Vaccine Choice Canada, a not-for-profit society founded by families who have suffered from vaccine reactions and injuries, is suing Trudeau’s Liberal Government along with Ford’s Government of Ontario to hold them “accountable” for their “overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the restriction of access to parliament, the courts, medical and educational services, the destruction of local economies and livelihoods, and the requirement to physically distance, along with the forced use of non-medical masking are extraordinary measures that have never before been imposed on the citizens of Canada,” the group stated in a press release.

“The impact of these aberrant measures on our physical, emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being is profoundly destructive and these actions are unsustainable, unwarranted, extreme and unconstitutional.”

In a press release sent out Thursday, Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) announced that they filed legal action in the Ontario Superior Court against “multiple parties” for their actions “with respect to COVID-19 measures.” The parities also include, among others, the Municipality of Toronto, various public health officers, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The VCC Statement of Claim lists the defendants as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, Ontario Ministers Christine Elliot (Health) and Stephen Lecce (Education), Toronto Mayor John Tory, and Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams.

The lawsuit also lists as defendants Toronto’s chief medical officer Dr. Eileen De Villa, the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph and their chief medical officer, and Windsor Essex County and their chief medical officer, and the state-funded Canadian broadcaster, the CBC.

The VCC suit lists multiple plaintiffs which include nurses and citizens who argue that the COVID-19 lockdown measures have negatively affected them in both mental and physical health.

In addition to seeking to be paid for the cost of the lawsuit, the VCC is seeking that the defendants do not force any mandatory COVID-19 vaccine on Canadians as it would violate one’s rights under the Canadian constitution.

The VCC is also asking for a declaration that face masks not be mandated, that social distancing measures be retracted as they are “extreme,” and that the closures of churches, schools, and playgrounds were unwarranted and “scientifically” not valid.

The VCC is also seeking $1 million in general and $10 million in punitive damages from the CBC for spreading “misinformation” and “false news” about COVID-19.

In their Statement of Claim summary, the VCC claims that the entire COVID-19 was a “pre-planned” and “false pandemic” perpetrated by the World Health Organization, Bill Gates, and other “Billionaire Oligarchs,” to install a “New World (Economic) Order” with the aim of control and putting wealth in the hands of a few.

They are also claiming that Trudeau’s shutting down of parliament and Ford’s declaration of provincial emergencies was not warranted. The VCC states that the lockdown measures put in place have no basis in scientific fact and therefore, contravene sections of the charter.

In their press release, the VCC states that “during times of emergency,” Canadians’ Constitutional rights “do not stop being important” but rather “become even more important.”

The VCC press release says that Toronto lawyer, Rocco Galati, will serve as their legal counsel.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Ted Kuntz, president of VCC, to ask him about the lawsuit.

Kuntz responded by saying that although they recognize governments can enact laws that limit constitutional rights, it’s up to them to prove that the limits are needed.

“We recognize that governments may enact laws and pursue policies that limit Constitutional rights and freedoms, but the onus is on the government to prove that the limit is minimal, necessary, finite, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

VCC held a press conference Thursday at their legal counsel’s office in Toronto. Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that it is “telling that none of the mainstream media attended the press conference.”

In their news release, VCC says that they have made “numerous formal requests of the Government of Canada and various provincial governments” to provide them with evidence that justifies the COVID-19 measures taken, but they have gone unanswered

“An over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative is being utilized to create unnecessary panic and to justify the systemic violation of the rights and freedoms that form the basis of our society, including our Constitutional rights, sovereignty, privacy, rule of law, financial security, and even our very democracy,” states the VCC news release.

The VCC says that there are many “recognized global health and research experts” who have given a valid criticism of “government overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The warning bells are being rung about the dire consequences of these unwarranted, irresponsible, and extreme actions that are in violation of the rights and freedoms well established in Canadian and international law. All this continues to fall on the deaf ears of governments,” states the VCC news release.

VCC has been a vocal opponent of government responses to the coronavirus crisis and has a page dedicated to the virus on their website

Recently, the VCC heavily opposed a controversial New Brunswick bill that would have mandated kids to be vaccinated to attend public schools.

The bill was defeated, as lawmakers rejected removing “non-medical” religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions from existing law.

In May, Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that any type of forced vaccination, including a COVID-19 vaccine, is “morally repugnant” and unconstitutional after being asked about Health Canada approving human trial testing of a coronavirus vaccine derived from an aborted fetal cell line.

“The decision by Health Canada to approve human trial testing for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should concern us all,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

“Bypassing standard and prudent safety protocols and rushing a vaccine to market not only increases the risk of producing a product that will cause more harm than good, it has the very real potential to severely undermine trust in our health professionals, our health agencies, and in the entire vaccine paradigm.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Group Sues Trudeau Government for ‘Draconian and Unjustifiable’ Response to COVID-19
  • Tags: , ,

As I have told my friends for many years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is incapable of helping nations grow their economies. I do not believe the IMF can point to any success story, where its policies led to improving the standard of living of the population. Their macro-monetarist ideology fails to understand the essential driver of real (not monetary) growth. Following IMF prescriptions usually results in more suffering for the victim nation.  For a more in depth analysis read my article from last year: Africa Needs Real Economic Growth, Not IMF Accountants.

The report cited by the ActionAid and Public Service International highlights the failure of the IMF:  IMF Told Countries Facing Critical Health Worker Shortages to Cut Public Sector Wages. The statistics are revealing, but should not be shocking to those of us who study physical economics. Throughout its history we have seen the IMF insist on cuts to meet to macro-economic goal at the expense of the population. This report clearly pinpoints the effects of tying loans to cuts back in healthcare. Africa was suffering from an acute shortage of healthcare workers before the COVID-19 pandemic. Sub-Saharan Africa has the fewest physicians per 1,000 population and the lowest number of hospital beds per 1,000 population.

It was pointed out by Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, earlier this year, that payments of debt service equaled or surpassed the amount of money nations spent on healthcare. He wrote “In 2019, 64 countries, nearly half of them in sub-Saharan Africa, spent more on servicing external debt than on health. Ethiopia spends twice as much on paying off external debt as on health.

African nations, or any country for that matter, should not be subjected to this kind of treatment. Human life is real and precious. Debt is merely a financial accounting mechanism. There is no equivalence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the failure of the world globalized financial system, which has been become decoupled from the real economy. Genuine economic growth uses credit to promote human life. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods system, in its perverted form, came to an end on August 15, 1971. For the last fifty years, the City of London-Wall Street centered financial system has become more corrupt each decade, serving the interest of a tiny few. Now is the time to launch a New Bretton Woods, dedicated to improve the conditions of life for all people of all nations. I will be writing more on this subject in the future.

Below are excerpts from the cited report:

“New analysis by ActionAid and Public Services International (PSI) reveals how International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity policies restricted critical public employment in the lead up to the Covid-19 crisis. (emphassis added)

“The analysis, released to mark UN Public Service Day (23 June), shows that every single low income country which received IMF advice to cut or freeze public employment in the past three years had already been identified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as facing a critical health worker shortage.

“Key findings include:

  • Of the 57 countries last identified by the WHO as facing critical health worker shortages, 24 received advice from the IMF to cut or freeze public sector wages.
  • When countries are told to contain wage bills – it means fewer doctors, nurses and frontline workers in countries already desperately short of medics.
  • All but one of the 18 low-income countries advised by the IMF to cut or freeze public sector employment funding, are currently below the WHO’s recommended nurse-to-population threshold of 30 per 10,000.
  • The WHO predicts that these countries will experience a collective shortage of at least 695,000 nurses by 2030.

“ActionAid’s 2020 report Who Cares for the Future: Finance Gender-responsive Public Services exposed the detrimental IMF loan conditions and austerity measures which have pushed 78% of low-income countries to plan for zero increase in public sector wages.

“When countries are told to contain wage bills it means fewer doctors, nurses and front line health workers in countries already desperately short of medics. This was a dangerous practice even before the Covid-19 pandemic and is unthinkable now.”

Read the full report: IMF Told Countries Facing Critical Health Worker Shortages to Cut Public Sector Wages

*

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 author’s blog site, Africa and the World.

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

Featured image is from Africa and the World

Public health experts are warning that coronavirus statistics will soon be newly vulnerable to political manipulation after the Trump administration ordered hospitals to send Covid-19 patient data directly to a Department of Health and Human Services system rather than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which usually receives the information and releases it to the public.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the HHS database now positioned to collect daily Covid-19 information from hospitals “is not open to the public, which could affect the work of scores of researchers, modelers, and health officials who rely on CDC data to make projections and crucial decisions.”

“Health and Human Services said that going forward, hospitals should report detailed information on a daily basis directly to the new centralized system, which is managed by TeleTracking, a health data firm with headquarters in Pittsburgh,” the Times noted.

The administration’s new directive came in the form of a document (pdf) quietly posted online last week by HHS, an agency headed by former pharmaceutical executive and Trump appointee Alex Azar.

“As of July 15, 2020, hospitals should no longer report the Covid-19 information in this document to the National Healthcare Safety Network site,” the directive states, referring to the CDC’s data-gathering system.

Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served in former President Barack Obama’s HHS, told the Times that “centralizing control of all data under the umbrella of an inherently political apparatus is dangerous and breeds distrust.”

“It appears to cut off the ability of agencies like CDC to do its basic job,” said Lurie.

HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo confirmed in a statement to NBC News that the CDC will “no longer control” coronavirus data collection but said the agency will still participate in the process.

While administration officials portrayed the order as part of an attempt to streamline data-collection efforts, health experts were alarmed by the move given President Donald Trump‘s public attacks on the CDC and his complaints about how the recent surge in coronavirus cases “makes us look bad.”

“Speechless—Trump White House is now muzzling, bypassing, and kneecapping the CDC,” tweeted epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding. “No other ways to spin this.”

Dr. Leana Wen, a visiting professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, said in an interview on MSNBC late Tuesday that the decision to cut the CDC off from crucial Covid-19 patient data could undermine the U.S. response to the pandemic as infections surge across the nation.

“The CDC is supposed to analyze the data coming from different regions of the country,” said Wen. “I’m really deeply concerned about what we’ve seen with the attacks on science and public health in recent days, because public health hinges on public trust. And when politicians—including the top public official, the elected official of our country, President Trump—start attacking public health, it really undermines of all of local, state, and federal response to this pandemic.”

The administration’s order came just hours after four former CDC directors wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday that “no president ever politicized [the CDC’s] science the way Trump has.”

“Trying to fight this pandemic while subverting scientific expertise is like fighting blindfolded,” wrote Tom Frieden, Jeffrey Koplan, David Satcher, and Richard Besser. “It is not too late to give the CDC its proper role in guiding this response. But the clock is ticking.”

In a column for Esquire Tuesday, Charles Pierce urged hospitals to ignore the Trump administration’s directive and “send the data to the CDC anyway.”

“It’s time for hundreds of little rebellions,” Pierce wrote.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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 Morning Star

“Two ancient Asian cultures, two partners in the sectors of trade, economy, politics, culture and security with a similar outlook and many mutual bilateral and multilateral interests will consider one another strategic partners” – these were the opening words of an 18-page document that confirmed a multi-billion dollar deal between China and Iran that blatantly defies U.S. imposed sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

According to The New York Times, the agreement that Iran and China drafted is an economic and security partnership that would allow China to invest in Iran’s banking, telecommunications, ports, railways and dozens of other projects, “undercutting the Trump administration’s efforts to isolate the Iranian government because of its nuclear and military ambitions.”

In Tehran’s view, China and Iran are long-standing strategic partners who are now reinforcing their strategies on the international stage to oppose U.S. unilateralism. Both countries had already agreed on a strategic partnership in 2016, but this latest agreement allows Iran’s economy to have a semblance of normalcy with this flurry of desperately needed investments.

The New York Times claims that the military ties include “joint training and exercises, joint research and weapons development and intelligence sharing” to fight “the lopsided battle with terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes.”

Effectively, the agreement between the two countries “represents a major blow to the Trump administration’s aggressive policy toward Iran.” The agreement is expected to guarantee the supply of Iranian oil to China for the next 25 years, which undoubtedly benefits both parties as the U.S. intends to completely block Iranian crude exports to starve the country of foreign money.

The deal is a major win for China’s Belt and Road Initiative as Iran’s major new investments in transportation, rail, ports, energy, industry, commerce and services will improve China’s network in the region. Iran serves as a meeting point between South Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East, making it one of the most important countries for the Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement secures the supply of oil and gas to China with an overland route that gives another option away from Southeast Asian waterways, especially at a time when hostilities between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea are increasing.

The deal will see $400 billion worth of Chinese investments into Iran’s infrastructure, including upgrades in the oil industry and the construction of a 900-kilometer railway between Tehran and Mashhad, the second city of Iran and a center of pilgrimage near the borders with Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Not only will this railway line connect two of Iran’s most important cities, but as its on the doorstep of Central Asia, it will give both China and Iran greater access into Eurasia.

Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in his book The Grand Chessboard that Central Asia was the center of global power and that it was imperative that no power, indirectly referring to Russia and China, should arise that could challenge U.S. dominance in the region. If something like this happened, the global power of the U.S. would erode. Halford John Mackinder argued in his 1904 article, The Geographical Pivot of History, that whoever ruled the “Heartland,” ruled the world. He defined the Heartland as the great Eurasian expanse of Siberia and Central Asia.

Iran is certainly a major gateway into Central Asia, and China’s enormous investment into the Islamic Republic shows that it is making a strong push to control the region. In accordance to Brzezinski’s and Mackinder’s theories, by China being the major influencer in Central Asia, it is making a strong push to control the entire region and/or world. Although Russia is another major power with vast influence in Central Asia, their relationship with China in the region can be considered cooperative at best or friendly rivals at worst. However, both are making strong efforts to limit U.S. influence in the region.

Russia simply cannot economically challenge China in the region, but due to the long history of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union controlling the region, it still has large influence for historical reasons that also includes a significant Russian minority and Russian being the second language of Central Asia. Although Russia deals with Iran, it does not have the capabilities of investing hundreds of billions into the country, meaning that the Islamic Republic will certainly come under much stronger Chinese influence, and there is not much the U.S. can do to stop it.

“The United States will continue to impose costs on Chinese companies that aid Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” a State Department spokeswoman wrote in response to questions about the draft agreement. “By allowing or encouraging Chinese companies to conduct sanctionable activities with the Iranian regime, the Chinese government is undermining its own stated goal of promoting stability and peace.”

It appears the U.S. will penalize Chinese companies dealing with Iran, but China would have anticipated this. How Beijing plans to deal with such penalizations that can unravel a worsening of already tense relations with the U.S. remains to be seen, but China certainly would have prepared for such a scenario. Despite some harsh words from the State Department, it is highly unlikely that Washington can respond to this immense deal that will give the beleaguered Iranian economy and currency a major lifeline. The deal will also encourage other states wary of U.S. sanctions to begin dealing with Iran again knowing that they can have Chinese support and backing.

*

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

The US is waging multiple fronts of war against Syria, including brutal sanctions, while claiming concern over the wellbeing of Syrian civilians – the vast majority of whom are suffering as a direct result of US policies.

On June 17, the US implemented the Caesar Act, America’s latest round of draconian sanctions against the Syrian people, to “protect” them, America claims. This, after years of bombing civilians and providing support to anti-government militants, leading to the proliferation of terrorists who kidnap, imprison, torture, maim, and murder the same Syrian civilians.

Just weeks after these barbaric sanctions were enforced, cue American crocodile tears about Syrian suffering, and claims that Moscow and Damascus are allegedly preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid. More hot air from American hypocritical talking heads who don’t actually care about Syrians’ wellbeing.

America trigger-happily sanctions many nations or entities that dare to stand up to its hegemonic dictates. The word “sanctions” sounds too soft – the reality is an all-out economic war against the people in targeted nations.

Sanctions have, as I wrote last December, impacted Syria’s ability to import medicines or the raw materials needed to manufacture them, medical equipment, and machines and materials needed to manufacture prosthetic limbs, among other things.

Syria reports that the latest sanctions are already preventing civilians from acquiring “imported drugs, especially antibiotics, as some companies have withdrawn their licenses granted to drug factories,” due to the sanctions.

In Damascus, pharmacies I’ve stopped into, when I ask what some of the most sought-after medications are, hypertension medications are at the top.

But sanctions have yet another brutal effect: they wreak havoc on the economy.

The destruction of Syria’s economy is something US envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, boasted about, reportedly saying that the sanctions “contributed to the collapse of the value of the Syrian pound.”

The website Sanctions Killnotes:

“Currencies are devalued and inflated when sanctions are levied. Countries are pressured to stop doing business with targeted countries. Sanctions violate international law, the UN charter, Geneva and Nuremberg conventions because they target civilians by economic strangulation, creating famines, life-threatening shortages, and economic chaos.”

So you have Western hypocritical talking heads pretending they want to get aid to Syrian civilians while literally cutting them off from medicine and the ability to purchase food.

Resource theft and arson

But these crimes against humanity don’t suffice for America. The US occupation troops and their Kurdish proxy forces (the SDF) are plundering Syria’s oil resources to the tune of $30 million a month as of last October, according to Russian military estimates.

In early July, SANA reported another convoy leaving Syria to Iraq, loaded with oil thieved from areas under US occupation.

Terrorists and US proxy groups are also thieving Syria’s cotton, olives, wheat, and flour.

Further, Syria accuses the US of deliberately setting fire to crops using Apache-dropped thermal balloons.

Civilians from affected areas near Turkish occupation posts likewise blame Turkish forces for setting fires and firing live ammunition upon those who attempt to extinguish the fires, farmers literally watching their livelihoods go up in flames. The Hasakah Agriculture Directorate director likewise blames Turkey for arson of the crops.

Turkish occupation forces are also accused of cutting water supplies at Alouk water pump station, depriving one million people in the Hasakah region of drinking and agricultural water, with no condemnation from the Security Council.

The poverty and suffering Syrians are enduring these days is unbearable, with prices of basic goods doubled and tripled from just a few months ago, turning what were affordable items into luxuries, particularly for the 7.9 million food-insecure Syrians.

But alarmist Western media and representatives omit the context: the nearly 10 years of war on Syria; the deliberate targeting by terrorists and by US and Turkish occupation forces, and Israel, of Syria’s infrastructure; the looting of oil, wheat and cotton, even allegedly stealing parts of an Idlib power plant for scraps sale in Turkey.

Likewise, Aleppo’s heavy industry was thieved during the years when terrorists occupied the industrial zones of the city. Heavy machinery was reportedly trucked in broad daylight to Turkey.

With all of these factors, of course there is poverty and a chaotic economy.

A safe resolution rejected

Recently, the UNSC passed a resolution to maintain one humanitarian border crossing from Turkey into Syria, the Bab al-Hawa crossing.

Prior to that, Russia had proposed a resolution enabling the safe delivery of humanitarian aid from within Syria.

On July 11, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN issued a statement again noting the need to phase out cross-border deliveries, as the Syrian government has regained much of the territories previously occupied by terrorist factions, and deliveries must be made from within Syria.

The UNSC resolution that passed, however, continues the delivery of aid via Turkey, delivering to the hands of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups occupying Idlib. It is with these people the US aid ends up when delivered, from Turkey, not from Syrian territory.

Given that the US has supplied weapons to anti-government extremists in Syria before, it is not illogical to believe they hoped to funnel still more weapons in under the pretext of “aid” deliveries.

Russia’s statement also noted the lack of UN presence in the Idlib de-escalation zone, saying:

“It’s not a secret that the terrorist groups, listed as such by the UN Security Council, control certain areas of the de-escalation zone and use the UN humanitarian aid as a tool to exert pressure on [the civilian] population and openly make profit from such deliveries.”

This is what Russia and China opposed, not the delivery of aid.

Those are details which US Ambassador Kelly Craft slyly omitted when she spoke of callousness and dishonesty being an established pattern. Her verbal guns were aimed at Syria and Russia, but her choice of words perfectly describes US policy towards Syrians.

One only needs to look at US policy towards displaced Syrians in Rukban Camp to see that the US has actively worked to prevent aid deliveries there and prevent Syrians from being evacuated from there. Or the lack of US outcry at Turkey’s prevention of humanitarian convoys from reaching Idlib areas, which while scheduled for last April still hasn’t been successful.

On the other hand, on July 4 the WHO acknowledged the Syrian-Russian delivery of 85 tons of medicines and medical supplies from Damascus to Al Hasakah. On July 9, the Russian Reconciliation Center noted that 500 food packages (2,424 tons) were delivered to Idlib province and Deir-ez-Zor province.

I wonder how many tons of actual aid the US would send…

In case it isn’t yet clear, America is weaponizing and politicizing aid, as it tried to do in Venezuela last year. American representatives posture and bellow, and Russia and Syria quietly go about actually delivering aid to needy Syrians.

The Russian post-resolution statement also critically noted the brutal impact of sanctions on Syria, which, as detrimental to Syrians’ wellbeing as they are, somehow don’t merit the feigned concern of representatives like Craft.

The statement said:

“These coercive measures seriously undermine not only the socio-economic situation in Syria, but also impede activities of many humanitarian NGOs that are ready to help the population in territories controlled by Syrian official authorities.”

If America truly wanted to alleviate the suffering of Syrians, all sanctions against the country and people would be immediately lifted.

*

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.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett 

Featured image: A van which US officials say carried fighters not associated with IS who shot at US special forces, potentially thinking they could also be Turks or Russians (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sanctions Are Part of a Multi-front War on Syria, and Its Long-suffering Civilians Are the Main Target
  • Tags: , ,

GlobalResearch.ca: Help Us Stay Afloat

July 15th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Maintaining our projects, websites and operations involves some very real costs, and the fact that we are independent places us in a precarious position. Our recurring donors and members help us to be able to plan ahead and gain some financial stability. Becoming a member of GlobalResearch.ca essentially constitutes an endorsement of the Global Research website, and of the concept of truth in media.

With this in mind, we turn to you, our readers, to “help us stay afloat. We ask that you consider becoming a member of Global Research, or alternatively making a donation to help us cover our costs. We would not exist in our present form without the support of our readers. Your support truly is essential.

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

Click to view our recurring membership plans


Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Already a member? Forward this e-mail to one of your friends!

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on GlobalResearch.ca: Help Us Stay Afloat

The Mask as a Symbol of Subjugation

July 15th, 2020 by Prof. Bill Willers

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. The New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020

(T)hey told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that. CJ Hopkins, 2020

It’s difficult to imagine a crueler attack on the human family than the insidious prevention of person-to-person contact.

What amounts to house arrest, plus enforced wearing of masks, plus the order to stay a body length from others, has the stated aim of preventing contagion, but as philosopher Giogio Agamben put it recently, “It is political contagion, let it be understood”. He’s correct. The contagion that must be checked is not viral but political. The triad of official mandates hinders communication that cannot be monitored. If online, unauthorized political discourse and strategy can be recorded for the individual’s dossier. In the street not so, at least not yet.

In 1933, Hitler suspended the Weimar Constitution following the Reichstag fire. Citizens rights under that Constitution were abolished and never reinstated.

A similar drama continues to play out in the United States since the 9/11 attack, which resulted in the Patriot Act (of ironic title) that trashes the U.S. Constitution, resulting in free rein for the nation’s intelligence organizations in concert with the social media giants. The First Amendment is being negated according to someone’s definition of “hate speech” or “community standards”, with entire sites of information and opinion being “deplatformed”. The Fourth Amendment is a hollow lie in that each citizen’s every act is recorded toward that planned-for day in which all activities are digitally recorded, and woe betide creative souls who offend the rules.

The lockdown was never really about a pandemic. Covid19 was just the pretext. Bill Gates himself admitted (in an unguarded moment?) that earlier SARS and MERS were more “fatal,” i.e., more lethal, than Covid19, yet they came and went without crashing the economy. But more than just the economy, it was day-to-day existence as we all live it that was a prime target of the lockdown. Ending the lockdown tomorrow would not counter the damage already done. We’ve been psychologically mauled, and there’s no end in sight. Warnings of “spikes” and of future waves come daily. Yes, countless jobs and businesses are being lost, but it is the devastating psychological impact that permeates society throughout that is inescapable. The emotional and spiritual damage will not be healing anytime soon. As intended, we are disoriented and will be for decades as the “conspiring internationalists”, so-called by David Rockefeller, prepare us for a life according to their globalist design.

The cloth masks seen everywhere now are symbolic. However useful in stopping airborne droplets, they do not hinder the passage of viruses, made clear by the warning on a box of the type of mask commonly seen. The media’s favorite expert, Anthony Fauci, stated flatly on CBS 60 Minutes in March that “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”. Two months later, as lockdown demands intensified, his stance shifted to the mask as “a symbol for people to see”. Review articles indicating that masks are ineffective, or even counterproductive, rarely make it to mainstream viewers, or they are simply disappeared. But symbol the mask certainly is — a symbol of subjugation.

Living fully and free carries a normal level of risk. In addition to assorted germs and parasites that are a part of nature, there are lightning strikes, auto collisions, falling down stairs and being victimized by criminals — primarily elements within our governing structures. We are being conned with a manufactured terror campaign by a power bloc that considers the bulk of ordinary society a herd to be manipulated. The many who understand this, but who nevertheless wear a mask simply to conform to what they assume to be majority agreement, are allowing themselves to become part of the con. Take the damned thing off! Breathe free!

*

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.

Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He is founder of the Superior Wilderness Action Network and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land, and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Read other articles by Bill.

Military contracting was sold to the American people as a way to reduce the cost of military operations, yet the result has been quite the opposite. Recent research of mine has shown that rather than reduce costs, military contracting — or what I call the “Camo Economy” because it camouflages human and financial costs — has resulted in higher costs to taxpayers. It has also distorted labor markets and contributed to rising inequality, as military contractors earn excessive profits that enable them to pay their employees and particularly their top executives much more than their counterparts in the public sector and most other private sector jobs.

In 2019, $370 billion — more than half of all Department of Defense (DOD) spending — went to contractors. While contracting is sometimes called “privatization,” I think this is an inaccurate description, since military contracting serves a public purpose and uses public funds, while contractors earn profits at the taxpayer’s expense and are often not subject to the competitive pressures of private markets.

Many contractors operate more as monopolies than as competitive firms. Last year, 45 percent of DOD contracts were classified as “non-competitive.” And even among competitive contracts, many of these are “cost-type” contracts, which means that the firm will be reimbursed all its reasonable costs, and therefore has no incentive to reduce costs as competitive, non-monopolistic firms would. Additionally, firms such as Lockheed Martin have created monopolies for themselves by selling weapons systems (like the F-35 fighter aircraft) and other equipment to the DOD that come with “lifetime service agreements” in which only Lockheed can service the equipment.

Military contractors, then, act more as commercial monopolies than as competitive private firms. And using their monopoly powers they are able to earn excessive profits. In 2018, Lockheed Martin Corporation earned $8 billion in profits. About 85 percent of their business was government contracts.

High profits allow military contractors to pay high wages, which contributes to rising inequality. While the average wage across all occupations in the U.S. last year was about $53,000, at Lockheed Martin the average wage was about $115,000, over twice as much. KBR, a contractor that provides various services in the Middle East, had an average wage of $104,000, nearly twice the national average. The CEO of Lockheed earned nearly $2 million in base pay, well above the national average of $193,000 for CEOs; once we include stock options and other compensation, however, Lockheed’s CEO earnings shoot up to over $24 million.

The Camo Economy has made war more politically palatable by camouflaging its various costs. Contractors now outnumber troops in the Central Command (CENTCOM) region that includes Iraq and Afghanistan, 53,000 to 35,000. Deaths of U.S. contractors since September 2001 are approximately 8,000, compared to 7,000 troops. Yet contractors receive neither the public recognition nor the honor of serving abroad, despite the increased risks they face. The Camo Economy is politically useful, as the White House can claim troop reductions while at the same time increasing U.S. presence abroad by relying more heavily on contractors.

The financial costs of military contracting are also opaque. While we know some top-line numbers, we know very few details about where our tax dollars go once they are paid out to contractors. We do know that contracting is more expensive, as contractors have limited incentives to reduce costs and they build profits into their contract agreements. As contractors then use sub-contractors, who also build in profits, there can be multiple layers of guaranteed profits built into a contract between the sub-contractors performing the work and DOD paying the prime contractor. Add in the waste, fraud, and abuse in addition to the excessive profits, and the costs to government quickly balloon.

It will not be easy to reform the Camo Economy. Firms such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon each spent about $13 million on lobbying last year. Political connections operate alongside high profits and paychecks to keep the Camo Economy entrenched and growing. But reforms can be made. Reducing the size of the military budget is a vital first step. The National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies has detailed various ways to do this.

Next, the portion of military spending that is paid to contractors should be reduced and some services should be brought back in-house, including those on and near the battlefield. And third, the contracting process itself should be reformed, so that more contracts are legitimately competitive and create incentives for firms to reduce costs.

*

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.

Heidi Peltier is Director of “20 Years of War,” a Costs of War initiative based at Boston University’s Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. She is also a board member of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Featured image: Credits:360b/Shutterstock By Fabian Res /Flickr; F-16 drops MK82 bombs (USAF photo); Child victim of attack in which MK82 bomb built by Lockheed Martin was dropped on his school bus Aug. 9, 2018. (VOA/Screengrab)

Saudi Arabia has become a hostage of its own military campaign in Yemen. The Kingdom suffers from both its own inability to achieve a military victory in the conflict and regular losses from the retaliatory actions of the Houthis. At the same time, the Saudi leadership has no opportunity to withdraw from the conflict and abandon its proxies there because this will undermine its already shaky position in the region and cause a wide-scale political crisis inside Saudi Arabia itself. The impact from such a crisis will be especially devastating.

Over the past years, the Kingdom has been passing through turbulent times due to the economy slowing down and the acute struggle for power within the Saudi elites. In 2020, with the global economic crisis and the COVID-19 outbreak, the situation inside Saudi Arabia became even more complicated.

On July 13, the Houthis announced that they had conducted a new combined missile and drone strike on targets inside the Kingdom. According to Brigadier General Yahya Sari, a spokesman for the Armed Forces of the Houthi government, the strikes hit the following targets:

  • positions of US-made Patriot missile systems, warplanes’ shelters and the housing complex for pilots at Khamis Mushait;
  • military sections of Abha, Jizan and Najran airports;
  • the oil infrastructure in Jizan.

Additionally, Brigadier General Sari said that missiles and drones hit the Saudi-operated Tadawin camp in the Yemeni province of Marib during the meeting between Saudi officers and leaders of Saudi-backed forces. Dozens of members of Saudi-led forces were killed and injured in the attack, according to Brigadier General Sari.

The Houthis warned that they will continue their strikes on Saudi Arabia utill the end of the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen. This is the second Houthi strike on targets inside the Kingdom in less than a month. On June 23, Houthi forces launched missiles and drones at military targets near the Saudi capital of Riyadh.

Commenting on the July 13 incident, the Saudi military claimed that it had intercepted 8 “booby-trapped” drones and four ballistic missiles launched towards Saudi Arabia. The coalition often denies any losses or casualties as a result of Houthi strikes and works to censor data appearing through social media networks. However, results of the previous Houthi strikes and the success rate of Patriot missile systems deployed in Saudi Arabia are a sign that this statement may be an ordinary attempt to cover yet another military failure.

On July 1, Saudi Arabia announced the start of a new air bombing campaign to neutralize and destroy the offensive capabilities of the Houthis, first of all its missile and drone arsenal. Since then, multiple Saudi airstrikes have hit the provinces of Saada, Ma’rib, al-Jawf, Hajjah, al-Bayda as well as on the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. Many of the hit targets were located in urban areas. The Saudi coalition provided few details regarding the targets destroyed.

On July 2, Col. Turki al-Maliki, a spokesman for the coalition, declared that the first round of airstrikes destroyed ballistic missile and drone storage facilities, assembly workshops and communication stations of the Houthis. On July 3, the coalition announced that its warplanes had destroyed two booby-trapped boats 6km south of Salif Port in the province of al-Hudaydah.

The Houthis slammed Saudi claims as propaganda claiming that most of the bombed targets were civilian ones. In particular, Brigadier General Sari said the July 3 strike hit fishing boats and a salt factory. The July 13 strike on Saudi Arabia contributes to the version that the Saudi coalition at least overestimated results of its bombing campaign.

At the same time, the Houthis continued successful offensive operations against Saudi-backed forces in the provinces of Marib and al-Bayda.

In the current conditions, the further development of the conflict creates a real threat that the Kingdom’s leadership will not only loose the campaign in Yemen, but will struggle to deal with a Houthi offensive in the south of Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario may eventually lead to the collapse of the current Saudi regime.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Saudi Regime on Brink of Collapse? Economic Crisis and Setbacks in Yemeni War
  • Tags: ,

Introductory Note by Dr. Gary Kohls

It has long been known that benign coronavirus species are capable of causing 15 – 30 % of common colds [influenza] (usual symptoms: runny nose, cough, sore throat).

This reality was recently mentioned by a renowned virologist from Germany, in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive “COVID-19” PCR swab tests and false positive “COVID-19”  serum antibody tests.

Apparently, neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronaviruses that can cause common colds and the more serious coronavirus that actually causes COVID-19!

Dr Fauci’s ignorance of (or his ”conflict of interest-generated” failure to reveal) that fact justified his oft-repeated assertions in his endless media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the ill-fated economic shut-down:

I think we should be overly aggressive (even if we) get criticized for over-reacting. I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.”

Below is an interview with Dr Drosten made last month, in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold cannot be differentiated by the COVID test kits, over 200 of which are currently in development by profiteering medical device companies.

Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 14, 2020

***

Translation from German by Global Research

Good news: Some virologists are now saying that there are people who have become immune to Covid-19, and that this “unnoticed” immunity is attributable to the (comparatively harmless) coronavirus related to the common cold [influenza], which they have had in the past. In the NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update” Dr. Christian Drosten explains what this new theory is all about.

“What this refers to is that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to the [common] cold coronaviruses, because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way,” said the expert on Thursday.

The scientist had already spoken about the corona [common] cold viruses [influenza] last week. At the time, he pointed out that 15 percent of the [common] colds [flu, influenza]were caused by well-known corona viruses. And these are so similar to the current virus that they can even cause false positive antibody tests.

Incidentally, previous corona viruses have no influence on the PCR test, which is routinely used to test for Sars-CoV-2.

The important question now is: do these well-known corona viruses also become immune to the new virus? This is possible, the virologist continues:

“It could be that some people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.”

Drosten reports on a preprint study from China that has just been published and in which households with infected people have been under close observation. The so-called “day rate”, the number of people who contracted infection, was very low. “That is 12, 13 percent,” said the scientist. “How can it be that so many who were in the house do not become infected? Does something like background immunity play a role in this?”

The underling concept [idea] is extremely obvious to virologists, even if there is “residual uncertainty”, Drosten said. In our current situation, this is comforting, but the lockdown was still necessary, he says.

In conclusion, Drosten says:

“In the current phase, even if you include the background immunity in models, the medical system and intensive care unit capacity would still be overloaded and it is therefore right to have taken these measures at the moment . “

Sars-CoV-2 is a new form of corona virus – a type of virus that causes flu-like infections. In most cases in Germany, the infection with the coronavirus is symptom-free to mild: you could experience a slight fever, sore throat and fatigue.

After that, the disease usually subsides.

The virus can become really dangerous, especially if you belong to a risk group: older people or those with previous illnesses (such as cancer or lung diseases) should contact their doctor if they suspect an infection.

Dr. Christian Drosten is  a prominent German virologist, director of the Institute of Virology at Berlin’s Charité hospital.

Translation from German by Global Research.

Original German text

Virologe Drosten: Warum eine Erkältung immun gegen Corona machen könnte

Eine tolle Nachricht: Einige Virologen gehen inzwischen davon aus, dass es Menschen gibt, die unbemerkt immun gegen Covid-19 wurden, weil sie in der Vergangenheit eine (vergleichsweise harmlose) Corona-Erkältung durchlaufen haben. Im NDR-Podcast “Coronavirus-Update” erklärt Christian Drosten, was es mit dieser neuen Theorie auf sich hat.

“Es ist durchaus so, dass wir damit rechnen, dass es möglicherweise eine unbemerkte Hintergrunds-Immunität gibt – durch die Erkältungscoronaviren. Denn die sind auf eine gewisse Art und Weise verwandt mit dem Sars-CoV-2-Virus”, so der Experte am Donnerstag.

Über die Corona-Erkältungsviren hatte der Wissenschaftler schon vergangene Woche gesprochen. Damals wies er darauf hin, dass 15 Prozent der Erkältungen durch altbekannte Coronaviren hervorgerufen würden. Und diese ähneln dem jetzigen Virus so stark, dass sie sogar falsch positive Antikörpertests hervorrufen können. Auf den PCR-Test, der üblicherweise angewandt wird, um auf Sars-CoV-2 zu testen, haben bisherige Coronaviren übrigens keinen Einfluss.

Die wichtige Frage ist nun: Machen diese altbekannten Coronaviren auch immun gegen das neuartige Virus? Das ist möglich, so der Virologe weiter:

“Es könnte sein, dass gewisse Personen, die einen Erkältungsvirus vor ein bis zwei Jahren hatten, auf eine bisher unbemerkte Art und Weise geschützt sind.”

Drosten berichtet von einer Preprint-Studie aus China, die gerade erst publiziert worden sei und in der Haushalte mit Infizierten intensiv beobachtet wurden. Dabei sei die sogenannte “Tag-Rate”, die Anzahl der Menschen, die sich bei Infizierten ansteckten, sehr niedrig gewesen. “Die liegt bei 12, 13 Prozent”, so der Wissenschaftler. “Wie kann das sein, dass sich so viele nicht infizieren, die mit im Haus waren? Spielt dabei so etwas wie Hintergrundimmunität eine Rolle?”

Der Gedanke sei für Virologen extrem naheliegend, auch wenn eine “Restunsicherheit” bleibt, so Drosten. In unserer jetzigen Situation ist das zwar tröstlich, der Lockdown sei dennoch nötig gewesen, sagt er.

Drosten sagt abschließend:

“In der jetzigen Phase ist es so, dass – selbst wenn man die (Hintergrundimmunität) in Modelle reinrechnet – das Medizinsystem und die Intensivstation-Kapazität immer noch überlastet wäre und darum ist es im Moment richtig, diese Maßnahmen gemacht zu haben.”

Sars-CoV-2 ist eine neue Form des Coronavirus – einem Virus-Typ, der grippeähnliche Infekte auslöst. In den allermeisten Fällen in Deutschland verläuft eine Ansteckung mit dem Coronavirus symptomfrei bis milde: Du könntest leichtes Fieber, Halsweh und Abgeschlagenheit erleben.

Danach klingt die Krankheit meist wieder ab. Wirklich gefährlich kann das Virus vor allem dann werden, wenn du zu einer Risikogruppe gehörst: Ältere Menschen oder solche mit Vorerkrankungen (wie Krebs oder Lungenkrankheiten) sollten im Falle eines Infektionsverdachts ihren Arzt kontaktieren.

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Tests: Covid-19 and the Benign “Common Cold” Coronavirus Influenza. Can They be Distinguished?

“If we confuse dissent with disloyalty—if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox—if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought.”—Edward R. Murrow

For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.

Back then, it was the government—spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee—working in tandem with private corporations and individuals to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.

By the time the witch hunts carried out by federal and state investigative agencies drew to a close, thousands of individuals (the vast majority of them innocent any crime whatsoever) had been accused of communist ties, investigated, subpoenaed and blacklisted. Regarded as bad risks, the accused were blacklisted, and struggled to secure employment. The witch hunt ruined careers, resulting in suicides, and tightened immigration to exclude alleged subversives.

Seventy years later, the vitriol, fear-mongering and knee-jerk intolerance associated with McCarthy’s tactics are once again being deployed in a free-for-all attack by those on both the political Left and Right against anyone who, in daring to think for themselves, subscribes to ideas or beliefs that run counter to the government’s or mainstream thought.

It doesn’t even seem to matter what the issue is anymore (racism, Confederate monuments, Donald Trump, COVID-19, etc.): modern-day activists are busily tearing down monuments, demonizing historic figures, boycotting corporations for perceived political transgressions, and using their bully pulpit to terrorize the rest of the country into kowtowing to their demands.

All the while, the American police state continues to march inexorably forward.

This is how fascism, which silences all dissenting views, prevails.

The silence is becoming deafening.

Image on the right is from Bleacher Report

Washington Redskins: NFL Celebrates 80 Years of Disparagement ...

After years of fighting in and out of the courts to keep their 87-year-old name, the NFL’s Washington Redskins have bowed to public pressure and will change their name and team logo to avoid causing offense. The new name, not yet announced, aims to honor both the military and Native Americans.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, a delegate to the House of Representatives who supports the name change, believes the team’s move “reflects the present climate of intolerance to names, statues, figments of our past that are racist in nature or otherwise imply racism [and] are no longer tolerated.”

Present climate of intolerance, indeed.

Yet it wasn’t a heightened racial conscience that caused the Redskins to change their brand. It was the money. The team caved after its corporate sponsors including FedEx, PepsiCo, Nike and Bank of America threatened to pull their funding.

So much for that U.S. Supreme Court victory preventing the government from censoring trademarked names it considers distasteful or scandalous.

Who needs a government censor when the American people are already doing such a great job at censoring themselves and each other, right?

Now there’s a push underway to boycott Goya Foods after its CEO, Robert Unanue, praised President Trump during a press conference to announce Goya’s donation of a million cans of Goya chickpeas and a million other food products to American food banks as part of the president’s Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

Mind you, Unanue—whose grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Spain—also praised the Obamas when they were in office, but that kind of equanimity doesn’t carry much weight in this climate of intolerance.

Image below is from Britannica

To Kill a Mockingbird | Summary, Characters, Movie, & Facts ...

Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice, told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that’s not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book—along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn—from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel “humiliated or marginalized.”

Never mind that the N-word makes a regular appearance in hip-hop songs. The prevailing attitude seems to be that it’s okay to use the N-word as long as the person saying the word is not white. Rapper Kendrick Lamar “would like white America to let black people exclusively have the word.”

Talk about a double standard.

This is also the overlooked part of how oppression becomes systemic: it comes about as a result of a combined effort between the populace, the corporations and the government.

McCarthyism worked the same way.

What started with Joseph McCarthy’s headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever.

McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful.

McCarthy, a young Republican senator, grasped the opportunity to make a name for himself by capitalizing on the Cold War paranoia of the time. In a speech in February 1950, McCarthy claimed to have a list of over 200 members of the Communist Party “working and shaping the policy of the U.S. State Department.” The speech was picked up by the Associated Press, without substantiating the facts, and within a few days the hysteria began.

McCarthy specialized in sensational and unsubstantiated accusations about Communist infiltration of the American government, particularly the State Department. He also targeted well-known Hollywood actors and directors, trade unionists and teachers. Many others were brought before the inquisitional House Committee on Un-American Activities for questioning.

“McCarthyism” eventually smeared all the accused with the same broad brush, whether the evidence was good, bad or nonexistent.

The parallels to the present movement cannot be understated.

Even now, with modern-day McCarthyism sweeping the nation and America’s own history being blacklisted, I have to wonder what this sudden outrage and crisis of conscience is really all about.

Certainly, anyone who believes that the injustices, cruelties and vicious callousness of the U.S. government are unique to the Trump Administration has not been paying attention.

No matter what the team colors might be at any given moment, the playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots.

Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state that is continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the people under the Trump Administration is the same police state that wreaked havoc on the rights of the people under every previous administration.

So please spare me the media hysterics and the outrage and the hypocritical double standards of those whose moral conscience appears to be largely dictated by their political loyalties.

While we squabble over which side is winning this losing battle, a tsunami approaches.

While the populace wages war over past injustices, injustice in the here and now continues to trample innocent lives underfoot. Certainly, little of significance is being done to stem the tide of institutional racism that has resulted in disproportionate numbers of black Americans who continue to be stopped, frisked, shot at, arrested and jailed.

I’ve had enough of the short- and long-term amnesia that allows political sycophants to conveniently forget the duplicity, complicity and mendacity of their own party while casting blame on everyone else.

When you drill right down to the core of things, the policies of a Trump Administration have been no different from an Obama Administration or a Bush Administration, at least not where it really counts.

In other words, Democrats by any other name have been Republicans, and vice versa.

War has continued. Surveillance has continued. Drone killings have continued. Police shootings have continued. Highway robbery meted out by government officials has continued. Corrupt government has continued. Profit-driven prisons have continued. Censorship and persecution of anyone who criticizes the government have continued. The militarization of the police has continued. The devastating SWAT team raids have continued. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists has continued.

The more things change, the more they have stayed the same.

We’ve been stuck in this political Groundhog’s Day for so long that minor deviations appear to be major developments while obscuring the fact that we’re stuck on repeat, unable to see the forest for the trees.

