.

*

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 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 Post is 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.

This article originally appeared on Common Dreams

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of  Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image from Common Dreams

Dear Readers,

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.

Click to donate:

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

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…

America’s “Corona 2020 Great Depression”: US Federal Budget Deficit Hits $3.1 Trillion

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 20 2020

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.

People Need to Reclaim the Internet

By Craig Murray, October 19 2020

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.

What Are the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Connections to Schools of Public Health?

By Prof. Bill Willers, October 20 2020

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 about potential dangers.

The Biden Campaign and China’s Oligarchs

By Nauman Sadiq, October 19 2020

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.

How the Global Media Lost Its Way

By Megan Sherman, October 20 2020

Institutions and presses that held power to account have become part of unaccountable power, and now only tough reform can reverse the damage.

New Book: The Prospect of a Kamala Harris Presidency

By Max Parry, October 20 2020

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.

The US Military/Security Complex Is Destroying Both Peace and the US Economy

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 19 2020

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?

October 1967: Che Guevara Is Executed

By History.com Editors, October 19 2020

On October 9, 1967, socialist revolutionary and guerilla leader Che Guevara, age 39, is killed by the Bolivian army.

Video: The “Smoking Guns” of a Manufactured Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Kristina Borjesson, October 20 2020

First published on October 10, 2020. Now includes the video. Youtube removed the video on October 17, 2020.

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. The​ir 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.

Every year, pharmaceutical companies corral half a million Atlantic horseshoe crabs, bleed them, and return them to the ocean — after which many will die. This practice, combined with overharvesting of the crabs for fishing bait, has caused a precipitous decline in the species.

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…

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 8^th 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.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

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’s T.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 editors de facto campaigners 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 the NEJM Group that 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 the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) that authorizes the same lockdown-related “mask up!” model deriving from the industry-funded World Health Organization (WHO) — nearly half a billion $$ from the Gates Foundation plus the vaccine alliance GAVI —  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 (see here, here, here, here, here, here and beyond). It is perhaps material that the MMS Executive Vice President was 24 years Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel with the Tufts Health Plan, as well has having trained at the Executive Leadership Program of America’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’s Bloomberg 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 of Event201, 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 Officer stated that studies in many countries had yielded “hard evidence that risk of transmission goes down dramatically when people wear masks.” A Dean of the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health declared that research 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 the Minnesota 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. The Director of the CDC in 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 moral is being established in 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. 

And 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 about potential dangers of vaccines in the face of industry’s disturbing freedom from accountability, and the unexplained connections of the government-industry program known as Operation Warp Speed with elements of the military and U.S. Intelligence. Nor do they deal with the issue of non-immunity-related tracking information that may be inserted during vaccination.

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.

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.

Featured image is from NEO

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.

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.

I controlli di sicurezza all’ingresso della base Nato a Napoli © Lapresse

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.

Manlio Dinucci

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.

In September,  The US GDP was of the order of $19.54 trillion, the US National Debt was of the order of $26.71 trillion. 

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.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

In Defense of Thought and Speech: A Reflection on Criticisms Leveled Against Scholars at New York University

By Prof. Daniel Broudy, October 19 2020

Let no one say — without a vigorous challenge — that the so-called ‘new normal’ is not profoundly ab-normal, absurd, hideous, and intolerable.

Diana Johnstone’s Memoir: Circle in the Darkness

By Dr. Galina Litvinov De Roeck, October 19 2020

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.

Scotland – The Road to Independence. “Trick the System”?

By Konrad Rękas, October 19 2020

Support for the independence of Scotland has been growing steadily and has remained at 58% for several months.

Video: “Don’t be Afraid of the Virus”: American Doctors Speak Out on Misinformation Surrounding the Coronavirus

By One America News Network, October 19 2020

A group of medical experts from around the country are speaking out against misinformation surrounding the coronavirus.

Where Are the Borders of the State of Israel? Why Do They Refuse to Demarcate Them?