This is what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.

As Diamond explains,

“In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer:

“I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference.Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

Sound painfully familiar yet?

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.

The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.

Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

We are on that downward slope now.

The contagion of fear that McCarthy helped spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is still poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.

Edward R. Murrow | American journalist | Britannica

What we desperately need is the kind of resolve embodied by Edward R. Murrow (image on the right from Britannica), the most-respected newsman of his day.

On March 9, 1954, Murrow dared to speak truth to power about the damage McCarthy was inflicting on the American people. His message remains a timely warning for our age.

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right. ”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.

The outcome rests, as always, with “we the people.” As Murrow said to his staff before the historic March 9 broadcast: “No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”

Take heed, America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this may be your last warning.

*

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]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed a decree changing the status of the Byzantine-era built Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque. The first Islamic service in the formerly Christian Orthodox Cathedral is scheduled for July 24 and a flurry of international condemnation has been heard. Greece of course has been the dominant voice in condemning the conversion, but UNESCO “deeply regrets” Turkey’s decision, France said Hagia Sophia should continue to represent “the diversity of religious heritage, dialogue and tolerance,” the World Council of Churches expressed “grief and dismay,” and Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, the chairman of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department of External Church Relations, said “it is a blow to global Christianity … For us [Hagia Sophia] remains a cathedral dedicated to the Saviour.”

Both Washington and Moscow however seem not too concerned. The U.S. State Department said that although it was “disappointed” with the decision, they understood that “the Turkish Government remains committed to maintaining access to the Hagia Sophia for all visitors, and look forward to hearing its plans for continued stewardship of the Hagia Sophia.” In Moscow, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament, Konstantin Kosachev, said “this will trigger an extremely negative response throughout the entire Christian world,” but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the issue as an “internal affair” of Turkey’s.

The question begs however, why after 18 years of ruling Turkey has Erdoğan only now decided to convert Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Istanbul journalist and TELE 1 editor-in-chief Merdan Yanardağ said that Hagia Sophia’s change of status was a political manoeuvre.

“I do not think Turkey needs a new mosque. There are plenty of mosques in Istanbul and the existing mosques are not full even during Friday prayers,” said Yanardağ. “I believe that the desire to turn the Hagia Sophia into a mosque again is an effort to achieve narrow Islamist goals. The goal is to use people’s religious feelings.”

This certainly appears to be true, especially as many moderate Muslim associations and theologians have condemned the conversion of Hagia Sophia, while radical Islamic Republics like Iran and Pakistan, and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Jaish-e-Mohammed, celebrated it. There is a clear divide between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, with moderate Muslims quoting Quranic verses that forbid the conversion of Christian sites into Islamic ones, while radical Muslims see the conversion as a right of conquest.

However, despite all the religious undertones and official reasoning, the conversion of Hagia Sophia is for purely political reasons. Turkey has a struggling economy, coronavirus is still out of control despite the official narrative, there are costly wars in Syria, Iraq and Libya, and there has been a significant decline in human rights. With all of this combined, Erdoğan’s popularity is rapidly declining. According to Metropoll, Erdoğan’s approval rating in March was 55.8%. It is not known what it currently is, but it surely would have significantly risen with the conversion of Hagia Sophia.

To improve his declining popularity, Erdoğan has used one of his major trump cards. Erdoğan has been in power for 18 years and always threatened to convert the Hagia Sophia. This however is not a move that he did lightly, and it was precisely only to be done in times of crisis for domestic consumption, appeasing both nationalists and Islamists.

Although Erdoğan might get an immediate spike of approval in Turkey with this move, it will not last long as the repercussions of the conversion will be strongly felt as the EU, through strong campaigning by France, Greece and Cyprus at yesterday’s EU Foreign Ministers meeting, may apply sanctions against Turkey if they do not reverse their conversion by August. The EU sanctions are likely to hit Turkey’s economy by specifically targeting its tourism and banking sectors, something that will greatly affect the Turkish lira and starve Turkey of desperately needed foreign currencies. Sanctions have not officially been placed yet, but tour companies are already cancelling their excursions to Turkey, depriving Turkey of precious foreign currencies at a time when Ankara is pleading to Germany and the EU to allow European travellers to go to Turkey this summer.

There is little doubt that the conversion of Hagia Sophia was for political reasons and domestic consumption to boost Erdoğan’s approval at a time when it is declining. But it will likely prove to be a short-term solution when the full affects of sanctions against Turkey’s economy is felt. The Turkish lira hit a record low on May 7, and it is likely when sanctions are placed the Turkish lira will hit a new record low that will see Erdoğan’s approval rating plunge, despite converting Hagia Sophia. The Hagia Sophia conversion was a short-term gain for Erdoğan that will have longstanding economic repercussions for Turkey and will work against him not only internationally, but also domestically.

*

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

中国在国际舞台上日益增长的存在,对美国领导的世界秩序是一个不可否认的威胁。本世纪中国成为大国的关键,是其在中亚国家不断扩大的影响力。中亚地区矿产储量丰富,是地球上最具战略意义的地区之一。控制中亚可以确保获得石油或天然气等原材料,同时它又是抵御美国在更南边波斯湾霸权的 “前哨”。

中亚的面积比印度大得多,由五个国家组成,目前最大的是哈萨克斯坦,其次是土库曼斯坦、乌兹别克斯坦、吉尔吉斯斯坦和塔吉克斯坦。中亚人口稀少,总人口只有7000多万,这主要是因为中亚60%的土地是沙漠地带,但也有鲜为人知的高耸的山峰和广阔的无树草原。中亚北面和东面与俄罗斯和中国接壤,西面是高加索和里海,西南面不远处是能源丰富的中东地区。

 

**

你可以点击下面的链接阅读整篇文章的英文版,也可以用手机翻译

China’s Growing Influence in Central Asia and the Middle East Will Lead to Further US Decline

By Shane Quinn, July 10, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 中国在中亚和中东地区的影响力越来越大,将导致美国进一步衰落。

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) has ended his trip to Washington that was intended to celebrate with the signing of a joint declaration pertaining to the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that took effect last July 1. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the only leader of the three who was absent.

The author is not aware of any official invitation from president Trump to Trudeau. There has been a nudge from AMLO in a phone conversation to join him but it was not AMLO’s role to extend one. Trump does seem to have a reputation of preferring one-to-one meetings.

However, Trudeau may have not been in the mood for celebrations when the Trump administration is threatening to reimpose tariffs on aluminum imports from Canada despite the USMCA. The Prime Minister admitted to that when he announced he would not attend the meeting “citing tensions over possible U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum”. The concerns over the coronavirus pandemic that forced closing the Canada-U.S. border may have been overplayed since Canadian External Affairs François-Philippe Champagne did travel by car to New York in mid-June for the vote at the UN where Canada lost its bid to a seat at the UNSC.

But even with Canada absent there was plenty to analyse with the Trump-AMLO meeting from both sides of the border.

From Mexico’s standpoint

AMLO initially justified his visit, the first trip abroad during his presidency, as a good neighbourly action but he also added that U.S.-Mexico relationship is “also an indispensable commercial and economic relationship.” This is a very pragmatic approach coming from a president who was elected for his firm foreign policy position against a U.S. administration in defense of Mexican sovereignty promising that he would not be bullied by his Northern neighbour.

As if accepting the USMCA was not enough to show the “indispensable…relationship”, AMLO saw it necessary to give a more visible sign of acquiescence to Washington. Hence his seemingly ingratiating  trip via a commercial flight at a time of COVID-19 pandemic that is at its worst in the U.S. One wonders if his repeated “nudge” to Trudeau to join him was AMLO’s way not to be seen as the only compliant partner. Or, was he perhaps following Trump’s request to make an invitation that he knew would be refused? We will never know.

On the U.S.-Venezuela issue AMLO had said diplomatically that he would not take sides in the dispute, which might explain his lack of involvement in the so-called Lima Group that seeks a regime change in Venezuela. But he also stated that “he would sell gasoline to Venezuela for ‘humanitarian’ reasons if asked to, despite U.S. sanctions on the South American country and its state-run oil firm, PDVSA.” That kind of promise by other governments has typically received a very strong threatening reaction by the Trump administration. Consequently, some Mexican firms and people, allegedly involved in trading Venezuelan oil, were not the exception and were hit by U.S. extraterritorial sanctions less than three weeks before the trip. In an apparent obedient action the Mexican governments financial crime department froze the bank accounts of companies and people that were blacklisted by the U.S.

On the domestic front AMLO had received criticism even before his visit to the White House. But it must have been very hard, and possibly incomprehensible, for many Latin Americans to hear a Latin American president say, “you have never sought to impose anything on us, violating our sovereignty. Instead of the Monroe Doctrine, you have followed in our case the wise advice of … prudent George Washington, who said, ‘Nations should not take advantage of the unfortunate condition of other peoples.’ You have not tried to treat us as a colony. On the contrary, you have honored our condition as an independent nation. Thats why Im here, to express to the people of the United States that their president has behaved with us with kindness and respect.”

It must have been very hard, and possibly incomprehensible, for many Mexicans to hear their president addressing Trump during a joint press conference say, “We have received from you understanding and respect.” They may still remember Trump’s anti-immigrant policies and accusations against Mexicans as criminals and rapists. As if reassuring both Mexicans and Americans Lopez Obrador also said, “Some thought that our ideological differences would take us inevitably to a confrontation. Fortunately that omen did not happen.”  (The full transcript of the press conference can be read here). On a separate occasion he reiterated, we are not fighting, we are friends.”

More ominously, AMLO has been confronting serious opposition at home with a movement that wants to oust him before the end of his term in 2024. A recent investigative reporting points at “far-right oligarchs” in Mexico bent at toppling AMLO and who would welcome U.S. help for doing that.

From the U.S. standpoint

While AMLO’s critics ponder whether his visit to the White House was timely before the U.S. presidential elections in November, in the U.S. the visit is a definite gain for Republicans and their candidate. The signing of the USMCA is by itself a major political score for Trump who had campaigned on the promise to re-write the previous NAFTA agreement. To have the president of Mexico come and sing praises in Trump’s ears is the proverbial icing on top of the cake; and the cherry on top of it all is AMLO’s not meeting with Democrat contender Joe Biden. However, not much should be read in the avoidance at meeting with him because regardless who will be elected in November, U.S. foreign policy will not substantially change.

Trump showed his gratitude to the president of Mexico by bestowing him with words of admiration both personally about their shared friendship “against all odds”, and for the “incredible” Mexican people.

Concluding thoughts

It is too early to judge the full consequences of the Trump-Lopez Obrador meeting in Washington given their respective domestic political realities. Relationships between governments are delicate as well. We may be having a glimpse of this delicate balance, albeit based on trade and not on ideology, even between two close friends like the U.S. and Canada, which prevented Trudeau from attending the USMCA celebration.

In geopolitical terms, relationships can also quickly change especially when Venezuela is currently the political force that can trigger the ire of the U.S. against any world government, but especially in the region, that will dare challenge U.S. dominance and hegemony in its “backyard” of which Mexico is considered to be part.

Both the U.S. and Mexico have a lot at stake. The U.S. is facing a contended election in November. and AMLO’s visit may help Trump’s odds. Mexico is facing a domestic rightwing opposition to progressive policies, and AMLO’s visit to Washington may defuse that perception by showing his close alliance with Washington. But at the same time he will have to maintain his core support from the majority of Mexicans. In diplomatic terms, both presidents may have gotten what they were looking for but the final gain will de decided at home.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Nino Pagliccia is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Sotto il tricolore che sventola a Camp Darby

July 14th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Mentre molte attività bloccate dal lockdown stentano a ripartire dopo l’allentamento delle restrizioni, ce n’è una che, non essendosi mai fermata, ora sta accelerando: quella di Camp Darby, il più grande arsenale Usa nel mondo fuori dalla madrepatria, situato tra Pisa e Livorno.

Completato il taglio di circa 1.000 alberi nell’area naturale «protetta» del Parco Regionale di San Rossore, è iniziata la costruzione di un tronco ferroviario che collegherà la linea Pisa-Livorno a un nuovo terminal di carico e scarico, attraversando il Canale dei Navicelli su un nuovo ponte metallico girevole. Il terminal, alto una ventina di metri, comprenderà quattro binari capaci di accogliere ciascuno nove vagoni.

Per mezzo di carrelli movimentatori di container, le armi in arrivo verranno trasferite dai carri ferroviari a grandi autocarri e quelle in partenza dagli autocarri ai carri ferroviari. Il terminal permetterà il transito di due convogli ferroviari al giorno che, trasportando carichi esplosivi, collegheranno la base al porto di Livorno attraverso zone densamente popolate. In seguito all’accresciuta movimentazione di armi, non basta più il collegamento via canale e via strada di Camp Darby col porto di Livorno e l’aeroporto di Pisa. Nei 125 bunker della base, continuamente riforniti dagli Stati uniti, è stoccato (secondo stime approssimative) oltre un milione di proiettili di artiglieria, bombe per aerei e missili, cui si aggiungono migliaia di carrarmati, veicoli e altri materiali militari.

Dal 2017 nuove grandi navi, capaci di trasportare ciascuna oltre 6.000 veicoli e carichi su ruote,  fanno mensilmente scalo a Livorno, scaricando e caricando armi che vengono trasportate nei porti di Aqaba in Giordania, Gedda in Arabia Saudita e altri scali mediorientali per essere usate dalle forze statunitesi, saudite e altre nelle guerre in Siria, Iraq e Yemen.

Proprio mentre è in corso il potenziamento di Camp Darby, il più grande arsenale Usa all’estero, una testata toscana online titola «C’era una volta Camp Darby», spiegando che «la base è stata ridimensionata, per i tagli alla Difesa decisi dai governi Usa». e il quotidiano Il Tirreno annuncia «Camp Darby, sventola solo il tricolore: ammainata dopo quasi 70 anni la bandiera Usa». Il Pentagono sta chiudendo la base, restituendo all’Italia il territorio su cui è stata creata? Tutt’altro.

Lo US Army ha concesso al Ministero italiano della Difesa una porzioncina della base (34 ettari, circa il 3% dell’intera area di 1.000 ha) prima adibita ad area ricreativa, perché vi fosse trasferito il Comando delle forze speciali dell’esercito italiano (Comfose), inizialmente ospitato nella caserma Gamerra di Pisa, sede del Centro addestramento paracadutismo (il manifesto, 5 marzo 2019).

Il trasferimento è avvenuto silenziosamente durante il lockdown e ora il Comfose annuncia che il suo quartier generale è situato nel «nuovo comprensorio militare», di fatto annesso a Camp Darby, base in cui si svolgono da tempo       addestramenti congiunti di militari statunitensi e italiani. Il trasferimento del Comfose in un’area annessa a Camp Darby, formalmente sotto bandiera italiana, permette di integrare a tutti gli effetti le forze speciali italiane con quelle statunitensi, impiegandole in operazioni coperte sotto comando Usa. Il tutto sotto la cappa del segreto militare.

Visitando il nuovo quartier generale del Comfose, il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini lo ha definito «centro nevralgico» non solo delle Forze speciali ma anche delle «Unità Psyops dell’Esercito».  Compito di tali unità è «creare il consenso della popolazione locale nei confronti dei contingenti militari impiegati in missioni di pace all’estero», ossia convincerla che gli invasori sono missionari di pace.

Il ministro Guerini ha infine indicato il nuovo quartier generale quale modello del progetto «Caserme Verdi». Un modello di «benessere ed ecosostenibilità», che poggia su un milione di testate esplosive.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Sotto il tricolore che sventola a Camp Darby

Iran, Coronavirus and U.S. Sanctions

July 14th, 2020 by Robert Fantina

In 2018, the United States, under the confused and confusing leadership of the bizarre Donald Trump, violated domestic and international law by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This was an agreement made with Iran and China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and the European Union that regulated Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against that country. Among the provisions of the agreement were regular inspections of Iranian nuclear development sites by the United Nations, and the U.S. Congress had to certify to the president, every six months, that Iran was in compliance.  On January 16, 2016, the agreement went into effect, and sanctions against Iran were lifted.

Most of the world community praised the agreement, with the only notable exceptions being the apartheid regime of Israel, which considers Iran a threat to its regional hegemony, and Saudi Arabia, which also considers Iran a rival. Additionally, the Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate also opposed it, due mainly to their obligations to pro-Israel lobbies who help to finance their re-election campaigns. Those lobbies also financed the campaigns of Democrats, but since the JCPOA was brokered at least in part by the Democratic President Barack Obama, they were willing to displease their Israeli allies to orchestrate what they saw as a ‘win’ for Obama.

The following January, Trump, who described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, became president, following his popular-vote loss to the odious Hillary Clinton: the bizarre electoral college installed a minority-vote president for the second time in sixteen years. In 2018, with the United Nations inspectors and the U.S. Congress regularly certifying Iranian compliance, Trump withdrew from the agreement, thus doing exactly what he said Iran would eventually do, and threatened sanctions against the European counterparts if they continued to do business with Tehran. The fact that the leaders of these and several other nations begged him not to violate the agreement meant nothing to Trump.

And once again, brutal, crippling sanctions were issued against Iran.

Early in 2020, the coronavirus struck, hitting several countries, including Iran, particularly hard, and U.S.-imposed sanctions have worsened the situation. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javid Zarif, who had referred to the sanctions as ‘economic terrorism’ has since referred to them as ‘medical terror’. Trump has again ignored the requests of the world community by not lifting, or at least easing, the sanctions, so much-needed medical supplies can enter Iran. Some U.S. politicians have also made the request, along with the highly- (but undeservedly) respected New York Times; others have encouraged Trump to maintain the sanctions.

Trump apparently believes that such barbaric cruelty by the U.S. against Iran will cause the Iranians to reject the revolution that overthrew the oppressive, U.S.-support Shah, and seek a new agreement with the U.S. This is the same philosophy that the U.S. has used for over 60 years against Cuba: a belief that sanctions will cause the people to rise up against their own government in exchange for concessions from the U.S. This practice has been a dismal failure for the U.S. in Cuba, and sanctions are only maintained today to please a small but vocal Cuban-American community in Florida.

The result will be the same in Iran. The people of Iran know that it is not their government, but the U.S., which is the cause of their current difficulties. They have no desire to make concessions to the author of their misfortunes; they understand, better than many U.S. politicians who have no working knowledge of Iranian history or culture, that their revolution was a great victory for people over profits, and human rights over colonialism.

In June of 2017, when this writer visited Iran, he spent time in two busy, prosperous and exciting cities: Tehran and Mashhad. He was scheduled to return in February, but the coronavirus pandemic prevented that trip. But while there in 2017, he visited beautiful mosques dating back centuries, and observed how Iranians lived; he found it no different than any other city in the world he has visited.

Unlike in the United States, which currently has national guardsmen patrolling the streets of major cities, this writer saw two soldiers in Iran, both of them, like him, awaiting a flight at the airport in Mashhad. He saw one police officer, directing traffic at a busy intersection in Tehran.

And now, due to harsh and unjust U.S.-imposed sanctions, the economy of Iran is suffering, and innocent people are unable to obtain the medical supplies needed to combat coronavirus.

Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. issued sanctions for a period of several years against that country; it is estimated that at least 500,000 innocent children died because of those sanctions. When then Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was asked about that tragic statistic, she said that that number of deaths of children was “worth it”. How many deaths of innocent people will the current administration see as ‘worth it’ to achieve its unjust and repressive geopolitical goals?

Although the European signatories of the JCPOA are far from blameless in the suffering of the Iranian people, it is the United States that is fully culpable. The U.S. was the original country to violate the agreement, contrary to the advice of all the other signatories and nearly every nation on the planet except apartheid Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is the United States that has not heeded calls for lifting the sanctions so the Iranian government can obtain needed medical supplies. This may mirror the U.S. government’s own incompetent and haphazard handling of the pandemic within the U.S.: It is the country with the highest number of cases, the highest number of deaths, and the ninth highest number of deaths per 1,000,000 people. Iran, as of this writing, ranks 30th in deaths per 1,000,000 people.

This is how the United States government operates. It will do anything to achieve its geopolitical goals of worldwide power and increasing profits for the already super-rich. The suffering of countless innocent men, women and children means nothing; it is simply collateral damage in an ongoing war against the world to maintain hegemony at any cost. Whether the occupant of the White House is a Republican or a Democrat, the playbook has remained the same for centuries, and there is no reason to look for change anytime soon.

*

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 Peace Data.

Robert Fantina is an activist and journalist, working for peace and social justice. A U.S. citizen, he moved to Canada shortly after the 2004 presidential election, and now holds dual citizenship. He serves on the boards of Canadians for Palestinian Rights, and Canadians for Justice in Kashmir, and is the former Canadian Coordinator of World Beyond War. He has written the books Propaganda, Lies, and False Flags: How the U.S. Justifies its Wars.; Empire, Racism and Genocide: A  History of U.S. Foreign Policy and Occupied Palestine: Israel, the U.S. and International Law. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The narrow re-election of Polish President Duda saved the country from returning under Brussels’ Euro-Liberal yoke, yet the electorate’s clear-cut age and locality divides bode ominously for the country’s future since they suggest that the opposition might inevitably return to power if voting trends remain constant.

A Close Call

Poland narrowly avoided returning under Brussels’ Euro-Liberal yoke with President Duda’s re-election, which for all intents and purposes ensures that the country will de-facto remain a one-party state at least until the next parliamentary elections in three years’ time. Sputnik explained why this is the case by pointing out how the ruling Euro-Realist conservatives control the lower house of parliament and the presidency, and that while the opposition holds the upper house, any veto that it makes can easily be overruled by a simple majority vote from its lower counterpart before being signed into law by the president.

Political Implications

This is extremely important to keep in mind since it means that the Law & Justice Party’s (PiS) legal and socio-economic reforms will continue. These are mostly related to regaining national sovereignty over its judicial system, and continuing its generous welfare programs, respectively. Had the opposition won the presidency, then Poland would have remained in domestic political deadlock until the next parliamentary elections.

While PiS supporters and many well-wishers abroad are breathing a collective sigh of relief after Duda’s approximately 2% win (less than half a million votes), they also shouldn’t rest on their laurels since the same earlier mentioned Sputnik piece reports how the electorate is clearly split along age and locality. Younger voters and those in urban areas voted for the opposition, while older ones and those in rural areas voted for the ruling party. The implication is obvious, and it’s that the opposition will inevitably return to power if voting trends remain constant. This means that the next three years are the most important ever for PiS.

The ruling party must not only do all that they can to solidify all of their forms into law, but they must also ensure that they can’t be reversed should the opposition eventually win both the lower house and the presidency (possibly regaining at least the former in three years and then the latter two years after that). Not only that, but PiS must urgently work on winning the hearts and minds of the youth and other city folk. This will be extremely difficult to pull off, however, since the country is literally split in two — not only politically, but even geographically.

Poland’s Electoral Geography

Three maps that were shared by the “Notes From Poland” Facebook page illustrate just how sharp Poland’s partisan divide presently is. As the page admins wrote under their relevant post, “Despite losing the election overall, Rafał Trzaskowski got the most votes in the majority of Poland’s 16 provinces (first map). However, looking at who won in smaller districts (second map), President Duda’s overall advantage becomes clearer. The third map shows by how large a margin a candidate won in each district.”

The Identity Crisis

Euro-Liberals tend to reside in the partition-era regions of Poland that were controlled by Germany, whereas Euro-Realists happen to live in the Austrian and Russian ones. While the first-mentioned tend to be politically aligned with modern-day Germany by virtue of Berlin being the continental leader of Euro-Liberalism, the second don’t have any particular affinity for modern-day Austria and most Poles in general regardless of political disposition fear and/or hate modern-day Russia for “historical reasons” (whether rightly or wrongly, and whether they arrived at those views on their own or as a result of domestic political manipulation).

It might be interesting for the reader to peruse the author’s prior work on this topic, which is too extensive to summarize in this particular analysis. The pertinent pieces are “Polarized Poland: The Identity Crisis Goes International” (2016), “Polish-Russian Relations: Russian Guilt & Polish Exceptionalism” (2017), and “Germany Wants To Replace The Patriotic Polish Government With Europhile Puppets” (2020). Politico’s recent piece about how “Poland’s Duda Goes To War Against Foreign Media” is also somewhat insightful in showing why he’s so concerned about the influence of German-owned media, though it’s predictably biased against PiS.

The Political Battleground

PiS’ struggle is therefore to convince the German-influenced Euro-Liberal voters in the former part of Poland that Berlin controlled during the partition era to support the party’s socio-conservative and pro-sovereignty agendas, a tough task if there ever was one since they’re naturally inclined towards liberalism and the surrendering of their country’s rights to supranational EU institutions that are de-facto controlled by Germany. As the last of the three maps that was shared earlier shows, that part of the country is where both parties generally showed the narrowest sign of victory in the respective localities that they won.

Some were solidly Euro-Liberal, but many of them were as neck-and-neck as parts of the Midwest were in the US’ 2016 election. These “swing” localities were just as responsible for President Duda’s re-election as America’s were for Trump’s original election, and they’ll likely remain some of the most important political parts of their countries for the coming future. It’s these battlegrounds where PiS will have to work its hardest if it wants to retain its control of the lower house during the next parliamentary elections three years from now. With this in mind, a few policy recommendations can be made.

The Path To Polish Greatness

Cracking down on German-controlled media as some expect might soon happen would be a very powerful step in the direction of weakening the pernicious anti-Polish influence that the country’s neighbor exerts over the most politically important part of the population. Germany does indeed pursue anti-Polish policies in both the social and political realms. Its aggressive promotion of Euro-Liberalism is intended to destroy Poland’s traditional conservative society just like its similarly aggressive pressure upon the country to surrender more of its sovereignty to Berlin’s proxies in Brussels is meant to de-facto eliminate Poland’s hard-earned statehood.

In parallel with this, Poland must make tangible progress on strengthening integration within the “Three Seas Initiative” (TSI) that it leads. While this American-backed geopolitical project is admittedly anti-Russian to the core, it is the only means for Poland to rise as a Great Power (however long that takes in practice) and at least superficially present itself as Germany’s peer in the long term, after which they might be able to eventually renegotiate their relationship (with American mediation of course) in order to make it more equitable. This vision won’t enter into force anytime soon and is dangerously conditional on the outcome of the US’ elections.

Trump’s victory would guarantee that the TSI becomes the focal point of European geopolitics in the coming future, while Biden’s would probably relegate it to the periphery as the Democrats seek to reconcile American-EU relations at Poland’s expense, just as Obama sought to do vis-a-vis Russia when it came to scaling back the Bush-era “missile defense system” there (though at that time Poland’s “expense” was only perceived as such and that decision wasn’t truly to its detriment). Germany, not Russia, is the greatest threat to Polish statehood, and Biden’s victory would force Warsaw to either submit to Washington-Brussels-Berlin or risk isolation.

Concluding Thoughts

As the article’s title clearly stated, “Poland’s Future Remains Bright, But The Glow Is Dimming”, and it might even disappear as soon as the end of the year in spite of PiS’ recent victory in the event that Biden beats Trump in November. Even in that scenario, however, Poland would do well to continue with its pro-sovereignty agenda irrespective of whether its top ally dumps it for the sake of “reconciling” Trans-Atlantic relations with the EU’s de-facto German leader. All that must matter to the ruling party from here on out is winning the hearts and minds of the voters from formerly German-controlled Poland in order to ensure that their victory wasn’t in vain.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Reelection of President Duda: Poland’s Future Remains Bright, But The Glow Is Dimming
  • Tags:

Lockdowns: Essential to the Master Plan

July 14th, 2020 by Renee Parsons

If given the choice between maintaining a toxic world of fear, pollution and violence controlled by the State or a society of prosperity and compassion based on freedom and individual rights, there is little doubt that the majority of Americans would want the old paradigm of synthetic events to take a hike; except that choice has been distorted under the guise of what the World Health Organization (WHO) has mislabeled the most deadly virus in history. 

The coronavirus crisis arrived in a flash with little time to analyze exactly what was going on.  Americans struggled to process what is real, trustworthy and authentic as the unraveling of deep political decay revealed a behind-the-scenes subterranean power struggle that has surfaced with the intent on disintegration of  American Society.

While the country is fast approaching an existential crisis on steroids, millions experienced an inner knowing that some indefinable thing was not right with recognition that the early explanations were hogwash while others, addicted to mainstream/social media who still believed in the illusion of democracy, were on board with the litany of spin from the medical and political establishment.

While the Lockdown could have been a wake up call for humanity to change its consciousness with a paradigm shift –  whether it be a spiritual awakening, a political realignment or re-evaluating one’s own personal health choices, since, after all, humanity was locked in a major health crisis.  And most importantly, it was an opportunity to acknowledge that the planet itself is ailing from abuse and neglect with CV as a metaphor urging a personal reconnection with Nature.

In early 2020, Neil Ferguson of the UK’s Imperial College used a scare tactic to predict that 80% of Americans would be infected and that there would be 2.2 million American deaths – neither of which materialized.   Yet Ferguson’s extremism accomplished its intended purpose in establishing the basis for draconian Lockdown requirements.  Ferguson later retracted his earlier prediction down to 20,000 fatalities.

With  current infection fatality rate at 0.20%, Lockdowns have been devoid of science and are based on arbitrary, contradictory and inconsistent requirements. Just a few examples come to mind such as liquor stores and big chains are considered ‘essential’ and remain open but stand-alone, independent, mom ‘n pops are not.  Barbers may be open but hair salons may not.  While it is advised to get tested for Covid 19, a colonoscopy or other elective surgery are not allowed.  While vitamins C and D and Sunshine strengthen the immune system, all outdoor sport programs have been canceled.

In an unexpected development, a recent JP Morgan study asserted that the Lockdowns failed to “alter the course of the pandemic” as it “destroyed millions of livelihoods”  and that as infection rates ‘unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown’ measures decreased, fewer outbreaks were reported as the quarantines were lifted.

As the official narrative of the Covid 19 as an existential threat has collapsed, it is interesting to follow how ‘hot spots’ occur just as a particular State, like Florida, announces re-opening.  It is as if a DEW(directed energy weapon) or a neuro weapon had strategically targeted that location for a resurgence.  Those new hot spots encourage a reinvigorated debate over mandatory face masks and social distancing with its success depending on a duplicitous media instilling panic and a naive public still believing Covid 19 to be a variant of the seasonal flu.

Why Lockdown Asymptomatic Citizens?

  • Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, technical lead of WHO’s COVID 19 Task Force threw a monkey wrench in the works recently by stating “what we really want to focus on.. if we followed all the symptomatic cases, isolate those cases, follow those contacts and quarantine those contacts, we would drastically reduce..transmission.  We would do very, very well..” Dr. Van Kerkhove then explained that transmission of the virus from asymptomatic patients who exhibit no symptoms appears to be “very rareIt still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual”.

The next day, there was  panic at the WHO but Dr. Van Kerkhove’s uncensored comments were very clear as they validated questioning the purpose of the entire Lockdown process. If an asymptomatic person is not spreading the disease but might publicly increase herd immunity, then why wear a face mask or be quarantined?

House Speaker Pelosi called for a national mask mandate as HHS Secretary Azar reported that Pence and Trump are tested daily and are asymptomatic; therefore not required to wear a mask.

Why Face Masks?

To date, there is no standard for what constitutes a ‘safe’ face mask or instructions for disposal considering that a used face mask will be a contaminated bio-hazard material; ergo a face mask is more of a device to require citizen compliance than a safety precaution.

  • Adding a partisan narrative to the crisis, the most expansive lockdown restrictions (some with criminal penalties) came from predominantly Democratic Governors and Mayors who offered no science or forensic data to prove that either mandatory face masks or home sequestration have failed to prevent a spread of the virus. During a House Oversight committee meeting, the mask debate broke down along party lines with Dems dutifully covered while strenuously objecting to their mask-free peers.
  • A rivetingJune 23rd Palm Beach County Commission public hearing on a proposed Mandatory Face Mask ordinance drew overwhelming opposition.
  • While OSHA’s (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) responsibility is to oversee the health and safety of every American worker as each work place is expected to comply with OSHA standards, its website regarding COVID 19 states that cloth based face masks will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious  agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.“

OSHA goes on to inform that a safe level of oxygen must be maintained as an oxygen deficient atmosphere (defined as below 19.5% by volume) creates a respiratory risk.

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection” and that “The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.  In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

  • More recently, NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci declared masks as largely ‘symbolic’ as he was setting an example for what other people should be doing.
  • Risk of Hypoxia to All Mask Wearers: Dr. Russell Blaylock and Dr. Zach Bush

Social Distancing aka Quarantine

With not a whit of science in support, Social Distancing which is a mutually exclusive phrase since there is nothing social about enforced distancing from other humans, has been attributed to a CIA protocol in use since the 1950’s to break a prisoner’s resistance or a teenage science project.

In any case, SD has proven a great way to erode an individual’s normal need for social contact, to effectively starve the brain function of human interaction and comparable to other emotionally unhealthy deprivations.   As former Vietnam POW John McCain related “It crushes your spirit more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.

Rules 3 and 44 of the Nelson Mandela Rules warn of being cut off from the outside world and prohibits more than two weeks of isolation as cruel and inhumane treatment.

***

While the manufactured COVID 19 health crisis opened the door for the World Economic Forum and its friends to activate One World Government, millions of Americans continue to play the cognitive dissonance game with little awareness they are witnessing a government takeover with increased surveillance and censorship.  As coordinated violent protests in Seattle and DC spread a thinly veiled political coup, all accomplished more easily while the American public were in Lockdown.

*

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.

Renee Parsons has been a lifelong registered Democrat.  She has also been  member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC.  Renee is a student of the Quantum Field.  She may be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Sob a bandeira tricolor que ondula em Camp Darby

July 14th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Se bem que muitas actividades bloqueadas pelo ‘lockdown’ lutem para recomeçar, após o afrouxamento das restrições, há uma que, nunca tendo parado, está agora a acelerar: a de Camp Darby, o maior arsenal USA no mundo, fora da pátria, localizado entre Pisa e Livorno.

Depois de cortar cerca de 1.000 árvores na área natural “protegida” do Parque Regional de San Rossore, começou a construção de uma secção ferroviária que ligará a linha Pisa-Livorno a um novo terminal de carga e descarga, atravessando o Canale dei Navicelli sobre uma nova ponte metálica giratória. O terminal, com cerca de vinte metros de altura, incluirá quatro trilhos capazes de acolher, cada um deles, nove vagões.

Por meio de carrinhos de movimentação de contentores, as armas recebidas serão transferidas dos vagões para grandes camiões e as que saem dos camiões irão para os vagões. O terminal permitirá o transporte diário de dois comboios ferroviários que, transportando cargas explosivas, ligarão a base ao porto de Livorno através de áreas densamente povoadas. Após o aumento de movimento de armas, já não é suficiente a ligação por canal e por estrada de Camp Darby ao porto de Livorno e ao aeroporto de Pisa. Nos 125 bunkers da base, fornecidos continuamente pelos Estados Unidos, estão armazenados mais de um milhão de projecteis de artilharia, bombas e mísseis (de acordo com estimativas aproximadas), aos quais se juntam milhares de tanques, veículos e outros materiais militares.

Desde 2017, navios de grande porte recentes, capazes de transportar cada um deles, mais de 6.000 veículos e cargas sobre rodas, fazem ligações mensais para Livorno, descarregando e carregando armas que são transportadas para os portos de Aqaba na Jordânia, Jeddah na Arábia Saudita e outros aeroportos do Médio Oriente para serem usadas ​​pelas forças americanas, sauditas e outras, nas guerras na Síria, no Iraque e no Iémen.

No momento em que está em curso a expansão de Camp Darby, o maior arsenal dos EUA no exterior, o título de um  jornal online da Toscana, “Era uma vez Camp Darby”, explicando que “a base foi redimensionada, devido aos cortes na Defesa, decididos pelo governo USA” e o jornal Il Tirreno anuncia “Camp Darby, ondula sob a bandeira italiana: a bandeira dos EUA foi baixada após quase 70 anos”. O Pentágono está a fechar a base, restituindo à Itália, o território na qual ela foi criada? Absolutamente o contrário.

O Exército dos EUA concedeu ao Ministério da Defesa italiano uma porção da base (34 hectares, cerca de 3% de toda a área de 1.000 ha) anteriormente usada como área de lazer, para que fosse transferido o Comando das Forças Especiais do exército italiano (COMFOSE), inicialmente alojado no quartel Gamerra de Pisa, sede do Centro de Treino de Paraquedismo (il manifesto, 5 de Março de 2019).

A transferência ocorreu silenciosamente durante o ‘lockdown’ e agora o COMFOSE anuncia que o seu quartel general está localizado na “nova área militar”, de facto, anexada ao Camp Darby, uma base onde o treino conjunto de soldados americanos e italianos está a ocorrer há algum tempo. A transferência do COMFOSE para uma área anexa ao Camp Darby, formalmente sob a bandeira italiana, permite a total integração das forças especiais italianas com as dos EUA, utilizando-as em operações encobertas, sob comando USA. Tudo sob a capa do segredo militar.

Ao visitar o novo quartel general do COMFOSE, o Ministro da Defesa, Lorenzo Guerini, designou-o como “o centro nervoso” não só das Forças Especiais, mas também das “Unidades de Psyops do Exército”. A tarefa dessas unidades é “criar o consenso da população local em relação aos contingentes militares empregados em missões de manutenção da paz no exterior” ou seja, convencê-los de que os invasores são os missionários da paz.

O Ministro Guerini indicou, finalmente, o novo quartel general como sendo o modelo do projecto das “Casernas Verdes”. Um modelo de “bem-estar e eco-sustentabilidade”, que repousa sobre um milhão de ogivas explosivas.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Sotto il tricolore che sventola a Camp Darby

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Sob a bandeira tricolor que ondula em Camp Darby

The coronavirus pandemic has caused an “unprecedented education emergency” with up to 9.7 million children affected by school closures at risk of never going back to class, Save the Children warned Monday.

The British charity cited UNESCO data showing that in April, 1.6 billion young people were shut out of school and university due to measures to contain COVID-19 – about 90 percent of the world’s entire student population.

“For the first time in human history, an entire generation of children globally have had their education disrupted,” it said in a new report, Save our Education.

It said the economic fall-out of the crisis could force an extra 90 to 117 million children into poverty, with a knock-on effect on school admissions.

With many young people required to work or girls forced into early marriage to support their families, this could see between seven and 9.7 million children dropping out of school permanently.

At the same time, the charity warned the crisis could leave a shortfall of $77 billion in education budgets in low and middle income countries by the end of 2021.

“Around 10 million children may never return to school – this is an unprecedented education emergency and governments must urgently invest in learning,” Save the Children chief executive Inger Ashing said.

“Instead we are at risk of unparallelled budget cuts which will see existing inequality explode between the rich and the poor, and between boys and girls.”

The charity urged governments and donors to invest more funds behind a new global education plan to help children back into school when it is safe and until then support distance learning.

“We know the poorest, most marginalised children who were already the furthest behind have suffered the greatest loss, with no access to distance learning – or any kind of education – for half an academic year,” Ashing said.

Save the Children also urged commercial creditors to suspend debt repayments for low-income countries – a move it said could free up $14 billion for education programmes.

“If we allow this education crisis to unfold, the impact on children’s futures will be long lasting,” Ashing said.

“The promise the world has made to ensure all children have access to a quality education by 2030, will be set back by years, ” she said, citing the United Nations goal.

The report listed 12 countries where children are most at risk of falling behind: Niger, Mali, Chad, Liberia, Afghanistan, Guinea, Mauritania, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal and Ivory Coast.

Before the crisis, an estimated 258 million children and adolescents were already missing out on school, the charity said.

*

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.

Dear Friends,

A deep disappointment and a fatigue together with the regular and unanimous will to deal with this increasingly difficult situation continue to help each other, that is, as far as I can tell it, the predominantly sense of life of the Syrian people. However, this asks people nothing but to let the people live in peace in their own country with the wide possibilities that are rightfully theirs.

The war is already going on for more than nine years. This, what they call a war, had nothing to do with a “spontaneous popular uprising ”or a“ civil war ” because, there have not been any of this . We have seen how it started here in Syria. The superpowers wanted the oil, build the gas for themselves, built the “American” pipeline and especially break the independence of a sovereign Syria.

The people, the army and the government however, held on to their sovereignty and their country. Therefore, the “International community” an overwhelming military coalition kill the people and destroy their land. They Western Coalition tried to kill and destroy Syria, but didn’t succeed, the people, army and government remained united and upright, also because of the loyal allies, like Russia and Hezbollah. The Western powers justified these crimes to the public opinion worldwide, they use the media “monsters” and spread lies over a president (president Assad) who allegedly tortures his own people, starves them and kills. This remains the pretext of the Western politics and media to this day.

An unrelenting flow of gruesome headhunters recruited by the Western powers and thanks to international aid which supplied them, they killed without any effort, paid and armed, in Syria, by the West. But the Syrian people are not yet on their knees for these criminal rulers. Embargoes and sanctions were imposed to suffocate life and a free fall was planned for the Syrian lira (of SL 60 for the war to SL 1000 during the war now to SL 2500 for one dollar!). The pinnacle now is the draconian Caesar law which is heavily punishing anyone who in any way supports the Syrian people. Instead of supporting the people against the terrorists, or with the reconstruction and the fight against the corona virus, the international community is starving the Syrian people in the most inhumane way.

We are also in rebellion against Western politics and their leaders.

We revolt against the sanctions imposed on 17 million Syrians who live in the area controlled by the government. We revolt against the illegal occupation of 30% of our country, which is approved among the 50 founders of the UN. We revolt against the illegal occupation by the Turkish and US military and the occupation of oil wells, while the country itself is in dire need of oil. We revolt against the unlimited Turkish and Western support and support from international NGOs to the fanatical terrorists who occupy Idlib province ”!

Our Belgian, Dutch, most EU politicians and media again provide a striking illustration of support for this hypocritical and criminal policy.

Last Tuesday, Germany and Belgium, proposed in front of the UN Security Council to launch “humanitarian aid” for Syria Turkey and Jordan, out of Syria’s control, for an extension of one year . The pretext is to help refugees in Northern Syria (Idlib). The the reality is to continue to support for the terrorists in the areas which are controlled by Turkey and America. Already, these illegal occupiers, prevented Syrians who want to flee to government territory, instead they are making an so-called independent Kurdistan.

Obviously, Russia and China voted against this UN proposal. Russia has now put forward a proposal to bring humanitarian aid to Syria, meaning the sovereign state controlled by the government. Of course, this was voted down (7 against, 4 for, 4 abstentions). Our EU politicians and journalists (bought by the EU) are the real cause of suffering and injustice in Syria. They know by now the real situation and are therefore the unscrupulous accomplices of a satanic work. The Syrian people are exhausted but remain determined to revolt against this international organized criminal network.

Father Daniel, Qara, Syria

*

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: Father Daniel and Brother Jean working at the fields of the Monastery. Father Daniel is an 80 year old Priest from Belgium and living in Syria for 20 years. 


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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

On Friday July 10, Turkey’s highest court has repealed a previous decision that saw the 1934 conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum, and put restrictions on prayers being performed at the site.

A week earlier, Turkey’s Council of State received arguments by lawyers pressing for an annulment of a 1934 decision by its Council of Ministers which turned the historic monument into a museum.

In the case, lawyers appealed to the foundation charter of the Hagia Sophia itself, personal property of Sultan Mehmet II, which forbids changes of any sort to the endowment, its lands, and use.

“At the heart of this controversial case is a bid to restore religious freedoms,” says Mark Jefferson, an analyst for Omran Strategic Studies Institute.

“Early modern Turkey cracked down on the practice of faith, wearing of religious garb and expression of religion, and one of the policies they enacted was to deny its religious Muslim community a place that served as a deeply symbolic place of prayer for nearly five centuries,” he says.

“It is worth recalling the ‘Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Independence and Sovereignty’, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2131 on 21 December 1965, which saw a unanimous ratification,” notes Hassan Imran, an international lawyer who spoke to TRT World prior to the court’s ruling.

“Whether the court ruling is in favour or against annulment, respect for the rule of law is essential. To that end, the judiciary should uphold their independence, free of any political consideration,” he adds.

Freedom of worship preserved

Authorities have consistently communicated that the features of Hagia Sophia, a significant historical and cultural heritage site dating back to the sixth century AD, will continue to be preserved and protected, and will remain open to the public in the same manner the Blue Mosque is open to visitors and tourists of all denominations and faiths.

Turkey’s presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin also maintained that allowing prayers in Hagia Sophia would not deprive it of its identity.

“Turkey will still preserve the Christian icons there, just like our ancestors preserved all Christian values”, said Kalin.

“Hagia Sophia’s status is not an international matter but a matter of national sovereignty for Turkey,” Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said earlier Thursday.

“Hagia Sophia, like all cultural assets on our lands, is the property of Turkey,” adds Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hami Aksoy.

With its multifaceted and rich past, questions arise surrounding Hagia Sophia’s significance and meaning to Turkey. For some, it was founded as a church. For others, Mehmet Fatih II’s conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and his subsequent preservation and restoration of the ancient cathedral, has made it a keystone of national culture and modern Turkish heritage.

A painting of Hagia Sophia by Gaspare Fossati in 1852.

A painting of Hagia Sophia by Gaspare Fossati in 1852. (Gaspare Fossati / )

While some criticism has been leveled against the annulment of restriction on prayers in the monument, Khalid Yacine, anthropologist of antiquities at the University of Setif says there’s nothing unusual about it all.

“The Hagia Sophia is a part of Turkey’s origin story. Without it there would be no Turkey, and no Istanbul,” he says in an interview with TRT World.

“It’s ties to multiple faiths will likely give rise to sensitivities, but if worshippers and visitors are allowed as they have been before, then this is more than was done by others.”

When asked what he means, he chuckles and resumes.

“Most people don’t know that St. Peter’s Basilica, in the Vatican itself, is built over several Roman temples. When Spain expelled Muslims in the inquisition, it changed the Grand Mosque of Cordoba into a cathedral, where Muslims are forbidden to pray to this day,” he elaborates.

“Many mosques were outright destroyed or converted into Churches. By the same token, when the Spanish went to the New World, they also changed places of worship into churches. The Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral is built on the ruins of an Aztec temple,” he adds.

But the list goes on.

“The Church of Prophet Elija in Thessaloniki, Greece was a former mosque. In Bulgaria, the Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church of Sofia was converted from a Mosque into a church. In Croatia too, three Ottoman mosques were converted into churches. Vietnam saw the French destroy Buddist and Taoist places of worship to build the St. Joseph Cathedral.”

“Turkey has ruled to allow people to carry out prayers in Hagia Sophia. That hardly compares to getting arrested in the Grand Mosque of Cordoba for saying something in Arabic or converting it into a cathedral. If anything, the Hagia Sophia stands today because of Turkey’s efforts to restore it,” he points out.

Istanbul’s birth

Written on a 66-meter length of carefully preserved gazelle skin, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Foundation, Sultan Mehmet II, writes:

“All the things I have explained and designated here have been set down in written form in the foundation charter in the manner appointed; the conditions may not be altered; the laws may not be amended; they may not be diverted from their original purpose; the appointed rules and principles may not be diminished; interference of any sort in the foundation is interdicted… May the curse of Allah, the angels and all human beings be upon anyone who changes even one of the conditions governing this foundation.”

Caption: The Sultan’s charter is carefully preserved, and treated multiple times a year to ensure its longevity.

The Sultan’s charter is carefully preserved, and treated multiple times a year to ensure its longevity. (AA)

Shortly after his conquest of Constantinople and renaming of the city to Istanbul, the Sultan performed his first Friday prayers there. Apocrypha tells a story of a young Sultan who is said to have fallen to his knees in prayers of gratitude upon entering the ancient cathedral.

Shortly after, he established an endowment to care for and govern the new ‘Great Mosque’, with an annual income of 14,000 gold pieces per year to restore, expand and preserve the civilizational monument. The endowment’s charge was significant not only as an edict, but spiritually as well.

Islamic jurisprudence forbids the alteration of an endowment or foundation’s charter or purpose without consultation and approval of the owner, a principle that has since become ubiquitous in modern law.

Out of respect to the multi-faithed citizens of the city and his empire, Sultan Mehmet II ordered new decorations that did not destroy the previous interior detailing within Hagia Sophia.

At the time, the Hagia Sophia was already 900 years old, and had suffered at least two fires and three earthquakes, one of which caused the entire dome to collapse. It had also been ransacked and desecrated during the Fourth Crusade by Crusaders.

Buried History

With Istanbul’s conquest, Hagia Sophia quickly became a cultural icon, bearing deep heritage to Turkey today. Named a ‘Great Mosque’, every effort was made to preserve it and improve upon a structurally flawed design caused by a heavy central dome perched on a long basilica.

Buttresses were added to the Hagia Sophia’s sides to prevent it from collapse during the reign of Murad III by the historical architect Sinan who would be inspired by the ancient edifice, and fusing its style with Islamic art and aesthetics in a series of Grand Mosques.

A series of additions were made including a school, and fountain during Sultan Mahmud I’s rule, and a clock room during Sultan Abdulmejid’s time, which also saw the most thorough restoration of the ancient structure carried out by Swiss architects from 1847-1849.

At the time, Russian historian Peter Ouspensky, commented ironically.

“The Turks showed more understanding for the city’s monuments than the Crusader armies that occupied Istanbul in 1204.”

Hagia Sophia would also become home to the largest calligraphy collection in the empire, with countless gold inscriptions, tiles, artistic reflections of Turkey’s civilizational heritage.

In the words of Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, a Turkish poet,

“The Hagia Sophia is neither stone, nor line, nor color, nor matter, nor a symphony of substance; it is pure spiritual meaning, meaning alone.”

But Hagia Sophia is also more than just a monument to the grandeur of human achievement and artistic expression. It also serves as the final resting place for five sultans and their families, giving it a venerated historical status befitting its age and history.

With the ruling opening the way for permitting worshippers to pray in the Hagia Sophia, there is no doubt that the ancient site will remain respected by adherents of many faiths around the world, and one of Turkey’s most revered sites of heritage.

*

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.

Adam Bensaid is a deputy producer at TRT World.

Will the Federal Reserve Cause the Next Riots?

July 14th, 2020 by Rep. Ron Paul

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly both recently denied that the Federal Reserve’s policies create economic inequality. Unfortunately for Powell, Daly, and other Fed promoters, a cursory look at the Fed’s operations shows that the central bank is the leading cause of economic inequality.

The Federal Reserve manipulates the money supply by buying and selling government securities. This means that when the Fed decides to pump money into the economy, it does so by putting it in the pockets of wealthy, and oftentimes politically-connected, investors who are able to spend the new money before the Fed’s actions result in widespread inflation. Wealthy individuals also tend to be among the first to invest in the bubbles that form when the Fed distorts interest rates, which are the price of money. These investors may lose some money when the bubble bursts, but these losses are usually outweighed by their gains, so they end up profiting from the Fed-created boom-bubble-bust cycle.

In contrast, middle-class Americans lose jobs as well as savings, houses, and other assets when bubbles burst. They will also not benefit as much as the rich and well-connected from government bailouts and stimulus schemes. Middle- and working-class Americans also suffer from a steady erosion of their standard of living because of the Fed’s devaluation of the currency. This is the reason why so many Americans rely on credit cards to cover routine expenses. The Federal Reserve is thus the reason why total US credit card debt is almost one trillion dollars.

Big-spending politicians are also beneficiaries of the fiat money system. The Fed’s purchases of US debt enable Congress to massively increase welfare and warfare spending without increasing taxes to politically unacceptable levels. The people pay for the welfare-warfare state via the Fed’s hidden and regressive inflation tax.

Low interest rates also benefit politicians by keeping the federal government’s interest payments low. This is an unstated reason why the Fed will keep interest rates near zero or even lower interest rates below zero.

In response to the government-caused economic collapse, the Federal Reserve increased the money supply by about a trillion dollars from mid-April to early June. In contrast, it took the Fed all of 2019 to grow the money supply by 921 billion dollars. Even before the lockdown, the Fed was massively intervening in the economy in a futile attempt to prevent economic crisis.

A coming crisis will likely be triggered by a collapse in the dollar’s value and a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. The economic collapse will be worse than the Great Depression. This will result in widespread violence along with government crackdowns on liberties, accelerating the US slide into authoritarianism. The only way to avoid this is for Congress to make drastic cuts in spending — starting with defunding the military-industrial complex — and to audit then end the Fed.

*

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.

Has Saudi Arabia Once More Made a Catastrophic Oil Blunder?

July 14th, 2020 by F. William Engdahl

In March of this year Saudi Arabia launched what was clearly a catastrophic move to regain its role as the world oil superpower. What initially was a move aimed at taking markets away from Russia, after the latter declined to make further production cuts, has quickly turned into a clumsy even catastrophic repeat of the Saudi 2014 oil miscalculation. At this point US shale oil industry is indeed hurting as a result. However, OPEC and Saudi Arabia are themselves in a deep crisis whose outcome may radically transform the geopolitical power map of oil.

In the early days of March just as the coronavirus pandemic shutdowns were spreading across Europe, the Middle East and North America, a Vienna OPEC ministers meeting discussed how to stabilize world oil prices amid falling economic demand. Saudi Arabia as the strongest voice in OPEC  essentially called for Russia to take the bulk of added proposed output cuts of some 300,000 barrels  daily, something Russia politely but firmly declined.

At that point, on orders from Saudi de facto monarch, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi embarked on an aggressive strategy of price dumping its oil on especially European markets to undercut Russian sales. The upshot, as the price war continued, was the worst collapse in oil prices since the Saudi 2014 failed strategy to bankrupt the US shale oil industry.

What Saudi strategists did not calculate was a pandemic response beginning mid-March that would bring oil demand to new lows as air travel virtually stopped along with much auto and truck transport. In 2016 as the Saudi low pricing war against US shale oil proved disastrous bringing oil from $100 a barrel to below $30, Russia agreed for the first time, as the world’s largest oil producer, to join with Saudi-led OPEC to cut oil production by some 2 million bpd. Prices then began a slow recovery.

The problem is that the US shale oil sector recovered as well, with astonishing success as the US in the past two years has become the world’s largest oil producer.  This time with a weakening world economic growth evident already in late 2019, before the “corona depression,” the Saudis again badly miscalculated as world oil prices went into free fall. Within two days of the Saudi announcement of modest 10% price cuts, oil traders pushed prices down by 20% to 30%. Instead of correcting a disastrous strategy, Saudis doubled down in a move that can only be called historic, by announcing a 25% increase in production, to 12.3 million barrels a day, flooding a saturated oil market and collapse in global demand with surplus oil. Russia announced it would respond by boosting its production as well.

What the Saudis ignored in their calculation was something unprecedented. As the world, from China to Iran to Italy to the USA, simultaneously went into coronavirus lockdown, world oil demand disappeared overnight. No planes were flying meaning no demand for jet fuel. No cars were driving as people were told to stay at home. The world economy ground to a screeching halt.

One day in early May as options expired, oil prices briefly went into minus as traders were forced to pay to get rid of their oil over-extremely scarce storage space, particularly at a key hub in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Ignominious retreat

Finally in early May, in a desperate bid in damage control, Saudi Arabia and the OPEC producers agreed with Russia to jointly cut an unprecedented 9.7 million barrels daily from output to revive prices. The result has been a weak recovery in the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, the benchmark for US shale oil, to around $40 a barrel, a price near or below breakeven for many US shale oil producers.  For the June month OPEC total oil production fell to a three-decade low of less than 23 million bpd. Russia and OPEC have agreed to extend the production cut until end-July when they hope to see economic recovery and rising demand. That will most certainly be wishful fantasy.

China, the world’s largest oil importer just announced it was near limits of storage space for more oil, despite the low prices. That suggests if OPEC and Saudi believe they can rapidly return to pre-March production they may have a shock. As well, the world economy is descending into a Covid19 depression which at this point, despite state stimulus, is preprogrammed to only get worse which means collapsed global oil demand going forward. For the Saudi budget to be in balance the Kingdom needs an oil price of from $70 to $90 a barrel. Instead prices below $30 look more realistic now. Prolonged world oil depression will have severe consequences for Saudi ability to fund peace at home let alone abroad in its running conflict with Iran or Qatar.

In the USA the shale industry has been responding as the corona lockdowns continue. In recent weeks a sudden covid19 cases upsurge, some say politically-motivated in part, has led to many states such as Texas and California into re-imposing lockdown. That is leading to further drop in oil demand. The US active oil drilling, the rig count, at end of June had dropped to a new low of 278 rigs, a drop of 72% from a year ago and 65% since the Saudi March oil war was launched. Industry sources expect this to stay low until at least 2021.

This however, even as US oil output slows, will bring little good news to OPEC and Saudi Arabia. The world oil market is collapsing and to imagine a return to normal as a new alarm in the USA and China over Covid19 cases is pure wishful thinking. As Saudi tries to raise prices and increase output, it will intersect a world oil demand that is contracting as never before in the post-1945 era. As events in 2014 made clear the death of the US shale oil industry is far from certain. Wells can be reopened quickly. Further Russia has less reason to side with OPEC this time.

All this is having a huge impact on not only Middle East oil geopolitics, but of the world. Saudi Arabia’s ongoing proxy war against Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq and Lebanon is being severely undercut. The Saudi proxy war backing Egypt against Turkey in Libya similarly faces severe problems of finance going forward. The fallout from the disastrous March oil war is only beginning.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Trump’s Harsh Sanctions Lead to Iran-China Partnership

July 14th, 2020 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

China and Iran have drafted a “sweeping economic and security partnership,” according to The New York Times. China will get a regular, heavily discounted supply of Iranian oil for the next 25 years, as well as an expanded role in Iranian banking, ports, railways, telecommunications and myriad other projects. Iran and China will also increase their military cooperation.

This “strategic partnership” is the result of Donald Trump’s punishing sanctions against Iran. Although it has not yet been formally approved by Iran’s Parliament, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, favors the partnership.

Two years ago, Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal — the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In the JCPOA, which the Obama administration negotiated, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program in return for billions of dollars of relief from punishing sanctions. Although Iran was complying with the agreement, Trump cancelled the deal.

Trump reimposed the harsh sanctions which include closing the international banking system to any company that does business with Iran. This has had a devastating effect on Iran’s economy from the loss of foreign trade.

European countries refrain from trading with Iran to avoid the U.S.’s wrath. “But Tehran’s desperation has pushed it into the arms of China, which has the technology and appetite for oil that Iran needs,” Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Lee Myers reported in the Times. Iran, one of the world’s leading oil producers, has seen its oil exports plummet from Trump’s sanctions.

The U.S. State Department responded to the announcement of the new partnership by pledging to “continue to impose costs on Chinese companies that aid Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.” This refers to Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of these organizations emerged in resistance to U.S.-supported Israeli violence and aggression, which vastly exceeds anything attributed to those groups.

China’s economic support for Iran is not the only aid the U.S. government will find objectionable. China could obtain access to Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz on the Persian Gulf, “the world’s most important oil chokepoint because of the large volumes of oil that flow through the strait,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s website says. “American warships already tangle regularly with Iranian forces in the crowded waters of the Persian Gulf and challenge China’s internationally disputed claim to much of the South China Sea, and the Pentagon’s national security strategy has declared China an adversary,” Fassihi and Myers noted.

The United States maintains a baseline of over 60,000 U.S. forces in and near the Persian Gulf. By early 2020, about 14,000 U.S. military personnel had been added, according to a May 2020 report of the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Tensions Between the U.S. and Iran Are Already Mounting

The partnership comes on the heels of six months of increasing tensions between the United States and Iran. On January 2, Trump illegally assassinated Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani and Iraqi senior military leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis outside the Baghdad airport in Iraq.

In a report released on July 7, Agnes Callamard, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, concluded that the drone attack that killed Suleimani, al-Muhandis and eight other members of Iran’s military was unlawful. Callamard wrote that the strike violated the UN Charter as there was insufficient evidence of an ongoing or imminent attack and it thus constituted “an act of aggression.”

Meanwhile, Iran has issued arrest warrants for Trump and 35 other U.S. military and political leaders involved in Suleimani’s killing. They have been charged with “murder and terrorism acts,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

On July 2, Israel mounted a damaging attack on Iran’s Centrifuge Assembly Center at Natanz. Some officials told the Times that a “joint American-Israeli strategy was evolving,” which included the attacks on Suleimani and the Natanz facility. In light of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s close relationship with Yossi Cohen, director of Israel’s spy service Mossad, it’s “difficult to believe that Mr. Pompeo has no idea” about the Natanz explosion, David Sanger wrote.

U.S. officials are seeking an extension of the UN Security Council ban on arms transfers to Iran, set to expire on October 18, “in order to prohibit Russia and China from proceeding with planned arms sales to Iran,” the May CRS report says. But China and Russia, both permanent members of the council, have veto power over any such extension. If the U.S. doesn’t succeed in extending the ban, it “might use its sanctions laws and authorities to deter any arms sales to Iran,” a July 6 report of the CRS indicates.

Bipartisan Attempt to Limit Further Expansion of 2001 AUMF

On July 9, a bipartisan group of congress members announced their introduction of the Limit on the Expansion of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. It does not attempt to repeal the 2001 AUMF, which has been used to justify U.S. military intervention in “dozens of countries.” Nor does it make “a statement on current or previous U.S. military actions.” The bill says that the 2001 AUMF “cannot be used as the basis for sending our military into any country where U.S. armed forces are not engaged in hostilities today.”

Would the bill apply to Iran? It depends on whether U.S. armed forces are engaged in hostilities in Iran. After the Suleimani killing, U.S. officials stated that the “United States is not currently engaged in any use of force against Iran.”

On May 6, Trump vetoed S.J. Res. 68, which both houses of Congress had passed. It would have directed the president to end the use of U.S. forces in Iran unless authorized by Congress. In his veto statement, Trump wrote, “Contrary to the resolution, the United States is not engaged in the use of force against Iran.”

If China and Iran conclude their partnership agreement, Trump would presumably be less likely to use military force against Iran. If he did, he would have to be willing to take on China as well. That would be most unwise.

In addition, if Trump committed another act of aggression against Iran, he would likely face large protests like those that occurred after Suleimani’s assassination.

*

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.

Money Capital versus “Life Capital”. Prof. John McMurtry

July 14th, 2020 by Prof. John McMurtry

Author of UNESCOs ‘Philosophy and World Problems’, Professor John McMurtry is questioned on the planetary life-system crisis by media critic Dr. Jeffery Klaehn. 

Klaehn: You have  stated that ‘the war of values is what is least comprehended in our multi-level world crisis’.  What is this war of values?

McMurtry: The blind spot at the highest levels of critical thought is on the underlying value system we are ruled by.  The dominant assumption is that ‘moral compass’ and ‘values’ are a matter of individual preferences, or are ideological masks for ruling-class interests. The value system we in fact live by is presupposed as economic necessity and inevitable. We are in this way trapped within a life-blind value program conceived as laws of nature.  The Covid-19 crisis is a test of   how deep the disorder is.

JK: What is this ‘life-blind value program’?

JM: Under the name of ‘growth’, self-multiplying private money sequences turn all that exists into ever more of their own demand with no life necessity regulating them.  We now know a few billionaires own more than the majority of the world. What is not tracked is how they exponentially increase their fortunes by massive pollution and depletion of all that supports life to auto-maximize their profits – from the air and the water to the ice-caps and the biomes of our soil and guts. This is shamefully called ‘the free market’, and ‘overpopulation’ of the poor is still blamed for the results.

JK: Where does climate warming fit in?

JM: ‘Climate change’ and warming’ are euphemisms for ever greater climate destabilization and extremes. But as overwhelming a problem as it is, climate is only one of the life support systems despoiled for external profits in a feeding frenzy which only Covid-19 has slowed down. Public health crisis is the test of a society’s social immune system, its life security system. But even in the Covid pandemic, the money-sharks are after more, and in the Trumped US and Brazil the pandemic has run out of infection control. Wall Street churns the NY stock market up and down daily to swallow small fry while fixing financial pathways for big corporate customers to capture hundreds of billions of public dollars.  Amazon, Big Pharma and HMO’s, and telecommunication giants profit more than ever on the back of the disease and low-wage workers. No-one knows how much more debt will be owed to Wall Street by an already skinned public. US society collapses just when it could re-set to a universal health system, life-protective law, energy economy, and public banking. All are more necessary and possible than before.

JK: But as we know, this global system is thought to be driven by unavoidable ‘economic laws’. How do we begin to re-set at the conceptual level?

JM: The starting point of understanding is beneath what is miscalled economics. It is the life capital base that all economics and other value systems have presupposed away.

JK: What is life capital?

JM: Life capital denotes the ground of all life value through generations, and what every breath we take depends on –life wealth that produces more life wealth without loss and cumulative gain through time. Not more money demand, but more life capacity producing more – for example, your own life capacities becoming more fit and able through time, or a society becoming more disease-free, literate and ecologically biodiverse than before. The money-capitalist society steers in the opposite direction. It is structured only to produce more profitably priced commodities whose cycles cumulatively degenerate all life systems.

JK: Can you contextualize this in relation to the concepts of ‘progress,’ ‘development’ and ‘growth’ as they’re typically utilized in contemporary public discourses?

JM: These are cover-up slogans which refer only to more profitably priced commodity outputs and all the looting, polluting and waste that goes with them. They are the opposite of flourishing life and support systems. The ruling axiom of rationality here is atomically self-maximizing private money value positions who take nothing else into account. But only collective life capital gain or loss measures real economic development or decline. Don’t take my word for it. Try to find any other metric that can do the job.

JK: In terms of our paradigmatic understandings of these issues and the language and concepts used to discuss them, is the dominant system of thought merely parochial?

JM: The lenses are parochial in narrowness, but they are life-blind at the global level. Game theory is the perfect example.  It is used everywhere across disciplines and great powers. But like so-called economics, it excludes any common life ground a-priori.

JK: You recently published an article – ‘Will Covid Awake Us? The Unconscious System Plague’ – in which you wrote of ‘the emergent principle of life-coherent government.’ Can you elaborate on this here?

JM: Life coherent government seeks to protect and enable life capacity development at organic, social and ecological levels. If it effectively regulates for life security and against commodity carbon pollution and extinctions of species and habitats, it becomes life-coherent. It is not government as nowin serviceto more money demand and private commodities as society’s ‘growth’. Anti-growth activists understand this, but lack any life capital measure to replace GDP.

JK: Has your thinking here been influenced by Karl Polanyi?

JM: I originally dismissed Polanyi’s The Great Transformation as class-evasive and vague on its anchoring concept of ‘the human and natural life substance’. I was then working out The Structure of Marx’s World-View in a decade-long research published by Princeton in 1978. I scoured his entire corpus to provide a life-groundfor his theory, but productive force development is undeniably his determining independent variable of history. I think this technological determinism accounts for Marx’s justification of the destruction of pre-industrial  peoples and classes. His lack of any defined life-grounded ethic has allowed for subsequent Stalinist mechanism, theoretical anti-humanism, and ecological ruins in worship of industrial mass production.  I seek to expose and overcome this problem in a recent monograph online ‘150 Years after Capital: Reading Marx as Life-Grounded’.

JK: ‘Life-ground’ and ‘human and natural life substance’ sound a lot alike, and Polanyi like you departed from Marx. What is the ultimate difference?

JM: Technological determinism is where I see the problem unsolved by any deeper life-value principles to guide it. It is the primary failure of our entire epoch. Many like Ellul and Heidegger recognize the technological juggernaut, but lack any demystified and life-based alternative to it. Karl Polanyi fleetingly grounds in the ‘human and natural life substance’, but with no criterion, no normative framework beyond the past, and no governing relationship to industrial production. It is by what his work lacks while appearing to provide what is missing, and I would say much the same of eco-feminism. Each is an historic marker on the way to working out a principled understanding of a life-coherent industrial society.

JK: You think then that life capital is the key to solve the world crisis. Are there examples of life capital in action now to draw on?

JM: Life capital is the universal value unit across individual, social and ecological systems, the missing baseline and measure of all lasting worth on the planet. But it is repelled by the ruling economic mind-lock, including the Marxist heresy, like the Church refused to admit the moving earth. Once understood, it becomes self-. evident. Life capital is what any person, society or ecosystem must reproduce through time for any true sustainability. The examples are everywhere, but their unifying principle is not penetrated.

At the most general level, the public and scientific knowledge base of a society is collective life capital. So too are all of society’s natural resources and support systems, as well as every species and the biodiverse environment and the biosphere itself.  Everything and every process that produces more of itself through time without loss and cumulative gain is life capital, and it is the only concept that can capture this meaning at the individual or collective level. Its principle is most revealing in connecting across domains what is being cumulatively looted, polluted and wasted by the private money-value system. Only this concept finds the universal line of life versus death in process.

JK: Do you think it is a case of the ruling paradigm in collapse?

JM: Yes, and at the most general level. Our philosophies and sciences have no concept of the life-ground itself, no generic measure of life value, and no life-need economics. At the same time, private money-value maximization is masked asever more ‘goods’ at lower prices while in fact poisoning , depleting and destroying primary life capital in every form – the breathable air, the potable and life-giving water, the forest habitats, the arable soil, the fish-stocks, oceans and rivers, the ice-cap towers, even our  cellular reproduction. There is no end or limit to this moving line of life-system depredation. Yet media, states and specialist  sciences do not connect across catastrophes except to inanely blame human nature itself or ‘the anthropocene’.

JK: So the ‘war of value systems’ is ultimately between money capital and life capital. But it seems to be an unconscious war if no-one recognizes the life capital that is everywhere at risk and warred upon.

JM: It is like a cancer not recognized by its life host. This is the model I use – not a metaphor – to explain the disorder at all levels of life organization.  Every life capacity that produces more life capacity through time – life capital – can be measured as more or less in the present compared to the past. For centuries, we have paid attention only to aggregate money-value demand and supply for profit as the bottom line. Life carrying capacities and functions across domains have no value in this pseudo economics. Every form of life can be under attack with no received science connecting the degenerate life trends and their common cause. Even ecological economics does not distinguish between sustaining a biodiverse forest habitat and a tree-plantation resource for the market.

JK: But what the social agency to respond? There seems to be no historical agency like ‘the working class’ to stand for the ‘common life-ground’ itself.

JM: Collective meaning does not exist in the ruling economics. Only aggregates of atomic individuals compute. Marx goes beyond this in understanding collective agency in class terms. But the life foundation of society is beneath class. It is the civil commons which distinguishes the human species from all others in its evolution – all social constructs which enable universal access of its members to life goods, from language and knowledge transmission across generations to water, food and shelter provisions organized for all members of the community.

The tribal and village commons have been stripped of all this by the private money-capital system which underlies ever-mutating technologies and semiotics. But societies have still historically instituted civil commons with no profit take – from non-toxic water supplies, waste disposal and minimum incomes to universal healthcare, public paths, arts and libraries, to common knowledge bases and higher education.  Yet all of these civil commons are under attack in the false name of ‘efficiencies’, ‘cost-saving innovations’ and, most revealing of the system superstition at work, ‘the magic of the free market’. Mass media, privately funded think-tanks, the corporate academy, and bought political parties then narrate it all as rational and necessary. Ever more labyrinthine financial drains are devised to draw out the lifeblood of society and nature’s reproduction. Yet the levels and domains of disbelief, de-legitimation, resistance, reclamation and alternative multiply so that what was publicly assumed months ago is now history.

JK: Why is this not twenty-first century Marxism in different words?

JM: Besides the fact that the historical agency of the civil commons goes underneath class, Marxism has no concept of life capital. It argues that capitalism itself will develop productive forces to negate itself in an inevitable socialist revolution. It is striking how both orthodox and revolutionary economics believe in opposite ways that the system necessarily produces the best of possible worlds in the end.

JK: So what then of technological development reaching a stage that ‘breaks the fetters of the capitalist integument’?

In reality, technological advances now only make money capitalism stronger and the working class objectively weaker. But civil commons agency has in recent decades been enormously empowered by electronic communications outside ruling control – why the Wikileaks founder is being tortured, and why the reader can access this text now. More deeply, there is no life base in any other model to the steer the economy in accordance with the universal life necessities of society and nature. Without a life capital base, nor community deeper than the proletariat, the worst can still happen.

JK: Following from this, how does the political economy of the media keep the system and the public ‘life-blind’?

JM: The old saw that the free press belongs to those own one is a good starting point. A few multinational corporations control over 90% of the news-feed and public commentary on it, and all are governed by an underlying syntax of censorship. In whatever language these media speak, any fact or argument contradicting or conflicting with this control of the media – or of the wider economy – is selected out in one way or another.  Determinatio est negatio. Determination is negation. Since the media are advertising vehicles in which all major corporate interests come together as one, they are a unifying public relations chorus for the ruling value system. Censorship of whatever is opposed to it is built into their function.

This selection/exclusion syntax of the media is thus predictive. In foreign affairs, one will not read that the US is the aggressor state in the past or next wars it leads, or that it holds the world record of killing civilians by terrorist acts and sponsorship. These grim realities are not only selected out in the corporate media, but this second-order fact is itself unspeakable. So too is, for example, the undeniably true report that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is an ongoing war crime and its daily actions are crimes against humanity under international law. Less known is the fact that the ‘humanitarian’ US-NATO bombing of defenseless Serbia and Kosovo was a cover for the US-supported ‘free Kosovo’ criminal gang put in government to murder hundreds of people to sell their internal organs on the international transplant market (as the International Criminal Court has finally charged President Thaki and 9 others after 12 years of investigation- see this.  One can go on a long time with life-and-death examples of what the media predictably silence or gag. A good overview source is this.

All demonstrate the underlying general principle of selection and exclusion of fact, narrative, and – most insidiously –point of view of those warred upon which is always suppressed or presented as irrational. When any of this does get out in the media, it operates as an inoculation to sustain their credibility. My original 1988 analysis of the  underlying selection/exclusion system of corporate and state media across lines of enmity is found here.

JK: How about the language of the media and what you here call ‘validating and invalidating predicates’ of so-called ‘objective reporting’?

JM: The most pervasive operation of selection lies in the language itself. Societies and leaders opposing the surrounding system are portrayed as irrational, reckless, dictatorial, hard-line, brutal, and so on. There is a list of stock abuses to invalidate opposition–‘communist’ has been a civil death sentence in many places and times.  On the other hand, those supporting US empire are characterized as strong, no-nonsense, courageous defenders of the free world, bulwarks against communism or Islamicism, and so on – even if they rule by mass torture and persecution of organizing community leaders, workers and environmentalists. Only validating predicates are used, unless for geo-strategic advantage the favored dictators are later demonized (like Noriega and Saddam formerly on the CIA payroll, and bin Laden earlier leading the Islamic ‘freedom fighters’ against the USSR).

This is where borderless money-capital multiplication backed by bombs against all limits and oppositions is covered up as ‘defense of the free world.’  Perhaps the deepest examples of invalidating predicates and exclusion of evidence in the US mass media today are on universal health-care (which centrist David Brooks of NYT attacks as ‘frightening’ on PBS),  public banking (which is taboo to track in US media even though the 1776 Revolution was fought for it), and government by ‘the general welfare’ clause of the Constitution (which remains inconceivable even in an uncontrolled pandemic).

*

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 McMurtry is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada whose work is translated from Latin America to Japan. He is the author of the three-volume Philosophy and World Problems published by UNESCO’s Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), and his most recent book is The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: from Crisis to Cure.

Jeffery Klaehn holds doctorates in Sociology and Communications, has edited or co-edited seven books, including The Propaganda Model Today, and has published articles in numerous scholarly journals

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Money Capital versus “Life Capital”. Prof. John McMurtry

Trump Regime Ups the Stakes v. China

July 14th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Trump regime hostility toward China keeps pushing the envelope toward rupturing relations altogether or possibly something worse.

Are things heading toward US instigated belligerence — targeting a nation able to hit back hard against an aggressor?

What’s unthinkable is possible by accident or design because the US under both right wings of its war party aims to rule the world unchallenged.

Its permanent war agenda by hot and/or other means risks crossing an unthinkable red line — the madness of possible belligerence against China, Russia, or Iran.

These nations can respond strongly if the US dares attack them preemptively.

Hardline figures surrounding geopolitical know-nothing Trump are responsible for dangerously escalating US war on China by other means toward something potentially hot.

On Monday, Pompeo pushed the envelope further by his continued hostile anti-China war of words.

Defying US global hegemonic aims, he falsely claimed the Trump regime aims “to preserve peace and stability (sic), uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law (sic), maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce (sic), and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes (sic).

Fact: Hard-wired US geopolitical policy is polar opposite the above claims.

Fact: It’s all about demanding other nations bend to its will, seeking unchallenged global dominance by pressure, bullying, or preemptive wars if other tactics fail to achieve its aims.

Fact: Nations unwilling to sacrifice their sovereign rights under international law to US interests are targeted for regime change by hot and/or other means.

Fact: Preemptive US hot wars rage endlessly in multiple theaters against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

Fact: US-instigated Cold War 2.0 rages against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other nations not obeying its unacceptable demands.

US geopolitical toughness in defiance of international, constitutional, and its own statute laws is the stuff global conflicts are made of.

If launched by the US, global war 3.0 in the nuclear age could destroy planet earth and all its life forms.

The human species could be the only one ever to self-destruct, and take all others with it.

An ancient proverb Henry Wadsworth Longfellow included in one of his poems applies, saying:

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

Powerful US interests consistently overstep, why US war on humanity at home and abroad is endless.

In contrast to US sought dominance of other nations, China seeks cooperative relations with the world community.

Pompeo falsely accused Beijing of “us(ing) intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea (sic), bully them out of offshore resources (sic), assert unilateral dominion (sic), and replace international law with ‘might makes right.’ ”

All of the above is how the US operates globally, its geopolitical policy throughout the post-WW II period — why both wings of its war party pose an unprecedented threat to world peace, stability, and humanity’s survival.

Pompeo unacceptably demanded that China redefine its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

He falsely accused its leadership of “harass(ing) (and) bully(ing)” other Asia/Pacific states — how the US operates globally, including at home against millions of its citizens, notably its most disadvantaged.

Pompeo: The Trump regime “stands with (its) Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting” exclusive US “rights” to control and pillage regional resources so corporate America can benefit at the expense of its foreign counterparts.

The US has interests over partners, using other nations to advance them at the expense of their own.

In response to Pompeo’s hostile remarks, China’s US Embassy said the following:

“(T)he US Department of State issued a statement that disregards the efforts of China and ASEAN countries for peace and stability in the South China Sea, deliberately distorts the facts and international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), exaggerates the situation in the region, and attempts to sow discord between China and other littoral countries.”

Pompeo’s “accusations (are) completely unjustified. The Chinese side…firmly oppose(s)” his hostile remarks.

Beijing is “committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial cooperation.”

Under the UN Charter and other international law, the US has no legal right to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations — what it does time and again.

The US has no legal right to intervene in how other nations deal with each other, including in their disputes.

“Under the (phony) pretext of preserving stability, it is flexing muscles, stirring up tension, and inciting confrontation in the region,” China’s US embassy stressed.

“Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself.”

“Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries’ territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world.”

US hostility toward China and other nations it doesn’t control is all about undermining global peace and stability in pursuit of unchallenged global dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives.

Pompeo’s remarks followed provocative Pentagon military exercises in the South China Sea close to China’s waters days earlier.

The unacceptable drills repeated what the US has done numerous times before, saber-rattling in parts of the world not its own, provoking nonbelligerent nations, risking more conflicts than already.

Separately, in response to unacceptable US sanctions on Chinese officials last week, Beijing responded in kind.

On Monday, its Foreign Ministry announced reciprocal sanctions on hardline Chinaphobe US Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Rep. Chris Smith, US envoy at large Samuel Brownback, and Washington’s Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Beijing warned of further measures if hostile US actions continue — what seems likely based on the current trend through most of Trump’s time in office.

Because of unacceptably hostile US actions toward China, bilateral relations are close to rupturing.

The risk of pushing things over the edge to direct confrontation is unacceptably high.

*

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 Pixabay

Modern Monetary Theory or MMT has crept in from the academic margins to become an influential doctrine in progressive policy circles in the United States. Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders drew on the ideas of MMT to shape their ambitious public spending platforms. MMT has been cited as one way to fund a Green New Deal, in combination with progressive tax reform.

It is safe to say that most Canadian progressives are not debating the finer points of monetary and fiscal policy. However it is useful to critically consider some of the most important pros and cons of MMT, based on the new book by a leading US advocate, Stephanie Kelton. (The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. New York: Public Affairs, 2020.) In a nutshell, MMT puts forward a powerful critique of mainstream macro-economic policy but discounts the need for truly radical change if the economy is to be regulated and managed for the public good.

MMT is something of a misnomer. Far from being “modern,” it draws heavily on monetary theories developed in the 1930s by John Maynard Keynes, and since that time, by left Keynesian economists rejecting orthodox finance and the view that government budgets should (almost) always be balanced, that deficits crowd out private investment which should be driving the economy, that monetary policy (changes in interest rates) as opposed to fiscal policies (changes in public spending) should be the key policy tool for managing fluctuations in the economy, and that private investment is much more productive than government spending.

The Government and MMT

The central proposition of MMT is that a state controlling its own currency can readily finance fiscal deficits (resulting from spending increases or tax cuts) at low or no cost through money creation and direct funding of government spending by the central bank. Unlike households or businesses, governments with their own currency and their own central bank can never go broke because they can always create money to fund deficits or to pay off debts. The only real constraint on public spending for countries with monetary sovereignty is real productive capacity. Too much additional deficit financing of public spending or tax cuts in an economy with full employment will push up inflation.

Many countries in fact do not have monetary sovereignty because they do not have their own currency (e.g., individual countries in the Euro zone) or because they carry high levels of debt denominated in a foreign currency such as US dollars (e.g., Argentina). Until the 1970s, the gold standard also constrained the ability of central banks to create new money.

Today, we in Canada and many other countries do have “fiat” money that can be created by central banks “at the stroke of a pen.” Central banks can and do expand the monetary base. Yes, Virginia, Santa has a printing press and it can indeed be used to give money to all the children.

However it should be noted that, in normal times, the great majority of new money is created by the private banking system as loans rather than directly by the central bank to finance the government’s operations. Indeed, in neoliberal times, the state’s capacity to create money has been rolled back and kept out of view. Many mainstream economists accept that government and the central bank can adopt MMT-type policies but argue that it is unwise to use the lever except under extraordinary circumstances.

MMT says central banks can also set interest rates from the short term to the long term through a variety of techniques. Again, many economists would broadly agree.

MMT rightly challenges the orthodox idea that government budgets should be balanced and that deficits should be incurred only to fight deep depressions when low interest rates no longer work. As argued by Keynes in the 1930s, deficits will not crowd out savings and private investment if the economy is operating below capacity. Indeed, public investment financed by deficits can “crowd in” private investment. And public investments financed through deficits and debt can create a more robust economy and infrastructure, leaving future generations with greater wealth and opportunities. Keynes, unlike the “bastard Keynesian” wing of mainstream economics, looked forward to the day when the economy would be driven by productive public investment with no need for the state to borrow from the rentiers living off interest income.

In short, the key ideas of MMT are not so much modern as a return to the radical Keynes and the left Keynesian tradition. Both hold that conventional policy results in economies running well below capacity much of the time, and both reject the mainstream view that the macro-economy should be primarily managed through monetary rather than fiscal policy.

Today’s Extraordinary Circumstances

Today – amid the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic – the Bank of Canada is printing billions of dollars to buy government bonds in order to lower interest rates. For the first time they have moved beyond “quantitative easing” – buying up government bonds in the secondary market to lower interest rates – to direct purchases of government bonds. They are supporting massive federal and provincial government deficit spending. The Bank may not loudly endorse MMT, per se, but they are acting on that basis and demonstrating that the state can indeed always pay for what must be done. Similarly, all kinds of orthodox economists and policy makers have temporarily accepted that a massive increase in public spending can and should be undertaken without raising taxes and almost irrespective of the deficit and debt.

So far, so good. The key question is how long this can go on. Stephanie Kelton calls for much higher levels of public investment and spending to deal with a wide range of social ills, funded directly by the central bank, on a continuing rather than one-time emergency basis. This has understandably appealed to progressives.

So long as we have low inflation and a very depressed economy, the Bank of Canada is unlikely to change course and will backstop massive government spending to deal with the crisis. They will give fiscal policy the latitude to drive recovery in full recognition of the fact that even near-zero interest rates are not enough to deal with the slump. But, as things stand, they still basically control monetary policy.

MMT is rather silent on this, just saying that governments can set the interest rate. It begs the question of who actually controls interest rates, and in whose interests. Dating back to at least the 1970s, the Bank of Canada, which is largely independent of the government, has generally chosen to accept some slack in the economy so as to discipline labour and to maintain low and stable inflation. The federal government and the Bank have consistently argued that the sole objective of the central bank should be to hit the formally agreed 1% -3% inflation target, without a parallel mandate to achieve full employment as called for by progressive economists. It would be a big political change, to say the least, for the government to tell the Bank to promote full employment, let alone to direct it to fund government operations on a non-emergency basis. The whole point of current arrangements has been to isolate the Bank of Canada from democratic political pressures.

Conventional thinking has emphasized setting low interest rates in an economy operating below capacity, as has been the case in the slow recovery from the global financial crisis. But this, as Kelton argues, has starved public spending, while fuelling the destructive and unsustainable growth of household and corporate debt, and fuelling the asset price inflation that has greatly increased inequality of income and wealth. Loose monetary has singularly failed to boost real wages for most workers, and has also manifestly failed to revive private business investment. Indeed, corporations have borrowed at low rates to ramp up unproductive activities such as share buy backs and increases in dividends.

MMT rightly emphasizes that priority should be given to fiscal policy over monetary policy, while taking no single position on what governments should spend on. Proponents such as Stephanie Kelton generally support big increases in public investment – the green economy, education, infrastructure, etc., as well as a federal job guarantee. They also argue that if and when inflation becomes a problem, it could be tackled through selective tax increases on households and business, as opposed to an increase in interest rates which would limit government investment and drive up the carrying costs of the public debt.

Kelton argues that support for MMT should exist across the political spectrum, but she neglects the role of real interests. The banks want to retain their central role in money creation. Orthodox fiscal and monetary policy that is focused on low inflation and balanced budgets is strongly supported by corporate and financial interests. They do not really believe in the need for balanced budgets, as shown by the support of most US corporations for the Trump tax cuts, which have created huge deficits. But they do want small government and lower taxes, and they want to ensure the economy is driven by private investment – which means government deference to the wishes and needs of capital – rather than by public investment.

MMT also tends to minimize real structural constraints on government macro-economic policy in the context of global capital flows. As noted, MMT says that governments can control the interest rate through the central bank. This is true in the first instance but highly problematic in a world of capital mobility if investors fear too much inflation or currency devaluation. The Bank of Canada can maintain low interest rates, but they face the possibility of capital flight on the part of both domestic and foreign capital, which would bring down the exchange rate and fuel inflation. This point is discounted by MMT proponents, who are mainly talking about the US which controls the global reserve currency and is thus in a unique situation.

Many foreign central banks of surplus countries such as China and Japan own huge reserves of US bonds that they would be reluctant to sell quickly since this would raise their own exchange rate, result in large paper asset losses, and cause a major disruption to the global financial system. But fears that the US was making too much use of the printing press could still cause capital flight from the US dollar on the part of private bond holders, and help fuel US inflation.

The ability of the bond markets to punish smaller countries with high levels of public debt and incipient inflation cannot be dismissed. Keynes argued that countries could only control interest rates if currencies were managed and if there were controls on international flows of capital. Dismantling of the post-War Bretton Woods arrangements was intended to set the stage for a shift from nationally controlled economies to a world of international capital flows that constrain governments.

MMT is right to argue that so long as the economy is operating below potential, we can and should run large deficits to fill the gap and to address public policy priorities such as the need for affordable housing, expanded public healthcare and building a green economy. These deficits will have most impact in both social and economic terms if used to finance well-chosen public investments, as opposed to tax cuts. Inflation is not likely to be a problem.

But MMT tends to hide in a technical argument that does not address real political constraints that need to be seriously confronted. We can run large fiscal deficits now, but not indefinitely, without major changes in fiscal and monetary policy and in political direction. In the longer run, we cannot have everything we want just by printing money.

If we want permanently higher public spending, we also need to raise taxes. If we want much more public investment, we will also have to give less priority to private consumption, especially the luxury consumption of the rich. If we want greater control of our economy, we must confront the power of private financial interests.

In short, MMT, based on the theoretical legacy of left Keynesian economics, offers us a way forward, but it does not free us from the very real constraints of capitalism.

*

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.

Andrew Jackson is the former Chief Economist at the Canadian Labour Congress and is a Senior Policy Advisor at the Broadbent Institute. He has written numerous articles for popular and academic publications, and is the author of Work and Labour in Canada: Critical Issues, published by Canadian Scholars Press (2005). His writings on the Canadian economy and unions can be found regularly at progressive-economics.ca.