By Majdi Khaldi, October 19 2020

Israel’s continuation of settlement and annexation plans will inevitably undermine the two-state solution according to the 1967 borders.

Pandemic to Trigger $4 Trillion Loss in Global Real GDP in 2020

By Justinas Baltrusaitis, October 19 2020

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.

Two Deep Mysteries of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War

By Eric Margolis, October 19 2020

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. 

Antiwar Forces Need to Challenge Trudeau Government, Not Praise It

By Yves Engler, October 19 2020

Should antiwar forces challenge power or praise government officials in the hopes of getting some crumbs for their pet issue?

Towards a US-China War? The Creation of a Global Totalitarian System, A “One World Government”?

By F. William Engdahl, October 18 2020

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.”

Will the Mediterranean Sea Save Lebanon from Drowning in Debt?

By Steven Sahiounie, October 18 2020

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.

History: Rhodesia’s 1970’s “Dirty War”: A Tale of False Flag Terror and War Crimes

By Adeyinka Makinde, October 19 2020

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.

Military Bases Never Go Unused

By David Swanson, October 19 2020

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.”

According to a Washington Post report [3] in September:

“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.

Image below: Guo Wengui (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

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.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chinese-billionaires-network-hyped-hunter-biden-dirt-weeks-before-rudy?ref=home

[2] Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

[3] GOP senators’ report calls Hunter Biden’s board position with Ukraine firm ‘problematic’:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-gop-report-calls-hunter-bidens-board-position-problematic-but-offers-few-specific-examples-it-changed-obama-administration-policy/2020/09/23/4b66d41e-fd44-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html

[4] Ye Jianming, Chinese oil tycoon, had business relations with James and Hunter Biden:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/business/cefc-biden-china-washington-ye-jianming.html

[5] Chinese Billionaire’s Network Hyped Hunter Biden Dirt Weeks Before Rudy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chinese-billionaires-network-hyped-hunter-biden-dirt-weeks-before-rudy?ref=home

[6] Emails Reveal Hunter Biden’s Associates Helped Communist-Aligned Chinese Elites Secure White House Meetings:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/16/exclusive-this-is-china-inc-emails-reveal-hunter-bidens-associates-helped-communist-aligned-chinese-elites-secure-white-house-meetings/

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.

As I reported on September 27 last year:

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.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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.

Featured image is from IMEMC

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.

 A group of medical experts from around the country are speaking out against misinformation surrounding the coronavirus.

The doctors gathered on the Supreme Court steps in the nation’s capitol Saturday October 17, 2020 to inform Americans not to be afraid of the virus.

Now on Vimeo

America’s Frontline Doctors: White Coat Summit II – SCOTUS Press Conference from Free Speech on Vimeo.

.

Taken down by Youtube

*

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.

Featured image is from the author

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 defense  budget 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.

Featured image is from Salon.com

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

China’s economy positive recovery despite Covid-19 epicenter

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.

Featured image is from BS

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:

1. 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).
2. 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:

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. Designed for normal breathing patterns, not exertive force (although the Surgical mask has a pressure rating). This is an important point!
4. NOT designed to filter infectious agents but rather inert particulates (except the Surgical mask which is intended to preserve a sterile/sanitary operating field).
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. People who have experienced this virus do NOT need to wear face coverings, period.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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..
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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.

Featured image is from AIER

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?

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 Berri from 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.

Click here to read full article.

*

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 Covid adviser 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.”

Screenshot from GBD

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.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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)

Circle in the Darkness: Memoir of a World Watcher

Author: Diana Johnstone

Paperback: 444 pages

ISBN-10: 1949762130

ISBN-13: 978-1949762136

Publisher: Clarity Press, Inc. (February 1, 2020)

Click here to order.

.

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:

Johnson lies. pic.twitter.com/CRCTqGRElZ

— Tim Walker (@ThatTimWalker) July 6, 2020

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.

Featured image is from BC