Featured image is from CounterPunch

The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has lambasted the British government over reports that it may control rights over ‘state aid’ after Brexit. ‘State aid’,  which allows a government to subsidise companies, is currently controlled by the EU, but Holyrood had assumed that it would gain control of this area of legislation post-Brexit. Not if Westminster has anything to do with it, it seems. In what already being termed a ‘power grab’ by the SNP’s Ian Blackford, London may try to seize control of this and other responsibilities, according to a report in the Financial Times. In response to the article, Nicola Sturgeon said such a move would be a ‘full-scale assault on devolution’ and that it would only further ‘boost support for independence’. The newspaper has since published another article warning of the threat to the UK of such actions, stating ‘the union’s future is at stake’.

This is no exaggeration. To date, the pandemic has driven a wedge between the devolved nations, with Nicola Sturgeon forging her own path out of lockdown. Scotland may have stood united with England at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, but as time went on, and more doubt was cast upon Westminster’s handling of the pandemic, Sturgeon began to diverge from London’s policy making. Providing her own daily press conferences, the Scottish leader made it clear that she wasn’t prepared to lay responsibility for the crisis at Boris Johnson’s door. When Boris changed the messaging from ‘Stay At Home’ to ‘Stay Alert’, Sturgeon didn’t. When he lifted lockdown and sent kids back to school before the summer break, Sturgeon didn’t. And now, despite the wearing of face masks being compulsory in Scotland, Johnson has not followed suit. In the competition of who has handled the pandemic better, Nicola Sturgeon is winning.

The Financial Times is critical of Johnson’s ‘top-down approach’ which risks England being seen as the ‘bullying big brother’. It acknowledges the fact that the SNP is set to win next May’s elections by a landslide and that support for independence is at the highest level ever. Without a doubt Sturgeon’s performance during the pandemic has boosted the nationalist cause and this latest issue of state aid will only attract more followers. The newspaper calls on Boris Johnson to negotiate with the other devolved nations or risk the break-up of the United Kingdom.

But does Boris really care? Nothing the Prime Minister has said or done to date indicates that Scottish independence bothers him. During his last official visit to Scotland, long before coronavirus took hold, Johnson was coined ‘back-door Boris’ after leaving Nicola Sturgeon’s residence via the back exit as if to avoid confronting protestors outside. He’s not liked north of the border and the feeling is quite possibly mutual. Whilst editor of the Spectator magazine, for example, Johnson published several articles which derided Scots, comparing the job of Scottish MP to having a “political disability” and stating that former PM Gordon Brown should not become Prime Minister” not just because he is a gloomadon-popping, interfering, high-taxing complicator of life, but mainly because he is a Scot, and government by a Scot is just not conceivable in the current constitutional context.” The SNP in the past have said that Johnson showed ‘absolute contempt for Scotland’, a label which to date the Eton and Oxbridge educated Prime MInister has done nothing to refute.

The reality is that Westminster is currently being led by an elite that feels accountable to no-one. Throughout the pandemic there has been one rule for them and another for the masses. The Prime Minister’s right-hand man, Dominic Cummings has still not been reprimanded for violating the lockdown restrictions his very government imposed. Boris Johnson’s own father was caught recently visiting his villa in Greece, once again contradicting government guidelines. By contrast, Nicola Sturgeon sacked the Scottish Chief Medical Officer, Catherine Calderwood, when she was caught miles away from her permanent residence during lockdown. Some may question the significance of such actions, but it’s the little things that count.

And all these small, seemingly insignificant differences in the way Scotland has handled the pandemic are already having an impact. Sturgeon’s cautious approach to the lifting of lockdown has resulted in far fewer deaths to coronavirus – recently Scotland went 5 consecutive days without any fatalities to the disease – whereas England continues to see hundreds of deaths per day. The northern nation has been praised for its approach by leading epidemiologists, as it has been recognised that the border with England could in fact be a threat to it maintaining a Covid-free environment.

All this will be taken into account by voters in any future referendum on independence. Fear is a strong driving force, and any nation which emerges from this pandemic will think very carefully about any alliance which puts its population at risk of contracting such a virus 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.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

India Should Not Participate in Washington-led Anti-China Coalition

July 14th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

For years, the US, Japan and India have maintained Malabar military exercises on an annual basis. As the US and Japan are absolutely aligned countries and India is a Washington regional strategic partner, the common objective of the three participants is to face the Chinese advance and to strengthen a coalition against Beijing and its presence in the Indian Ocean. Now, with the increasing of tensions between China and the United States for naval supremacy and between China and India for territorial reasons, Malabar exercises take on a new dimension, being the moment of greatest risk of war in the region in recent years.

Since 2017, Australia has asked to join Malabar naval exercises. The US and Japan have already voted in favor of the Australian participation, but India has not allowed it – the US, Japan and India are the permanent members of the tests and the adherence of a new country depends on a unanimous vote. There was a logistical disagreement between India and Australia, which prevented them from reaching a consensus on the execution of the exercises. In June, both countries signed a mutual logistical support agreement, thus removing the obstacle to Australian participation. Now, as the impasse with China increases, India can change its vote and finally approve Australian participation. The result would be an even stronger coalition scenario against China, which would certainly respond accordingly.

Beijing will not allow its oceanic region to be the target of powerful military exercises by enemy powers without offering high-level war tests in return. China has recently reached an advanced stage of naval military power, practically equaling American power by crossing the International Date Line. In addition, China has significantly increased its military campaign in the South China Sea and has built a large fleet for the Arctic. It is this adversary that the Malabar coalition is facing when promoting a siege in the Indian Ocean. So, what will happen if China invests even more in naval power, modernizing its Navy and devoting itself to a military strategy focused on maritime defense?

On the other hand, Beijing’s reaction may be different and even more effective: investing in Sino-Pakistani military cooperation to affect India. If China and Pakistan start joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean, a coalition dispute will form, in which both groups will begin a series of regular tests and demonstrations of strength, seeking to intimidate each other.

In all scenarios, a central point is inevitable: the increase of tensions and violence in the Indian Ocean. Perhaps this is, in fact, the American desire in the region, taking into account that the increase in the crisis will inevitably forge the strengthening of the anti-China coalition and its ties with Washington, in addition to encouraging regional reactions from the Chinese Navy and delaying Beijing’s global projections – like the Chinese presence in the Arctic, for example. Having been Japan and Australia subjected to the American naval umbrella for decades, their participation is predictable and not surprising that Tokyo and Canberra support aggressive operations against China in the Indian Ocean. However, the same cannot be said about India.

India should not be part of a Washington-led coalition against China. The rivalry between India and China is different from the dispute between the US and China, and the mere fact that Beijing looks like a “common enemy” does not justify a coalition. China and India have a historic dispute of a territorial nature – a regional conflict over a physical, continental space. This is different from the American quest for global hegemony – to which China poses a threat today. China and India have much more in common than opposites: both are emerging Asian nations, with enormous growth potential and which aim to increase their degree of participation in the international scenario, at the economic and geopolitical level. Washington, in this sense, is against both – because it seeks to preserve unipolarity and the American global dominance. Beijing and New Delhi can reach a common agreement sovereignly, with regional negotiations and bilateral diplomacy, as, in fact, they have been doing recently, resulting in the reduction of the border violence and the evacuation of troops.

By maintaining its participation in the exercises and encouraging the growth of the coalition, India will be making a big mistake – both in its relations with China and in its relations with Pakistan. Japan and Australia are nations willing to collaborate with American hegemony – India is not. The best path to be taken by the Indians is the abdication from the Malabar exercises, or, if it is not possible, at least, to prevent the Australian entry again, avoiding the strengthening of the anti-China alliance.

*

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

Mobile telephony has quickly established itself worldwide as an irreplaceable communication technology. Similar to smoking, however, possible fatal consequences can only become apparent after decades of constantly increased exposure to radiation.

The documentary THANK YOU FOR CALLING by Klaus Scheidsteger takes the viewer behind the scenes of international research, industrial lobbying and current lawsuits for damages in the USA, which are largely ignored by the media. The film traces obfuscation tactics of the mobile phone industry and accompanies the struggle of some scientists who have been researching in this field for years but have only recently begun to be heard.

The aim of this documentary thriller is to enable the more than five billion mobile phone users worldwide to form their own objective picture of the current research situation that is not coloured by the industry.

THANK YOU FOR CALLING not only investigates serious indications of possible health risks, but above all the question of why this research has so far barely reached public awareness. Using facts, insiders and exciting protagonists, the film reconstructs a large-scale strategy of the mobile phone industry. As the example of the car industry has shown once again, large industries are not interested in bringing objective measurement results to the public’s attention. This is always tolerated politically where billions in turnover and many tens of thousands of jobs are at stake. But the investigations of renowned radiation researchers show Mobile phone radiation can, under certain circumstances, lead to cell death and genetic damage in certain people.

In the USA, several claims for damages are currently pending against the mobile phone industry, which have been combined into the so called „Brain-Tumor-Cases“ at the Washington D.C. Superior Court. Brain tumor patients want to prove that the radiation effect of cell phone use is partly responsible for their illness. Documentary filmmaker Klaus Scheidsteger is embarking on an extensive research trip, in which he lets viewers participate in a mixture of TV archive material, re-enacted scenes and original encounters.

A document passed on to him is explosive: In the so-called “War Game Memo”, prepared by a US lobbying agency, the mobile phone industry was already given instructions in 1994 on how to deal with critical science worldwide. It contains a strategy to gloss over the current state of research and to trivialize findings.

Scheidsteger meets one of his most important protagonists in Washington D.C.: Dr. George Carlo, who, from 1993 to 1999, directed the worlds largest research program on cell-phone safety to date.

Dr. Carlo’s industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR) received 28,5 million dollars to run a major research project that was to provide final proof of the health safety of mobile phone use. His customer: The powerful CTIA (Cellular Technology Industry Association). However, Carlo and his team did not find the desired results, but rather worrying effects: cellular responses that could lead to cancer. Dr. Carlo wanted to go public with his findings. As a result, he himself became a victim of the “War Game Memo” and an unprecedented smear campaign against his scientific integrity. Today, he advises the law firms involved in the lawsuits against the CTIA.

Dr. Carlo assembled a representative group of scientists from Vienna, Athens and Bratislava who identified potential health risks. The use of mobile phones is by no means as proven risk-free as the industry would have us believe.

However, the scientists are also looking for solutions and preventive approaches for consumers, as the technology has undoubtedly become difficult to replace today. But in a way, they all suffer a similar fate: because industry cannot admit to a problem, it defends itself with all its might against critical science. And so people remain part of a global field trial.

Watch the trailer below.

*

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: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Thank You for Calling” Documentary: Unspoken Health Impacts of the Worldwide Mobile Phone Industry
  • Tags: , ,

The recession of 2008 and 2009 was bad, but it was nothing like this.  Even though this new economic downturn is only a few months old, we are already seeing numbers that we haven’t seen since the worst parts of the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

More than 48 million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits over the past 15 weeks, well over 100,000 businesses have permanently closed their doors, and civil unrest has turned quite a few of our major cities into war zones

But not all areas of the country are being affected equally.  For example, there are rural areas that haven’t really seen a lot of COVID-19 cases where life seems to have changed very little from six months ago.  On the other hand, some urban areas that have been hit really hard by COVID-19 have been absolutely devastated economically.  For example, the New York Times is reporting that a million jobs have been lost in New York City, and the unemployment rate for NYC “is hovering near 20 percent”

The city is staggering toward reopening with some workers back at their desks or behind cash registers, and on Monday, it began a new phase, allowing personal-care services like nail salons and some outdoor recreation to resume. Even so, the city’s unemployment rate is hovering near 20 percent — a figure not seen since the Great Depression.

We are going to be using the phrase “since the Great Depression” a lot in the coming months.

Fear of COVID-19 is going to paralyze our economy for the foreseeable future, and all of this fear is hitting some companies more severely than others.  On Tuesday, Levi Strauss announced that sales were down a whopping 62 percent during the second quarter

The denim maker Levi Strauss & Co.’s sales fell 62% during its fiscal second quarter, the company announced Tuesday, as its online sales weren’t enough to make up for its stores being temporarily shut for roughly 10 weeks during the Covid-19 crisis.

If Levi Strauss expected this to be just a temporary setback, they would probably try to keep all of their employees on board.

But instead, they apparently believe that hard times are here to stay and they have just decided to eliminate “about 700 jobs”

Levi’s also announced it will be slashing about 15% of its global corporate workforce, impacting about 700 jobs, in a bid to cut costs during the coronavirus pandemic. It said the move should generate annualized savings for Levi’s of $100 million.

Of course a whole lot of other companies are laying off workers right now too.  Another 1.427 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week, and that is an absolutely catastrophic number.  Prior to 2020, the worst week in all of U.S. history for new unemployment claims was in 1982 when 695,000 unemployed workers filed in a single week.  So what we are witnessing right now is nothing short of a “tsunami of job losses”, and even CNN is admitting that millions of the jobs that have been lost “are never coming back”…

The American economy’s unprecedented jobs rebound masks a difficult truth: For millions of people, the jobs they lost are never coming back.

“It’s clear that the pandemic is doing some fundamental damage to the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “A lot of the jobs lost aren’t coming back any time soon. The idea that the economy is going to snap back to where it was before the pandemic is clearly not going to happen.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Since most Americans were living paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic erupted, millions of unemployed workers have found themselves in desperate need very suddenly.  I have written numerous articles about the massive lines that we have been witnessing at food banks around the nation, and we just witnessed another two mile long line at a food bank in Florida

More than 700 cars were seen waiting in a two-mile long food bank line in Florida as the US grapples with nearly half of Americans being unemployed amid a spike in new coronavirus cases that has sparked fears of more shut downs and lay-offs.

Sunrise Assistant Leisure Services Director Maria Little, who was put in charge of food distribution for the city when the coronavirus hit the US in March, said her group served about 720 cars in Miami on Wednesday.

This is not what a “recovery” looks like.

In fact, for certain sectors of the economy the numbers are rapidly getting a lot worse.  For instance, just check out what CNBC is reporting

Delinquencies in commercial mortgage-backed securities last month had their largest one-month surge since Fitch Ratings began tracking the metric nearly 16 years ago.

The delinquency rate hit 3.59% in June, an increase from 1.46% in May. New delinquencies totaled $10.8 billion in June, raising the total delinquent pool to $17.2 billion.

And Fitch Ratings is warning that these numbers are going to get far worse in the months ahead.

And this is just the beginning. Fitch analysts are projecting that the impact from the coronavirus pandemic will drive the delinquency rate to between 8.25% and 8.75% by the end of the third quarter of this year.

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

We are on the verge of the biggest commercial mortgage meltdown in the history of the United States.

Countless restaurants and retailers are getting way behind on their rent payments, and as a result many owners of commercial property are finding it increasingly difficult to make their mortgage payments.

The dominoes are starting to fall, and this is going to get really, really messy as we head into 2021 and beyond.

Of course the same thing could be said for the U.S. economy as a whole.

I know that I haven’t been posting quite as often the last couple of weeks, and that is because I have been finishing my new book.  It is not too far from being completed, and it is going to be the most important thing that I have written so far.

We are right on the precipice of the most chaotic chapter in all of American history, and a collapsing economy is just going to be one element of “the perfect storm” that we are facing.

So please use the summer months to get prepared for what is ahead, because even though things are bad right now, the truth is that we have only experienced the leading edge of “the perfect storm” so far.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from TEC

This article was first published on December 21, 2012 by Market Oracle and Global Research 

A disturbing trend in the water sector is accelerating worldwide. The new “water barons” — the Wall Street banks and elitist multibillionaires — are buying up water all over the world at unprecedented pace.

Familiar mega-banks and investing powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank, among others, are consolidating their control over water. Wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, and others are also buying thousands of acres of land with aquifers, lakes, water rights, water utilities, and shares in water engineering and technology companies all over the world.

The second disturbing trend is that while the new water barons are buying up water all over the world, governments are moving fast to limit citizens’ ability to become water self-sufficient (as evidenced by the well-publicized Gary Harrington’s case in Oregon, in which the state criminalized the collection of rainwater in three ponds located on his private land, by convicting him on nine counts and sentencing him for 30 days in jail). Let’s put this criminalization in perspective:

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens owned more water rights than any other individuals in America, with rights over enough of the Ogallala Aquifer to drain approximately 200,000 acre-feet (or 65 billion gallons of water) a year. But ordinary citizen Gary Harrington cannot collect rainwater runoff on 170 acres of his private land.

It’s a strange New World Order in which multibillionaires and elitist banks can own aquifers and lakes, but ordinary citizens cannot even collect rainwater and snow runoff in their own backyards and private lands.

“Water is the oil of the 21st century.” Andrew Liveris, CEO of DOW Chemical Company (quoted in The Economist magazine, August 21, 2008)

In 2008, I wrote an article,

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System,” in which I detailed how both mainstream and alternative media coverage on water has tended to focus on individual corporations and super-investors seeking to control water by buying up water rights and water utilities. But paradoxically the hidden story is a far more complicated one. I argued that the real story of the global water sector is a convoluted one involving “interlocking globalized capital”: Wall Street and global investment firms, banks, and other elite private-equity firms — often transcending national boundaries to partner with each other, with banks and hedge funds, with technology corporations and insurance giants, with regional public-sector pension funds, and with sovereign wealth funds — are moving rapidly into the water sector to buy up not only water rights and water-treatment technologies, but also to privatize public water utilities and infrastructure.

Now, in 2012, we are seeing this trend of global consolidation of water by elite banks and tycoons accelerating. In a JP Morgan equity research document, it states clearly that “Wall Street appears well aware of the investment opportunities in water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment, and demand management technologies.” Indeed, Wall Street is preparing to cash in on the global water grab in the coming decades. For example, Goldman Sachs has amassed more than $10 billion since 2006 for infrastructure investments, which include water. A 2008 New York Times article mentioned Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and the Carlyle Group, to have “amassed an estimated an estimated $250 billion war chest — must of it raised in the last two years — to finance a tidal wave of infrastructure projects in the United States and overseas.”

By “water,” I mean that it includes water rights (i.e., the right to tap groundwater, aquifers, and rivers), land with bodies of water on it or under it (i.e., lakes, ponds, and natural springs on the surface, or groundwater underneath), desalination projects, water-purification and treatment technologies (e.g., desalination, treatment chemicals and equipment), irrigation and well-drilling technologies, water and sanitation services and utilities, water infrastructure maintenance and construction (from pipes and distribution to all scales of treatment plants for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses), water engineering services (e.g., those involved in the design and construction of water-related facilities), and retail water sector (such as those involved in the production, operation, and sales of bottled water, water vending machines, bottled water subscription and delivery services, water trucks, and water tankers).

Update of My 2008 Article: Mega-Banks See Water as a Critical Commodity

Since 2008, many giant banks and super-investors are capturing more market share in the water sector and identifying water as a critical commodity, much hotter than petroleum.

Goldman Sachs: Water Is Still the Next Petroleum

In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and those investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom will reap huge rewards, during its annual “Top Five Risks” conference. Water is a U.S.$425 billion industry, and a calamitous water shortage could be a more serious threat to humanity in the 21st century than food and energy shortages, according to Goldman Sachs’s conference panel. Goldman Sachs has convened numerous conferences and also published lengthy, insightful analyses of water and other critical sectors (food, energy).

Goldman Sachs is positioning itself to gobble up water utilities, water engineering companies, and water resources worldwide. Since 2006, Goldman Sachs has become one of the largest infrastructure investment fund managers and has amassed a $10 billion capital for infrastructure, including water.

In March 2012, Goldman Sachs was eyeing Veolia’s UK water utility business, estimated at £1.2 billion, and in July it successfully bought Veolia Water, which serves 3.5 million people in southeastern England.

Previously, in September 2003, Goldman Sachs partnered with one of the world’s largest private-equity firm Blackstone Group and Apollo Management to acquire Ondeo Nalco (a leading company in providing water-treatment and process chemicals and services, with more than 10,000 employees and operations in 130 countries) from French water corporation Suez S.A. for U.S.$4.2 billion.

In October 2007, Goldman Sachs teamed up with Deutsche Bank and several partners to bid, unsuccessfully, for U.K.’s Southern Water. In November 2007, Goldman Sachs was also unsuccessful in bidding for U.K. water utility Kelda. But Goldman Sachs is still looking to buy other water utilities.

In January 2008, Goldman Sachs led a team of funds (including Liberty Harbor Master Fund and the Pinnacle Fund) to buy U.S.$50 million of convertible notes in China Water and Drinks Inc., which supplies purified water to name-brand vendors like Coca-Cola and Taiwan’s top beverage company Uni-President. China Water and Drinks is also a leading producer and distributor of bottled water in China and also makes private-labeled bottled water (e.g., for Sands Casino, Macau). Since China has one of the worse water problems in Asia and a large emerging middle class, its bottled-water sector is the fastest-growing in the world and it’s seeing enormous profits. Additionally, China’s acute water shortages and serious pollution could “buoy demand for clean water for years to come, with China’s $14.2 billion water industry a long-term investment destination” (Reuters, January 28, 2008).

The City of Reno, Nevada, was approached by Goldman Sachs for “a long-term asset leasing that could potentially generate significant cash for the three TMWA [Truckee Meadows Water Authority] entities. The program would allow TMWA to lease its assets for 50 years and receive an up-front cash payment” (Reno News & Review, August 28, 2008). Essentially, Goldman Sachs wants to privatize Reno’s water utility for 50 years. Given Reno’s revenue shortfall, this proposal was financially attractive. But the water board eventually rejected the proposal due to strong public opposition and outcry.

Citigroup: The Water Market Will Soon Eclipse Oil, Agriculture, and Precious Metals

Citigroup’s top economist Willem Buitler said in 2011 that the water market will soon be hotter the oil market (for example, see this and this):

“Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”

In its recent 2012 Water Investment Conference, Citigroup has identified top 10 trends in the water sector, as follows:

1. Desalination systems
2. Water reuse technologies
3. Produced water / water utilities
4. Membranes for filtration
5. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
6. Ballast-water treatment technologies
7. Forward osmosis used in desalination
8. Water-efficiency technologies and products
9. Point-of-use treatment systems
10. Chinese competitors in water

Specifically, a lucrative opportunity in water is in hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), as it generates massive demand for water and water services. Each oil well developed requires 3 to 5 million gallons of water, and 80% of this water cannot be reused because it’s three to 10 times saltier than seawater. Citigroup recommends water-rights owners sell water to fracking companies instead of to farmers because water for fracking can be sold for as much as $3,000 per acre-foot instead of only $50 per acre/foot to farmers.

The ballast-water treatment sector, currently at $1.35 billion annually, is estimated to reach $30 to $50 billion soon. The water-filtration market is expected to outgrow the water-equipment market: Dow estimates it to be a $5 billion market annually instead of only $1 billion now.

Citigroup is aggressively raising funds for its war chest to participate in the coming tidal wave of infrastructure privatization: in 2007 it established a new unit called Citi Infrastructure Investors through its Citi Alternative Investments unit. According to Reuters, Citigroup “assembled some of the biggest names in the infrastructure business at the same time it is building a $3 billion fund, including $500 million of its own capital. The fund, according to a person familiar with the situation, will have only a handful of outside investors and will be focused on assets in developed markets” (May 16, 2007). Citigroup initially sought only U.S.$3 billion for its first infrastructure fund but was seeking U.S.$5 billion in April 2008 (Bloomberg, April 7, 2008).

Citigroup partnered with HSBC Bank, Prudential, and other minor partners to acquire U.K.’s water utility Kelda (Yorkshire Water) in November 2007. This week, Citigroup signed a 99-year lease with the City of Chicago for Chicago’s Midway Airport (it partnered with John Hancock Life Insurance Company and a Canadian private airport operator). Insiders said that Citigroup is among those bidding for the state-owned company Letiste Praha which operates the Prague Airport in the Czech Republic (Bloomberg, February 7, 2008).

As the five U.K. water utility deals illustrate, typically no one single investment bank or private-equity fund owns the entire infrastructure project — they partner with many others. The Citigroup is now entering India’s massive infrastructure market by partnering the Blackstone Group and two Indian private finance companies; they have launched a U.S.$5 billion fund in February 2007, with three entities (Citi, Blackstone, and IDFC) jointly investing U.S.$250 million. India requires about U.S.$320 billion in infrastructure investments in the next five years (The Financial Express, February 16, 2007).

UBS: Water Scarcity Is the Defining Crisis of the 21st Century

In 2006, UBS Investment Research, a division of Switzerland-based UBS AG, Europe’s largest bank by assets, entitled its 40-page research report, “Q-Series®:Water”—“Water scarcity: The defining crisis of the 21st century?” (October 10, 2006) In 2007, UBS, along with JP Morgan and Australia’s Challenger Fund, bought UK’s Southern Water for £4.2biillion.

Credit Suisse: Water Is the “Paramount Megatrend of Our Time”

Credit Suisse published its report about Credit Suisse Water Index (January 21, 2008) urged investors that “One way to take advantage of this trend is to invest in companies geared to water generation, preservation, infrastructure treatment and desalination. The Index enables investors to participate in the performance of the most attractive companies….” The trend in question, according to Credit Suisse, is the “depletion of freshwater reserves” attributable to “pollution, disappearance of glaciers (the main source of freshwater reserves), and population growth, water is likely to become a scarce resource.”

Credit Suisse recognizes water to be the “paramount megatrend of our time” because of a water-supply crisis might cause “severe societal risk” in the next 10 years and that two-thirds of the world’s population are likely to live under water-stressed conditions by 2025. To address water shortages, it has identified desalination and wastewater treatment as the two most important technologies. Three sectors for good investments include the following:

§ Membranes for desalination and wastewater treatment
§ Water infrastructure — corrosion resistance, pipes, valves, and pumps
§ Chemicals for water treatment

It also created the Credit Suisse Water Index which has the equally weighed index of 30 stocks out of 128 global water stocks. For investors, it offered “Credit Suisse PL100 World Water Trust (PL100 World Water),” launched in June 2007, with $112.9 million.

Credit Suisse partnered with General Electric (GE Infrastructure) in May 2006 to establish a U.S.$1 billion joint venture to profit from privatization and investments in global infrastructure assets. Each partner will commit U.S.$500 million to target electricity generation and transmission, gas storage and pipelines, water facilities, airports, air traffic control, ports, railroads, and toll roads worldwide. This joint venture has estimated that the developed market’s infrastructure opportunities are at U.S.$500 billion, and emerging world’s infrastructure market is U.S.$1 trillion in the next five years (Credit Suisse’s press release, May 31, 2006).

In October 2007, Credit Suisse partnered with Cleantech Group (a Michigan-based market-research, consulting, media, and executive-search firm that operates cleantech forums) and Consensus Business Group (a London-based equity firm owned by U.K. billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz) to invest in clean technologies worldwide. The technologies will also clean water technologies.

During its Asian Investment Conference, it said that “Water is a focus for those in the know about global strategic commodities. As with oil, the supply is finite but demand is growing by leaps and unlike oil there is no alternative.” (Credit Suisse, February 4, 2008). Credit Suisse sees the global water market with U.S.$190 billion in revenue in 2005 and was expected to grow to U.S.$342 billion by 2010. It sees most significant growth opportunities in China.

JPMorgan Chase: Build Infrastructure War Chests to Buy Water, Utilities, and Public Infrastructure Worldwide

One of the world’s largest banks, JPMorgan Chase has aggressively pursued water and infrastructure worldwide. In October 2007, it beat out rivals Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to buy U.K.’s water utility Southern Water with partners Swiss-based UBS and Australia’s Challenger Infrastructure Fund. This banking empire is controlled by the Rockefeller family; the family patriarch David Rockefeller is a member of the elite and secretive Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission.

JPMorgan sees infrastructure finance as a global phenomenon, and it is joined by its global peers in investment and banking institution in their rush to cash in on water and infrastructure. JPMorgan’s own analysts estimate that the emerging markets’ infrastructure is approximately U.S.$21.7 trillion over the next decade.

JPMorgan created a U.S.$2 billion infrastructure fund to go after India’s infrastructure projects in October 2007. The targeted projects are transportation (roads, bridges, railroads) and utilities (gas, electricity, water). India’s finance minister has been estimated that India requires about U.S.$500 billion in infrastructure investments by 2012. In this regard, JPMorgan is joined by Citigroup, the Blackstone Group, 3i Group (Europe’s second-largest private-equity firm), and ICICI Bank (India’s second-largest bank) (International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2007). Its JPMorgan Asset Management has also established an Asian Infrastructure & Related Resources Opportunity Fund which held a first close on U.S.$500 million (€333 million) and will focus on China, India, and other Southern Asian countries, with the first two investments in China and India (Private Equity Online, August 11, 2008). The fund’s target is U.S.$1.5 billion.

JPMorgan’s Global Equity Research division also published a 60-page report called “Watch water: A guide to evaluating corporate risks in a thirsty world” (April 1, 2008).

In 2010, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Water Asset Management led a $275 million buyout bid for SouthWest Water.

Allianz Group: Water Is Underpriced and Undervalued

Founded in 1890, Germany’s Allianz Group is one of the leading global services providers in insurance, banking, and asset management in about 70 countries. In April 2008, Allianz SE launched the Allianz RCM Global Water Fund which invests in equity securities of water-related companies worldwide, emphasizing long-term capital appreciation. Alliance launched its Global EcoTrends Fund in February 2007 (Business Wire, February 7, 2007).

Allianz SE’s Dresdner Bank AG told its investors that “Investments in water offer opportunities: Rising oil prices obscure our view of an even more serious scarcity: water. The global water economy is faced with a multi-billion dollar need for capital expenditure and modernization. Dresdner Bank sees this as offering attractive opportunities for returns for investors with a long-term investment horizon.” (Frankfurt, August 14, 2008)

Like Goldman Sachs, Allianz has the philosophy that water is underpriced. A co-manager of the Water Fund in Frankfurt, said, “A key issue of water is that the true value of water is not recognized. …Water tends to be undervalued around the world. …Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there are so many places with a lack of supply due to a lack of investment. With that in mind, it makes sense to invest in companies that are engaged in improving water quality and infrastructure.” Allianz sees two key investment drivers in water: (1) upgrading the aging infrastructure in the developed world; and (2) new urbanization and industrialization in developing countries such as China and India.

Barclays PLC: Water Index Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds

Barclays PLC is a U.K.-based major global financial services provider operating in all over the world with roots in London since 1690; it operates through its subsidiary Barclays Bank PLC and its investment bank called Barclays Capital.

Barclays Bank’s unit Barclays Global Investors manages an exchange-traded fund (ETF) called iShares S&P Global Water, which is listed on the London Stock Exchanges and can be purchased like any ordinary share through a broker. Touting the iShares S&P Global Water as offering “a broad based exposure to shares of the world’s largest water companies, including water utilities and water equipment stocks” of water companies around the world, this fund as of March 31, 2007 was valued at U.S.$33.8 million.

Barclays also have a climate index fund: launched on January 16, 2008, SAM Indexes GmbH licensed its Dow Jones Sustainability Index to Barclays Capital for investors in Germany and Switzerland. Many other banks also have a climate index or sustainability index.

In October 2007, Barclays Capital also partnered with Protected Distribution Limited (PDL) to launch a new water investment fund (with expected annual returns of 9% to 11%) called Protected Water Fund. This new fund, listed in the Isle of Man, requires a minimum of £10,000 and is structured as a 10-year investment with Barclays Bank providing 100% of capital protection until maturity on October 11, 2017. The Protected Water Fund will be invested in some of the world’s largest water companies; its investment decisions will be made based on an index created by Barclays Capital, the Barclays World Water Strategy, which charts the performance of some of the world’s largest water-related stocks (Investment Week and Reuters, October 11, 2007; Business Week, October 15, 2007).

Deutsche Bank’s €2 Billion Investment in European Infrastructure: “Megatrend” in Water, Climate, Infrastructure, and Agribusiness Investments

Deutsche Bank is one of the major players in the water sector worldwide. Its Deutsche Bank Advisors have identified water as a part of the climate investment strategies. In its presentation, “Global Warming: Implications for Investors,” they have identified the four following major areas for water investment:

§ Distribution and management: (1) Supply and recycling, (2) water distribution and sewage, (3) water management and engineering.
§ Water purification: (1) Sewage purification, (2) disinfection, (3) desalination, (4) monitoring.
§ Water efficiency (demand): (1) Home installation, (2) gray-water recycling, (3) water meters.
§ Water and nutrition: (1) Irrigation, (2) bottled water.

In addition to water, the other two new resources identified were agribusiness (e.g., pesticides, genetically modified seeds, mineral fertilizers, agricultural machinery) and renewable energies (e.g., solar, wind, hydrothermal, biomass, hydroelectricity).

The Deutsche Bank has established an investment fund of up to €2 billion in European infrastructure assets using its Structured Capital Markets Group (SCM), part of the bank’s Global Markets division. The bank already has several “highly attractive infrastructure assets,” including East Surrey Holdings, the owner of U.K.’s water utility Sutton & East Surrey Water (Deutsche Bank press release, September 22, 2006).

Moreover, Deutsche Bank has channeled €6 billion (U.S.$8.55 billion) into climate change funds, which will target companies with products that cut greenhouse gases or help people adapt to a warmer world, in sectors from agriculture to power and construction (Reuters, October 18, 2007).

In addition to SCM, Deutsche Bank also has the RREEF Infrastructure, part of RREEF Alternative Investments, headquartered in New York with main hubs in Sydney, Singapore, and London. RREEF Infrastructure has more than €6.7 billion in assets under management. One of its main targets is utilities, including electricity networks, water-treatment or distribution operations, and natural-gas networks. In October 2007, RREEF partnered with Goldman Sachs, GE, Prudential, and Babcok & Brown Ltd. to bid unsuccessfully for U.K.’s water utility Southern Water.

§ Crediting the boom in European infrastructure investment, the RREEF fund by August 2007 had raised €2 billion (U.S.$2.8 billion); Europe’s infrastructure market is valued at between U.S.$4 trillion to U.S.$6 trillion (DowJones Financial News Online, August 7, 2007).

§ Bulgaria — Deutsche Bank Bulgaria is planning to participate in large infrastructure projects, including public-private partnership projects in water and sewage worth up to €1 billion (Sofia Echo Media, February 26, 2008).

§ Middle East — Along with Ithmaar Bank B.S.C. (an private-equity investment bank in Bahrain), Deutsche Bank co-managed a U.S.$2 billion Shari’a-compliant Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund and plans to target U.S.$630 billion in regional infrastructure.

Deutsche Bank AG is co-owner of Aqueduct Capital (UK) Limited which in 2006 offered to buy U.K.’s sixth-largest water utility Sutton and East Surrey Water plc from British tycoon Guy Hand. According to an OFWAT consultation paper (May 2007), Deutsche Bank formed this new entity, Aqueduct Capital (short for ACUK), in October 2005, with two public pension funds in Canada, Singapore’s life insurance giant, and a Canadian province’s investment fund, among others. This case, again, is an illustration of the complex nature of ownership of water utilities today, with various types of institutions crossing national boundaries to partner with each other to hold a stake in the water sector. With its impressive war chest dedicated to water, food, and infrastructure, Deutsche Bank is expected to become a major player in the global water sector.

Other Mega-Banks Eyeing Water as Hot Investment

Merrill Lynch (before being bought by Bank of America) issued a 24-page research report titled “Water scarcity; a bigger problem than assumed” (December 6, 2007). ML said that water scarcity is “not limited to arid climates.”

Morgan Stanley in its publication, “Emerging Markets Infrastructure: Just Getting Started” (April 2008) recommends three areas of investment opportunities in water: water utilities, global operators (such as Veolia Environment), and technology companies (such as those that manufacture membranes and chemicals used in water treatment to the water industry).

Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds Join the Action in Water

Water investment funds are on the rise, such as these four well-known water-focused mutual funds:

1. Calvert Global Water Fund (CFWAX) — $42 million in assets as of 2010, which holds 30% of its assets in water utilities, 40% in infrastructure companies, and 30% in water technologies. Also between 65% to 70% of the water stocks derived more than 50% of their revenue from water-related activities.
2. Allianz RCM Global Water Fund (AWTAX) — $54 million assets as of 2010, most of it invested in water utilities.
3. PFW Water Fund (PFWAX) — $17 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500, with 80% invested in water-related companies….
4. Kinetics Water Infrastructure Advantaged Fund (KWIAX) — $26 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500.

This is a brief list of water-centered hedge funds:

§ Master Water Equity Fund — Summit Global AM (United States)
§ Water Partners Fund — Aqua Terra AM (United States)
§ The Water Fund — Terrapin AM (United States)
§ The Reservoir Fund — Water AM (United States)
§ The Oasis Fund — Perella Weinberg AM (United States)
§ Signina Water Fund — Signina Capital AG (Switzerland)
§ MFS Water Fund of Funds — MFS Aqua AM (Australia)
§ Triton Water Fund of Funds — FourWinds CM (United States)
§ Water Edge Fund of Funds — Parker Global Strategies LLC (United States)

Other banks have launched water-targeted investment funds. Several well-known specialized water funds include Pictet Water Fund, SAM Sustainable Water Fund, Sarasin Sustainable Water Fund, Swisscanto Equity Fund Water, and Tareno Waterfund. Several structured water products offered by major investment banks include ABN Amro Water Stocks Index Certificate, BKB Water Basket, ZKB Sustainable Basket Water, Wagelin Water Shares Certificate, UBS Water Strategy Certificate, and Certificate on Vontobel Water Index. There are also several water indexes and index funds, as follows:

Credit Suisse Water Index
HSBC Water, Waste, and Pollution Control Index
Merrill Lynch China Water Index
S&P Global Water Index
First Trust ISE Water Index Fund (FIW)
International Securities Exchange’s ISE-B&S Water Index

The following is a small sample of other water funds and certificates (not exhaustive of the current range of diverse water products available):

Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund
Allianz RCM Global Water Fund
UBS Water Strategy Certificate—it has a managed basket of 25 international stocks
Summit Water Equity Fund
Maxxwater Global Water Fund
Claymore S&P Global Water ETF (CGW)
Barclays Global Investors’ iShares S&P Global Water
Barclays and PDL’s Protected Water Fund based on Barclays World Water Strategy
Invesco’s PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio ETF (PHO)
Invesco’s PowerShares Global Water (PIO)
Pictet Asset Management’s Pictet Water Fund and Pictet Water Opportunities Fund
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s Water Growth Deposit Notes
Criterion Investments Limited’s Criterion Water Infrastructure Fund

One often-heard reason for the investment banks’ rush to control of water is that “Utilities are viewed as relatively safe assets in an economic downturn so [they] are more isolated than most from the global credit crunch, initially sparked by concerns over U.S. subprime mortgages” (Reuters, October 9, 2007). A London-based analyst at HSBC Securities told Bloomberg News that water is a good investment because “You’re buying something that’s inflation proof and there’s no threat to earnings really. It’s very stable and you can sell it any time you want” (Bloomberg, October 8, 2007).

More Pension Funds Investing in Water

Many pension funds have entered the water sector as a relatively safe sector for investment. For example, BT Pension Scheme (of British Telecom plc) has bought stakes in Thames Water in 2012, while Canadian pension funds CDPQ (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which manages public pension funds in Québec) and CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) have acquired England’s South East Water and Anglian Water, respectively, as reported by Reuters this year.

Sovereign Wealth Investment Funds Jumping into Water

In January 2012, China Investment Corporation has bought 8.68% stakes in Thames Water, the largest water utility in England, which serves parts of the Greater London area, Thames Valley, and Surrey, among other areas.

In November 2012, One of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), also purchased 9.9% stake in Thames Water.

Billionaires Sucking up Water Globally: George H.W. Bush and Family, Li Ka-shing, the Filipino Billionaires, and Others

Not only are the mega-banks investing heavily in water, the multibillionaire tycoons are also buying water.

Update on Hong Kong Multibillionaire Li Ka-shing’s Water Acquisition

In summer 2011, the Hong Kong multibillionaire tycoon Li Ka-shing who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure (CKI), bought Northumbrian Water, which serves 2.6 million people in northeastern England, for $3.9 billion (see this and this).

CKI also sold Cambridge Water for £74 million to HSBC in 2011. Not satisfied with controlling the water sector, in 2010, CKI with a consortium bought EDF’s power networks in UK for £5.8 billion.

Li is now also collaborating with Samsung on investing in water treatment.

Warren Buffet Buys Nalco, a Chemical Maker and Water Process Technology Company

Through his Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet is the largest institutional investor of Nalco Holding Co. (NLC), a subsidiary of Ecolab, with 9 million shares. Nalco was named 2012 Water Technology Company of the Year. Nalco manufactures treatment chemicals and water treatment process technologies.

But the company Nalco is not just a membrane manufacturer; it also produced the infamous toxic chemical dispersant Corexit which was used to disperse crude oil in the aftermath of BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Before being sold to Ecolab, Nalco’s parent company was Blackstone……

Former President George H.W. Bush’s Family Bought 300,000 Acres on South America’s and World’s Largest Aquifer, Acuifero Guaraní

In my 2008 article, I overlooked the astonishingly large land purchases (298,840 acres, to be exact) by the Bush family in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, while on a trip to Paraguay for the United Nation’s children’s group UNICEF, Jenna Bush (daughter of former President George W. Bush and granddaughter of former President George H.W. Bush) reportedly bought 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay). This land is said to be near the 200,000 acres purchased by her grandfather, George H.W. Bush, in 2005.

The lands purchased by the Bush family sit over not only South America’s largest aquifer — but the world’s as well — Acuifero Guaraní, which runs beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This aquifer is larger than Texas and California combined.

Online political magazine Counterpunch quoted Argentinean pacifist Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the winner of 1981 Nobel Peace Prize, who “warned that the real war will be fought not for oil, but for water, and recalled that Acuifero Guaraní is one of the largest underground water reserves in South America….”

According to Wikipedia, this aquifer covers 1,200,000 km², with a volume of about 40,000 km³, a thickness of between 50 m and 800 m and a maximum depth of about 1,800 m. It is estimated to contain about 37,000 km³ of water (arguably the largest single body of groundwater in the world, although the overall volume of the constituent parts of the Great Artesian Basin is much larger), with a total recharge rate of about 166 km³/year from precipitation. It is said that this vast underground reservoir could supply fresh drinking water to the world for 200 years.

Filipino Tycoon Manuel V. Pangilinan and Others Buy Water Services in Vietnam

In October 2012, Filipino businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan went to Vietnam to scout for investment opportunities, particularly on toll road and water services. Mr. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, such as the owners of the Ayala Corp. and subsidiary Manila Water Co. earlier announced a deal to buy a 10-per cent stake in Ho Chi Minh City Infrastructure Investment Joint Stock Co. (CII) and a 49-per cent stake in Kenh Dong Water Supply Joint Stock Co. (Kenh Dong).

The Ayala group has also entered the Vietnamese market by buying significant minority interest in a leading infrastructure company and a bulk water supply company both based in Ho Chi Minh City.

Water Grabbing Is Unstoppable

Unfortunately, the global water and infrastructure-privatization fever is unstoppable: many local and state governments are suffering from revenue shortfalls and are under financial and budgetary strains. These local and state governments can longer shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining and upgrading their own utilities. Facing offers of millions of cash from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and other elite banks for their utilities and other infrastructure and municipal services, cities and states will find it extremely difficult to refuse these privatization offers.

The elite multinational and Wall Street banks and investment banks have been preparing and waiting for this golden moment for years. Over the past few years, they have amassed war chests of infrastructure funds to privatize water, municipal services, and utilities all over the world. It will be extremely difficult to reverse this privatization trend in water.

References for Several Articles Mentioned

“Goldman Sachs eyes bid for Veolia Water,” by Anousha Sakoui and Daniel Schäfer, Financial Times, March 13, 2012.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/183cfae4-6d21-11e1-a7c7-00144feab49a.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Hong Kong tycoon to buy Northumbrian Water,” by Mark Wembridge, Financial Times, August 2, 2011.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3df07960-bcdb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System: In uncertain economic and environmental times, big banks and financial groups are buying up public water systems as safe investments,” by Jo-Shing Yang, AlterNet, October 31, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/zstory/105083/why_big_banks_may_be_trying_to_buy_up_your_public_water_system

“Barclays Capital Backs Water Fund,” by Dylan Lobo, October 11, 2007. Reuters.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/11/citywire-barclays-water-idUKNOA13736320071011

“Investors Gush Over SouthWest Water Buyout,” March 3, 2010, Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/03/southwest-water-novell-markets-equities-deals-marketnewsvideo.html

“Hideout or Water Raid? Bush’s Paraguay Land Grab,” by CP News Wire, Counterpunch, October 22-26, 2006.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/20/bush-s-paraguay-land-grab/

“Paraguay in a spin about Bush’s alleged 100,000 acre hideaway,” by Tom Phillips, The Guardian, October 22, 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips

“Cities Debate Privatizing Public Infrastructure,” by Jenny Anderson, August 26, 2008, The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27fund.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“Philippine tycoon eyes investments in Vietnam,” by Doris C. Dunlao in Manila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 18, 2012.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/philippine-tycoon-eyes-investments-vietnam-060002777.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

There are several economic elephants in Canada’s room. One of them is neoliberal economic orthodoxy.

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism can be defined in terms of a “trinity”: privatization, deregulation, the evisceration of the public sphere. It speaks to corporate power and public subservience.

More expansively, neoliberalism is emblematic of these characteristics, as described by Joyce Nelson in her book, Bypassing Dystopia (1)

Deregulation, open borders for capital, small government/big state, tax cuts for multinational corporations, austerity budgets, union-busting, privatization of public assets (recycling), corporate rights (“free trade”) deals, tax havens, no limits to growth (as defined by GDP), Central Bank “independence” (servitude to international banksterism ie BIS), and privatization of money-creation functions.

Neoliberalism (all of the above) eviscerates middle classes, increases poverty, enriches globalist ruling classes, and it is one of Canada’s economic elephants. The cure? We need to reject neoliberal orthodoxy.

All of Canada’s political parties are wedded to neoliberalism and globalism, as if there were no alternatives. If nothing else, the COVID Operation should teach us that this globalist, warmongering, impoverishing political orthodoxy needs to be identified, understood, and abolished for the abomination that it is.

Am important first step would be the Bank of Canada. Nelson explains that from 1938-1974 Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada at near zero interest rates, for infrastructure and health spending. We did not enslave enslave ourselves to international banksters, and it was accomplished without creating inflationary problems. We could and should do this again, but it requires political will. It requires an enlightened and informed public. The bank belongs to Canadians for Canadians. It isn’t complicated, but reversing the social engineering and the globalist propaganda is a challenge.

Canada and Canadians have paid approximately $1.5 trillion in interest on borrowing since we shackled ourselves to international banksterism, including the Bank of International Settlements, in 1974.

We need to reject the Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB), widely regarded as a “privatization” bank, and instead embrace the Bank of Canada.

If we are to regain political or economic sovereignty anytime soon, this subservience to globalism would have to end.

 

When legislators miss the economic elephant in the room (see below), they are missing everything.

***

The Net Federal Debt will be above One Trillion Dollars.

Canada’s Credit Rating Downgrading.

Our Credit Rating is down the Toilet. There is no economic recovery plan.

He has shut down Parliament.

***

Michelle Rempel Garner, MP: “A Dark Day for Canada” 

*

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.

Michelle Rempel Garner, MP, Federal Member of Parliament for the electoral riding of Calgary

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Note

(1) Joyce Nelson, Bypassing Dystopia, Watershed Centennial Books, Copyright 2018.


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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

In contrast to endless US war on humanity, China, Russia, Iran, and other nonbelligerent nations on its target list for regime change pursue cooperative relations with other countries — hostility toward none.

For some time, China and Iran have been working on a reported 25-year strategic partnership.

When finalized, it’ll build on a 2016 bilateral agreement between both countries.

Contrary to some reports, there’s nothing secret about talks between officials of both nations. They’ve been known about for some time.

When finalized ahead, it’ll reportedly be called the Sino-Iranian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

Days earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi issued the following statement to dispel misinformation and fake news about what’s going on, saying:

“According to a 2016 agreement between the presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People’s Republic of China, stipulated in Article VI of the communique during the honorable Chinese president’s visit to Tehran, the two countries have explicitly expressed their political determination to promote and deepen the relations strategically and decided to devise a comprehensive 25-year roadmap between the two countries to become the basis for the coherent and all-out expansion of the political and economic relations between Iran and China in the years to come,” adding:

“The preliminary draft of the document has been prepared with the participation of specialized institutions from the two countries and is currently undergoing the negotiation stage.”

“Naturally, after finalization of the negotiations, the document will be submitted to the representatives of people in the Parliament for legal procedures.”

Referring to US hostility toward both countries, Mousavi added that

“the strategic relations between Iran and China that entails mutual key interests for the people of the two countries have enemies (that) will make every effort for the failure of these negotiations and lack of success of the document.”

“Fulfillment of Iran’s national interests has been the only guiding principle for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in devising the strategic document, and the negotiations have been held with utmost carefulness and meticulousness, and the people of Iran will soon observe its results, God willing.”

“(N)o other text would be valid before the finalization of negotiations. Therefore, the media are urged to refrain from republishing the texts that are prepared and disseminated with various purposes and objectives.”

Mousavi expects that details of the strategic partnership will be finalized and made public in the near future.

Separately, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said “(w)ith confidence and conviction, we are negotiating a 25-year strategic accord with China,” stressing there’s nothing secretive about it.

The leadership of both countries support it. Bilateral ties have been close for years.

Days earlier, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s chief of staff Mahmoud Vaezi slammed what he called “destructive … propaganda … initiated and directed from outside Iran against the expansion of (its) relations with neighbors … especially (with) China and Russia.”

Clearly, US hardliners from both right wings of its war party oppose constructive relations that benefit nations they want transformed into subservient vassal states.

The Sino/Iran accord will advance the economic and strategic interests of both countries at the expense of US imperial aims to weaken and undermine their development.

According to Oil Price.com last week, citing unnamed “senior sources closely connected to Iran’s Petroleum Ministry,” the economic accord will have a military component, adding:

“China will invest US$280 billion in developing Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemicals sectors” during the first five years of the 25-year agreement, “provided both countries agree” on terms.

“There will be another US$120 billion of investment” by China, $400 billion in total.

In return, “Chinese companies will be given the first option to bid on any new – or stalled or uncompleted – oil, gas, and petrochemicals projects in Iran.”

“China will also be able to buy any and all oil, gas, and petchems products at a minimum guaranteed discount of 12 per cent to the six-month rolling mean average price of comparable benchmark products, plus another 6 to 8 per cent of that metric for risk-adjusted compensation.”

China will be involved in “build(ing) out of Iran’s core infrastructure” as part of its “One Belt, One Road” initiative.

It’s a longterm project for greater regional integration, numerous countries involved in over $1 trillion in investment.

China, Russia,Iran, and other regional countries seek increased industrialization through mutual cooperation.

America pursues dominance, stressing militarism over cooperative relations with other nations, a prescription for confrontation over peace and stability.

Rouhani government spokesman Ali Rabiee said Iran is “ready (to negotiate) similar accords with (other) countr(ies) based on mutual trust.”

According to Oil Price.com, China seeks another discount, “32%” in total.

Its assessment is pure speculation as bilateral discussions continue.

Terms of what’s agreed on won’t be known until officials of both countries release them publicly.

On Thursday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gholamreza Ansari said the following:

“Some of the criticisms recently raised about a 25-year strategic cooperation deal between Tehran and Beijing are ridiculous,” adding:

“They are terrified that Iran would be linked to China’s global potentialities.”

“Since Iran’s relations with China are serious, and that forms the basis of economic and strategic cooperation between the two states in the 25-year document, it is quite normal for western countries to be worried about such relations.”

“The policy of the US and Britain—Anglo-Saxons in general—is to focus on pressuring Iran in a bid to keep it away from China and Russia.”

The policy failed. So did over 40 years of US efforts colonize and exploit Iran, its vast hydrocarbon resources, and 84 million people.

China and Iran are economic and strategic partners.

According to Chinese President Xi Jinping,

“relations between (both countries) resulted in important achievements in the political, economic and cultural sectors,” adding:

Beijing “is ready to start a new chapter in bilateral relations by upgrading the current level of interaction and cooperation.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and Iran Deepening Bilateral Ties. A 25-Year Strategic Partnership
  • Tags: ,

150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in Harper’s protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological conformity.  

The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as “a real threat to democracy” and called for “greater equality and inclusion across our society.”  

But this wasn’t enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:

“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by.

Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side.  In place of debate there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity.  It is pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed.  There is nothing to debate.

To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no distinction or achievement, people no one has ever heard of. The 150 prominent defenders of free speech were simply dismissed as no longer relevant. See this.

Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren’t relevant. The New York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.

The message is clear: shut up “white, wealthy” people and you also Thomas Chatterton Williams, a black person with a white name. Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.

The “oppressed” and “marginalized” voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.

Lining up on the woke side are CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Slate, and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech. See this, this, this and this.

The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists. Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can be no answer to denunciation.  White people are guilty. Period.

*

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 TruePublica

“Equilibra”: The Current Threats Menacing Humanity

July 13th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Oquist

Interview with Dr. Paul Oquist, Minister-Private Secretary for National Policies of the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua

***

Tortilla con Sal: We’re here with Dr. Paul Oquist. It’s June 29th. Dr. Oquist is going to talk to us about the publication of his new book, an innovative book called “Equilibra”, which covers a lot of ground relating to the current threats menacing humanity in particular as a result of environmental destruction… Dr. Oquist, “Equilibra” focuses a lot on the various dangers threatening human life on Earth and life on Earth generally, both the dangers coming from outside our planet and those we have created ourselves as humanity. Do you see the greatest danger at the moment being from man made threats? And if you do, what are the most serious of these?

Dr. Paul Oquist: We have very serious threats to our existence, that are cosmic, geological, epidemiological and anthropogenic. The cosmic include meteorites, comets, electromagnetic pulses, gamma rays, solar radiation, among others. The geological threats include super-volcanoes that could spew out enough material to cause volcanic winters. The epidemiological threats include antibiotic resistant bacteria and rapidly mutating viruses like the novel coronavirus and the COVID-19 sickness associated with it.

And then we have the anthropogenic threats and they are mostly the result of our not being able to handle our own science and technology. So atomic and thermonuclear in 1945, one of the greatest accomplishments of science in history was achieved in splitting the atom. But it immediately became a threat to human existence. From its birth it was weaponized, with atomic and thermonuclear weapons that have been used as we all know on Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That threat persists to this day. there are over 4000 nuclear warheads that are operational, ready to be launched and to do in humanity.

Then we have climate change, as a result of the industrial revolution onward our choice of fuels, of fossil fuels, that has led to immense emissions of greenhouse gases to the point where they can now threaten our existence if they continue unabated. Therefore the critical necessity of limiting the increase in global warming due to the greenhouse gas effect in this century to 1.5 degrees.

But there’s a third category too which has to do with artificial intelligence, robots, algorithms, the internet of things and scientists take this very very seriously. This has been well portrayed by Hollywood with all the films about the revolt of the machines, robots turning against human beings. And some of these films are very explicit that the robots decide that humans are a virus, destroying the planet and should be eliminated.

There have been scientific conferences where people of the stature of Stephen Hawking have discussed this seriously. I think the reason for that is they can’t find a good argument to use against the logic of the robots about humans being a virus destroying the planet and the planet would be better off without them. So I think we should change our ways rather than hoping that the robots come to a different conclusion, so they come to look at us a bit differently.

But definitely the anthropogenic threats of nuclear weapons, climate change and artifical intelligence are greater in probability than the cosmic, geological or the epidemiological threats which is very real as we know with COVID-19. Now that is a sad commentary on our species, a species that is leading itself through masochism, a species masochism which is leading us to a species suicide by our own science and technology. We must reverse these trends, get out of this framework in which our own science and technology is the greatest threat we face.  But if we don’t we’ll probably be done in by our own hand, our own science and technology, through atomic weapons, climate change or artificial intelligence.

TcS: Some people argue that in the current context of the COIVD-19 pandemic, that the Western ruling elites that were in big trouble economically anyway, are now trying under cover of the pandemic to reset Western capitalism, restoring levels of profitability by intensifying domestic economic subjugation and financial dependency of their own populations, while overseas they intensify a kind of neocolonial subjugation of the rest of the planet’s natural resources using what they are calling now the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Does your book “Equilibra” address that argument and the argument that humanity can only save itself by ending capitalism?

Dr. Oquist : Prior to COVID-19, we had a situation of gross inequality in the world with 1% of the world’s population controlling 62% of the world’s assets. Some of the calculations are even worse than that. This is a result of the dominant elites no longer taking into consideration redistribution. Previously after major crises, the elites would take into account gross inequality that produced the crisis and would work to end the crisis to try and re-balance things with regard to inequality.

If we go back to 1890, that was the end of a 20 year depression known as the Long Depression in the United States that affected of course the rest of the world as well. What was the redistribution that came out of that? In the United States it was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it was the breaking up of the Trusts the petroleum Trust of Rockefeller, the steel Trust of Carnegie, the railway Trust of Harriman. This was big time politics because the trust busters were confronting the most powerful men economically in the country, by definition since they had these monopolies. But that took place.

After the financial crisis of 1907, it took several years to put together, but the inequality coming out of that was addressed through the progressive income tax that came about in 1913. Big time redistribution, an income tax that was progressive in the sense that the percentage to be charged for the tax rose with the degree of wealth, or the degree of income in this case of income tax. After the great depression that began in 1929, the re-distributive element was the social security insurance. Huge redistribution. Payroll tax both for the employer and for the employee. Redistribution of income. Redistribution of wealth to re-balance.

After the crisis of 2007-2009, what happened in terms of re-distribution? Zilch. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The only things that were of concern in Dodd-Frank or in Basel 3 of the Bank of International Settlements was to ensure the financial stability of the banks in a crisis, so that the taxpayer would no longer have to bail out the banks. And what they did there also was to increase inequality by bailing tu the banks. They could have also bailed out the mortgage holders who could have paid the banks but that wasn’t on the agenda. It was a matter of saving the banks.

What’s the difference between 1890, 1907, 1929 and 2007-2009? There was no longer a fear of revolution and no longer a fear of Bolshevism, no longer a fear of the Soviet Union, no longer a fear of socialist politics, no longer a fear of labor unions. All of their backs had been broken and capital no longer feared opposition to its position. And so there has been no redistribution because there’s no effective counterweight to the capitalist elite.

I happened to be at UCLA in January 1961 as a Los Angeles school system honors student and we got to take a course at UCLA, the honors students from each high school so that we’d get accustomed to the universities we’d be heading to the next year.  And I was at UCLA taking the course and there was the commencement ceremony which I attended and there President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had recently left the presidency made his famous military-industrial complex speech, warning of the dangers that posed as a military and industrial complex, a large standing military and a military industrial complex that the country hadn’t had before the Second World War, but now it had that and the dangers that posed for US democracy.

That has evolved with time. It is now the military-police-intelligence-industrial-financial complex. There’s more on board and it’s more powerful than ever. Some call it the Deep State also and it is very very real and it is the power center in US foreign policy and those who challenge it are subject to the retribution of this powerful complex. And so there are two factors here.

With regard to capitalism, in “Equilibra” there’s an identification of nine alienations that are leading us to extinction, subjective factors. And one of them is the belief that unlimited, endless, mindless growth of production, consumption and accumulation of wealth can continually occur on a planet with degraded, declining, limited resources. And the name of that alienation is capitalism, that believes there can be endless accumulation of capital, endless accumulation of capital based on endless production and consumption and works in that direction, which is leading us to extinction.

And, much graver, this is reinforced by a hegemonic elite based around that military, police, intelligence, financial and industrial complex that is now in a stage, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States decided that it was hegemonic militarily across the world and its policy was to remain that way. And derived from that has been this full spectrum domination of the world in which the domination is not only military, not only political, not only economic, not only social, but also with regard to social media, with regard to mass media, with regard to science, with regard to technology, with regard to the full spectrum, in all of the spheres it wants to be dominant.

And I’ll close this with just one little example, the technological hegemony. The US technological establishment cannot compete with China in terms of the internet of things, in terms of 5G. China is ahead. So instead of competing with Huawei that is a repository of a great part of that technology, it decides to try and eliminate Huawei from the marketplace. They quite conspicuously state that they they don’t believe in socialism, that they want to combat socialism wherever it is to be found. But it would seem that they don’t believe in capitalism either. they believe in their own hegemony, not in either socialism or capitalism.

TcS : In relation to the current context, some people think that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be possible to persuade people to snap out of some of these alienations and that there’s a potential for a change in attitudes that may promote sufficiently positive change in people’s behavior for them perhaps to contribute to perhaps reversing the negative trends that “Equilibra” so comprehensively covers. Do you think it’s possible to take advantage of this potential change in attitudes or do you think that opportunity is going to slip away?

Dr. Oquist : There’s an element left hanging from the last question that’s an important element in terms of this question. In the period between March and May, mid-March to end of May, Jeff Bezos made US$29 billion. That’s the largest amount of money made by any mortal in the history of humankind, by far. US$29 billion. At the same time, in the same time period coming through now into June, 47 million US workers filed for unemployment insurance. If we had a 1% situation before this crisis, look at the accentuation of inequality due to this crisis.

The orders of Amazon, Walmart, all of the five media companies, media oligarchies that control Netflix and all the other things people have been doing all of these months sitting at home have increased their wealth enormously. Walmart increased its sales by 57%. So there you have Amazon and Walmart. The big entities were not obliged to close down. It’s the mom-and-pop shops that were obliged to close down and many of those, the small merchants,will be going into bankruptcy. Now we come to the crux of this. Of these millions of workers, many will not find a job to come back to.

Artificial intelligence has been on its way for some time now and the golden opportunity for the capitalists is that they don’t have to have the social problem of firing the workers, because the workers are already out on unemployment insurance. So some people will go back to their old firm and find that they’ve been replaced by a robot, an algorithm, or the internet of things and their post is no longer there. Some of the Democrat Party candidates had addressed this.

The Democrat candidate Yang, you may recall, who comes out of the technology sector, was proposing a universal income. Why is he proposing a universal income? Out of largesse or noblesse oblige for the impoverished? No. Because as a tech entrepreneur he knows the mass unemployment that’s going to be produced by artificial intelligence. Kai-Fu Lee who is a Chinese guru in this and who was the president of Google China, previously, he has estimated that 40% of jobs will be lost in the coming 15 years, 40% of jobs.

So I think that there will be more than enough material base for mobilizing people against this system which goes overboard with inequality and I think that’s already part of what’s happening on the streets of the United States. The Black unemployment rate in February was 6%. Coming into May it was 16%. That’s a big shift and I’m sure it will go further, because it’s not going to be below the White unemployment rate, knowing how the United States operates, so it’ll go over 25%. So we’ll have massive unemployment and it could be there’s a factor of cognitive coming to terms with the risks we have and the inequities in our society.

Even with regard to the COVID-19 deaths, we all know that the deaths where largely the Black and Latino communities were over represented, the White community was under represented and the Asian community was even less represented. And in some places it’s very dramatic. 30% of the population in Chicago and 70% of the deaths. In New Orleans it was something similar. And that of course is a commentary on poverty, on chronic malnutrition, on chronic lack of adequate health care of the lack of a national health system that would be equitable with health care for all, which does not exist in the United States.

All this is going to generate the Great Depression 2020. And the Great Depression 2020 will lead to huge hardship, because we not only have these jobs lost, we’ll have all of these businesses lost that could not survive the Great Confinement and will not be able to survive the slow economy that comes out of this. So it’s a mix of subjective factors perhaps, of people increasing their consciousness,which is very visible with regard to race in the United States right now. the movement against racism is multi-ethnic, multi-class and multi-age group. So I think that things are happening. In “Equilibra” we argue that fundamental social change tends to come from social movements and I think this is taking

TcS : In that context, how do you see the roles that different kinds of entities have. For example, the nation state which is constantly under ever greater threat as a result of previous trends of globalization and corporate influence; international institutions like the UN which has suffered severe criticism for being so ineffective on various issues and then you have the role of non governmental organizations and something that you’ve emphasized, the importance of social movements. For example in the case of the environment there’s this movement in Britain called Extinction Rebellion [funded by corporate foundations] and then on a broader international basis you have the movement led by Greta Thunberg [also funded by corporate foundations]. What do you think of the respective roles of those kinds of entities in the current context?

Dr Oquist : Let’s look at a couple of examples. Why haven’t the climate change negotiations come to real fruition in terms of leading to fundamental change in reality, not on paper. Kyoto was a good agreement, the Protocol of Kyoto. It was legally binding. It had goals to be met by all of the developed countries. But the United States was a signatory of Kyoto, but the US Congress, the US Senate did not ratify it. So the United States was outside of the Protocol of Kyoto. So the Europeans and the Japanese and others were in a panic at the United States not being in on the deal.

So they put together the ad hoc working groups in the Bali Conference. The Bali ad hoc working groups were designed to get the United States in on the deal. And then it was decided that Kyoto would be replaced by another agreement and the United States began to influence what that other agreement would look like. And it insisted that it be not legally binding. So it came up with a figure that was called an agreement under the conference that would have the effect of law.

Not even the lawyers of the United States could tell us what that meant. They were the ones who designed it but they couldn’t tell us what that meant. The only thing we knew was that it did not mean “legally binding” because that’s what it was designed to replace, with this ambiguity. Then the United States insisted that everything be voluntary. And the United States has resisted finance and the transfer of technology to developing countries. It has resisted including loss and damages at the same level as mitigation and adaptation.

So the Europeans and the Latin American Right, which after 2017 has been the Group of Lima, were making concession after concession to the United States and the Paris Accord was approved according to that, with all these concessions to the United States included. So you can imagine the disgust of the Europeans and the Latin American Right when the Trump administration announces that the United States was retiring from Paris Agreement that had been made to order in its dimensions, like the size of the neck, the length of the sleeves… and then they tore it up.

But that’s where we’re at in terms of the Climate Change negotiations. The United States is not in and it has its allies like Australia and Brazil that are in effect taking the US positions at the same time. So that has thrown a spanner in the negotiations that the United States has opposed including loss and damages at the same level as adaptation and mitigation. Even in the recent Madrid COP 25 they were blocking the way to that. Despite the fact that you have Dominica, you have Barbuda, Abaco, Grand Bahama, completely wiped out and there’s no international mechanism to deal with that.

TcS : Does that mean that in your opinion the role of social movements is futile?

Dr. Oquist : No not at all. I think that’s the road that’s left. That’s the road that’s left. I kind of look at Greta and Greta’s evolution. Greta first talked to national leaders thinking that they could do it. And then she put great faith in the United Nations and was completely disillusioned with the United Nations when she went to the UN and then to the COP 25. And at the COP 25 she was saying “oh only the people can do this”, eliminating governments and eliminating the international organizations, “only people can do this”.

And she’s right. But it’s people organized in movements. Basic social change has come through people organized in movements. And it’s not people from one country. It’s people from a whole series of countries. It’s not from one sector. It’s church people, labor people, women, some business people, some politicians, students, from all different types of sectors.

If you study the anti-slavery movement, that’s what it looked like. It was in the US. It was in the UK. It was in continental Europe. It was in different parts of the world and the people had different methods. They had perhaps differences in terms of their methods, But they had one very clear goal: Abolish Slavery. And then it clicked and in July 1831, the UK parliament abolishes slavery. And the United States in the midst of a bloody civil war in 1864 there’s the emancipation and the proclamation.

You know one of the things that happens with the anti-slavery, anti-colonial, women’s suffrage, the labor movement, the different movements historically that have triumphed is that they can be struggling for centuries, for years and then all of a sudden it happens. And I think that highly associated with that is generational change. That you get to a generation that has a completely different take on the issue, to which it’s very obvious that slavery is a great evil and that slavery has to be abolished and so it starts to click and it starts to fall into place.

And I hope that that’s the case now in the 21st Century and that these youth who are on the streets… I was very impressed at the COP 25. Coming back from the COP, Greta had had a demonstration, a concentration, a huge one in Madrid. And I was looking at the after-march. People going home with their placards. there were 10, 11, 12, 13-year olds with their placards going home and a slew of 16, 17-year olds.

These people at 18 in these countries will be voting and the idea of the passive, complacent youth will have to be filed completely because these people will be hyperactive. They are clear what they want to do and in countries where the correlation of forces is very tight, them coming down on one side or another could make a big difference politically. So they could obtain real political power faster than we think.

But you know Father Miguel d’Escoto, who influenced me very much, had a book on reforming the United Nations. And he saw that that in the end was impossible, because in Articles 108 and 109 there are padlocks on the United Nations. Because it declares that to make the change, the General Assembly has to be in agreement and all five members of the Security Council.

And Article 109 says you can have a conference and that can have a majority for changing the United Nations but it must include all five permanent members  of the United Nations Security Council. So there’s a veto on the United Nations transformation. So in the end Fr. d’Escoto had come to the conclusion that what needed to be done was to abolish it and start all over again because it will never come out of the veto power that the United States exercises in all proposals for change.

TcS : In relation to the US ability to put a brake on positive developments via its veto in the Security Council, their obsession with ful spectrum dominance is something that you have insisted on and emphasized. Do you think the developing multi-polar world that we’re currently seeing emerge will develop sufficiently quickly to enable humanity to avoid the path to some kind of destructive conflict that is implicit in US unilateralism?

Dr. Oquist: You said “will” and that’s a very wisely chosen word, because it is not there yet. An example of that was how Hillary Clinton sneaked one through the Security Council with regard to Libya in which there was a vote to protect civilians in eastern Libya and then France, the UK and the United States took that and they bombed the whole country. They bombed the Libyan army, they supported all the opposition forces elsewhere.

They forgot about Benghazi completely and started concentrating on Tripoli. They managed to overthrow the government that had cooperated with the West disarming its nuclear capacity. It’s the one success story in disarming nuclear capacity. And it had cooperated politically and had relations with Italy and France. And that didn’t matter. the government was overthrown and Muammar al Gaddhafi was assassinated. Hillary laughed and the country dropped into chaos and anarchy that it has not emerged from yet. So that’s the story of how beneficial Western regime change operations have been for Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, which have created chaos and mass killing, mass destruction, destroying countries one after another.

TcS: So do you think the emergence of the Russian Federation, its very important strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China, their alliance with regional powers like Iran for example, here in Latin America their strong support which has so far enabled the Venezuelan people and their government under President Nicolás Maduro to resist…

Dr. Oquist: This is essential. There has to be a counterweight to the United States. That’s one of the things that happened with the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the United States was left without a counterweight. That’s why they could invade Iraq in a war of aggression on false pretenses because there  was no counterweight in the world at that point in time that could stop them. And the world has paid a huge price for that.

They also do other things like the unilateral, coercive, illegal measures against countries, against organizations, against individuals, which are completely illegal. But there’s not the counterweight in the world to stop them right now. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, the European Union and, most recently, Switzerland for some reason, have joined in to that imperial exercise of thinking that they are morally superior to the rest of the world.

And therefore they self-appoint themselves as police, prosecutor and judge of the rest of the world in terms of human rights and in terms of corruption when it’s blatantly political and in some cases blatantly commercial, what they are doing. And they get away with it because the United States has the dictatorship of the world banking system called SWIFT and the bankers of the world and many business people are most fearful of being excluded from that, because the economic consequences of being excluded from that are enormous.

And it’s incredible how the Europeans meekly follow the US on this with regard to countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua when they themselves are being subject to these sanctions like the European firms that trade with Iran. The Europeans want to keep the Iran nuclear deal alive and have their firms trade and the US places sanctions, so they’ve invented a system to go around the US sanctions.

The US wants to sell its gas to northern Europe, to Germany and other northern European countries. So the US opposes the Nord Stream gas pipeline from the Russia Federation to Germany. It says, “oh, this will make Germany dependent on Russian gas”. Or they say, as Trump says, “We’re paying for their defense and they buy their gas from Russia, that’s not the way things should be done”. So he wants to decide German energy policy for them. What he wants is for LPG tankers to leave Louisiana full of gas for northern Europe.

So there’s the threat of sanctions against the companies that work on the Nord Stream pipeline. So Europe is schizophrenic on this but they show how dependent they are on the United States even psychologically by following the US example in these coercive illegal sanctions that also affect them negatively. In fact, I mis-spoke, they’re really not sanctions. They’re illegal measures. The only thing that should be called sanctions are those approved y the UN Security Council which are the only ones that are legal.

These other measures have no basis in international law or any basis in any law whatsoever. Because the whole idea that countries can have transnational application of their law, like the United States claims is completely illegal also. Extraterritoriality does not exist in international law. And yet it’s doubly bad in terms of the United States, because it claims extraterritoriality for its law but doesn’t accept international law in the United States. So there’s that duality as well.

TcS: So now Nicaragua and Venezuela and Cuba are subject to these illegal coercive measures, do you think that means that Nicaragua is, at it were punching, above its weight in the world, after all, why should it be the object of these measures? Do you think that Nicaragua being able to work with Russia or China or the non-aligned movement, or regionally with SICA, the Association of Caribbean States and ALBA, do you think that Nicaragua’s role in these international cooperation instances will enable it to play a positive role, perhaps the same kind of inspirational role that it had for many people around the world in the 1980s?

Dr. Oquist : I think that Nicaragua plays an inspirational role for the rest of the world right now. If you look at Nicaragua’s special role punching above its weight in terms of all the climate change negotiations and all the things that Nicaragua has done with regard to Climate Change. Nicaragua’s role in reducing poverty and inequality within Nicaragua with re-distributive policies like universal free health and education in the second poorest country in Latin America and the Caribbean. Any Nicaraguans can go to a public hospital and get attention.

Any Nicaraguan can go to a public hospital and have an operation, have serious diagnostics undertaken by state of the art equipment and there’s no bill. And the United States hasn’t been able to put a system together on which there’s consensus with regard to having a public health system in the United States. Nicaragua’s light years ahead of the United States. It’s not presumptuous to say at all that the United States could learn a lot from Nicaragua in terms of the family, community health care system with the free universal health system existing alongside a private heath care system for those who prefer that, but a truly public system.

Nicaragua has capitalized poor people with programs ike Zero Hunger and Zero Usury in a highly effective manner which has taken a lot of people out of poverty. And via schemes that are much better than those proposed by the international organizations who are trying to sell Nicaragua these measures, these conditional grants, to give a conditional grant to a family, to give them money so that their child would go to school or go to the health center to have a check up. Nicaragua doesn’t do that. Nicaragua didn’t accept that.

Nicaraguan parents send their kids to school because that’s what you should do. Nicaraguan parents have a consciousness of taking their kids to the health center to get vaccinated without anyone paying them to do it. What happens in Nicaragua is that a poor rural family receives a pregnant cow, a pregnant sow, chickens who don’t need to be pregnant because they take care of it themselves.

The program also has seed, fertilizer, corral materials and so you turn the woman in the household into a second producer in the family. And you improve nutrition through the animal protein that the family all of a sudden has. The family income improves because they take their surplus to market and sell it.

In the urban area, you have Zero Usury which is the credit scheme, the micro-credit scheme like those in Bangladesh and the rest of the world that everyone knows. But this one is different and it’s called Zero Usury. Micro-credit organizations in the world and some in Nicaragua too charge 30% or 40% a year for their loans. This is the problem that the model has everywhere. They had that  problem in Bangladesh and in India too of a high interest rate. In Nicaragua, it’s 5% per annum. So it’s not the micro-credit organization NGO that’s gaining the accumulation of capital.

It’s the small merchant, the small artisan. Some of them are on their fourth or fifth loans as they’re capitalizing themselves. So these are policies of redistribution in terms of universal free health and education among other programs. And then of capitalizing the poor through Usura Cero and Hambre Cero and improving roads, highways, electricity, water, sanitation that improve the quality of life of the poor also.

TcS : Do you think it’s fair to say Dr. Oquist, that Nicaragua, apart from being a model in its health programs and, to some extent too in its education programs in my opinion, more especially with regard to climate change in the way it’s changing its energy matrix, but also in its food self-sufficiency, it’s food sovereignty. Do you think it’s true to say that all these things make Nicaragua a very special country and for that reason for example it is treated with respect by much larger countries like the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China?

Dr. Oquist : This is what explains Nicaragua’s COVID-19 policy as well. 40% of the population lives and works in the countryside, 40%. These people cannot be confined. they have lots of things to do every day with the cows, with the chickens, with the fields, especially in April and May which is the planting season. And so it would be ridiculous to have a confinement of these people. They have to get out and earn their subsistence. They are in a subsistence or semi-subsistence economy.

Then, we have the urban informal sector, which is the majority of the workers, the informal sector and if they don’t earn their livelihood every day, they don’t eat, their family doesn’t eat. That is where the poor people are, in the countryside and in the informal sector. So this policy has been protecting the interests of the poor people. The same with the schools in the public system remaining open. In the private schools the kids can have internet classes, because these are middle class families with computers. The kids have tablets. They have 4G cell phones.

The poor urban people and the poor rural people, their kids would be left out if you tried to tell them that they were going to have internet education. So once again the policy has been to defend the poor, while promoting strict social distancing, while promoting masks, ever more so as you hear through the media and through the recommendations to everyone to take care of themselves.

TcS : Shifting back to the broader global context, you say at one point in “Equilibra” that “it’s easier for us to continue transforming nature than to transform ourselves” which makes you sound a bit pessimistic. Are you pessimistic about our prospects for planetary survival? What can each of us do as individuals to defend humanity and the natural world?

Dr. Oquist : Actually, that statement is a conclusion after seeing that the way humans have developed across the paleolithic time span, the neolithic and then coming into the copper age, the bronze age, the steel age, civilization advancing to scientific and technological revolutions. We have advanced as a species by transforming nature. By learning more about nature and learning how to transform nature to our ends. So that’s what makes it hard for us to stop doing that, to stop continuing to try and transform nature.

Because it’s been our success story It’s been our formula for success and all of a sudden we need to put on the brake. We need to get smarter and find new ways of doing things. That makes it hard. It makes it hard because people realize that… they’re so accustomed to earning their living transforming nature. And that’s another of the alienations also that are really pernicious, like favoring short term action that damages nature even when we realize the long term consequences.

That’s happening. People know it’s going to hurt nature, know it’s going to hurt humanity, but they continue doing it. So there’s lots of things to overcome. there’s lots of things to overcome and there’s that capitalist mindset, there’s the hegemonic political, economic and social system that reinforces capitalism. So the battle is tough. But where is the hope? The hope is in the movements. The hope is in the people obliging the politicians to take action.

That’s what happened with anti-slavery. That’s what happened with anti-colonialism. The politicians moved in the end and the governments. But they were obliged by the people to do so and I think that has to happen again. And I hope that the generational change will push this over. All these movements, the extinction movement, the environmental movement, all of these are important in putting together a survival movement. A movement in which we recognize that we are not eternal, that we are not immortal, that we can become extinct.

And things that we are doing now increase the probability of our becoming extinct and reduce the probability that life will prevail. Why? Because we are damaging the ecosystems from which life sprang and which have maintained life on planet Earth. We can do that in a slow onset way, like increasing the world’s temperature until it reaches 50° and we can no longer exist.

Or we can do it fast and dirty with a nuclear exchange that makes human life as we know it impossible and provokes a nuclear winter of 10 years with no sunshine because there’s so much dust in the air for so long. And radioactive dust on top of that. So there are huge risks but we need to organize, we need to be proactive and put together this survival movement which “Equilibra” poses as the solution.

TcS : Something that struck me about the book is that it’s very innovative in its presentation. It presents its argument and asks for feedback. Am I right in that?

Dr. Oquist : Yes. “Equilibra” is designed to be an interactive, living book. On the “Equilibra” web site there’s Replacement 1 and Replacement 2 at www.equilibra.org, which refer to the two volumes of “Equilibra”. Each theme is organized in ten statements of three or four lines each and each of those is numbered to make it esy to say, for example, “with regard to 363 this data is wrong please change the data, it should be such-and-such”. Or , “with regard to 450 to 455, this analysis is weak and should be changed for such-and-such”.

I’m organizing an “Equilibra” panel that will receive these proposals for changes and those that are approved will go on web site real time revision of “Equilibra” that’s updated as the changes are approved. And a footnote credit will be made to those who send in the changes. That way the book can be continually changing, transforming. As new things pop up they can be included through this concept of the living book.

So one of the reasons that it’s the first book written in tweets that are numbered is so that this can be manageable. So you can cut this one tweet out and say, “this should be changed to such-and-such” and then if can be considered. While the reason for the panel is to avoid the flaw in Wikipedia, that if you just put in anything anyone sends in you can start to fill up with some garbage too, as well as good insights and wisdom. So we do want to control it, but we do want it to happen.

***

Dr. Paul Oquist is Minister-Private Secretary for National Policy for the President of the Republic of Nicaragua, Commandant Daniel Ortega Saavedra.

Dr. Oquist is a former Member of the Board of Directors of the Green Climate Fund, and he was elected by the developing countries in the Green Climate Fund to represent them as Co-Chair of the Board of Directors in 2018 and now remains an Advisor. Dr. Oquist lobbied for the organization of the Green Climate Fund in COP-16 in Cancun, served on the Transition Committee (2010–2011) that produced a proposal, while Nicaragua was named for the final negotiation in Durban by the G-77+China with the United States that represented the developed country constituency.

Dr. Oquist is a third-term member of the Standing Committee of Finance (SCF) of the UNCCC. He represented the SCF in the Interim Directorate of the Warsaw Mechanism of Losses and Damages.

He was a member for two consecutive terms (2010–2017) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA).

Dr. Oquist was also the spokesperson for the ALBA countries at COP-15 in Copenhagen in their defense of the multilateral negotiating process in the face of the attempt to impose a parallel document initiated by the largest emitters without multilateral negotiations that take into account developing countries. The one-sided document was successfully blocked.

Dr. Oquist was Senior Adviser to the President of the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations, Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann. In that capacity he was Chief Negotiator for the Second Financing for the Development Meeting held in Doha, Qatar, in November, 2008, which surprisingly approved a high-level United Nations meeting on the “Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development” that Dr. Oquist coordinated on behalf of Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann in June, 2009.

Dr. Oquist holds a Ph.D. (1976) and an M.A. (1967) in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, while his bachelor in Political Science was from U.C.L.A (1966). He was Professor of Political Science at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, Colombia (1970–1975). He has also taught in FLACSO (Santiago and Quito) and the Latin American Post-Graduate School of Economics (ESCOLATINA) of the University of Chile.

 

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

An open letter published by Harper’s magazine, and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new “cancel culture”. 

The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.

Although the letter doesn’t explicitly use the term “cancel culture”, it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a “stifling” cultural climate that is imposing “ideological conformity” and weakening “norms of open debate and toleration of differences”.

It is easy to agree with the letter’s generalised argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their deeds.

Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech, not protect it.

To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinise the motives, rather than the substance, of the letter.

Click to access Harper’s article

A new ‘illiberalism’ 

“Cancel culture” started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or to publish their work.

The letter denounces this supposedly new type of “illiberalism”:

“We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. …

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; … The result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

Tricky identity politics 

The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting “interventions” in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free speech.

That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.

Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.

Frum, who coined the term “axis of evil” that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.

Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.

Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an article that violated the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.

‘Fake news, Russian trolls’ 

But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.

Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests in dominating the public space.

If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.

By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little.

The centre and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting “fake news” or is a “Russian troll”. This updating of the charge of being “un-American” embodies cancel culture at its very worst.

Social media accountability 

In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees with the letter’s vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.

What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel. And as Israel’s critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before the term was even coined.

For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarised state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.

Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.

They have lost control of the “cancel culture” because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists, and a new popular demand for “accountability” spawned by the rise of social media.

Cancelling Israel’s critics 

In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.

That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realise long-harboured plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.

Rather than allow “robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters” on Israel, Israel’s supporters have preferred the tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: “swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought”.

Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper’s list, including Rowling and Weiss. Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.

Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modelled on the one that helped push South Africa’s leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss again has been a prime offender.

The incidents highlighted in the Harper’s letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.

And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists – have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel’s behaviour and its abuses of Palestinian rights?

How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?

That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the safety of Israel from being criticised before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to regret.

Why has none of this “cancel culture” provoked an open letter to Harper’s from these champions of free speech?

Double-edge sword

The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.

Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to get Muslim professors fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner of “academic freedom”, claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.

The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom. This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors as a formative experience on which she still draws.

Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.

Narcissistic concern

To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article published in the Guardian.

Freedland, we should note, led the “cancel culture” campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key figures in Britain’s Jewish community who breathed life into the antisemitism smears against Corbyn and his supporters.

But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland’s voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel’s most extreme apologists – those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.

He reports that he has been called a “kapo”, the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a “sonderkommando”, the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse “burrows under your skin” and “hurts tremendously”.

And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community, Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the flimsiest of evidence.

He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture –unless it applies to himself. His concern is purely narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.

Conducting a monologue 

The letter’s main conceit is the pretence that “illiberalism” is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.

That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account “the great and the good”.

Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.

In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.

Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media, all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.

That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and social media.

Silencing the left 

Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper’s. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility by Chomsky’s name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the part influenced by Chomsky.

They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture – the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.

Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don’t like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.

Their criticisms of “cancel culture” are really about prioritising “responsible” speech, defined as speech shared by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.

The new attacks on “cancel culture” echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders’ supporters, who were framed as “Bernie Bros” – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.

Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders’ policies, so the centre and the right now want to discredit the left more generally by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their “cancel culture”.

If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky’s. Trump used his recent Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper’s letter. He at least was explicit in equating “cancel culture” with what he called “far-left fascism”:

“One of [the left’s] political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism … This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly.”

Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper’s letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new “cancel culture” are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about “fake news” and “Russian trolls” – in the establishment’s efforts to limit speech by the left.

Attention redirected 

This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.

Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right. And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths, turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects we are still feeling.

Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela, or rationalised war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social media.

Algorithms changed 

I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, “liberal” cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow “consensus” politics (the Overton window), or the new “leftwing” cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.

But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky’s name is attached should beware. Just as “fake news” has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads, just as “antisemitism” has been redefined to demonise the left, so too the supposed threat of “cancel culture” will be exploited to silence the left.

Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing “mob” – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against “irresponsible” or “intimidating” speech.

Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that they are the main targets.

In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.

UPDATE: 

You don’t criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed, so I want to quickly address it. Here’s one my followers expressing the point succinctly:

“The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories, nor their future plans.”

The problem, as I’m sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too. And that’s because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.

Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power.

Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing. 

UPDATE 2: 

There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:

Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over “fake news”, even though there is some fake news on social media? Why has he not endorsed the “Bernie Bros” narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media? Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?

He hasn’t joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left you hit up, not down. You certainly don’t cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.

Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is setting it out in relation to Iran:

“Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don’t agree with, like bombing.”

For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn’t have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He’s fallible. 

Also, this isn’t about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That’s why Chomsky’s role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.

UPDATE 3: 

I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.

Here’s the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being “cancelled” – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.

I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won’t help the left because “cancel culture” is being framed – by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a “loony left” problem. It is a new iteration of the “politically correct gone mad” discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.

It won’t help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party’s record on being anti-racist.

The “cancel culture” furore isn’t interested in the fact that they were “cancelled”. Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling Israel and Jews.

Israel’s supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel “cancels” that country (“wipes it off the map”), “cancels” Israel’s Jewish population (“drives them into the sea”), and “cancels” Jews more generally (“denies a central component of modern Jewish identity”).

Greater awareness of “cancel culture” would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as “cancelling”.

For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the “cancel culture” discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour’s anti-Zionists. He doesn’t see that witch-hunt as “cancel culture”, and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MediaPost

Enter the Virus… The Great ‘Reset’ of Capitalism

July 13th, 2020 by William Bowles

Why can’t I shake the feeling that the Virus is really the back story, a story that diverts us from something far deeper and much more threatening than the much-maligned Virus? The social distancing; the masks; the lockdown; the shutdown; all designed to distract? And the glue that cements it all together? Fear.

There are so many colliding stories coexisting in the history of the Great Global Lockdown, that serve to confuse and misdirect investigations, that figuring out what’s actually going on, is very, very difficult. Conflicts of interest abound, hidden agendas can be briefly glimpsed, then vanish under the waves of state-directed propaganda. But if there’s one overriding aspect to this event it’s fear. Fear engendered in the populations and the fear the ruling classes are experiencing that their rule might be coming to an end, either through environmental collapse or (praise be) revolution.

Global Heating and the Crisis of Capital, two earth-shattering issues. One threatens the future of Humanity and the other, the future of Capitalism. That the two are intimately interconnected, is surely obvious to all who care to look. And then we have the Virus. Taken together, the perfect storm?

Once more, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist economy are manifesting themselves, also in the usual manner; a falling rate of profit leading to reduced investment leading to bankruptcies and the meltdown of the economy, leading to, as before, mass unemployment and ultimately of course, war. At least, that’s how it used to be. But is war on a global scale now possible, or indeed even necessary to solve the crisis of the over-accumulation of capital and the falling rate of profit and all the other paradoxes and contradictions that capitalism creates for itself?

Enter the virus

The ruling classes of the Anglo-American Empire have concluded that the coming environmental collapse will deal with the ‘problem’ of surplus labour and the propitious arrival of the virus will between them, take care of these twin problems and the problem of the falling rate of profit but without recourse to turning the planet into a radioactive cinder first. Well that’s the theory.  As they say, a ‘global reset’ is in order, that is to say, a reset of the major capitalist economies. The weak and unprofitable will be eliminated, the losers absorbed by the survivors. A global fire sale of bankrupt corporations will take place. An even vaster concentration of capital will take place.

This is not to say, that it was planned, the ruling class are nothing if not opportunists and in any case, are they really masters of their own destiny, driven as they are by forces that most are, at best, only dimly aware of? You need proof? Dominic Cummings. Donald Trump. Boris Johnson.

The virus is merely the catalyst, the global lockdown will take care of the ‘surplus’ population as it already is. Predictions of a billion starving people, virtually all in the Global South, are already coming to pass. But we, in the so-called developed world have, for the most part, been well-insulated from the reality of a planet in lockdown. Fear rules us and makes us impotent.

The run-up to the reset

Back in February, the doomsayer of the British state, Neil Ferguson, told us that his ancient software predicted half-million deaths from the virus. Fear ruled us and in that moment, the Coronavirus Bill was ushered through Parliament with nary a dissenting voice. The Lockdown State was upon us. Within weeks millions were made redundant. Small to- medium-sized businesses make up 80% of the real economy and the High Street died, probably never to recover. But note that the major supermarkets that control the bulk of purchases were allowed to remain open. As was Amazon. Make no mistake, this is all about Big Business.

Then Ferguson revised his Nostradamus-like predictions downwards, from 500,000 to 20,000 and still got it wrong but for an entirely different reason. Having set the virus of fear loose, it was vital to take back control of the narrative. But the half million served its purpose. Time to move on to the real business of saving capitalism, from itself.

There is some kind of insane logic to the way the Tory government operates, I believe it’s called ‘flying by the seat of your pants’. The British capitalist class has a bunch of total incompetents trying to run the state on their behalf as if it were merely outsourcing business opportunities to some very flaky ‘entrepreneurs’. Corruption and incompetence rules. A crew of nasty imperialist racists who can’t see beyond the current ripoff, that’s who is pretending to run Great Britain. Churchill must be revolving slowly in in his grave.

What appeared to be the government’s apparent indifference to the arrival of the Virus was in fact a thinly disguised Fascism in the shape of ‘Herd Immunity’, itself a variant of the theory of Eugenics or Social Darwinism or survival of the fittest, an idea that first surfaced in the 19th century and was enthusiastically adopted by the ruling classes of Britain, Germany and the USA.

Let the Virus spread and the ‘weak’ will die and the ‘strong’ will survive, best exemplified when the virus was given free reign to spread through care homes and the proof is in the numbers, and although it’s proving difficult to find accurate figures, it’s estimated that at the very least 16,000 people died in care homes who needn’t have had their lives cut short and so brutally, about half of the total number of deaths, so far, though because of changes made to how deaths are recorded by the Coronavirus Bill, making accurate estimates is now all but impossible.

About 3,500 people died in care homes in Germany compared with more than 16,000 in the UK, despite Germany having a care home population twice as large. Its test-and-trace system and 14-day quarantine for people leaving hospital have been credited with protecting homes from outbreaks. – The Guardian, 28 June 2020

Benign neglect? I don’t think so. Discharging people sick from the Virus back into care homes, turned them into modern versions of Typhoid Mary. Care home workers were given no protection whatsoever, guaranteeing that their carers would both spread the virus and get infected by it, from those they cared for!

Hospitals were emptied for a flood of patients that never materialised! The so-called Nightingale Hospitals, 17,000 beds in total and launched with great fanfare had a total 60 patients and those were moved from regular hospitals. People were discouraged from visiting their local doctors, operations were cancelled, examinations were cancelled. Will we ever know the real death toll, not from the Virus but from the denial of needed care or from those too afraid to go to hospital? I’m prepared to wager that the total number of these ‘excess’ deaths will far outnumber the deaths from the Virus.

And of course, the destruction of vital social services by the Tory government fed into how the government responded to the Virus and it was directly expressed in the propaganda blitz; ‘Protect the NHS’, ‘Save Lives’, an NHS that had been emasculated by the very government that now claimed it wanted to protect it! Worse still, the same propaganda assault, blamed the public for the government’s failures in stemming the spread of the Virus.

But lest we forget, because the government’s initial reaction was to ‘let the virus rip’ through our communities, all the subsequent ‘social distancing’, ‘lockdowns’ and ‘face masking’ was rendered useless (if any of it ever worked in the first place) as the virus had been allowed to spread throughout the entire British population! It’s this initial event that was the single cause of the UK having one of the highest death rates, per capita, in the so-called developed world.

And to this engineered disaster, we haves the destruction of our social services after 10 years of Austerity as part of the neoliberal agenda of privatising everything! 50% fewer hospital beds than 10 years ago; a shortage of 40,000 nursing staff; the closure of hospitals and Accident & Emergency departments, as the state gears up for the total privatisation of health care in the UK. No doubt, the profitable bits will be fire-saled to US investors and the public will pick up the costs of the unprofitable bits left behind, after being raped by international capital. Again, the irony is not lost on the writer, of a former empire that ripped off the planet, now being picked clean by its successors. But it’s no justice to the millions of people the NHS still tries to serve, or to the millions who work for the NHS, the biggest employer in the UK.

Meanwhile…

After all, the virus and the methods chosen to allegedly, ‘deal’ with it, do not affect the rich, for them life goes on, no need of a ‘furlough’ for the 1%. Yes, it is an inconvenience but nothing that the ruling classes haven’t dealt with before eg, World Wars I and II come to mind. And indeed, as we have seen over the past three months, specific sections of the capitalist economy have made vast profits from the virus, especially the new digital industries. And for the most part, the professional middle classes have been only minimally affected by lockdowns and closures, so the core of neoliberal Britain, finance and consumption, appears, bizarrely, to continue as if everything is hunky-dory! Watching tv commercials brings it all home, to me at least. A parallel universe in garish colours, close-up, where people play out fantasy consumption roles for an imprisoned audience.

I predicate this view on the fact that the capitalist class knew quite well that its predations of the natural world would, at some time lead to ‘novel’ diseases, they even carried out a ‘dry run’ just prior to the appearance of the Virus and shortly thereafter produced the Coronavirus Bill here in the UK, consisting of hundreds of pages that had obviously had been in preparation, if not already written, well before the Virus’ arrival. Precognition? I don’t think so. More importantly, the Bill handed the state ever more draconian powers over our liberties, powers that as I write, are being further extended. We are now living in a de facto police state. Except the rich.

It’s also obvious that the government knew quite well the consequences of its actions, whilst at the same time, proved totally incapable of acting on the basis of all the studies and dry runs that the government had conducted prior to the arrival of the Virus. Incapable or unwilling, or both?

In other words, the government is a ‘ship of fools’ and this is probably the most dangerous thing about the this Tory regime when you add their incompetence to their bankrupt, neoliberal ideology.

Giving the state ‘permission’ to imprison us

A lot of the mystery of the British state’s use of the Virus as a means of social control, became much clearer after I’d read the UK Cabinet Office’s document called ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy. Engineering opinion so that the public ‘gives its permission’ to be herded like cattle, locked up, pauperised and deprived of a future. The tools used are called Behavioural Psychology and involve evoking Pavlovian responses in the populace, which is how they get us to ‘give the state’ our permission, to do stuff:

This report is not just an overview of theory; it addresses the needs of policy-makers by:

  • Condensing the relevant evidence into a manageable “checklist”, to ensure policy-makers take account of the most robust effects on our behaviour
  • Demonstrating how behavioural theory can help meet current policy challenges, including full case studies of its application in the UK
  • Showing how government can build behavioural theory into its current policy-making practices
  • Exploring important issues around the need for public permission and the role of personal responsibility [my emph. WB]

The Report continues:

But when applying MINDSPACE in practice, it should not simply be seen as an alternative to existing methods. “Behaviour Change” is part of policy-making, rather than a novel alternative that can be bolted onto policies. Therefore, civil servants need to better understand the behavioural dimension of their policies and actions. MINDSPACE can help them do so in three different ways:

  • Enhance. MINDSPACE can help policy-makers understand how current attempts to change behaviour could be improved, for example through a better understanding of how people respond to incentives and which types of information are salient. The logic here is that if government is already attempting to shape behaviour, it should do so as effectively as possible.
  • Introduce. Some of the elements in MINDSPACE are not used extensively by policy-makers, yet may have a considerable impact. For example, there is room for more innovative use of social norms and commitment devices in policies. Of course, introducing new measures in this way may require significant efforts to ensure there is public permission for the approach.
  • Reassess. Government needs to understand the ways it may be changing the behaviour of citizens unintentionally. It is quite possible that government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.

MINDSPACE builds on existing methods of policy-making government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.

/../

The use of MINDSPACE (or other “nudge‟ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. [my emph. WB] – ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy.

At the same time, this kind of approach to ruling people has a downside. The state can’t keep people in a state of fear indefinitely, any more than it can curtail economic activity indefinitely. The irony of the situation is that trade unions are demanding no return to work for fear of the Virus, even if for the vast majority the virus poses no threat.

[T]he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:

Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens. – Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, 11 May, 2020

Whitty spilled the beans, almost at the beginning of this nightmare, which may explain why we see so little of him these days.

The mindbenders are hard at work invoking the ‘Spirit of WWII’, Churchillian rhetoric, kindof, Spitfires, the Blitz and Sacrifice, which translates as more and even worse Austerity for us all. After all, somebody has to pay for this mess and it won’t be the political class or its masters, the ruling class. As usual, it will be the poor what gets the blame and pays the price.

So it would seem that we are all in for a wild ride into an uncertain future, with the state pressing our buttons – fear then less fear, then more fear then back to less fear again.

The effects are already apparent with a rise in mind injury, especially amongst the young.

Fear keeps us from resisting this outrageous assault on what’s left of our liberties and all to preserve the rule of BIg Capital.

*

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 Pixabay

I suspect most Americans would approve of what they understand to be this nation’s global cultural reach as expressed through its ‘soft power’. A term coined by an American political scientist, soft power “involves shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction”. Contrasted with coercive measures, it’s achieved largely through cultural means, although nevertheless a feature of foreign policy. Probably as old as politics itself.

Soft power politics are long-term, sociable and gentle. (Certainly nothing dangerous!) To say that they’re ideologically driven would be guileless. Some definitions are less circumspect, describing soft power as “using positive attraction and persuasion to achieve foreign policy objectives”. When at work domestically, it may be akin to kneeling-softly-on-the-neck, persuading Americans how this is a land of equality and unparalleled freedom.

U.S. citizens may even consider America’s soft power abroad with pride: “This is how we’re helping others– securing democratic principles, sharing advanced (sic) intellectual, medical and cultural resources. American films, so popular (and lucrative) globally, augmented by satellite-enabled news and entertainment channels are, I would argue, among the most effective examples of this power. Music and literature cannot be excluded too.

Boosting commercially-driven exports are government-funded programs like Peace Corps, high school scholarships, youth exchanges, anthropological research and conferences. All proceed at an undiminished pace, whichever party rules. These programs also carry that ‘cold light of reason’ imparted to foreign peoples held to be short on ‘objectivity’ or ‘reason’. Implicit in this largesse is an intellectual and aesthetic superiority on the part of the donor.

Globally, tens of millions indiscriminately embrace soft power projects originating in European (white) nations. They search them out and compete for any awards offered. Soft power programs can foster the belief in people that their own government is evil, hopeless— at least uncaring — leading such romantics to conclude it should be overthrown– if not internally, then by an invading force. They feel they are a doomed, emotional people unable to advance as long as they live in the smothering atmosphere of ‘tradition’ and of ‘tribalism’. To escape they must remodel their hair, learn to wear neckties and speak correctly, eat with a fork and acquire quality foreign accoutrements—from mountain bikes, Cuisinart toasters and Victoria’s Secret underwear, to Boeing fighter jets.

Let’s face it: that cultural bounty and the fabulous stuff associated with it is propaganda. Originator of the term soft power, Joseph Nye, admits “the best propaganda is not propaganda”.

What’s propaganda and what’s not is an ongoing debate. Leading American critics of imperialism as it’s dispensed via soft power include Edward Said, Malcolm X and Cornel West. They join generations of intellectuals and dissenters warning of its hazards. Across the world the destructive impact of that soft power is not wholly unopposed. Political prisoners and martyrs, armed rebels—women and men engage in the eternal struggle to lift off the imperial “knee on their neck”—both its soft and coercive iterations.

That oppressive “knee on their neck” has become the symbol of the American police state, manifest so compellingly and undeniably in the famous video of George Floyd’s murder.

America’s Black, Brown and Native populations are familiar with the brute force of that killer knee. They equally recognize the effectiveness of the knee’s soft power (unnoticed by others) in maintaining the status quo. The soft knee works into centuries of renegotiated treaties, temporary fixes, pleas for more time; it resists reform; it offers gratuitous sympathy, compromises and inclusion programs. Soft power is powerfully seductive, reinforced among all classes by a steady diet of Hollywood’s white savior tropes.

Often people are mollified by small gains and minor adjustments. Many become weary; they simply surrender. She learns to hold her breath, turn her eyes down and rush away to weep and scream in private. Daughter removes her head covering; brother marries out of his faith, shaves his beard; mother joins a temple or mosque.

Demanding real change is very risky. In 2016, a short-lived event although less dramatic than the removal of an inglorious military statue poignantly carries the weight of America’s soft-power-enforced history. Corey Menafee (image on the right), a longtime kitchen employee at Yale University regularly passed under an image, a stained glass window (see image below) which others, if they even noticed it, may have viewed as inconsequential, a quaint reference to the distant past. But Menafee’s ire rose each time he thought about it. He may have vowed to either leave his job or formally appeal for the image’s removal. To Menafee, it was a symbol of his enslaved ancestors and a romanticization of America’s crime of racism. That image of Black women cotton pickers reminded this man of the exploitation of his people: — a crime neither recognized, nor seen, nor felt by others.

Surely knowing it would cost him dearly Menafee made a courageous decision: he smashed the window. That supreme act may seem reckless but to this Black American– to anyone who knows the insult that that image speaks and the risk involved in challenging it– it’s a big deal, a very big deal.

This kind of protest, a mark of the Black American movement’s mission, compels us to recognize the seemingly innocuous effect of the soft power we inhale every day. That unchallenged window in a reputedly liberal university suggested that there’s no political implication there; it’s just art, just culture, decorative and hardly noteworthy.

To Black Americans it is an agonizing image, one of millions existing across our cultural and linguistic landscape. It’s more egregious, the rising call to action more urgent, because whites do not perceive their racial implications. That window remained embedded in the wall, year after year, generation after generation, seen by thousands of smart (sic) people while its hurtful and humiliating power went unopposed.

Al Sharpton, in his peerless eulogy at George Floyd’s memorial in Minneapolis, helped define American history for us this way:

“George Floyd’s story has been the story of black folks because ever since 401 years ago, the reason we could never be who we wanted and dreamed to being is you kept your knee on our neck. We were smarter than the underfunded schools you put us in, but you had your knee on our neck. We could run corporations and not hustle in the street, but you had your knee on our neck. We had creative skills, we could do whatever anybody else could do, but we couldn’t get your knee off our neck. What happened to Floyd happens every day in this country, in education, in health services, and in every area of American life, it’s time for us to stand up in George’s name and say get your knee off our necks. That’s the problem no matter who you are. We thought maybe we had […], maybe it was just us, but even blacks that broke through, you kept your knee on that neck. Michael Jordan won all of these championships, and you kept digging for mess because you got to put a knee on our neck. White housewives would run home to see a black woman on TV named Oprah Winfrey and you messed with her because you just can’t take your knee off our neck. A man comes out of a single parent home, educates himself and rises up and becomes the President of the United States and you ask him for his birth certificate because you can’t take your knee off our neck. The reason why we are marching all over the world is we were like George, we couldn’t breathe, not because there was something wrong with our lungs, but that you wouldn’t take your knee off our neck. We don’t want no favors, just get up off of us and we can be and do whatever we can be.”

That knee on the neck is more than a physical force. It’s the cultural conditioning, the light of cold reason, the deflection, the imbibed message that Blacks are not quite up to the arbitrary standard set and maintained within soft (white) power. That folksy depiction of women in the cotton field is simply a pleasing piece of art. The slave supporting the warrior that crowns a national museum is just an aesthetic compliment to its central (white) figure! African and Muslim headwear is impractical. Lungi wraps on men are unprofessional. And on and on.

Soft power is so dominant and simultaneously appears so innocuous, so embedded and integrated into white privilege and white’s assumptions of their dominant historical place, that they fail to see its propaganda. It also works on newcomers, notably Asian and Arab immigrants, who buy into the American dream. Having absorbed a steady diet of soft power in their homelands, they easily sanction and join the American status quo.

(Anthropologists–and I am one– are slow to admit our role in advancing the soft power of imperialism. After all, anthropology itself emerged hand-in-hand with the expansion of European imperial rule. We might do better to turn our analytical skills to exposing the soft-knee-on-the neck and vigorously work to demolish it.)

*

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

B. Nimri Aziz is an anthropologist and journalist who’s worked in Nepal since 1970, and published widely on peoples of the Himalayas. A new book on Nepali rebel women is forthcoming.

All images in this article are from the author

The relentless advance of coronavirus terror has been broken. Recalcitrant Serbs rebelled against their President when he ordered them back under house arrest. After two days of street battles with dozens of policemen hospitalised, the sturdy protesters won; the authorities surrendered and gave up their plans to lock Belgrade down. Shops, pubs and restaurants in Belgrade will have an early evening curfew; but this is much better than the full lockdown they intended. Prime Minister Ms Brnabic complained that she could not understand why her people were protesting. She must be uncommonly dense, this lady, if after two days of protests she could not understand that people do not want lockdowns. This is a rare reversal by the authorities, said the BBC correspondent in Belgrade. This is an understatement in the best English manner. I think it is a precedent.

Until now, there were countries that avoided lockdown altogether (Japan, Sweden, Belarus), but there wasn’t a country where people demanded and then obtained their freedom. Serbia is the first one. This small (pop. 7 million) country in the Balkans has a long history of resistance – they fought the Turks for centuries; they resisted Nazi Germany longer than France; they had the strongest guerrilla movement outside of Belarus, and yes, they fought mighty NATO for quite a long time. The Germans bombed Belgrade in April 1941, followed not long afterwards by America (aided by the British of course). In 1944, on Easter Day, six hundred American bombers carpet-bombed Belgrade, destroying its palaces, theatres, railway stations, and hospitals. That was America’s Easter Bunny gift to the Serbs.

In 1999 Bill Clinton bombed Belgrade again, for three months, killing a lot of Serbs and causing immense destruction. The Serbian president was seized and murdered in the court cells underneath The Hague. My American friends, if you are in the mood to apologise, you can “take a knee” for the Serbs, for the crimes more recent and more tangible than the 18th century horrors of your ancestors. The US chose to lob bombs at the Serbs for good reason: Serbs do not surrender easily. These strong-willed giants have guts, more than the rest of the Balkans put together. No doubt today many of the evil geniuses at Coronavirus HQ are regretting that Serbia wasn’t completely erased from the face of the earth, so that it would not have become such a troublesome example to a rather pliable and docile global populace.

But it’s too late; we have absorbed the lesson. The only way to avoid a renewed lockdown is a popular uprising, for nothing less will convince our authorities to refrain from locking us up. Like a boy who finds the candy jar, they just can’t help themselves. Lockdown makes life too easy for our rulers: the subjects stay indoors; they fearfully venture out only for shopping; they are obedient; they are on the dole and so they are dependent on the good will of the state. Unemployment rises steadily with every week of lockdown. Small companies go down. Only the digital giants will survive the deluge. People are disposable, a burden on the economy. Even their labour is no longer needed. Soon, independent, hard-working folk will be replaced by a new species dependent on government subsidy and demanding only more entertainment; a modern version of the panem et circenses (bread and circuses) mob the proud Romans were reduced to, as Juvenal wrote circa 100AD.

Why did the Serb government decide to lock their people up? Ostensibly, it’s because of 13 deaths “linked” to the Covid. That’s 13 too many, the President recited piously. Bear in mind that hundreds of people die every day in a country of millions like Serbia, and that this is perfectly normal. What’s so special about 13 people who died of pneumonia and may have been carriers of a new coronavirus? It was only a few years ago that thousands of Serbs fought and died for their freedom – that’s what they were fighting for, at least. Now their rulers do not think so much of freedom. Good thing that the people (as opposed to their rulers) are made of different, sterner stuff.

The Serbs I spoke to do not think this was an independent decision of their president; rather, an order sent down from some obscure Covid HQ, probably via the WHO. There is a covert guiding hand that devises new hardships and pressures governments to lock down economies and people. The authorities are naturally keen to return to the lockdown. It’s inertia, the great force of inertia. After they, and so many bureaucrats enacted the global culture of coronavirus, established ZOOM-based education, painted spots for 2 m distance, ordered millions of masks with a decent profit for themselves, trained an army of civil servants and disciplined the people, they are loth to drop it. They are used to it now and enjoy its fruit.

Peter Hitchens wrote about this in his column:

“When this madness began, I behaved as if a new and fanatical religion was spreading among us. Be polite and tolerant, I thought. It may be crazy and damaging but in time it will go away. Now it is clear that a new faith, based on fear of the invisible and quite immune to reason, has all but taken over the country. And it turns out to be one of those faiths that don’t have much tolerance for those who don’t share it. Its evangelists will not leave you and me alone, but constantly seek to force us to join. This is why I make such a fuss about the demand to make us all wear muzzles. This is not about health. This is about power and freedom, and has less and less to do with Covid-19. This obsession with telling us how to look, and turning us from normal humans into submissive, mouthless flock animals all decked out in a compulsory uniform is, in my view, part of an unprecedented assault on our personal liberty in general. Stay at home. Stop working. Don’t see your friends or relatives. Submit, submit, submit. Get used to being told what to do. It seems we really have become a nation of surrendered masochists.”

In the US, a new wave of the alleged Covid pandemic is supposed to remove President Trump, after RussiaGate and the impeachment fiasco failed to do the job. They manufactured the new wave without ‘re-seeding’ the country (as Larry Romanoff suggested) by the simple expedient of newspaper reporting. “New Cases in the U.S. Soar Past 68,000, Shattering Record” – screamed The New York Times. They do not tell you that this number means nothing. The new cases are not sick people: it is predominantly perfectly healthy people who by faulty and dubious methods were declared Covid carriers. The more you test for a virus, the more positive results you will get. George Floyd carried the new virus; still he was healthy enough to fight the police.

A Russian virologist correctly said: if we were to test healthy people for any flu virus, we would get enormous numbers of ‘infected’ results. Everyone carries some virus, this or that. But we never check healthy people because we never, until now, had the need to create the illusion of a pandemic. In 2020, the need for such an illusion became paramount, for the Covid operators intend to destroy the world economy, break our stamina and unseat Trump. It is worrisome that Texas and Florida, previously Trump bastions, gave in and began to enforce the masks because of these spurious tests.

There is nothing new about the disease. The first husband of Scarlett O’Hara, Charles Hamilton, died of pneumonia, and nobody checked him for the new coronavirus. Perhaps if they had checked Sherman’s army for viruses it would’ve never gotten to Atlanta, let alone Savannah.

The only novelty is the insistence of its promoters. The imagery of the Covid adepts grows more and more military. “The ring of steel” is how Australians proudly describe the quarantine around Melbourne. You’d believe that their dead were lying in the streets, but nothing of the sort! It is the same threat of “new cases”, meaning nothing at all – but it is enough to compel Aussies to agree to this tyranny.

I would be despondent and broken, if not for the Belgrade Uprising. What Serbs can do, we all can aspire to. There is an urgent need for rebellion against Covid dictatorship, the need to revolt until we are free.

And to covid-believers I’ll say, do not despair! This is not the last disaster we shall witness. There are still locusts, asteroids, Carrington events, and newer and better diseases. There are still chances for mankind to follow the dinosaurs to oblivion. Don’t be in such a hurry!

*

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 Unz Review.

Featured image is from The Saker

Countries around the world are ignoring the media’s fearmongering and starting to reopen their schools. This is a positive development which shows that the Coronavirus’s psychic-grip on the population is gradually loosening. Once again, people are asserting control over their own lives and those of their children which is why reopening the schools has become a top priority.

Covid-19 poses little or no risk to children. They don’t get sick and they don’t die. If they contract the infection, they usually remain asymptomatic and, crucially, they do not pass it along to others. Most of what you have heard or read about Covid and children is disinformation disseminated by a corrupt and despicable media that is forever fueling public hysteria. The mainstream media is spearheading the war against the American people so, naturally, they have perpetuated the illusion that school poses a threat to our children’s health and safety. It does not. Attending school is safe and schools should be open. Check out this clip from an article at the National Review:

“Kari Stefansson, CEO of the Icelandic company deCODE genetics in Reykjavík, studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. His project has tested 36,500 people; as of this writing:

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill.

What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.” (“Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’“, National Review)

That sums it up perfectly. Now compare the Icelandic Report to the comments of Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart who appeared on Friday’s PBS News Hour with Judy Woodruff:

Judy Woodruff: “Jonathan… the president is now criticizing Dr. Fauci. And he’s insisting the schools open. He’s threatening to withhold federal money from the schools.”

Jonathan Capehart: “Yes, which, when you have a global pandemic that is spiking all over the country in most of the states, and then you have the president of the United States, who, as David was saying, is not following his own guidelines for helping to keep the pandemic in check, the idea that we are talking about opening schools and forcing schools to open, when there’s no national strategy, no vaccine, and 50 different ways of going about trying to tamp down the pandemic, strikes me — and I’m not a parent.

And I understand that parents are concerned about their children’s education. But sending children to schools in the middle of a pandemic with no national strategy, I think, is worrisome.” (“David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart on Trump’s school pressure, Biden’s economic plan“, PBS News Hour)

Capehart’s comments are part of an MSM script that is designed to spread disinformation and fear that school reopenings pose a threat to the safety of children. It is a deliberate attack of one of society’s primary institutions, an institution that not only educates and socializes our children but also provides the opportunity for both parents to join the workforce to maintain their standard of living. Capehart’s comments are not grounded in fact or science, but politics. They are intended to prolong critical parts of the lockdown in order to intensify public anxiety and, thus, undermine Donald Trump’s reelection prospects. Surprisingly, Capehart’s comments contrast dramatically from a report in his own newspaper (the Washington Post) that recently published a lengthy report on the same topic titled “Reopened schools in Europe and Asia have largely avoided coronavirus outbreaks. They have lessons for the U.S.” Here’s an excerpt:

“Public health officials and researchers say they have not detected much coronavirus transmission among students or significant spikes in community spread as a result of schools being in session...

In Finland, when public health researchers combed through test results of children under 16, they found no evidence of school spread and no change in the rate of infection for that age cohort after schools closed in March or reopened in May. In fact, Finland’s infection rate among children was similar to Sweden’s, even though Sweden never closed its schools, according to a report published Tuesday by researchers from the two countries…

“It really starts to add up to the fact that the risk of transmission, the number of outbreaks in which the index is a child, is very low, and this seems to be the picture everywhere else,” said Otto Helve, who worked on the report as a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. He said he sent his own children back to school.

“The scientific evidence for the effects of closing schools is weak and disputed,” said Camilla Stoltenberg, director general of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which has advised Norway’s pandemic response. She said that although she supported her country’s March lockdown, it was less clear that Norway needed to close schools. “We should all have second thoughts about whether it was really necessary,” she said. “We see now that, after having opened schools, we haven’t had any outbreaks.” (“Reopened schools in Europe and Asia have largely avoided coronavirus outbreaks. They have lessons for the U.S.”, Washington Post)

It’s clear now that closing the primary schools was a terrible mistake for which our children will pay dearly for years to come. Children need a secure environment with a responsible and engaged adult in order to meet their basic developmental needs. Online teaching is no substitute, in fact, a third of students never even log in to attend their daily online classes.

Distance learning is not learning, it’s a scam aimed at destroying public education and creating a dumbed-down workforce incapable of doing anything beyond flipping burgers or mowing lawns. Not surprisingly, it’s mostly Democrats that oppose the reopening the schools because they see it as another stick for beating Trump. Even so, Trump can claim the moral high-ground on this issue because he has been particularly straightforward and unwavering in his approach. Here’s Trump on Twitter last week:

“Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don’t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons, not for health reasons! They think it will help them in November. Wrong, the people get it!

Trump is right, in fact, even Doctor Anthony Fauci admitted as much in a heated exchange he had with Senator Rand Paul last month on Capitol Hill. Here’s what Fauci said:

“I feel very strongly we need to do whatever we can to get the children back to school. I think we are in complete agreement on that.”

In-home learning generates feelings of depression, anxiety and alienation. It is not a substitute for person-to-person direct education. Also, there’s been a significant rise in sexual and physical abuse in the last three months that will likely decrease when school resumes and things return to normal. We also should not underestimate the impact of friendship and personal interaction on the mental health of young people who need to be around other children their own age. The lockdowns have robbed the children of that essential experience. Here’s an excerpt from an opinion piece by Australian Government’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nick Coatsworth, who arrived at the same conclusion as virtually all the leaders in the EU:

“COVID-19 is not the flu. Far fewer children are affected by COVID-19, and the number of transmissions from children to children and children to adults is far less.

Some have said the evidence on this is not clear. In any health debate, evidence can be cherry-picked to support a particular view. As an infectious diseases specialist, I have examined all of the available evidence from within Australia and around the world and, as it stands, it does not support avoiding classroom learning as a means to control COVID-19.

The national position remains that face-to-face teaching is safe, particularly given the current very low rates of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” (“Getting our kids back to school – a matter of trust”, Department of Health, Australian Government)

Finally, there’s this from CDC Director Robert Redfield:

“The CDC encourages all schools to do whatever they need to reopen. Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school or school district use our guidance as a reason not to reopen.

I think it’s worth noting that the CDC never recommended general school closure throughout this pandemic…I’m not critical of it. I’m just saying that from a public health point of view, we didn’t see that schools needed to be closed.” (“DeVos blasts school districts that hesitate at reopening”, Politico)

There it is in black and white: Open the schools now. Full Stop.

Along with the media, Trump is opposed by leaders in the teachers unions and the PTA which claimed that the Trump has “zero credibility in the minds of educators and parents when it comes to this major decision.” But Trump is right and the experts have admitted he’s right, the schools must reopen and they must reopen ASAP.

The results in Europe and elsewhere show there’s no need for distancing guidelines, limits on class size or any of the other ridiculous safety measures that protect no one from anything. The children are not at risk and they don’t pass the infection along to others. The whole thing is a hoax concocted by scheming political opportunists to attack Trump and spread mayhem across the country.

There’s a special place in hell for people who use kids to advance their own self-serving political agenda.

*

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 Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

“Because when we win, it’s everybody’s birthday.” – Kanye West, Forbes, July 8, 2020

The political absurd has become all modish.  With US President Donald Trump turning the White House into his own circus of personalised woe and expectations, other candidates are stepping up to the plate.  Make way for Kanye West, whose union of utter vacuity with Kim Kardashian has done much to keep the glossies, blogs and “influencers” rolling in anti-cerebral slush.  This time, media outlets have not fallen for the trap they did with Trump, treating his bid for the commander-in-chief position as a sham lunatic’s act not worth covering. 

There is even a streak of commentary finding West’s announcement a source of concern rather than mirth.  Natasha Lindstaedt ponders the glass darkly on “the qualities of the celebrity” that tend to be “poorly suited to the duties of governing”, though they can “attract the necessary attention from the media without any prior political accomplishment.”  Such figures can be “charismatic” and “anti-establishment” but constitute “a sign of political decline in democracies and wide frustration with professional politicians who voters feel disillusioned and distant from.”  

That said, what else can be made of this challenge?  West was formerly cosy with Trump who, with other “no-bullshit” characters, as he called them, inspired him to become a footwear magnate and Adidas pinup.  “It’s called the Yeezy effect.”  During a visit to the Oval Office in 2018, he spoke of brimming masculine admiration.

“I’m married to a family where there’s not a lot of male energy going on.  There’s something about it.” 

Putting on the Make America Great Again cap “made me feel like Superman.  That’s my favourite superhero.  You made a Superman cape for me.” 

In some clumsy effort at irony, or irony very much after its brutal slaying, West called it

“a protest to the segregation of votes in the Black community.  Also, other than the fact that I like Trump hotels and the saxophones in the lobby.” 

But West is never one to keep adoration or admiration consistent.  Eventually, he gazes at the mirror and lets his ego bleat for recognition. On July 4, he made his announcement, fittingly via a tweet, that he would be throwing himself into the electoral contest. 

“We must now realize the promise of America in trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future.”   

The stool water that counts for his especially fluid platform can be gathered in an extensive interview with Forbes.  He was “taking the red hat off”.  His new political movement will be called “the Birthday Party”.  Should he find his miraculous way to the White House, he intends using the model put forth by the movie Black Panther, which he conceded had not gone down well with a “lot of Africans”.  There,

“the king went to visit that lead scientist to have the shoes wrap around her shoes.  Just the amount of innovation that can happen, the amount of innovation in medicine – like big pharma – we are going to work, innovate, together.” 

There are other points of rambling.  Vaccines are “the mark of the beast” which shows where he stands about finding, let alone applying, one for coronavirus.  Planned parenthoods, he suggests, “have been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the Devil’s work.” 

Much of West’s challenged opinions count as emetic discharge.  His analysis of the electoral contest is not exactly sharp, though many would find his assessment of Joe Biden’s candidacy hard to disagree with. “I’m not saying Trump’s in my way, he may be a part of my way.  And Joe Biden?  Like come on man, please.  You know? Obama’s special.  Trump’s special.  We say Kanye West is special.  America needs special people that lead.  Bill Clinton?  Special.  Joe Biden’s not special.” 

It has become almost mandatory to reiterate the political credentials of West, shallow as they are, by recalling his 2005 intervention during the “Concert for Hurricane Relief” held in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  In a fashion similar to Trump, he decided to go off script. 

“Yo,” he told comedian Mike Myers, with whom he was sharing the stage, “I’m going to ad-lib a little bit.” 

This led his direct remark that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

The logistical obstacles are probably insuperable, though West insists with typical, scattergun incoherence that he is “speaking with experts, I’m going to speak with Jared Kushner, the White House, with Biden.”  He lacks any campaign or electoral machine, though he has the support of Elon Musk and a running mate in mind, a Wyoming preacher by the name of Michelle Tidball.  Tidball claims to be a “Biblical life coach” with something of a mental health background.  (The line between patient and coach is not a clear one.)  One of her golden nuggets of wisdom on how to handle mental illness is making your bed and doing the dishes. 

The paperwork, and deadlines, are both daunting and retarding.  The Federal Election Commission must be tackled.  Certain battleground states, such as North Carolina and New Mexico, are already closed to registering candidates for the ballot.  If West is intending to run as an independent as opposed to seeking the nomination of a political party, thousands of signatures across the US will need to be collected before registration periods end in August and September.  This would have to take place in a political environment conditioned by coronavirus. 

As a spokesperson for the FEC put it in a rather businesslike tone to Billboard,

“Candidates who’ve won the presidency tend to have gotten into the race much sooner than this.” 

To date, there has been no evidence that West has touched the paperwork, though there is, for pure entertainment value, a Form 2 filing featuring “Ye West”, whose address is optimistically listed as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  (That’s certainly one way to do it.)  Apparently, that candidate is self-funded and running for the Libertarian party.  Jo Jorgensen, the party’s official candidate, may not see any hilarity in this.

Fatuity in politics is not necessarily a handicap.  Trump gave the US the first Twitter presidency, bypassing official channels with cyber gobbets of rage to his supporters.  Like West, he is an egomaniac with dollops of insecurity.  In attaining victory in 2016, Trump turned the highest office in Freedom’s land into a grotesque reality show, a process that also implicated his opponents.  West’s bid, even if it is unlikely to go far, is oddly fitting.

*

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Yeezy Effect”: Rapper Kanye West Joins the U.S. Presidential Race
  • Tags:

As the world is understandably distracted by the threat of the pathogenic actions of an entity 10,000 times smaller than a grain of salt, we spend a huge amount of time arguing over its origins and nature, or whether it is real or a concocted plan to control human population, while saturating social media with voluminous conspiracy theories. Concerns about absence of a national public health care system sometimes seems less important than debating conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile human civilization for several centuries has been arrogantly and savagely ransacking the ecosystem with industrial entrancement, exploiting human cultures, dominating wild spaces “out there”, while substantially altering our inner minds and souls. Global warming interconnected with insatiable consumption, economic dysfunction, microwaving the planet, corporate oligarchy and neo-fascism, wealth accumulation, and denigrating nonwhite people, have overwhelmed our natural human rhythms, our thought structures, our evolutionary empathy, and our original identities.

I grew up in Western New York State near several Amish communities. I ill always remember an Amish blacksmith asking me, “What are you moderns going to do when the electrons stop”?  I chuckled at the impossibility of such. However, over the years I think of that question as prophetic. We have been overtaken by the cult of technology considered identical with progress that we believe will last into infinity on a finite Planet.

Historian Lewis Mumford has argued that we may be nearing the end of a long epoch of several thousand years of living in what we call “civilization.” After centuries of forcefully taking power from individuals in small groups and centralizing it in an ever smaller class of elite people, we ended up with societies gone mad, nation-states convinced that its own continued power is the sole purpose of existence.[1]

Mumford described that “civilization” was constructed on a new organizational idea – a “megamachine” comprised totally of human parts to perform tasks on a colossal scale never before imagined.[2] Civilization saw the creation of a bureaucracy directed by a power complex of an authority figure (a king) with scribes and speedy messengers, which organized labor machines (masses of workers) to construct pyramids, irrigation systems, and huge grain storage systems among other structures, all enforced by a military. Its features were centralization of power, separation of people into classes and lifetime division of labor, slavery and forced labor, arbitrary inequality of wealth and privilege, and military power and war.[3] This has been the theme of Western society in which we have lost our ancient redeeming qualities of human scale, autonomy, diversity, and local participant community.

Mumford makes clear his bias that autonomy in small groups is a human archetype that has become repressed in deference to obedience to technology and bureaucracy. The creation of human urban civilization has brought about patterns of systematic violence and warfare previously unknown,[4] what Andrew Schmookler calls the “original sin” of civilization.[5] Joseph Conrad, in his 1899 novel Heart of Darkness, captured this ugly side of humans, depicting how “civilization” covers over the harsh realities of the cruel exploitation upon which it is built.[6]

Mumford described how unchecked “power punctuates the entire history of mankind with outbursts of collective paranoia and tribal delusions of grandeur mingled with malevolent suspicions, murderous hatreds, and atrociously inhumane acts”.[7] Mumford again: A personal over-concentration of power as an end in itself is suspect to the psychologist as an attempt to conceal inferiority, impotence, and anxiety. When this inferiority is combined with defensive inordinate ambitions, uncontrolled hostility and suspicion, and a loss of any sense of the subject’s own limitation, “delusions of grandeur” result, which is the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise.[8]

One of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists, David Bohm, has remarked that what relativity and quantum theory have in common is their understanding of the undivided wholeness of everything and every particle in the universe. This knowledge requires breaking our cognitive thought structure, which historically is based on a mechanistic order commonly expressed through what Bohm calls the (Rene) Cartesian grid or reductionism. As Bohm says, it is not easy to change this because our notions of order are so pervasive, they affect not only our thought processes, but our sense of ourselves, our feelings, our intuitions, our physical movement, and our relations with others and society, in fact with everything. Our problems originate in our thought, and as our thinking structures are rooted in mechanistic reduction and separation rather than the undivided whole, it is thought that is the problem.[9]

This is an astounding conclusion in our age of “reason.” Yet, we know the enlightenment period was lead by thinkers such as David Hume, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant, all of whom explicitly believed and taught that perfection was reserved for the “White Race”.[10] The same can be said for the constantly referred to US “Founding Fathers”.

The six primary European White imperialist powers in 1500 (France, Spain, Italy, British Isles, Portugal, and Netherlands), comprised less than 8 percent (about 40 million people) of the estimated world population. But they, in effect, launched a GLOBAL TERROR campaign through gruesome colonization, racism, brutal enslavement of human beings, and forcefully stealing Indigenous lands. This violent colonization nearly destroyed the ancient “Red” Indigenous cultures in the Western Hemisphere, and the Black Indigenous cultures of Africa, who together possessed a combined 25-40 percent (175-200 million) of the world’s population.[11]

From the beginning, European settlers of the New World organized irregular armed units to viciously attack and murder unarmed innocents (a.k.a. civilians)—Indigenous women, children, and elderly—using unlimited violent means, including outright massacres and the burning of towns and food stocks. The first two centuries of British colonization, the 1600s to 1800s, produced several generations of experienced “Indian fighters” (early version of “rangers”). Settlers, mostly farmers by trade, they waged battles totally independent of any formal military organization.[12]

The English knew that the slave trade was indispensable to “healthy” British economics. Because it was so essential for the success of capitalist enterprises, and the risks in the trade were large, investors in the slave trade insisted that each “legal” slave merchant be covered by underwriters who would make good for any “property” lost during the voyage.[13] Thus, millions of African people suffered the most unspeakable barbarities in ways that no White person can imagine, even to this day, committed by the hands of privileged European men who enjoyed the impunity that comes with elevated social status. This enforced savagery enabled White “development” (profits) of the lands violently stolen from the Indigenous.

This kind of beastly behavior, sooner or later, has inevitable blowback, despite the cocky arrogance and ignorance of its perpetrators. One might call this Karma, or morphing from a long era of entitlement to an era of inevitable consequences.  As an evolutionary species we may be on the verge of an epistemic break, leading to a radical rupture, or a punctuation of our long period of globalized (apparent) equilibrium, enforced by horrible exploitation of the many by a few. The 8 minute, 46 second video of Black citizen George Floyd’s torture/murder by White Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and his three accomplices that went viral around the US and the world. It revealed, viscerally, like no other, the painful and unspeakable history of 400 years of White supremacy inflicting degradation, deracement and invalidation of Indigenous and African Americans.

In February 29, 1968, President Johnson’s Kerner Report investigating the horrific Detroit riots of 1967, concluded that the US was “moving towards two societies, one Black, one White, separate and unequal. . . .” White racism and limited opportunities for black people were identified as major causes of the strife and rioting in urban ghettos. It spoke of the danger of large-scale violence, white retaliation, and ultimately of “the separation of the two communities in a garrison state,” if drastic steps were not taken to improve employment, housing, education, and welfare—steps that would require greatly increased taxes and expenditures.[14]

One of the first witnesses invited to appear before the Kerner Commission was Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, a distinguished and perceptive African-American scholar. Referring to the reports of earlier riot commissions, he said: “I read that report . . . of the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the report of the investigating committee of the Harlem riot of ’35, the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’43, the report of the McCone Commission on the Watts riot. I must again in candor say to you members of this commission—it is a kind of Alice in Wonderland—with the same analysis, the same recommendations, and the same inaction”.[15]

Cultural historians, philosophers, psychologists, essayists, and scientists caution us to seriously understand the past and its patterns. Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalytic scholars have concluded that in psychic life, nothing of what has been formed in the past ever disappears. Everything that has occurred is preserved in one way or another and, in fact, reappears under either favorable or unfavorable circumstances.[16] When impunity dominates history, justice as a permanent value in the history of humans ceases to exist. This psychopathology produces a sickness in the soul—of the individual, as well as of a nation—where nothing is real. Severe disturbances within the individual and collective psyche manifest in behavioral psychopathologies of huge magnitude. Everything becomes pretend, the lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[17]

Think of a spoiled child who has never been taught boundaries or been held to account for harmful behavior. Collective as well as individual narcissism can lead to extreme antisocial conduct. Security is experienced through individuality, and rigid adherence to individual and national economic, selfish privatization, but not social justice. The acquisitive habit settles into the inner life, preempting an authentic inquisitive and social mind. A social compact is destroyed in deference to privatization, creating anomie. Life is commodified. Disparity between the Haves and Have-Nots becomes extreme; today this is called neoliberal economics. History is negated, successfully concealing past traumas such as unspeakable genocides and deceitfully based wars.

While performing auxiliary duty as a USAF Combat Security officer, I documented the immediate aftermath of atrocities committed from the air that annihilated inhabited, undefended villages. I was shocked and sickened from the sight of hundreds of villagers lying dead and suffering horribly in their villages. I wondered who the fuck am I, a 6’ 3” White man, 9,000 miles from my rural farming village in New York State? These Vietnamese were in their home villages. Village life was the essence of Vietnamese culture and we were systematically destroying it. I felt depressingly unauthentic, with an artificial identity, protected by fake US American “exceptionalism”. Like a dumb ideological robot, I began to entertain the idea that being a privileged White man was in fact an emotional and intellectual disability. White male supremacy is a powerful force, as it enables a kind of mindless “sliding” through life, pre-empting the need to ask serious questions. I began to feel shame. I wondered whether our entire society had ever faced the important social feeling of shame that might have matured and enabled a more honest culture. My discovery of empathy began to radicalize me. I wondered whether we had become sadistic criminal psychopaths? Or have we always been?   Of course, later I discovered, to my naive dismay, that no, the US has never acknowledged shame for its foundation on two gruesome genocides, killing millions with impunity.

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically commits throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest”.[18] Without historical context, there is little capacity to critique the veracity of contemporary policies and rhetoric. So, it is believed, the US just couldn’t be involved in patterns of criminal interventions; our origins just couldn’t be built on forceful dispossession and genocides. “That is not the American way”, people insist. But the fact is that it is the American way. We simply don’t know about it and don’t want to know about it. Impunity has erased memory.

The current pandemic may be one of the nails in our heretofore illusory comfortable paradigm of enjoying White privilege at the expense of the vast majority of human beings in the world. It is now in confluence with a severe capitalist economic crisis, George Floyd’s viscerally provocative torture murder, the impending climate catastrophe, and revelation of our true cultural White supremacist character with the emergence of US President Donald Trump.

Something has to give, sooner rather than later. It will be our illusory exceptionalism, that has made us de facto stupid and obnoxiously arrogant.Centuries of unspeakable cultural behavior shielded by a fake identity has created eyes of wool. Ares the wool eyes finally gone, now? That White knee of Derek Chauvin is on all of our necks now.

*

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.

Brian Willson is a Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer. He has visited a number of countries examining the effects of US policy. He wrote a psychohistorical memoir, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson(PM Press, 2011), and in 2018 wrote Don’t Thank Me for my Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies (Clarity Press). He is featured in a 2016 documentary, Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson, and others in the Peace Movement, (Bo Boudart Productions). His web essays: brianwillson.com. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

[1] Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development(1966; New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967), 186.

[2] I learned about the “megamachine” when exposed to the ideas of cultural historian Lewis Mumford, who started critiquing civilization in the early 1920s. Among his works are two complementary books: The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power(1964; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970) and The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967). Mumford, born in 1895 in urban Flushing, New York, was a brilliant observer of the traumatic effects to humans and the earth of so-called civilization, and his thinking on the long view remains extremely illuminating.

[3] Mumford, Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development, 186.

[4] Ashley Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 43–53, 59–60; Ashley Montagu, ed., Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-Literate Societies(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); Jean Guilaine and Jean Zammit, The Origin of War: Violence in Prehistory, trans. Melanie Hersey (2001; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).

[5] Andrew B. Schmookler, Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds That Drive Us to War (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 303.

[6] Heart of Darkness, written by Polish-born English novelist Joseph Conrad (1857–1924), was originally published in 1899 as a three-part series in Blackwood’s Magazine(U.K.). It is considered one of the most-read works of the last hundred years, largely an autobiographical description of Conrad’s six-month journey in 1890 into the “Congo Free State”, at the time being plundered by Belgium. In fact, the story could apply to almost anyplace in the world where European nations, later the United States, plundered peoples for profits and material privileges without acknowledging the terrible, ugly consequences. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 movie Apocalypse Nowtranslates the “Heart of Darkness” to Viet Nam and Cambodia. Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost(New York: A Mariner Book, 1999) describes the diabolical exploitation of the Congo Free State by King Leopold II of Belgian between 1885 and 1908. Estimates of murdered Congolese in this period run as high as 13 million. Please don’t read this as if this is something that the United States or other European nations would not do, or have not done. Indeed, the U.S. and Europe are founded on these practices, all under the cover of “civilization.”

[7] Mumford, 1967, 204.

[8] Mumford, 1967, 218.

[9] Lee Nichol, ed., The Essential David Bohm(London: Routledge, 2003), 83–84, 306.

[10] Jmelle Bouie, “The Enlightenment’s Dark Side: How the Enlightenment created modern race thinking, and why we should confront it”, Slate, June 5, 2018; https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/taking-the-enlightenment-seriously-requires-talking-about-race.html

[11] D.E. Stannard, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World(New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 11; John D. Durland, “Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation”, Population and Development Review, 3:253-296, 259, 1977; C. Clark, Population Growth and Land Use, 2ndEd (New York: MacMillan Press, 1977), 82-89; Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History(New York: Facts on File, 1978), 49, 57, 101, and 103.

[12] Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States(Boston: Beacon Press, 2014), 58-60.

[13] George Francis Dow, Slave Ships and Slaving(New York: Dover Publications, 1970), xxxv.

[14] Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders(New York: Bantam Books, 1968).

[15] Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Clark Testimony, 1-29.

[16] Jon Mills, Origins: On the Genesis of Psychic Reality(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2010), 246.

[17] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society/; B. Paz Rojas, “Impunity and the Inner History of Life”, Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order,26(4), 1999.

[18] Harold Pinter, Various Voices: Prose, Poetry, Politics, 1948-1998 (New York: Grove Press, 1998, 237.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Inevitable, Fatal End of Globalization – Centuries of Obscene Entitlement Morphing into Unavoidable, Horrendous Consequences; New Beginnings?
  • Tags:

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact

By Makia Freeman, July 13, 2020

COVID assumptions – the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Congress Wants More Unnecessary Anti-China Weapons Programs in Annual Defense Bill

By Michael T. Klare, July 13, 2020

Cotton’s proposal, stuffed with lucrative giveaways to the defense industry — $1.6 billion for “logistics and security enablers,” $775 million for “building national resilience to space weather,” among others — bears little apparent relevance to the military equation in Asia and is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of Senators. However, many of his proposed budgetary add-ons have been incorporated into other measures aimed at boosting U.S. military might in the Asia-Pacific region.

75 Years Ago: When Szilard Tried to Halt Dropping Atomic Bombs Over Japan

By Greg Mitchell, July 13, 2020

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

As the Arctic Burns, Trump Bailouts Fossil Fuel Industry with Billions

By Andy Rowell, July 13, 2020

The Arctic is once again on fire. And the extremely warm temperatures in the region — and concurrent wildfires — are another urgent reminder that we need to divest from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

They are a pressing reminder that any post COVID-19 bailout should be focused on an immediate just recovery toward industry workers, renewables, and clean energy.

The UK Reading Stabbings: Al Qaeda LIFG Terrorists Supported by UK. Product of British Foreign Policy

By Tony Cartalucci, July 12, 2020

It should surprise no one paying attention that the suspect in the recent stabbing spree in Reading, UK was not only known to British security agencies as an extremist and security threat, but that he comes from the pool of extremists the British aided Washington in funding, arming, training, and providing air support for during the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government and have harbored before and ever since.

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

By Mike Whitney, July 12, 2020

Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

Iran and China Turbo-charge the New Silk Roads

By Pepe Escobar, July 12, 2020

Two of the US’s top “strategic threats” are getting closer and closer within the scope of the New Silk Roads – the leading 21st century project of economic integration across Eurasia. The Deep State will not be amused. 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi blasted as “lies”  a series of rumors about the “transparent roadmap” inbuilt in the evolving Iran-China strategic partnership.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Pentagon’s “Anti-China Weapons” and “The New Silk Roads”

The last four months have been an unending nightmare for the U.S. economy.  Businesses are shutting down at a pace that we have never seen before in American history, the “retail apocalypse” has reached an entirely new level that none of the experts were anticipating prior to this pandemic, and we are in the midst of the greatest spike in unemployment that the United States has ever experienced.  On Thursday, we learned that another 1.3 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week, and that number has now been above one million for 16 consecutive weeks.  Things were supposed to be “getting back to normal” by now, buy that hasn’t happened.  Instead, we continue to see a tsunami of job losses that is absolutely unprecedented in American history.

When we look back at the old peaks for unemployment claims, they almost seem laughable compared to what we are experiencing now…

The highest prior weekly total for new unemployment claims was 695,000, in October 1982, according to Labor Department data. During the Great Recession, the country’s last downturn, weekly claims peaked at 665,000, in March 2009.

For those that aren’t old enough to remember, the recession of the early 1980s and the recession of 2008 and 2009 were both really, really painful.

But of course they weren’t anything like this.

Sometimes it is hard to believe that the numbers have gotten so bad.  According to Wolf Richter, the number of continuing claims that were filed last week under all state and federal unemployment programs is the highest that we have ever seen…

The total number of people who continued to claim unemployment compensation in the week ended July 4 under all state and federal unemployment insurance programs, including gig workers, jumped by 1.41 million people, to 32.92 million (not seasonally adjusted), the Department of Labor reported this morning. It was the highest and most gut-wrenching level ever.

The number of people who continue to receive state unemployment insurance (blue columns) has been ticking down, as more people got their jobs back than newly unemployed flooded the state unemployment systems. But the number of people claiming federal unemployment insurance, including gig workers under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, continues to surge (red columns), which causes the total number of people claiming unemployment benefits under all programs to rise

Up to this point, the emergency measures that Congress put in place to help unemployed workers have definitely eased the pain for millions upon millions of people that have lost their jobs, but a number of those emergency measures are about to expire

Several benefits were developed in March to help ease the financial strains on Americans during the coronavirus pandemic. Those are set to come to an end before July 31, which could impact 20 million Americans, MarketWatch reports. The CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27 by President Donald Trump, provided benefits like enhanced unemployment payments to supplement lost income from layoffs. It also includes a clause to delay evictions for 120 days.

Of course Congress could choose to extend some or all of the elements in the CARES Act, but that would mean borrowing and spending more giant mountains of money that we do not currently have.

Meanwhile, we are seeing businesses fail at a rate that is absolutely staggering.

According to the Washington Post, more than 100,000 businesses have permanently closed their doors during this pandemic, and Bloomberg just posted an article about 110 major companies that have declared bankruptcy here in 2020…

Retailers, airlines, restaurants. But also sports leagues, a cannabis company and an archdiocese plagued by sex-abuse allegations. These are some of the more than 110 companies that declared bankruptcy in the U.S. this year and blamed Covid-19 in part for their demise.

Sadly, the bankruptcy announcements just keep on coming.

This week, we learned that Brooks Brothers has filed for bankruptcy protection

The coronavirus pandemic has now claimed one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious retailers.

Brooks Brothers — pioneer of the polo and uniform of the polished prepster — filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy court protection from creditors on Wednesday, as it continues to search for a buyer.

That hit me particularly hard, because I have had Brooks Brothers shirts in my closet ever since I was a young man.

They have always made great products, and I just assumed that they would always be around.

Of course lots of other iconic retailers are failing as well.  Before too long, naming the major retailers that are still operating successfully may be easier than trying to name the vast number of major retailers that have gone belly up.

Store closings are happening fast and furious these days, and that isn’t likely to change any time soon.  Starbucks just announced that they will be closing 400 locations, Dunkin’ Donuts just announced that they will be closing 450 locations, and Bed Bath & Beyond has increased the number of stores that they will be closing to approximately 200

Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) announced Wednesday that it plans to close roughly 200 stores in the next two years.

The retail chain — which also operates Buybuy Baby, Christmas Tree Shops and Harmon Face Values — said it would be mainly closing Bed Bath & Beyond stores, starting later this year. The announcement came as the company released its quarterly earnings report on Wednesday.

If you are still not convinced that the retail industry is facing an unprecedented cataclysm, I think that the following list will do the trick.

Forbes has been tracking the major store closing announcements of 2020, and their list was recently shared by Zero Hedge

Forbes’ Store Closure List In 2020

  • Chuck E Cheese: 54 U.S. stores (bankruptcy)
  • Destination Maternity: 90 stores (bankruptcy)
  • GNC: 1,200 stores (bankruptcy)
  • J. Crew: 54 stores (bankruptcy)
  • JCPenney JCP: 154 stores (bankruptcy)
  • K-Mart: 45 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Modell’s Sporting Goods: 153 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Neiman Marcus (Last Call): 20 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Papyrus: 254 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Pier 1 Imports PIR: 936 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Sears: 51 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Signet Jewelers SIG: 232 stores
  • Stage Stores: 738 stores (liquidating)
  • Tuesday Morning: 230 stores (bankruptcy)

***

  • AC Moore: 145 stores
  • Art Van Furniture: 190 stores
  • AT&T: 250 stores
  • Bath & Body Works: 50 stores
  • Bed Bath & Beyond: 44 stores
  • Bloomingdale’s: 1 store
  • Bose: 11 stores
  • Chico: 100 stores (estimated)
  • Children’s Place: 200 stores
  • Christopher Banks: 30-40 stores
  • CVS Pharmacy: 22 stores
  • Earth Fare: 50 stores
  • Express: 66 stories
  • Forever 21: 15 stores (estimated)
  • GameStop GME: 320 stores
  • Gap: 230 stores
  • Guess: 100 stores
  • Hallmark: 16 stores
  • Lord & Taylor: 30 or 40 stores
  • Lowe’s Canada: 34 stores
  • Lucky Market: 32 stores
  • Macy’s M: 125 stores (over 3 years)
  • Microsoft: 77 stores
  • New York & Co: 27 stores
  • Nordstrom: 16 stores
  • Office Depot: 90 stores
  • Olympia Sports: 76 stores
  • Party City: 21 stores
  • Starbucks SBUX: 400 stores (over 18 months)
  • Victoria’s Secret: 250 stores
  • Walgreen: 100 stores (estimated)
  • Walmart: 2 stores
  • Wilson Leather & G.H. Bass: 199 stores
  • Zara: 1,000 stores worldwide (over 2 years)

This week, the number of newly confirmed cases of COVID-19 has surged to the highest level that we have seen yet, and that means that fear of COVID-19 is going to continue to paralyze economic activity in the United States for the foreseeable future.

That means that many more businesses will be shutting their doors, there will be many more bankruptcies, and millions more Americans will be losing their jobs.

This is what an economic collapse looks like, and it is just getting started.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from TEC

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact

July 13th, 2020 by Makia Freeman

COVID assumptions – the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Assumption 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate

A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense. Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘official’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.

Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate

As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it is able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:

1. There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates);
2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
3. It generates many false positive results;
4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;
5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and
6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease!

In summary, the PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless:

“Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available. As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.

Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate

If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:

1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired;
2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
4. Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.

Hhmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?

Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising

Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this ‘virus’  (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it’s not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn’t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.

That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This article explains that the “discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.” Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted article states:

” … it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results. For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

“It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.” ”

Assumption 5: Thermal Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective

Taking people’s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level, taking people’s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!

In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).

Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease

One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people’s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life. However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!

WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):

““From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.””

CDC guidelines COVID assumptions

Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread

Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show that “among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years” which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at this link in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?

Assumption 8: It’s a Good Idea for Government to Take Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents

Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.”

Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March, that people would be removed from their families in a “safe and dignified” way. Ryan said:

“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.

How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?

Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:

“The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.”

Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:

“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”

Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease – which has not been proven.

Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is ‘respectful’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 109 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here’s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:

“The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”

Assumption 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses

The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes:
“Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.

In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:

  • Viruses are created from within your cells; they do not come from outside the body
  • They arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been invaded by an external threat
  • Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses, the human body couldn’t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity
  • Viruses are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do this with the assistance of antibodies
  • The more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have
  • The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to another
  • Viruses are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose. They are not indiscriminate killers
  • The RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)

Conclusion: Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions

The good news is that these are assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.

*

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.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

*https://www.bitchute.com/video/9GWhQ4v9H53E/

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_6ltv7oI

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fic2dlKlhw

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-19-umbrella-term-fake-pandemic-not-1-disease-cause/

*https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

*https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-antibody-tests-here-comes-more-trickery-fakery/

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/

*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/

*https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

*https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e4.htm

*https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html

*https://parentalrights.org/it-finally-happened-child-taken-due-to-covid-19/

*https://www.bitchute.com/video/CMPsWxDDTwMo/

*https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/09/newborns-and-coronavirus.aspx

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/

*https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/two-metre-social-distancing-rule-conjured-nowhere-professor-claims-12609448/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/unmasking-the-truth-masks-weaken-dont-protect-you/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/deep-down-virus-rabbit-hole-question-everything/

*https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Paper-Virus-Lanka-002.pdf

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWYQS3LFlE

All images in this article are from TFA

“Emergency Funding to Thwart Chinese Communist Party Military Aspirations and Protect the United States Defense Industrial Base.” That is the ungainly title of a measure introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton to boost U.S. military spending by $43 billion, on top of the $741 billion already requested by the Department of Defense for the year ahead.

Cotton’s proposal, stuffed with lucrative giveaways to the defense industry — $1.6 billion for “logistics and security enablers,” $775 million for “building national resilience to space weather,” among others — bears little apparent relevance to the military equation in Asia and is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of Senators. However, many of his proposed budgetary add-ons have been incorporated into other measures aimed at boosting U.S. military might in the Asia-Pacific region.

With President Trump and the Republicans blaming China for everything from the COVID-19 pandemic to declining American competitiveness, and Democrats eager to demonstrate their national security credentials, politicians from both parties are competing with one another to introduce multibillion-dollar initiatives like Cotton’s aimed at bolstering America’s China-oriented forces.

One of these, the proposed Pacific Deterrence Initiative, enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Introduced by Sens. Jim Inhofe and Jack Reed — the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — would accord the Pentagon additional funds to purchase more of the high-tech weaponry it is already destined to receive under the ballooning budgets of the Trump era.

Sen. James Inhofe questions U.S. Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 18, 2017. The hearing was held to consider Gen. SelvaÕs reappointment to the grade of general and as the Vice Chairman. (DoD Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. James K. McCann)

But even this largess, Inhofe and Reed argue, is not enough: additional appropriations are needed to ensure the effective utilization of all these new weapons and thereby “send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are committed to defending U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

SASC in turn voted in June to incorporate the Inhofe-Reed plan in its draft of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Under the committee’s version of the bill, $1.4 billion would be allocated for the Pacific Defense Initiative in FY 2021 and another $5.5 billion in FY 2022.

Not to be outdone, the House Armed Services Committee has come up with its own variant of the Inhofe-Reed plan, tactfully dubbed the Indo-Pacific Reassurance Initiative. As its title suggests, the House version places top priority on bolstering America’s links with close allies in the region; but it, too, emphasizes the enhancement of U.S. war-fighting capabilities there. An initial allocation of $3.6 billion is proposed for these purposes in FY 2021, with additional amounts to be added in coming years based on a future assessment of Pentagon requirements.

Underlying all of these initiatives is an assumption that the military threat posed by China has metastasized in recent years and that the U.S. military is not doing enough to counter the surging peril. But this assumption contradicts available data on U.S. and Chinese military capabilities, which shows the Chinese lagging behind this country in every key indicator of military prowess.

As China’s economy has grown, it has increased its investment in military modernization. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Chinese military expenditures rose by 5.1 percent in 2019, climbing from $253 to $261 billion (making it the world’s second-biggest military spender, after the U.S.). But America’s military spending is nearly three times greater that China’s and is rising at a faster rate: in the same year, American military expenditures rose by 5.3 percent, jumping from $695 to $732 billion. [5]

China is also replacing its older, Soviet-era ships and planes with more modern versions in a determined effort to match the more advanced capabilities of comparable American equipment. But the United States is hardly standing still: according to a June 2020 report by the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon plans to spend $1.8 trillion over the next several years to acquire major new weapons systems, including such massively costly programs as the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter (total estimated program cost: $390 billion); the Columbia Class Ballistic Missile Submarine ($105 billion), and the Gerald R. Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ($48 billion). Also included in this array of high-powered weaponry are new hypersonic missiles primarily intended for war with China, including the Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and the Air Force’s Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).

Look further into the documents the Pentagon submitted in support of its FY 2021 budget request of $741 billion, and it is evident that it is already devoting colossal amounts to the acquisition of weapons and supportive technology aimed at deterring and, if necessary, defeating China (or its great-power cousin, Russia) in all-out combat.

The Defense Department “continues to invest in advanced technologies that will help maintain tactical advantage, such as artificial intelligence, directed energy, and hypersonic weapons,” the Pentagon’s FY 2021 Budget Overview avows. “DoD’s FY 2021 research and development budget is the largest ever requested and is laser focused on the development of these crucial emerging technologies to expand our warfighting advantages over strategic competitors.”

Search item-by-item through the Pentagon’s budget request, and one is overwhelmed by the sheer multitude of programs devoted to new weapons development and the exploitation of advanced technologies. The FY 2021 request for procurement runs to 355 pages and incorporates many thousands of items; the separate research, development, test, and evaluation request is 242 pages long and packed with items like “Advanced Weapons Technology” and “Long Range Precision Fires Technology.” It is virtually impossible to find a proposed weapon or device that is not being allocated millions or billions of dollars.

One wonders, therefore, what additional capabilities Sens. Cotton, Inhofe, Reed, and others deem sufficiently vital to justify supplemental spending on top of the hundreds of billions already being spent on advanced weaponry to intimidate and, if necessary, defeat China. Look through their proposals, and all one finds are minor tweaks to what the Pentagon is already doing.

Both the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the Indo-Pacific Reassurance Initiative, for example, emphasize measures to ensure the rapid deployment of hypersonic weapons at bases in the western Pacific, where they would be in range of any Chinese warships operating in the area; both also favor an increased tempo of joint military exercises with U.S. allies in the region. But while the Defense Department would never turn down extra dollars for measures like these, it is already rushing the deployment of hypersonic weapons and maintains a busy schedule of joint exercises in the Pacific, like the forthcoming Rim of the Pacific 2020 exercise, scheduled for August 17-31 in waters off Hawaii.

Examined carefully, the various proposals for increased spending on China-oriented military programs will add precious little to the already formidable U.S. combat advantage in the Asia-Pacific region. If anything, they will provide fodder for hawks in Beijing who seek to boost China’s own spending on advanced weaponry — thereby precipitating a costly arms race in such munitions and possibly diluting America’s existing advantage.

If Senators Reed, Inhofe, and their colleagues in the House and Senate are truly concerned about U.S. combat effectiveness in Asia, they should be asking if all those myriad programs in the Pentagon’s FY 2021 budget request are truly necessary and if a leaner, less costly force might not serve U.S. security interests better.

*

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.

Unintended Consequences: Facemasks and Rising Crime in the US

July 13th, 2020 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

The recommended use of facemasks has been a controversial issue in the US and other countries around the world in whether they keep you safe or not. Scientific evidence suggests that facemasks are useless against viruses as Dr. Russell Blaylock who published an important article in early May ‘Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy’ on what facemasks can do to your health:

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia

Another point that Dr. Blaylock made is the following:

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung

What Dr. Blaylock found is absolutely disturbing. With that said, there is another major problem that does not have anything to do with health, unless of course you get shot or stabbed, is an increase in crime across the U.S. mainland which is becoming more out of control due to the use of facemasks which makes it that much more easier to commit a crime and get away with it. A report that was published in Newsweek magazine last May sheds light on what police officials are concerned about when it came to wearing facemasks in public ‘Increase in Criminal Use of Coronavirus Face Masks to Blend in While Committing Crimes, Police Warn’ about the rise of crime since facemasks were recommended by the CDC and other health agencies including the NIH and the WHO, “an increase in the use of surgical masks amid the novel coronavirus health crisis is proving to be a unique challenge for law enforcement nationwide.” That is now what police departments across the US are now facing.

The CDC and the WHO had recommended the use of facemasks to limit and prevent others from getting the coronavirus has not only made breathing harder for those who comply, it has made “life difficult for police tasked with identifying and apprehending crooks” warning that “criminals are taking advantage of the situation to blend in with the public.” And indeed they have, “Police say investigations involving the cheap and now-common item have spiked in recent weeks, popping up in armed robberies across the country.” The CDC has advised the public to wear facemasks if social distancing cannot to achieved “especially in grocery stores and pharmacies.” Newsweek mentioned Richard Bell, A police chief from Frackville, Pennsylvania who “told the Associated Press that he is aware of seven robberies in his own region in which every suspect was masked” and described “the virus outbreak as being a “perfect opportunity” for criminals.” FBI Special Agent Lisa MacNamara also weighed in on the facemask issue said that “In the past if you did a search warrant and you found surgical masks, that would be highly indicative of something [suspicious]. Now everybody has masks or latex gloves.” In a side note, I happen to find people who wear latex gloves or dish washing gloves (which I saw a couple of people wearing in NYC), goggles and visors along with their surgical facemasks, hilarious, I guess it gives people a false sense of security. MacNamara indicated that “several such crimes and reported a surge in the wearing of latex gloves has also resulted in fewer fingerprints left at crime scenes.” The New York Times began reporting such crimes as early as March ‘Coronavirus Bandits? 2 Armed Men in Surgical Masks Rob Racetrack’described what happened at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, N.Y.:

Three workers at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens were transporting hundreds of thousands in dollars in cash on Saturday night when they were accosted by two gunmen, the police said. The thieves made off with more than $200,000, aided in part by surgical masks they wore to conceal their identities

The NY Times also reported what happened in Chicago and in Atlanta, Georgia:

In January in Chicago, a local television news truck recorded a group of teenagers wearing surgical masks as they fled a smash-and-grab robbery of a Gucci store on Magnificent Mile. And last month, Georgia authorities said they were looking for a man who wore a surgical mask during robberies of six banks in the suburbs north of Atlanta

The use of facemasks led by the CDC and the World Health Organization has not only created a hazard for your personal health, it has made supermarkets, stores and average people more susceptible to violent crimes. With the US economy in freefall collapse with high-unemployment rates and poverty levels increasing by the day along with many businesses both small and large going bankrupt will contribute to an increase in crime not seen since the 1970′s. There is also the problem with billionaire backed movements such as Black Lives Matter who are making demands that the police should be defunded is a call for disaster especially in Democrat-run states where obtaining legal fire arms can be difficult for most businesses and law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, so at the end of the day, facemasks make it easier for criminals to win.

People who live in towns and cities across the US should thank the “experts” who lie about almost everything when it comes to Covid-19 like Dr. Anthony Fauci when they start to see a rise in violent crime including armed robberies and murder which will be far more dangerous than Covid-19 except of course if you are elderly and got serious underlying health issues.

The rise in crime is the product of decisions made by corrupt governmental officials who are bankrolled by major pharmaceutical corporations, bankers and billionaires who have specific interests to control and at the same time, profit from the people throughout the world with a tyrannical medical system in place. However, there is another angle we can look at. With an already militarized police state and a growing medical tyranny on the way with the potential to face a crime wave will force people to beg the government to protect them from the same criminals they opened the door to while the government continues to take away their freedoms. Either way, it seems that the US government and the criminals are winning and the citizens are losing the battle for the basic freedoms they once had.

*

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.

Featured image is from SCN

As this troubled summer rolls along, and the world begins to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the creation, and use, of the first atomic bombs, many special, or especially tragic, days will draw special attention.  They will include July 16 (first test of the weapon in New Mexico), August 6 (bomb dropped over Hiroshima) and August 9 (over Nagasaki). Surely far fewer in the media and elsewhere will mark another key date:July 3.

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

On July 3, he finished a petition to the new president for his fellow scientists to consider.  It called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities ” and asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”  Dozens of his fellow Manhattan Project scientists signed.

The following day he wrote this cover letter (see below).  The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief and overall director of the Manhattan Project, began a campaign to combat Szilard–including strong FBI surveillance–and remove him from the bomb project. Groves also made sure the petition never landed on Truman’s desk.  No action was ever taken on it, in any event.

The bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima on August 6, with almost no one close to Truman or in a high military position calling for him to delay or reconsider (General Dwight D. Eisenhower a prime exception).   For taking part in creating the bomb, and then failing to halt its use against people, Szilard would later proclaim that he might deserve the label, “war criminal.”

I have become rather fond of the mouthy, principled, Szilard as he came play a key role in my new book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.   It’s the story of how Truman and Groves sabotaged the first movie on the atomic bomb, from MGM, in 1946, transforming it from a warning against building more and bigger bomb into pro-bomb propaganda.  The film-makers managed to secure Szilard’s permission to be portrayed in the movie–but failed to mention his petition or opposition to the Truman’s use of the bomb.

Indeed, MGM was forced to make numerous key revisions under pressure from Truman and Groves, who had script approval, to endorse using the weapon against Japanese cities.

Leo Szilard | Turtledove | Fandom

Here’s the letter to his colleagues:

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

*

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.

Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, the latest The Beginning or the End:  How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (The New Press).  

Featured image is from Public Domain

The Arctic is once again on fire. And the extremely warm temperatures in the region — and concurrent wildfires — are another urgent reminder that we need to divest from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

They are a pressing reminder that any post COVID-19 bailout should be focused on an immediate just recovery toward industry workers, renewables, and clean energy.

However, the opposite is happening. New research shows that the Trump administration is giving billions in bailouts to the fossil fuel industry.

The news from the Arctic is deeply worrying. On Tuesday, scientists at the European Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that the unusually warm spell in the Arctic, which has seen record temperatures, continues.

They reported that

“global temperatures for June were on par with 2019’s record temperatures for the same month. But the most striking regional feature was exceptional warmth over Arctic Siberia, where average temperatures reached as high as 10°C above normal for June.”

They again reiterated that the Arctic “as a whole has been warming substantially faster than the rest of the world.” This heat has consequences, with fires burning across the region since last month.

“For the second year in a row, June saw widespread fires flaring up across the far northeast of Siberia and in the Arctic Circle,” said the scientists.

The fires are so bad they are beginning to make the news. Also this week, National Geographic reported that the

“heat has fueled an enormous outbreak of wildfires, including fires on tundra underpinned by permafrost — normally frigid soil that is likely becoming even less frozen this year.”

The journal noted that the recent spread of fires, which is normally too wet, cold, or icy to burn, is “raising alarms for ecologists and climate scientists” who fear that the fires could disrupt “entire ecosystems,” and “exacerbate global warming by burning deep into the soil and releasing carbon that has accumulated as frozen organic matter over hundreds of years.”

The scientists are alarmed at how far north the fires are burning and the fact that they are burning on permafrost — frozen ground — which in turn releases more carbon and methane into the atmosphere.

They are also alarmed at the scale of the fires. According to Russia’s forest fire agency, an estimated 3.4 million acres are burning.

The Washington Post adds that,

“the fires that have erupted in Siberia this summer have been massive, sending out plumes of smoke that have covered a swath of land spanning about 1,000 miles at times…Satellite observations of Arctic wildfires in June also showed that fires this year are emitting more greenhouse gases than the record Arctic fires in 2019.”

With the smoke comes pollution. In June, the fires released more polluting gases into the atmosphere than any other month in 18 years of data collection, according to scientists.

But alarming scientists the most is that everything is happening much faster and quicker than scientists had predicted. Jessica McCarty, a fire researcher at Miami University in Ohio, told National Geographic,

“when I went into fire science as an undergraduate student, if someone had told me I’d be studying fire regimes in Greenland and the Arctic, I would have laughed at them.”

Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said to the Post,

“We always expected the Arctic to change faster than the rest of the globe. But I don’t think anyone expected the changes to happen as fast as we are seeing them happen.”

His colleague, Merritt Turetsky, director of the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, added,

“when we develop a fever, it’s a sign. It’s a warning sign that something is wrong and we stop and we take note. Literally, the Arctic is on fire. It has a fever right now, and so it’s a good warning sign that we need to stop, take note and figure out what’s going on.”

The burning, melting, and warming Arctic is clearly a sign that something is wrong and we need to stop investing in fossil fuels now. It is a timely reminder that there should not be a big polluter bailout in any COVID-19 recovery plan. It is a reminder that we should be investing rapidly in renewables.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Yesterday, a joint investigation by Documented and the Guardian reported that

“over 5,600 fossil fuel companies have taken at least USD 3 billion in COVID-19 aid from the United States government.”

The paper reported that “the businesses include oil and gas drillers and coal mine operators, as well as refiners, pipeline companies and firms that provide services to the industry.” Worryingly, the USD 3 billion figure is probably “far less than the companies actually received,” noted the Guardian.

The Trump Administration is bailing out polluters as the warning signs from the Arctic get worse. It is clear that nobody should be bailing out the polluters when their profits are evaporating, when they are laying off workers and their pipelines cannot get built. We should not be propping up a dying industry.

Jesse Coleman, a researcher for Documented, told the Guardian,

“we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on an industry that’s in a tailspin of its own making, especially when it seems intent on bringing the whole planet down with it.”

*

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

Featured image is from copernicus.eu

This article was originally published on cleveland.com in November 2009, updated in January 2019.

Three American GIs who participated in March 1968 attack on “Pinkville” said in interviews released yesterday that their Army combat unit perpetrated, in the words of one, “Point-blank Murder” on the residents of the area.

“The whole thing was so deliberate. It was point-blank murder and I was standing there watching it,” said Sgt. Michael Bernhardt, 23, now completing his Army tour at an East Coast base.

Bernhardt was a member of one of three platoons of an 11th Infantry Brigade company, under command of Capt. Ernest Medina, that entered the Viet Cong-dominated area of Pinkville on March 16, 1968, while on a search-and-destroy mission. Pinkville, a complex of hamlets know as Song My village, is about six miles northeast of Quang Ngai in northern South Vietnam.

THE ARMY HAS CHARGED Lt. William L. Calley Jr., 26, a platoon leader, with the murder of 109 South Vietnamese civilians in the attack. A squad leader in Calley’s platoon, Sgt. David Mitchell, 29, is charged with assault with intent to murder.

At least four other men, including Medina, are known to be under investigation. Calley and his lawyer, George W. Latimer, contend that Calley was under orders to clear the area.”

Bernhardt, interviewed at this duty station, said he had been delayed and fell slightly behind the company. Led by Calley’s platoon, as it entered the village area.

“I walked up and saw these guys doing strange things…’Setting fire to the hootches and huts and waiting for people to come out and then shooting them… going into the hootches and shooting them up…gathering people in groups and shooting them.’

AS I WALKED IN YOU COULD SEE piles of people all through the village… all over. They were gathered up into large groups.

“I saw them shoot an M79 (grenade launcher) into a group of people who were still alive. But it was mostly done with a machine gun. They were shooting women and children just like anybody else.”

“We met no resistance and I only saw three captured weapons. We had no casualties. It was just like any other Vietnamese village-old Papa-Sans, women and kids. As a matter of fact, I don’t remember seeing one military-age male in the entire place, dead or alive.”

(An Army communique reporting on the operation said Medina’s company recovered “two M1 rifles, a cabine, a short-wave radio-and enemy documents” in the assault; 128 Viet Cong were reported killed; there was no mention on civilian casualties.)

Interviewed at his home, Michael Terry, 22, of Orem, Utah, a former member of Medina’s C platoon, and now a sophomore at Brigham Young University, said he, too, came upon the scene moments after the carnage began.

“They just marched through shooting everybody. Seems lie no one said anything. They just started pulling people out and shooting them.”

At one point, he said, about 20 to 30 villagers were lined up in front of a ditch and shot.

“They had them in a group standing over a ditch-just like a Nazi-type thing-one officer ordered a kid to machine gun everybody down, but the kid just couldn’t do it. He threw the machine gun down and the officer picked it up…”

“I DON’T REMEMBER SEEING any men in the ditch,” Terry said, “mostly women and kids.” Later, Terry said he noticed “some of them were still breathing… they were pretty badly shot up. They weren’t going to get any medical help, and so we shot them. Shot maybe five of them…”

Why did it happen?

“I think that probably the officers did not really know if they were ordered to kill the villagers or not…a lot of guys feel that they (the South Vietnamese civilians) aren’t human beings… we just treated them like animals.”

What happened at Pinkville, Terry said, “never happened to us before and never happened again.”

Only one officer, not from Medina’s company, tried to halt the shootings. Terry and Bernhardt both reported that this man was a helicopter pilot from an aviation support unit who landed in the midst of the incident. The officer warned he would report the shootings. Next day, he was killed in action and the subsequent investigation launched by officials of the 11th Brigade was dropped after 1 1/2 days because of “insufficient evidence.”

THE THIRD WITNESS TO THE shootings cannot be named. Still on active duty on the West Coast, he corroborated in detail the Bernhardt and Terry descriptions.

“I was shooting pigs and a chicken while the others were shooting people” he said. “It isn’t just a nightmare. I’m completely aware of how real this was.”

Bernhardt, Terry and many others contributed information contained in a three-page letter that a former GI, Ronald Ridenhour, sent in late March to the Army and 30 other officials -including many senators -outlining details of the Pinkville incident as he understood them. It was Ridenhour’s persistence that prompted the Army to begin its highlevel investigation in April.

Ridenhour, now a student at Claremount (Cali.) Men’s College, was-not in Medina’ company and did not participate in the shootings.

Calley’s lawyer declined comment on the new charges brought out in the interviews. But another source, discussing Calley’s position said “nobody’s put the finger yet on the man who started it.” The source also said he understood that Calley and other officers in the company initially resisted the orders, but eventually did their job.

BERNHARDT SAID HE HAD NO IDEA precisely how many villagers were shot that day but an official body count “was about 300 or something.” He had heard of other death counts ranging from 170 to more than 700. Peasants have said 567 were slain.

Why did the men run amok?

“It’s my belief,” the sergeant said, “that the company was conditioned to do this. This treatment was lousy… we were always out in the bushes. I think they were expecting them (the Viet Cong) to use the people as hostages.”

A few days before the mission, he said, the men’s general contempt for Vietnamese civilians had increased when some GIs walked into a land mine, injuring nearly 20 and killing at least one member of the company.

WHY DIDN’T HE REPORT THE ATROCITY at the time?

“After it was all over, some colonel came down to the fire base where we were stationed and asked about it, but we heard no further. Later they (Medina and some other officers) called me over to the command post and asked me not to write my congressman.”

Bernhardt said roughly 90% of the 60 to 70 men in the shorthanded company were involved in the shootings. He took no part, he said. “I only shoot at people who shoot at me.”

“The Army ordered me not to talk,” Bernhardt said. “But there are some orders that I have to personally decide whether to obey -I have my own conscience to consider.”

“When I testified during Calley’s hearing (an Article 32 proceeding at Fort Benning, Ga.) they asked me if I thought the deaths could have been caused by artillery or crossfire. I asked them if they had ever seen artillery or crossfire leave the dead neatly stacked up in piles.”

BERNHARDT SAID THE ARMY must have known at high levels just what did happen at Pinkville. “They’ve got pictures.” He said the photographs were shown him during the Article 32 proceeding which concluded that the charges against Calley were justified.

***

WARNING: This video is powerful. It contains very graphic interviews of the victims and perpetrators of violent atrocities. It also includes graphic photos of victims and butchered corpses. “Produced by Kevin Sim and Michael Bilton of England’s Yorkshire Television. Broadcast by FRONTL in 1989.

*

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: Photo by United States Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle on March 16, 1968 in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. (Wikipedia)

Some might ask why India is in complete lockstep with global lockdown despite the very low COVID19-related mortality figures for 1.3 billion people. Following this introduction is a two-hour interview with investigative journalist Kapil Bajaj. It focuses on the Public Health Foundation of India and how the Gates Foundation-pharma cabal bought influence, embedded itself within government machinery and is determining India’s lockdown and public health policy. According to Bajaj, it has effectively privatised and taken over the state’s public health agenda.  

In India, tens of millions are in danger of acute hunger and starvation. Lockdown has caused massive population displacement, probably the biggest since independence as millions of migrant workers returned to their villages, and has devastated livelihoods, especially among the poorest sections of society.

Even with the inflated COVID-related global death figures we see, those figures could be massively outstripped by the impacts of lockdown.

A study published in the Lancet in May predicted that globally possibly an additional 6,000 children could die every day from preventable causes over the next six months as the response to COVID-19 continues to weaken health systems and disrupt routine services. Based on the worst of three scenarios in 118 low- and middle-income countries, the analysis estimates that an additional 1.2 million under-five deaths could occur in just six months due to reductions in routine health service coverage levels and an increase in child wasting.

These potential child deaths will be in addition to the 2.5 million children who already die before their 5th birthday every six months in the 118 countries included in the study. Some 56,700 more maternal deaths could also occur in just six months.

The study warns that in the least severe scenario, there would be a 9.8 per cent increase in under-five child deaths, or an estimated 1,400 a day, and an 8.3 per cent increase in maternal deaths. In the worst-case scenario, where health interventions are reduced by around 45 per cent, there could be as much as a 44.7 per cent increase in under-five child deaths and a 38.6 per cent increase in maternal deaths per month. If routine health care is disrupted and access to food is decreased, the increase in child and maternal deaths will be devastating.

India is listed as one of the 10 countries that could potentially have the largest number of additional child deaths. With this in mind, Pratyush Singh (researcher specialising in social medicine and community health) writes on The Wire website:

“India has the largest number of TB deaths in the world with more than 1200 people dying every day. As more TB patients find it difficult to get tested or access medicine this figure is almost certainly increasing… The list of diseases killing and disabling people is very long in India and every day that it ignores them, more and more are dying. The possibility of how the coronavirus phenomenon is killing more people than the infection itself is worth considering.”

He says that more than 200,000 new patients of end-stage renal disease are added every year, which incrementally adds to more than 30 million dialysis episodes per year. It is worth considering that a dialysis centre is least 50 kilometres away for almost 60 per cent of Indians. Singh says that as most kidney patients in India depend on haemodialysis that might require as many as five sessions per week, their travails during the lockdown are apparent.

In India, severe diarrhoea is responsible for the deaths of one in four neonatal children in India. Again, Singh notes that timely hospitalised care is the only safety net for an undernourished infant.

Singh provides a damning indictment (“delinquent neglect”) of India’s (increasingly privatised) healthcare system which prior to lockdown was for many already difficult to access and woefully neglected in terms of public spending. He notes that India has the highest under-five mortality rate in the world, which means that more than 3,000 families lose their children under the age of five every day:

“Close to 30,000 mothers die due to pregnancy-related issues in 2017 as per UNICEF data and Indian government estimates show that only 21% of expecting mothers receive complete antenatal care.”

Singh concludes:

“More children will die of starvation and lack of healthcare than from the coronavirus infection. Please remember that the first Comprehensive National Nutritional Survey (2016-18) in the country reported that less than 7% of the country’s children under the age of two receive the global minimum acceptable diet.”

Now that pressure is building to fully open up economies, Bill Gates, the WHO and strategically co-opted figures are shouting about the coming of the ‘second wave’. Have no doubt, they will try to keep this pot boiling.

Click link to the video interview with Kapil Bajaj’s entitled Globalist Takeover of India’s Public Health System

*

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 Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19, Hunger and Starvation in India. Globalist Takeover of India’s Public Health Policy
  • Tags: , ,

War pretext incidents. First published by SCF and Global Research in July 2017. Today July 11, 2020. 25 years ago Srebrenica, July 11, 1995

Featured image: Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

General Carlos Martins Branco is one of the most fascinating (and until quite recently also inaccessible) actors in the Srebrenica controversy. From his Zagreb vantage point as deputy head of the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) between 1994 and 1996, during the latter phase of the 1990s Yugoslav conflict as it unfolded in Croatia and Bosnian and Herzegovina, this Portuguese officer had privileged access to significant information. Confidential reports about the goings on in the field were crossing his desk. With first-hand information and further enlightened by discrete conversations with colleagues from various intelligence structures, Martins Branco was positioned ideally to learn facts which many officials would have preferred to cover up, and the media frequently ignored.

General Carlos Martins Branco (Source: Novosti.rs)

With a typically Latin emotional flair, refusing to remain silent as the “Srebrenica genocide narrative” was taking shape in the second half of the 1990s, Martins Branco published in 1998 an article provocatively entitled “Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eyewitness Account of a Former UN Military Observer in Bosnia” In that early plunge into the toxic Srebrenica debate, Martins Branco ventured a number of critical questions concerning the notorious events in July 1995:

“One may agree or disagree with my political analysis, but one really ought to read the account of how Srebrenica fell, who are the victims whose bodies have been found so far, and why the author believes that the Serbs wanted to conquer Srebrenica and make the Bosnian Muslims flee, rather than having any intentions of butchering them. The comparison Srebrenica vs. Krajina, as well as the related media reaction by the ‘free press’ in the West, is also rather instructive”.

Shortly after that expression of skepticism about the nature of the disputed events in Srebrenica, Martins Branco practically disappeared from view. Not physically, of course. He spent several years in Florence teaching at the European University Institute and preparing his doctoral dissertation. After that, in 2007 and 2008 he was attached by his government to NATO forces in Afghanistan in the capacity of media spokesperson for the Commander. From 2008 until recently, when he retired, General Martins Branco served as deputy director of the National Defense Institute of the Portuguese armed forces.

This impressive background, to which we may add the duty of head of the Intelligence Affairs Section of EUROFOR for Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo from 1996 to 1999, bespeaks an elite and highly trained staff officer, with first-class intelligence capabilities and powers of observation.

Intrigued by Martins Branco’s out-of-the-box analysis of Srebrenica events, shortly after the founding of our NGO “Srebrenica Historical Project” we attempted to establish communication with him to see if he would share with us some of his exceptional information and insights. Our efforts were fruitless and correspondence with the general over the years came down mostly to an exchange of non-committal courtesies.

Defense teams at the ICTY in the Hague, which endeavored to obtain him as a witness on their clients’ behalf, had no better luck. However, not very long ago General Martins Branco wrote to us seeking answers to some questions concerning Srebrenica. He mentioned that in November 2016 his memoirs were published in Portugal. That volume, which he kindly made available to us, encompassed the period of his service in the Balkans. It was entitled “A Guerra nos Balcãs, jihadismo, geopolítica e desinformação” [War in the Balkans, Jihadism, Geopolitics, and Disinformation], published by Edições Colibri in Lisbon.

As already seen numerous times with high-level officials, in this case as well open expression of intimate views and public disclosure of facts regarded of a delicate nature had to wait for retirement. In General Martins  Branco’s case, the wait was worthwhile. These fascinating recollections from the Balkan war theater consist of the insights of a Portuguese officer attached to UN forces into such episodes as the merciless expulsion, accompanied by mass killing, of the Serbian population of Krajina by Croatian forces. These outrages were orchestrated with the discrete backing of the NATO alliance, for which the author indirectly happened to be working at the time. Events surrounding Srebrenica in July 0f 1995 encompass another portion of his recollections. For the moment, we will focus on the latter and Martins Branco’s perception of the background and impact of the Srebrenica situation.

Already in his introduction to the chapters of his memoirs that deal with Srebrenica, Martins Branco questions the coherence of the prevalent view that it constituted genocide:

General Ratko Mladic had made it known that he was leaving open a corridor for withdrawal toward Tuzla. With Mladic’s approval, about 6.000 persons took advantage of that opportunity. In a report by the Dutch Foreign Ministry it is noted that, according to UN sources, by August 4 a total of 35.632 displaced persons had made it to Tuzla, of whom between 800 and 1.000 were members of Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces. Out of that total, 17.500 had been evacuated by bus”. (Page 195)

The Portuguese general then continues:

“Srebrenica was portrayed – and continues to be – as a premeditated massacre of innocent Muslim civilians. As a genocide! But was it really so? A more careful and informed assessment of those events leads me to doubt it”. (Page 196)

Martins Branco goes on to raise some pointed questions, and he does so purely in the capacity of a professional soldier:

“There are various estimates of the relative strength of forces involved in the Srebrenica battle. On the Serbian side, at most 3.000 fighters could have taken part. The number of armored vehicles is more difficult to determine, as stated at the beginning of this chapter. According to field reports, however, not more than six such vehicles were in motion at any given time. Though we lack reliable information about troop strength on the Muslim side, it is entirely probable that they numbered a minimum of 4.000 armed men, counting together Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina soldiers and members of the paramilitaries. According to some sources, they numbered up to 6.000. But for the purposes of this analysis, we will consider the 4.000 figure as credible”. (Page 196)

The general then goes on:

“The topographical features of the terrain around Srebrenica, and Eastern Bosnia as a whole, are extremely rugged and hilly. Crags, thickly forested areas, and deep ravines impede the movement of military vehicles while facilitating infantry operations. In relation to ground features, which beyond any doubt favor defenders, the numerical relationship of forces on the opposing sides suggests that Bosnian army troops had at their disposal more than sufficient manpower to put up a defense. They, however, failed to do that. Taking into account the numerical ratio of attackers to defenders, as we were taught at the military academy, for the attack to have any chance of success the number of attackers would have to exceed that of the defenders by a factor of at least three. In the case at hand, that ratio was more than advantageous to the defenders (4.000 defenders versus 3.000 attackers). In addition, the defenders had the additional benefit of knowing the landscape”. (Page 196)

Martins Branco then asks one of the key Srebrenica questions:

“Given that military advantage favored the defense, why did the Bosnian army fail to put up any resistance to Serbian forces? Why did the command of the 28th Division of the Bosnian army – acting apparently contrary to its interest – fail to establish a defense line, as at other times it knew well how to do, as for instance during the April 1993 crisis? Why did Muslim forces in the enclave fail to act to regain control over their heavy weapons, which had been deposited in a local warehouse under UN’s lock and key? Was it no more than an oversight?” (Page 197)

A Dutch YPR-765 as used at Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

As a supplement to these well-formulated questions, we may note that already on July 6, as the Serbian attack was commencing, the Dutch battalion command in Srebrenica let it be known to the 28th Division that it was free to retrieve its warehoused heavy armaments, if it so wished. That fact was revealed in the Dutch battalion “Debriefing”, which came out in October of 1995. However, Muslim forces in Srebrenica inexplicably ignored this invitation, thus reinforcing the impression that – for political or other reasons – they lacked the purpose of militarily resisting the Serbian attack.

Which leads the author to the following reflections:

“Twenty years later, we still lack satisfactory answers to questions that seem crucial, assuming that we are seeking to find out what exactly happened. The passivity and absence of a military reaction on the part of Muslim forces in the enclave is in stark contrast to their offensive behavior during the preceding two years, which was manifested in the form of systematic slaughter of Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding Srebrenica”. (Page 197)

The author then discloses an intriguing detail that was previously unknown even to this reviewer:

Ramiz Becirevic [in command of the 28th Division in Naser Oric’s absence] initially issued an order for the heavy weapons to be collected. However, he cancelled it shortly thereafter, explaining that he had received a countermanding order. Who was the source of that order, and for what reason was it given? For the record, let it be noted that in the morning of July 6, as the Serbian attack was starting, acting on his own responsibility, the Dutchbat commander informed the leadership of the Bosnian army that the Serbs had ‘trespassed’ the enclave’s boundaries and that the UN would not be object should they come to retrieve their heavy weaponry that had been deposited in a local warehouse”. (Page 197)

Pressing further his point about the enigmatic dissipation within the Srebrenica enclave of the will to resist, Martins Branco points out that Naser Oric, “the charismatic leader who very likely would have acted differently”, was withdrawn from the enclave in April of 1995, never to return. He therefore goes on to ask some common sense questions:

“Was [Oric’s] return prevented by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, of which 28th Division was part? What could have been the reasons for that? We still lack convincing answers to these questions”. (Page 198)

“On the other hand”, the Portuguese author continues with his detailed analysis of the suspicious train of events,

“officials of the local SDA, the Party of Democratic Action that was in charge in Sarajevo, not only refused, citing strange reasons, to assist UN forces in evacuating Srebrenica, which is to say their own population and refugees from the surrounding villages who had taken shelter in the town, but they went even further by preventing them from fleeing in the direction of Potocari. Instead, they submitted to the commander of B Company [of the Dutchbat] a long list of demands, the fulfillment of which was insisted upon as the condition for their cooperation. The nature of these demands suggested the existence of a carefully elaborated advance plan which, however, did not mesh with the conditions that actually prevailed on the ground at that particular moment. At that point, there were only two issues which were of significance to the municipal president: one, the demand to the Military Observers on July 10 to disseminate to the outside world a report alleging the use of chemical weapons by Serbian forces, although that was not true; secondly, to publicly accuse the international media of spreading misinformation that Muslim forces were offering armed resistance, with an additional demand to the UN to also issue an official denial to that effect. According to him, Bosnian soldiers neither used heavy weapons, nor were they prepared to ever do so. At the same time, he complained about the lack of foodstuffs and the dismal humanitarian situation. The outline of an official narrative was becoming perceptible and it consisted of two messages: the absence of any military resistance and lack of food”. (Page 198)

To put it in plain English, this elite NATO officer with excellent powers of observation and acumen for critical analysis “smelled a rat,” and he did so right from the beginning of the game. He does not say it outright in his memoirs, but it is strongly suggested that these doubts about the authenticity of the official Srebrenica narrative were proliferating in his mind in real time, as field reports accumulated on his desk in Zagreb.

Headquarters in Potočari for soldiers under United Nations command; “Dutchbat” had 370[11] soldiers in Srebrenica during the massacre. The building was a disused battery factory (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Martins Branco then pops the logical question or, rather, he points his finger at one of the key incoherencies of the official account of Srebrenica events:

“A question mark could also be put over the complete absence of a military response of any kind by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, whose zone of responsibility encompassed northeastern Bosnia, including Tuzla (where its headquarters was located), as well as Doboj, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, Zepa, and Zvornik. Bosnian army intelligence agencies, whose ear was constantly fixed on Serbian signal communications, were perfectly aware of the impending offensive operation. In spite of not at all being in the dark concerning the Serbs’ intention to attack, the Second Corps of the Bosnian army did not make the slightest move to weaken the Serbs’ pressure upon the enclave. It was a known fact that the Drina Corps, the Serbian army unit in whose zone of responsibility Srebrenica was located, was exhausted and that the attack on Srebrenica was made feasible only by scraping together forces withdrawn from other segments of the front, which naturally left in its wake many vulnerable points. Why didn’t the Second Corps undertake an attack along the entire front line with the Drina Corps, not merely in order to relieve the pressure on Srebrenica but also to exploit the Serbian forces’ temporary vulnerabilities in order to seize territory in areas that were left unprotected? Following the passage of twenty years, we still do not have the answer to this more than coherent and reasonable question”. (Pages 198-199)

These are just some of the more important reasons leading a professional soldier to be skeptical of the general framework of the accepted Srebrenica narrative. As we will see in the next installment of this review, his more detailed analysis raises even more troubling questions.

To be continued.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on War in the Balkans, Srebrenica: The Memoirs of a Portuguese Peacekeeper

On a recent hiking trip I took along Margaret MacMillan’s pre World War I history, “The War That Ended Peace – The Road to 1914” (Penguin Canada, 2013).  It is a well written history that I have read before – and may have formally reviewed although that is not of consequence now.  It is a book I highly recommend as it flows smoothly and delves into the personalities and mindsets of the various people involved in making the fatal decisions leading up to the war.

What struck me on this second reading was my own comparison of that era to our current global situation.  Obviously there are differences: the technology of war, the communications, the armaments are vastly more powerful and faster than before; the global political scene has shifted from a bunch of empires thrashing out their spheres of influence to one empire attempting to retain hegemony while other polarities rise; and the center of the conflict’s origins has shifted somewhat from the Balkans/Ottoman interface to its close southern neighbour, the Arab states and Israel and Iran (all of which were also involved in the first mess, but not central to it).  A future conflict could arise elsewhere with the U.S. belligerence chasing around the world, but the Middle East is probably the most serious contender with all its oil, the petrodollar, and Christian Zionism focussing into that region.

The comparison of similarities has more to do with global mindsets rather than the details of specific events.  The first phrase that struck me was,

“The old liberal parties which stood for free markets, the rule of law, and human rights for all were losing ground to socialist parties on the left, and increasingly chauvinistic parties on the right.  A new breed of politicians was going outside established parliamentary institutions to appeal to  popular fears and prejudices and their populism, especially among the nationalist parties….[p. 266]”

Now, truly understood, free markets, rule of law, and human rights for all are not all that they seem to be as they mask many attributes of imperial desires – but that was just as true then as it is today.  The specifics that jumped to mind are Trump in all his aspects, Boris Johnson and Brexit (and probably more domestic shenanigans that I have not followed), and many of the east European nations falling under the veil of NATO, with Poland in particular fawning to the empire’s desires.  Ukraine has gone to the nationlist party neonazi side of things with great support from Canada and the U.S.  The key here is the U.S. with Trump’s all too transparent manipulations of his adherents and his pushing off and denial of anyone who upsets his delicate ego.

Speaking of the U.S, the next phrase that caught my attention in the general sense concerned the military,

“Militarism, the arms race, an aggressive foreign policy, and imperialism were all seen as interrelated evils which needed to be tackled if there were to be lasting peace.[p. 297]”

Just as it was true then, the statement also provides a clear representation of what the “peace movement” holds true today.  The unfortunate aspect of this is the seeming lack of an actual peace movement today – its last gasp did nothing to prevent the lies of business, politicians, and militarists (corporate and government) from invading Iraq, and on into Libya and Syria.

A major part of today’s militarism is the navy.  In its day Britannia ruled the waves,

“…[claiming] British sea power had always been a benevolent force for peace and progress, it is perhaps not surprising that the reaction from the Continent was one of cynicism and hostility.[p. 303]”

Today, the U.S. navy claims the same thing, bringing peace and progress via its aircraft carrier task forces to such hot spots as the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea, and the Korean peninsula (among many other areas needing U.S. protection for its corporations and petrodollar).  Like all gunboat diplomacy it deserves all the cynicism and hostility able to be directed at it without actually triggering the next war – and as I write that, it too was one of the crucial elements of pre World War I, trying not to trigger a war, but also wanting one if they thought they could make it look like the other guy’s fault.

But it goes beyond the gunboats and back to militarism in general,

“While the military and their plans did not by themselves cause the Great War, their infatuation with the offensive and their acceptance of war as both necessary and inevitable made them put pressure on those making the decisions…The military advice almost invariably tended towards war…the military drew up plans which turned out to limit…the choices before the decision makers.[p.376]”

From the discussions I have read about U.S. war plans and war intentions, this all seems true today as well, whether it be Wolfowitz’s plans for first use nuclear strike or Bolton’s recent efforts to entice Iran or Russia or China into making a mistake that the U.S. media can turn into a reason to attack.  Fortunately, at least to some very small degree, these very countries are tending to focus on highly advanced defensive technologies as well as nuclear retaliatory capabilities that make a first strike a global suicide.

The media and public opinion also enter into the similarities, although the text does not delve into them in any great detail.  Then as now, ‘public opinion’ is shaped to a large degree by the media, and the media in turn is generally shaped by those in power, either directly in control of the media, or by issuing statements intended to deceive and mislead the public and to stir up the necessary component of domestic nationalism.  While it starts with ignorance,

“Too often, the civilians did not know, or did not care to inform themselves, about what the military was planning….[p. 324]”

It leads to “gusts of fear and heightened nationalism that ran through their own publics, and the lobby and special interest groups grew increasingly skilled in stirring up opinion.[p. 504]”

This is so true today with the media controlled by a few corporate owners and the psychology of mass misrepresentation well studied and very effective.

Finally, on a lesser note, at least for the historical record, MacMillan mentions in passing signals from the domestic local financial situation: stock market jitters, bank runs (no digital economy back then, real dollars counted), and hoarding of supplies (toilet paper anyone?  Okay, a different topic, but it still speaks of mass delusion.)

Are times really much different?  Technologically yes, but human nature remains the same, people are readily manipulated by the powers that be in order to find some other villain, rather than find fault with themselves, for the brinkmanship that could lead us to a third and final conflagration globally.  There are enough similarities in the current political mindset of nations that we need to remind ourselves, educate ourselves, to the knowledge that militarism, corporate greed, and media manipulations keep the world on the brink of disaster.

Margaret MacMillan’s other work on World War I, “Paris 1919 – Six Months That Changed the World” (Random House, 2003) is an excellent followup to this volume and details how the politicians turned away from liberal democracy in order to revive or retain their empires, a new colonialism under League of Nations mandates.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: The War that Ended Peace, The Road to 1914

Big Lies and deception about what happened in Srebrenica a generation ago were part of the 1990s rape of Yugoslavia by the Clinton co-presidency and NATO killing machine.

Events of that time were and remain one of history’s great crimes — killing a nation to advance America’s imperial aims, a scorched earth policy to transform all countries into US vassal states, along with gaining control of their resources and populations.

The official narrative of what happened in Srebrenica reinvented reality — a longstanding US-led Western specialty.

Big Lies and deception suppressed truth and full disclosure. Repeated by establishment media, most people to this day are none the wiser.

Events of the 90s culminated in all-out preemptive war on Yugoslavia from March 24 – June 10, 1999 — 78 days of US-led terror-bombing.

Like all wars, what happened was based on Big Lies and deception.

So-called Operation Noble Anvil was an act of infamy against the former Yugoslavia and its people.

Claims about wanting to counter Slobodan Milosevic’s aim for a “Greater Serbia” were falsified.

US aims were and remain all about wanting the country balkanized for easier control, its legitimate leadership replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

Milosevic wanted Yugoslavia’s disintegration prevented. He wanted minority Serbs protected. He wanted peace, stability, and cooperative relations with the West, not war.

US-led aggression replaced Yugoslavia’s market socialism with pro-Western neoliberal harshness, its people exploited, not served.

In February 1999, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement was prelude to war — an ultimatum no responsible leader could accept.

Designed for rejection, it was an unacceptable take-it-or-leave-it demand.

It effectively ordered Milosevic to surrender Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) sovereignty to a NATO occupation force.

It demanded unimpeded access to its land, airspace and territorial waters, as well as any area or facility therein.

It required the FRY to let NATO freely operate outside federal law. Demanding it was outrageous. Milosevic’s justifiable refusal became a pretext for US-led aggression.

At the time, nobel laureate Harold Pinter denounced the rape of Yugoslavia.

Mincing no words, he called US-led terror-bombing and dismemberment of the state “barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power, using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.”

For 78 days, around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties.

Thousands of tons of ordnance were dropped, as well as hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles.

Its ferocity was unprecedented to that time — military and non-military sites struck.

Targets included power plants, factories, telecommunication and transportation facilities, roads, bridges and rail lines, fuel depots,  schools, a TV station, China’s Belgrade embassy, hospitals, government offices, religious sites, historic landmarks and more.

Throughout the country, terror-bombing raped and destroyed most everything of value, countless numbers of civilians massacred.

An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted — the toll much greater in today’s dollar terms.

Environmental contamination was extensive. Along with mass slaughter, two million people lost livelihoods, many their homes, communities and futures.

Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic were subjected to sham trials — both falsely declared guilty by accusation.

Alleged genocide at Srebrenica was more myth than massacre — a Big Lie that won’t die.

Deaths were hugely inflated. The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)  was established to blame victimized Serbs for war crimes committed against them.

Srebrenica was a combined Muslim military base and refugee “safe area.”

Serbian President/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia leader Slobodan Milosevic wanted Serbs restrained from overrunning it.

Before the alleged July 1995 massacre, falsely claiming 8,000 Muslim Bosniak deaths, Srebrenica-based Muslim forces carried out numerous attacks on nearby Serb villages.

Muslim Sarajevo officials withdrew their Srebrenica commanders, leaving thousands of soldiers leaderless.

When Bosnian Serb forces captured Srebrenica on July 11, 1995, civilians wanted to leave because of chaotic conditions.

Women and children were separated from men to locate perpetrators of raids on Serb villages and take revenge.

A small number alone were detained. Alleged Srebrenica victims reflected lies and half-truths based on what’s known – reality omitted in official and major media accounts to this day.

The 8,000 number included the Red Cross estimate of 3,000 “witnesses” allegedly detained by Bosnian Serbs, along with another 5,000 the Red Cross said “fled Srebrenica,” many to Central Bosnia.

They fled for safety and weren’t killed. Years later, forensic teams discovered 2,361 bodies where heavy fighting occurred – including combatants on both sides, not massacred civilians.

Milosevic, Karadzic, and Mladic were falsely considered guilty by accusation.

Injustice against them was and remains typical of how imperial USA and its imperial partners blame victims for crimes committed against them.

Milosevic didn’t survive the ordeal, perishing from willful medical neglect — posthumously exonerated when it was too late to matter.

Balkanized Yugoslavia is a shadow of its former self, its people exploited by punishing neoliberal harshness — victimized by the scourge of US imperialism.

*

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.

It should surprise no one paying attention that the suspect in the recent stabbing spree in Reading, UK was not only known to British security agencies as an extremist and security threat, but that he comes from the pool of extremists the British aided Washington in funding, arming, training, and providing air support for during the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government and have harbored before and ever since.

The London Guardian in its article, “Libyan held over Reading multiple stabbing ‘known to security services’,” would admit:

The suspect in an alleged terror attack that left a teacher and two others dead was known to security services and other authorities, it emerged on Sunday.

Khairi Saadallah, the 25-year-old Libyan refugee held over the stabbings in a Reading park, was on the radar of MI5 in the middle of last year, sources told the Guardian.

Saadallah joins a long and growing list of extremists – and in the UK’s case, Libyans specifically – who have carried out attacks in the UK after receiving political and material support from Western governments in proxy wars waged across the globe.

The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing killing 23 and injuring over 800 was also carried out by Libyans Salman and Hashem Abedi, also extremists long known to British security agencies.

The London Guardian in its article on the Manchester bombing titled, “Salman Abedi: from hot-headed party lover to suicide bomber,” would report:

Quite when Abedi’s aggressive tendencies acquired an ideological bent is difficult to establish, but it has emerged that he travelled to Libya as a 16-year-old in 2011 to join the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and fight alongside his father in the battle to oust Gaddafi.

His father was a prominent member of the militia, which was banned in the UK because of its jihadi links.

Despite terrorists from LIFG still carrying out terrorism to this day the US and UK have both removed the group from their lists of terrorist organizations.

The Western media admits that LIFG was involved in fighting and toppling the Libyan government in 2011 and admits they provided weapons to fighters in Libya as well as granted them asylum after Libya collapsed into disarray in the wake of US-led regime change.

US Senators would even shower awards and support on senior LIFG leaders after the fall of the Libyan government – including Abdelhakim Belhaj who served as “emir” of LIFG and who would at one point lead what was left of Libya after 2011.

Western newspapers regularly admit that Western security services are fully aware of LIFG members living within the borders of their respective nations – having deliberately provided them asylum there.

It takes little imagination to predict tragedies resulting from the West’s policy of creating extremists, deploying them in proxy wars abroad, and then placing them amongst their own populations at home.

It was predicted long before the first US and British bombs dropped on Libya that their war of aggression against the North African nation would spread terrorism across the Middle East and North African region (MENA) as well as flood Europe with both refugees fleeing the catastrophe and extremists deliberately created by Western interventionism.

It is so predictable – in fact – that incidents like the Manchester Arena bombing or the Reading stabbings in Reading should be interpreted as deliberate by the British government – who like its American counterparts – readily uses extremists as armed proxies abroad and as an omnipresent threat at home justifying a growing police state while dividing and distracting the public.

Narrative management in the UK seeks to turn the stabbings into an issue surrounding race, religion, and social conditions when in reality the murders are a direct and deliberate product of the UK’s foreign policy and those responsible reside in London, Washington, and Brussels, not in mosques or in the pages of the Qu’ran.

To call it “blowback” is not accurate since blowback implies the consequences were somehow unpredictable or undesirable. It is inconceivable that the British government believes harboring thousands of terrorists within its borders will not result in terrorism.

It harbors these terrorists in order to cultivate and deploy them in future proxy wars and in the meantime prevents them from being liquidated abroad when targets of Western aggression get the upperhand.

To solve the problem of extremism the Western public must focus on the deliberate foreign policy creating it – not on the social, religious, and racial excuses used to cover it up and to distract away from it.

*

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

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 ICTY Srebrenica Trials: The Unseen Evidence

July 12th, 2020 by Stephen Karganovic

Srebrenica: July 11, 1995. Twenty-five years ago

One of the key evidentiary issues that arose during several ICTY Srebrenica trials was the right of the accused to conduct an independent examination of the forensic evidence used against them. That right exists as a matter of course in all non-political criminal trials in all civilized legal jurisdictions. Specifically, that is the right of defendants to verify for purposes of their own exoneration as well as for the benefit of the court the alleged DNA identifications proferred by the Prosecution, which were supplied by the International Committee for Missing Persons (ICMP).

ICMP is an NGO founded in 1996 under the auspices of the US which until recently was operating out of the Bosnian city of Tuzla. The Hague Tribunal consistently refused to issue a subpoena to ICMP to produce its biological samples and make them available to defense forensic experts for independent analysis. Supposedly sovereign governments are subject to ICTY subpoenas and can be compelled to produce physical evidence (Serbia in numerous cases, Croatia in the Gotovina artillery records matter). But a private NGO such as ICMP is apparently above all that. The reason for its immunity is the status accorded to ICMP that can only be described as exterritorial,  effectively raising it to a level above that of sovereign governments.

The ICTY managed to create an impression that some 6,800 bodies recovered from mass graves around Srebrenica had been conclusively identified by means of a ‘breakthrough’ DNA technique devised by the body that carried out the forensic work, the International Commission for Missing Persons.  In fact, the primary DNA evidence was never shared with the ICTY.  The court was provided only with a report of the ICMP’s work and findings. The only information shared was in the form of computer printouts.  No details were given about the DNA methodology or the steps taken to prevent contamination (a major problem in DNA work).  Nor was evidence given by those who had themselves carried out the work.

It is a minimum requirement of all genuine systems of justice that accused persons and their defence teams should have access to all the evidence against them.  This allows defendants to have scientific evidence checked by their own experts so that prosecution experts can be cross- examined in depth and defence experts can be called to give their assessments of the evidence. This did not happen in any of the ICTY trials.  But in every instance the court chose to treat the DNA evidence as proven.

An independent paper published on this topic revealed that the ICMP had been granted unprecedented levels of immunity in separate agreements with the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1998) and the Government of Croatia (2002):

“The Headquarters agreement provides immunity for property, assets, and staff of the ICMP from “every form of legal and administrative process, except insofar as in any particular case the ICMP has expressly waived its immunity.”  It also provides for the inviolability and immunity of ICMP premises, property and assets from “search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, and any other form of interference, whether by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.” Practically, this also meant that biological samples and profiles became the property of the ICMP as a means to protect witness information and data. Only the ICMP could decide on whether information was to be shared with authorities or not. Compliance with writs such as a subpoena compelling production of material or witness attendance to give evidence was subject to the ICMP waiving their immunity. In other words, the ICMP received diplomatic status as a technical and scientific human identification operation. For a DNA laboratory or human identification eort, this was unprecedented.“

There can be little doubt that no proper court of justice would have admitted the ICMP’s evidence on this basis.

But this was only one of the problems relating to the ICMP.  This organization was the unilateral creation of US President Bill Clinton in 1996 when it became clear that the first mass grave excavations carried out by the US organization, Physicians for Human Rights, had not delivered the expected results.  The mass graves identified by US intelligence, said by Madeleine Albright to contain thousands of bodies, were nothing of the kind.  The ICMP, billed as a new international organization, seemed to all intents to be the Muslim Commission for Missing Persons, an organization set up after Dayton by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, with an international supervisory board (always Chaired by an American) grafted on the top.  Bosnian Muslims always comprised more than 90% of the workforce of the ICMP.  Few would think it appropriate or acceptable for one warring faction to be used to investigate the actions of the other.

Second, the central premise underlying the ICMP’s mass grave investigations was a dubious theory conceived by the ICTY’s small investigation team.  The theory was that, unbeknown to anyone, the Bosnian Serbs had carried out a huge cover-up operation between August – November 1995 which had involved excavating the bodies of murdered Bosnian Muslims from their original graves, transporting them to other sites within the Srebrenica safe area and reburying them in the hope that they might not be discovered in the new graves.  On the face it, this theory was risible.  Excavating, transporting and reburying some 500 tons of human remains in mountainous territory at the end of a very hot summer was not something that could have been concealed from the many UN and intelligence personnel who remained in the area.  Nor could it have been concealed from the US satellites and geostationary drones which Madeleine Albright had very publicly told the UN on 10 July 1995 that the US “will be watching” for anything of the kind.  Nor would the exhausted Bosnian Serb army have found it at all easy to mount a covert operation of this kind, especially as they were desperately short of petrol.

A further compelling reason for suspicion was that, having achieved very few identifications in the first four years or so after the end of the Bosnian war, the ICMP suddenly began to make identifications at a rate never seen before or since.  This was surprising for several reasons, not least the fact that, as there had been no population records for the wartime population of Srebrenica, the ICMP could only use the unscientific lists created when the Bosnian Muslim government urged people to come forward to report relatives missing.  Since many Bosnian Muslims had been moved around throughout the war, few families would have had definite knowledge that their relatives had been in Srebrenica.

Finally, there has always been a problem about the numbers claimed to have been killed at Srebrenica.  The Bosnian government had given a Srebrenica population figure of 42,000 to the UN as the basis for food supplies into the safe area.  Such figures are invariably an overestimate. The consensus of the aid agencies was around 38,000.   But the UN recorded 35,600 survivors of Srebrenica at Tuzla.  A further 2,000 or so of the Bosnian Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica were seen by UN personnel safely behind Muslim lines near Tuzla before they were secretly redeployed to other parts of Bosnia.  A further 750 Srebrenica survivors were recorded in Zepa, and around 1,000 escaped into Serbia.  If 6,800 were massacred in Srebrenica, there would have to have been more than 45,000 people there when it fell to the Bosnian Serbs – a far bigger figure than anyone had suggested.

In the investigation of Srebrenica, ICMP has functioned as an evidence gathering adjunct of the Tribunal. Why has it been exempted from the obligation to show to either the court or to the accused the physical evidence that its conclusions are allegedly based on? The attached ICMP Headquarters Agreement signed with Bosnia and Herzegovina contains the answer to that important question.

*

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 Srebrenica Project.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

Palestine

5 million Palestinians live under brutal ‘Israeli’ military occupation, without any human or civil rights. The call to “Free Palestine” is now over 70 years old, and the world and its leaders sit idly by without action.  Palestine is the only country on earth occupied by a foreign government.  The obstacle to a peaceful solution for both sides is the US foreign policy on the region, as the US Congress and State Department support only the Israeli side in the conflict, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies pump money into the various political parties in Palestine, which keeps the groups in constant friction. There is no possibility of Palestinian unity while Saudi Arabia funds their in-fighting.

The only hope for the Palestinian people, to get their civil and human rights in a just settlement with ‘Israel’ is for them to unite.  This elusive, but essential Palestinian unity is impossible to achieve as long as the US and their Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, are standing with the Israeli occupation, and against the Palestinian people.

Saudi Arabia

In 1932 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded by Abdulaziz, Ibn Saud. He united the dual kingdom of the Hejaz and Najd under the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, making it the only country on earth which takes its name from the ruling family.

Oil discoveries began to be exploited by 1941, and huge amounts of money began flowing into the royal family. King Abdulaziz, Ibn Saud, the founder of the Kingdom died in late 1953, and his disdain for extravagance and changes to the society died with him.  What was once a people living in tents on the sand, was morphed into lavish lifestyles in big cities.

A British study has found that Saudi Arabia plays a key role in the radicalization of Muslims through the Wahhabi dogma, and is fueled by oil money.  Saudi Arabia has been named as one of the biggest supporters of foreign funding for extremist branches of Islam in Great Britain, with Riyadh having invested at least 76 billion Euros on Radical Islam.

Professor Susanne Schröter is the director of the Frankfurter Research Center for Global Islam.  In an interview with Deutsche-Welle, she said, “It has long been known that Saudi Arabia has been exporting Wahhabist ideology – largely similar to the ideology of the so-called “Islamic State” (IS). Propaganda material and organizational expertise are being sent along with money. People are being hired to build mosques, educational institutions, cultural centers, and similar organizations so that Wahhabist theology can reach the public – with great success.”  She continued,

“The result is that, in many parts of the world, a radical form of Islam is gaining the upper hand,” and, “There has been a dramatic development towards radicalism over the past three decades. It is perfectly clear that this development has been encouraged by Saudi money. Firstly, not only do the Saudis bankroll extremists. Moreover, young intellectuals have been recruited with generous scholarships at Saudi universities.”

Saudi Arabia remains one of the main sources of what former US Secretary of State John Kerry called “surrogate money” to support Islamist fighters and causes, such as the dozens of groups killing civilians in Syria. Saudi money is used to pursue its strategy of creating a wall of Sunni radicalism across South and Central Asia. In interviews with The New York Times, a former Taliban finance minister admitted he traveled to Saudi Arabia for years collecting cash, while disguising the trip as a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Saudis have supported the Taliban and have become an indispensable power broker.

Saudi Arabia is the only absolute monarchy on earth.  Nothing happens in Saudi Arabia without the express approval of the King, or the King’s family: if you are born a member of the royal family, you might have some rights; however, if you are not, you are not guaranteed any rights.

Saudi Arabia, along with its ally the US, became the main financer of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan from the 1980s. The Saudi involvement there continued after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the UAE, became the only countries that recognized the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ as the government, and supported the Taliban with money and weapons.

Iraq 

Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf monarchies, supported the US in both wars on Iraq and allowed the US to use their territories to attack Iraq. After Iraq was devastated by the US air attacks, the Saudi royal familyfunded Al Qaeda and promoted a sectarian war between Muslim sects.   Market-bombs and car-bombs against civilians in addition to aerial bombardments drove Iraq into chaos with millions killed, hundreds of thousands injured, and tens of millions made refugees.

Syria

The US-NATO attack on Syria began in 2011, and the Saudi royal family, along with other Gulf monarchies, funded all the variously named ‘rebels’: Free Syrian Army, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front, Hayat Tahir al-Sham, and the Islamic Army, headed by Zahran Alloush.

The CIA, through their program dubbed “Timber Sycamore”,  used the Saudi money to fund and arm terrorist groups, following Radical Islam, to fight the Syrian Arab Army and the Syrian civilians, of which are 80% Sunni Muslims.  The US-NATO project goal was ‘regime-change’. The war in Syria caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries and millions of people left their homes and are refugees in Europe, Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Libya

The US-NATO attack on Libya has destroyed the country and assassinated its leader. Now, the country is split into two factions: one side is under Sarraj, and following the Radical Islam ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global terror group, and is supported by Turkey and Qatar, while the other side is supported by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Yemen

Saudi Arabia, the wealthiest country in the region, launched a war against the poorest country in the region, Yemen.  The Saudi royal family and the UAE have used all types of weapons, including those which are banned.  Massacres against unarmed civilians in Yemen, and especially on young children, are now routine.  The Saudi-led coalition refuses to allow food and medicine to the civilians in Yemen, and the TV news is full of horrendous videos of the starving and sick children there.

The Saudi royal family, their oil money, and their Radical Islamic ideology funded and supported the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks in the US. That royal money has funded death and destruction from New York City to the Middle East. Peace in the East and the West depends on removing the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

*

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.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

July 12th, 2020 by Mike Whitney

Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? And that’s why Sweden has been so harshly criticized in the media, because they refused to do what everyone else was doing. They refused to adopt a policy that elites now universally support, a policy that scares people into cowering submission. The Swedish model is a threat to that approach because it allows people to maintain their personal freedom even in the midst of a global pandemic. Ruling class elites don’t want that, that is not in their interests. What they want is for the people to meekly accept the rules and conditions that lead to their eventual enslavement. That’s the real objective, complete social control, saving lives has nothing to do with it. Sweden opposed that approach which is why Sweden has to be destroyed. It’s that simple.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Sweden’s fatality rate, which is higher than some and lower than others. (Sweden has 543 deaths per million, which means roughly 1 death in every 2,000 people.) But like every other country, the vast majority of Swedish fatalities are among people 70 years and older with underlying health conditions. (“90% of the country’s deaths have been among those over 70.”) Sweden was not successful in protecting the people in its elderly care facilities, so large numbers of them were wiped out following the outbreak. Sweden failed in that regard and they’ve admitted they failed. Even so, the failures of implementation do not imply that the policy is wrong. Quite the contrary. Sweden settled on a sustainable policy, that keeps the economy running, preserves an atmosphere of normality, and exposes its young, low-risk people to the infection, thus, moving the population closer to the ultimate goal of “herd immunity”.

Presently, Sweden is very close to reaching herd immunity which is a condition in which the majority have developed antibodies that will help to fend-off similar sars-covid infections in the future. Absent a vaccine, herd immunity is the best that can be hoped for. It ensures that future outbreaks will be less disruptive and less lethal. Take a look at this excerpt from an article at the Off-Guardian which helps to explain what’s really going on:

“Sweden’s health minister understood that the only chance to beat COVID-19 was to get the Swedish population to a Herd Immunity Threshold against COVID-19, and that’s exactly what they have done…

The Herd Immunity Threshold (“HIT”) for COVID-19 is between 10-20%

This fact gets less press than any other. Most people understand the basic concept of herd immunity and the math behind it. In the early days, some public health officials speculated that COVID-19’s HIT was 70%. Obviously, the difference between a HIT of 70% and a HIT of 10-20% is dramatic, and the lower the HIT, the quicker a virus will burn out as it loses the ability to infect more people, which is exactly what COVID-19 is doing everywhere, including the U.S, which is why the death curve above looks the way it looks.

Scientists from Oxford, Virginia Tech, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, all recently explained the HIT of COVID-19 in this paper:

We searched the literature for estimates of individual variation in propensity to acquire or transmit COVID-19 or other infectious diseases and overlaid the findings as vertical lines in Figure 3. Most CV estimates are comprised between 2 and 4, a range where naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune….

Naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 combined with earnest protection of the vulnerable elderly – especially nursing home and assisted living facility residents — is an eminently reasonable and practical alternative to the dubious panacea of mass compulsory vaccination against the virus.

This strategy was successfully implemented in Malmo, Sweden, which had few COVID-19 deaths by assiduously protecting its elder care homes, while “schools remained open, residents carried on drinking in bars and cafes, and the doors of hairdressers and gyms were open throughout.

One of the most vocal members of the scientific community discussing COVID-19’s HIT is Stanford’s Nobel-laureate Dr. Michael Levitt. Back on May 4, he gave this great interview to the Stanford Daily where he advocated for Sweden’s approach of letting COVID-19 spread naturally through the community until you arrive at HIT. He stated:

If Sweden stops at about 5,000 or 6,000 deaths, we will know that they’ve reached herd immunity, and we didn’t need to do any kind of lockdown. My own feeling is that it will probably stop because of herd immunity. COVID is serious, it’s at least a serious flu. But it’s not going to destroy humanity as people thought.

Guess what? That’s exactly what happened. As of today, 7 weeks after his prediction, Sweden has 5,550 deaths. In this graph, you can see that deaths in Sweden PEAKED when the HIT was halfway to its peak (roughly 7.3%) and by the time the virus hit 14% it was nearly extinguished.” (“Second wave? Not even close“, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

In other words, Sweden is rapidly approaching the endgame which means that restrictions can be dropped entirely and normal life can resume. They will have maintained their dignity and freedom while the rest of the world hid under their beds for months on end. They won’t have to reopen their primary schools because they never shut them down to begin with. Numerous reports indicate that young children are neither at risk nor do they pass the virus to others. Most Americans don’t know this because the propaganda media has omitted the news from their coverage. Here’s a clip from the National Review which helps to explain:

Kari Stefansson, CEO of the Icelandic company deCODE genetics in Reykjavík, studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. His project has tested 36,500 people; as of this writing,

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”(“Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’“, National Review)

This is just one of many similar reports from around the world. Most of the schools in Europe have already reopened and lifted restrictions on distancing and masks. Meanwhile, in the US, the reopening of schools has become another contentious political issue pitting Trump against his Democrat adversaries who are willing to sacrifice the lives of schoolchildren to prevent the president from being reelected. It’s a cynical-counterproductive approach that reveals the vindictiveness of the people who support it. In an election year, everything is politics. (Watch Tucker Carlson’s short segment on “Kids cannot afford to stay locked down.“)

Here’s a question for you: Have you ever wondered why the virus sweeps through the population and then seemingly dissipates and dies out? In fact, the virus doesn’t simply die-out, it runs out of people to infect. But how can that be when only 1 of 7 people will ever contract the virus?

The answer is immunity, either natural immunity or built up immunity from other Sars-Covid exposure. Here’s more from the Off Guardian piece:

“Scientists are now showing evidence that up to 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before:

Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity.

This alone could explain WHY the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) is so much lower for COVID-19 than some scientists thought originally, when the number being talked about was closer to 70%. Many of us have always been immune! (“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

What does it mean?

It means that Fauci and the idiots in the media have been lying to us the whole time. It means that Covid-19 is not a totally new virus for which humans have no natural immunity or built-in protection. Covid is a derivative of other infections which is why the death toll isn’t alot higher. Check this out from the BBC:

“People testing negative for coronavirus antibodies may still have some immunity, a study has suggested. For every person testing positive for antibodies, two were found to have specific T-cells which identify and destroy infected cells. This was seen even in people who had mild or symptomless cases of Covid-19..

This could mean a wider group have some level of immunity to Covid-19 than antibody testing figures, like those published as part of the UK Office for National Statistics Infection Survey, suggest…..And these people should be protected if they are exposed to the virus for a second time.” (“Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest“, BBC)

Now, I realize that there’s some dispute about immunity, but there shouldn’t be. If you contract the virus, you either won’t get it again or you’ll get a much milder case. And if immunity doesn’t exist, then we’re crazy to waste our time trying to develop a vaccine, right?

What the science tells us is that immunity does exist and the reason the vast majority of people didn’t get the infection— is not because they locked themselves indoors and hid behind the sofa– but because they already have partial immunity either from their genetic makeup or from previous exposure to Sars-CoV-2 which was identified in 2002.

It’s worth repeating that the reason everyone was so scared about Covid originally was because it was hyped as a “novel virus”, completely new with no known cure or natural protection. That was a lie that was propagated by Fauci and his dissembling Vaccine Mafia, all of who are responsible for the vast destruction to the US economy, the unprecedented spike in unemployment, and the obliteration of tens of thousands of small businesses.

As the author points out, we should have known from the incident on the Diamond Princess (Cruise Liner) that immunity was far more widespread than previously thought. Readers might recall that only 17% of the people on board tested Covid-positive, “despite an ideal environment for mass spread, implying 83% of the people were somehow protected from the new virus.”

Think about that for a minute. All of the passengers were 60 years old or older, but only 17% caught the virus. Why?

Immunity, that’s why. What else could it be? Cross immunity, natural immunity, or SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity. Whatever you want to call it, it exists and it explains why the vast majority of people will not get the highly-contagious Covid no matter what they do.

It’s also worth pointing out that even according to the CDC’s own statistics, the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is a mere 0.26% whereas “According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).” (“Facts about Covid-19”, Swiss Policy Research)

So the death rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in every 500 (who contract the virus) to 1 in every 1,000. How can any rational person shut down a $21 trillion economy and order 340 million people into quarantine, based on the fact that 1 in every thousand people (mostly old and infirm) might die from an infection?? That was a act of pure, unalloyed Madness for which the American people will pay dearly for years to come. Once again, the US response was crafted by people who were promoting their own narrow political, social and economic agenda, not acting in the interests of the American people. We should expect more from our leaders than this.

So what does all of this say about the sharp spike in Covid positive cases in the south and the chances of a “second wave”?

There’s not going to be a second wave (The massive BLM protests in NY city has not produced any uptick in deaths, because NY has already achieved herd immunity. In contrast, Florida will undoubtedly experience more fatalities because it has not yet reached HIT or the Herd Immunity Threshold. Cases are increasing because younger- low-risk people are circulating more freely and because testing has increased by many orders of magnitude. At the same time, deaths continue to go down.

On Wednesday, US new cases rose to an eye-watering 62,000 in one day while deaths are down 75% from the April peak. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because the pattern has been the same as in countries around the world. The trajectory of infections was mapped out long ago by UK epidemiologist and statistician, William Farr. Take a look:

“Farr shows us that once peak infection has been reached then it will roughly follow the same symmetrical pattern on the downward slope. However, under testing and variations in testing regimes means we have no way of knowing when the peak of infections occurred. In this situation, we should use the data on deaths to predict the peak. There is a predicted time lag from infection to COVID deaths of approximately 21 to 28 days.

Once peak deaths have been reached we should be working on the assumption that the infection has already started falling in the same progressive steps. …

Farr, also illustrated that those who are the most ‘mortal die out’, and in a pandemic are those in most need of shielding….(So, Farr saw the wisdom of the Swedish approach a full 180 years ago!)

In the midst of a pandemic, it is easy to forget Farr’s Law, and think the number infected will just keep rising, it will not. Just as quick as measures were introduced to prevent the spread of infection we need to recognize the point at which to open up society and also the special measures due to ‘density’ that require special considerations. But most of all we must remember the message Farr left us: what goes up must come down.” (“COVID-19: William Farr’s way out of the Pandemic”, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)

What this tells us is that the fatality rate is a more reliable barometer of what is taking place than the spike in new cases. And what the death rates signals is that the virus is on its last legs. We are not seeing the onset of a second wave, but the gradual ending of the first. Also, the fact that tens of thousands of young people are contracting Covid-19 without experiencing any pain or discomfort, confirms that immunity is widespread. This is a very positive development.

Here’s how Dr. John Thomas Littell, MD, who is President of the County Medical Society, and Chief of Staff at the Florida Hospital, summed it up in a letter to the editor of the Orlando Medical News, He said:

“Why did we as a society stop sending our children to schools and camps and sports activities? Why did we stop going to work and church and public parks and beaches? Why did we insist that healthy persons “stay at home” – rather than observing the evidence-based, medically prudent method of identifying those who were sick and isolating them from the rest of the population – advising the sick to “stay at home” and allowing the rest of society to function normally.”
(“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

Why? Because we were misled by Doctor Fauci and the Vaccine Gestapo, that’s why. In contrast, Sweden shrugged off the dire predictions and fearmongering, and “got it right the first time.”

Hurrah for Sweden!

*

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 Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock