Global Research

By the time Alfred Marshall became prominent, the theory of capitalism formulated in Marx’s Capital had become a theoretical pillar of organised working class politics in Europe. Remarkably the so-called “marginalist revolution”, of which Marshall became a leading figure, coincides roughly with the abolition of slavery in Brazil (1886) and a major economic depression.¹  Thus the shift from economics, for the allocation of surplus to that of managing scarcity is not a purely theoretical development. Following later scholars like Eric Williams, who argued that the “surplus” for industrialisation in Europe — that which had to be allocated through struggle or Adam Smith’s “invisible (whip) hand”– was derived from slavery and would now under the terms of marginalism become a “scarcity” of resources that theoretically had to be shared with liberated slaves and organising industrial labour.²

One of the objectives of political struggle in the 19th century was to appropriate the wealth held by the Church and the State and subject it to community/popular control. This meant also a struggle to find forms of governance adequate to this task. The opposition of marginalism, closely linked to progressivism and the emergence of “science” as religion (Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer), was a denial that the economic relationships between classes could be defined in any way, which would permit popular/communal control.³

Marginalism not only rejected the existence of a surplus to be allocated but also the idea that social benefit could be measured and therefore allocated through communal/popular governance. Since every economic relationship was reduced to implicit contracts between individuals there was no way to create scientifically reliable economic knowledge of classes, only tentatively for individuals, so-called methodological individualism.

What came to be social policy at the outbreak of WWI was, in fact, a denial that there was anything social at all. The entire history of the State’s promotion of adventurers, who in turn bought or leased the instruments of the State for the creation of monopoly wealth, was reduced to a footnote at best. Marginalism was conceived to explain — apologetics — what, in fact, had led to its creation as an ideology to counter democratic economic forces.

This is important in order to understand how the US religious doctrine of “free enterprise” was concocted and how the marketing strategy of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) became the dominant ideology of the end of the 20th century and the formal unquestioned dogma of the 21st. What is often alternatively called “neo-liberal” and “neo-conservative” is better understood if one looks at the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The 18th and 19th centuries were something like the Reformation, culminating in Marxism — itself a spectrum as broad as that between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The 20th century began the “Counter-Reformation”. Despite the successes of the October Revolution (1917), the Chinese Revolution (1949) and the Cuban Revolution (1953-1958), the effect of this counter-revolution was to isolate these revolutions from the rest of the Church. In 1989, the Russian Revolution was no longer merely isolated but largely defeated — not surprisingly with a Polish pope in the van. The bullet in the neck was the NATO war against Yugoslavia.

The Counter-Reformation had two principal effects in Christendom. One was that it defeated the Reformation in the core Catholic dominions. In the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, for example, there was no Reformation. In the rest of the realms, the political content of the Reformation was purged. Luther and Calvin sided with the State and preserved their own versions of clericalism, inheriting, but not abandoning, the economic wealth and privilege established by centuries of Church theft.

The three great revolutions of the 20th century and to a far lesser extent the failed Mexican Revolution were the first to successfully transfer the socially generated wealth that had been appropriated by the Church and the corporate class (whether aristocratic or plutocratic) to a political structure based on popular/communal ownership and forced, for a brief period, the “Capitalist Church” to share at least symbolically some of its hoarded loot to provide facilities called “public” (as opposed to popular) and create a veneer of reform. The Church did the same thing in the Counter-Reformation — terrorising with the Inquisition and extending educational access through schools for the working class and poor and allowing local languages and some minor concessions to national preference in the clergy. From 1949 until 1989 the strategy was fierce repression and selective gradual openings:  social democracy in Western Europe (except Spain and Portugal, of course) on the “front” and death squads everywhere else.

1989 put an end to the biggest competitive alternative system and restored Russia to Orthodoxy if not to Catholicism. Since then the entire veneer of social democracy has been scraped away in the Western front-line states.  Seventy-odd years of pacification reduced the forces of class struggle — meaning those who supported popular/communal control of social wealth rather than corporate monopoly of the State — to less than a shadow of their former selves.

Nowhere, and at no time, has this become more evident than in 2020 when not a single political party of the “class struggle” tradition was able or willing to respond to the coup de grace against public space, social wealth and humanism that was administered in March past. The conspicuous silence at the massive theft that was orchestrated — untold trillions — while the bulk of the Western population was under house arrest — is beyond shameful.⁴ This was not an act to restrain a viral pandemic but an act culminating in the final expropriation, not only of the last scraps of social democracy but of the entire public space in which such struggles took place but also could take place. In Portugal, the quality might be called “Salazar light”, not the “new normal” but the “Estado Novissimo“.⁵

What we hear, for example, from the curia in Brussels, with its quasi-dual pontificate comprising the German Chancellor and her former rival now the president of the European Commission or the World Economic Forum, is something comparable — but, of course, on a global scale — a homily like that delivered by Martin Luther in support of the violent suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. (Here I am only talking about those who are members of the “Left”.)

The Counter-Revolution/Counter-Reformation, whose spokespersons convene in the conclaves at Davos, has clear objectives. The euphemism is the great “reset”.⁶ What is described euphemistically as “growth” has always meant growth in power and control. By declaring an end to public space — anywhere — they are returning us to the closed world whose creation and maintenance was the objective of the Roman papacy. (I republished the bull Unaam Sanctam earlier this year for a reason!⁷  I do not want to repeat here everything I have tried to describe elsewhere. ⁸  At this writing the conclave in Brussels is deciding what to do with the residue of Christendom in the Western Empire.

Habemus Reset!

Somewhere I read in a history of China that at least the Confucians were amazed at the Roman Catholic Church’s organizational power and wondered that there was nothing equivalent to it in China. The Rockefeller Foundation was so concerned about China that it started very early (ca. 1914) to fund and train Chinese physicians in the Rockefeller model of industrial medicine and social engineering.⁹

The West compensates for its relatively small population with an extraordinary level of violence and organization. It was that “catholic” organisational capacity that shut down the West and its dependencies in March — and including the Shrine in Fatima, defies the strength of the Holy Virgin.

(What we have been told is the 18 months in the race to a “vaccine” should probably be seen as a planning parameter — adopted at least as early as 2015 — in the pacification program for which the vaccine is both a decoy and a weapon, by no means a toy.)

*

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 Dissident Voice.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. 

Notes

1. For a discussion of the so-called “marginalist revolution” see, for example, Nuno Martins, “Interpreting the capitalist order before and after the marginalist revolution”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2015, 39, 1109-1127.
2. See Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery, and Gerald Horne, The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism, reviewed by this author.
3. What most people understand as “Darwinism” is actually “social Darwinism” as taught by Herbert Spencer et al. Charles Darwin did not consistently argue for the “survival of the fittest”. Rather he suggested that species’ variations could explain why some members of a species proliferated in an environment or survived changes in the environment. Unlike Spencer and vulgar Darwinists, Darwin claimed no teleology or interest in nature that could predict or promote any species or variation thereof. For a brief discussion of the difference between Darwin and vulgar Darwinism, see Morse Peckham, “Darwinism and Darwinisticism” in The Triumph of Romanticism (1970) pp. 176-201.
4. While it is a matter of record that the US Federal Reserve gave away some USD 4 trillion on a single day at the beginning of the so-called pandemic, with no questions asked, both the US regime and its vassals in Brussels feel that any assistance to Europe’s SME sector must be endlessly debated and so structured that only the administering banks profit from it.
5. For example, under Salazar’s Estado Novo that ended by revolution in 1974, three persons meeting in public spaces; e.g., on the street, constituted a “demonstration” requiring police authorisation. For those old enough to remember, the similarity to masks and social distancing is hard to overlook.
6. World Economic Forum: The Great Reset; see also here:
7. “There is One God, One Faith, and One Church“ Dissident Voice, May 2020.
8. See my Dissident Voice articles this year if interested.  See, among others, “Re-Orientation”, 3 February 2020, and “The First Circle”, 24 April 2020.
9. E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, Medicine and Capitalism in America. It is just a coincidence that it was also a man named Gates, Frederick T, a Baptist preacher and not a physician, who initiated the tradition of plutocrats using medical institutions to design society in their particular interests. Rockefeller money turned the Peking Union Medical College from a missionary endeavour into a scientific medical school. Rockefeller money also seeded the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, now under the patronage of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, where it hosts such exciting séances like Event 201.

Featured image is from DV

The UK is trying to position itself as the “balancing” partner of choice for countries that are indoctrinated into believing the US’ information warfare narrative of Eurasian-wide Chinese and Russian threats to their sovereignty, but this strategy is bunk because it’s basically just a rebranding of Britain’s new position as America’s “junior partner” across the supercontinent.

“…This is the most dangerous time in the history of man. The seriousness of this plot cannot be underestimated. It is not due to any threat of conventional war or nuclear decimation, it is based on the fact that this is a psychological war waged by psychopaths against all mankind, and it is being advanced by a small group of monsters that have taken control of the minds of the masses through long-term indoctrination and policies meant to breed dependency.” Gary Barnett

Which political party supported the protests, riots and looting that spread to over 400 cities across the country? Which party supported the toppling of historical monuments and statues across the country? Which party’s elected officials think that the government does not have the right to defend federal property from vandals, rioters and thugs in Portland? Which party allowed a vicious mob to seize control of an area in central Seattle and declare its own sovereign nation? Which party looked on approvingly while the country descended into a “society-wide upheaval that included.. mass riots — the magnitude of which have not been seen in the U.S. since at least the 1960s.” (Michael Tracy)

Which party’s governors imposed lockdowns that pushed the economy into freefall destroying millions of jobs and businesses? Which party’s governors issued edicts mandating the wearing of masks without a vote by the representatives of the people? Which party’s leaders conducted a 3 year-long coup claiming the President of the United States was a Russian agent? Which party launched impeachment proceedings based on spurious claims that were neither serious nor verifiable? Which party has stubbornly refused to accept the 2016 presidential election results and has done everything in its power to deepen political antagonisms and polarization?

Which party worked with members of the elite media and the intelligence community to infiltrate the Trump campaign with confidential informants, electronic surveillance, and other illicit skulduggery aimed at sabotaging the election and derailing Trump’s political agenda? Which party is using a public health emergency to perpetuate a state of hysteria aimed at exerting greater control over the population? Which party is deliberately prolonging the Covid restrictions in order to destroy what’s left of the eviscerated US economy?

Which party has shown time and again that it does not serve the interests of the people but the cadres of elite globalists that now have the Constitutional Republic in their crosshairs and plan to erase our history, our icons, our traditions, our culture, our identity and even our most heartfelt ideals in order to establish a new order governed by technocrats, financiers and plutocrats? Which party is not a party at all but a fifth column determined to subvert the elected government and divide the country into warring factions?

The Democrats cannot be trusted. They have already implemented their anti-worker trade policy and their pro-war foreign policy, and they’re now bent on imposing their own pro-business immigration policy that will further erode the living standards of working people struggling to make ends meet in a post-industrial hardscrabble America.

Who supports these policies?

Certainly not the people in the center of the country who’ve seen their jobs outsourced, their businesses off-shored and their prospects for the future go up in smoke as Democrats Clinton and Obama transformed the country into the hollowed out, service sector-dependent basketcase that it is today. Isn’t that the real reason the Democrats are so supportive of “racial justice” and BLM? Isn’t it just a way of concealing their contempt for the mainly-white working class people who used to vote Democrat until the party threw them under the bus in order to better serve their deep-pocket corporate donors and Wall Street honchos?

Of course it is. African Americans are not going to benefit from their support for the Democrats. No way. As far as the Dems leadership goes, Black Lives Matter until November 5 when the ballots are counted. After that, all bets are off. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:

“Black Lives Matter is using black pain to cash in on white liberal guilt, dividing American society in pursuit of a Democratic political agenda, St. Louis activist Nyota Uhura told RT. Having witnessed BLM’s rise up close as the nascent organization swooped into Ferguson amid the calls for justice triggered by Brown’s killing…, Uhura has fought to warn others of what the organization really represents – leveraging black activism into a boost for the Democratic Party.

White liberal and progressive groups “use the energy of our movement to push their agenda”…

“In order to mobilize people, they need those black faces out front – because what are they going to look like protesting? Just in terms of optics it’ll look like a Klan rally,” Uhura joked….’ Like all controlled opposition movements, one of BLM’s primary functions is to derail meaningful change, Uhura explained: “They always march us back into the voting booth.”

Well-heeled movement activists consistently divert money and energy into electing Democratic Party candidates .…billionaire currency speculator George Soros alone has given over $33 million to BLM, its founders, and associated groups, and the Ford Foundation pledged to raise $100 million for the BLM-affiliated Movement for Black Lives Coalition in 2016.” (“Veteran activists have called out BLM as a tool of the Democrats from day 1“, RT)

BLM is a prop the Dems are using to take-back the White House, nothing more. The proof of this couldn’t be more obvious. While Pelosi and her pals bowed down in Kente cloth for a well-rehearsed photo op, her recent bill on police reforms did not include even one of BLM’s demands. Like we said, the Dems are great at public relations but never veer from their corporate agenda.

In the last four years, the Democrats have engaged in one seditious misadventure after the other all of which helped to reveal that the real levers of state power are not under the control of the president but of agents operating in the intelligence community, law enforcement (FBI) and the media all of who are now owned by scheming billionaires whose tentacles extend to every corner of the permanent bureaucracy, aka–the deep state. The Democrats have joined this sketchy alliance and are presently executing a plan that will irreversibly change the country by decimating its economy, increasing poverty and destitution by many orders of magnitude, and strengthening the grip of tyrannical oligarchs who don’t simply want to rule by force, but by wearing down the population with one hysteria-soaked psyops after the other. The recent surge in suicides and mental health issues attests to the success of their strategy just as the wearing of masks illustrates how easily fearful people can be whipped into conformity. Mission accomplished!

Is it any surprise that the Dems joined the Intel agencies to spy on members of the Trump campaign or that the Dems are actively enlisting members of the intelligence community to join their ranks? Take a look:

“An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history….

Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.” (“The CIA Democrats, Part One”, World Socialist Web Site)

Did you know that the drive to impeach Trump was spearheaded by former CIA agents that had just been elected to Congress? The media said that leftists pushed Pelosi to impeach, but that simply isn’t true. It was former spooks acting on behalf of unknown constituents. (John Brennan??) Here’s he scoop:

“Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) announced Monday that they would vote for the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday when it comes before the House of Representatives. Both women had decade-long careers in the CIA before they won Republican-held seats in the House in the 2018 election….With the pro-impeachment declarations by Slotkin, Spanberger and, also on Monday, Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army special forces operative, ten of the eleven “CIA Democrats” have now said they will vote for the impeachment articles.” (“CIA Democrats back CIA-led Impeachmen t”, World Socialist Web Site)

What does it mean when a nation’s foremost intelligence service (CIA) enters the political realm and assumes a central role in governing the country? Is that a positive development or a national security threat? And how should we judge the political party that allows itself to be subsumed by an agency that conducts all manner of anti-democratic and criminal activity around the world including kidnappings (rendition), drug trafficking, covert wars, electronic surveillance, torture and regime change operations?

Here’s a question for you: Was the CIA under John Brennan directly involved in the campaign to frame Donald Trump as a Russian agent and have him removed from office?

Yes, they were.

Were leaders at the DNC involved in the same plot?

Yes again, just as they were involved in the impeachment fiasco, the George Floyd foofaraw and now the Covid hoax.

What lessons can we draw from the way the Democrats have conducted themselves over the past four years? Are they willing to use the accepted, traditional means for opposing the incumbent government or are they more inclined to engage in subversive, covert and likely illegal scorched earth tactics designed to inflict maximum damage on their political enemies through relentless character assassination, illicit surveillance, divisive racial violence and even the cover of a global pandemic manipulated to prosecute the war on Trump?

We all know the answer to that question.

Is this how the Democrats plan to govern the country, by setting aside principle and the issues that people really care about–health care, immigration, jobs, the environment and the economy– and, instead, using public health emergencies and other contrived diversions to justify the further evisceration of the economy, the further imposition of onerous mandates, and the further tightening of their grip on the levers of state power? Check out this excerpt from an article by Charles Burris:

“What we have been seeing played out on the streets of America, particularly in large Blue State metropolitan areas and dense urban cities is classic planned chaos and the “Strategy of Tension.” Unable to dislodge Donald Trump by the Russiagate hoax or the malicious soft coup impeachment process, his sworn enemies, using COVID-19 as their pretext, have turned to the destruction of the economy by repressive lockdowns, creating mass unemployment and annihilation of small businesses, thus fracturing civil society. The Democrats, elements of the deep state, and their complacent, compliant regime media pawns, have turned to an age-old psy/war strategy to be wielded as an ax against the president, insidiously using the weaponized corpse of the slain George Floyd as the new rationale for these riots and insurrections….

The willfully ignorant nihilistic mobs and savage looters are simply acting as pawns, the unwitting tools of the deep state “strategy of tension” 2020 in creating the pretext for the elite’s technocratic New World Order .” (“The Elite’s End Game” Lew Rockwell)

Bingo. It is, in fact, the elite’s endgame and the Dems have put themselves right at the heart of that operation. But the Democrats are not steering the ship of state nor will they. They are merely lackeys for the meddling “do goodie” billionaires who want to save humanity by branding us like cattle, reducing us to abject poverty, and eliminating the “useless eaters” who stand in the way of their glorious New Order. Check out this quote from World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab at a June 3rd event titled The Great Reset:

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

According to author Matthew Ehret-Kump, the gathering included elites from “the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector” all looking “to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.”

Is it true? Is the Covid pandemic actually part of a broader plan to break down the economy, destroy tens of millions of jobs, decimate thousands of businesses, and force the reduction of carbon by intensifying the suffering of half of humanity? Here’s more from Peter Koenig’s article:

“These obscure individuals are running, The World Economic Forum (WEF – representing Big Industry, Big Finance and Big Fame), the Group of , G-7, Group of 20 – G20 (the leaders of the economically” strongest” nations). There are also some lesser entities, called the Bilderberg Society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Chatham House and more….

The infamous Agenda 2021 which coincides with and complements the so-called (UN) Agenda 2030, will be duly inaugurated by the WEF’s official declaration of The Great Reset, in January 2021. Similarly, the implementation of the agenda of The Great Reset began in January 2020, by the launch of the corona pandemic – planned for decades with the latest visible events being the 2010 Rockefeller Report with its “Lockstep Scenario”, and Event 201, of 18 October in NYC which computer-simulated a corona pandemic, leaving within 18 months 65 million deaths and an economy in ruin, programmed just a few weeks before the launch of the actual corona pandemic…The ruling elite used the lockdown as an instrument to carry out this agenda.” (“The Global Reset – Unplugged. “The Deep State”, Peter Koenig, Global Research)

The Democrats are working with the establishment media and elements in the intelligence community to effect the transformational changes that will actualize the elitist vision. There is no falsehood or act of terror so heinous that it cannot be justified in terms of the ultimate goal which is the emergence of a repressive police state ruled by voracious elites and their power-mad accomplices.

*

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 TUR

On July 19, the Libyan National Army (LNA) test-fired the Soviet-era P-15 Termit anti-ship missile near Zawiyat Zanzur, on the Libyan coast.

The P-15 Termit is guided by active radar homing and equipped with an inertial navigation system. Missiles of this type have a range between 35 and 80 km depending on the variant and a top speed of Mach 0.95. The Gaddafi-era Libyan Navy had large stockpiles of P-15 missiles and also operated an unknown number of 4K51 Rubezh coastal defense systems, which were armed with an advanced copy of the missile. Thus, the LNA may have access to at least a part of these stockpiles.

The test-launch of the anti-ship missile was presented by pro-LNA sources as a message to Turkey that its warships deployed near the Libyan shores will become the target of anti-ship missile launches should they try to support the attack by the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord on the port city of Sirte. However, the test-launch had a quite different effect when on July 20 the video from the test site leaked online. It showed that the missile fell just a few moments after launching putting in question any potential anti-ship missile capabilities of the LNA.

Meanwhile, tensions within the LNA factions erupted in al-Brega, where the Al Saiqa Brigade was demanding the release of several affiliated people from custody. As of July 22, the area still remains the focal point of tensions.

Such failed missile tests and other demonstrations of issues within the LNA only strengthen the Turkish commitment to launch a full-scale attack on the port city of Sirte. According to Turkish media, Ankara is deploying T-155 Fırtına howitzers and T-122 Sakarya multiple launch rocket systems to the frontline west of the port city. The largest convoy with Turkish weapons and equipment arrived at the frontline from Misrata, an important logistical hub for Turkish supplies, on July 18. Nonetheless, reinforcements and weapons continued pouring into the western countryside of Sirte.

Right now, the main factor deterring further escalation is Egypt’s strong position describing a potential Turkish attack on Sirte or Jufra as a red line after which it would directly intervene in the conflict on the side of the LNA. On July 21, Egypt’s Parliament already approved “sending elements of the Egyptian armed forces in combat missions outside the borders of the Egyptian state to defend the Egyptian national security in the western strategic front against the acts of criminal militias and foreign terrorist elements until the forces’ mission ends.” Thus, a preparatory attack on Sirte risks turning into a military confrontation between Turkey and Egypt on a Libyan battleground. The Erdogan government has not demonstrated readiness for such a scenario. However, if the LNA carries out some more failed missile tests like the one on July 19, Ankara may just take that risk.

*

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

First published by GR on June 10, 2020

For those wondering what will come after the Covid19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

The Great Reset

On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.

Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.

In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda:

“We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.”

 The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.

To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says,

“If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.”

On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states,

“We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”

Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.

Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans:”…the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.

Radical changes

Schwab reveals more of the coming agenda: “…one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.” These are supposed to be silver linings?

He suggests that those radical changes be extended: “The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination… and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy…” It would include “changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.”

The second component of the Great Reset agenda would ensure that, “investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.” Here the WEF head states that the recent huge economic stimulus budgets from the EU, USA, China and elsewhere be used to create a new economy, “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building ‘green’ urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”

Finally the third leg of this Great Reset will be implementing one of Schwab’s pet projects, the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.” The Fourth Industrial Revolution includes gene-editing biotech, 5G telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence and the like.

UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset

If we compare the details of the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 with the WEF Great Reset we find both dovetail very neatly. The theme of Agenda2030 is a “sustainable world” which is defined as one with income equality, gender equality, vaccines for all under the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which was launched in 2017 by the WEF along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2015 the UN issued a document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Obama Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification knowing it would fail. Yet it is being advanced globally. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, extending an earlier Agenda21. The 17 include “to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions… to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change…“ It calls for sustainable economic growth, sustainable agriculture (GMO), sustainable and modern energy (wind, solar), sustainable cities, sustainable industrialization… The word sustainable is the key word. If we dig deeper it is clear it is code-word for a reorganization of world wealth via means such as punitive carbon taxes that will dramatically reduce air and vehicle travel. The less-developed world will not rise to the developed, rather the other way, the advanced civilizations must go down in their living standards to become “sustainable.”

Maurice Strong

To understand the double-speak use of sustainable, we need to go back to Maurice Strong, a billionaire Canadian oilman and close friend of David Rockefeller, the man who played a central role back in the 1970s for the idea that man-made CO2 emissions were making the world unsustainable. Strong created the UN Environment Program, and in 1988, the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) to exclusively study manmade CO2.

In 1992 Strong stated,

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” At the Rio Earth Summit Strong that same year he added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

The decision to demonize CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, human and plant, is not random. As Prof. Richard Lindzen an MIT atmospheric physicist puts it,

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

Lest we forget, the curiously well-timed New York pandemic exercise, Event 201 on October 18, 2019 was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It was based on the idea that, ”it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” The Event201 Scenario posited, “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”

The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.

*

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

As already known, BRICS is an association of five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. South Africa joined the association in 2010. The BRICS has a significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage. All of them are members of the G20. While the group has received both praise and criticism from different corners of the world, BRICS is steadily working towards realizing its set goals, bilateral relations among them are conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality and mutual benefits.

In this exclusive interview, Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke, who is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cape Town and has scholarly researched some aspects of BRICS for the past ten years, spoke with Kester Kenn Klomegah about his observations, the existing challenges, opportunities and the future perspectives of BRICS. Here are the interview excerpts:

Kester Kenn Klomegah: South Africa joined BRICS in 2010, a decade ago, and so how do you assess South Africa in BRICS these years? What are its greatest contributions to the development of the group?

Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke: I would say South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS. It has hosted two of its summits. As an active member, it has what it takes to deliver despite the internal economic crises in South Africa. I think over the years, South Africa grew in confidence within the partnership, particularly when the first BRICS summit took place in Durban South Africa.

In the Durban 2013 BRICS summit, African presidents were invited to join leaders of BRICS and the theme evolved around Africa. In this context, South Africa regained its muscles as a BRICS member. South Africa therefore represents Africa well in the BRICS, in a way, and I think the African countries should support it. The only thing I think people want is to be more involved. While the BRICS started as a partnership of political nature, now that it has embraced economic development, the voice of the people must be heard.

The major problem of South Africa is that it is not robust economically compared to its BRICS counterparts, and its economy has been performing badly since the 2008/2009 world’s economic crisis. It has been a zero growth economy ever since. If any growth, then it has been below 1%. South Africa has struggled to stabilize its economy during the past few years, and now the COVID-19 has exacerbated this but it is common to many countries around the world.

KKK: In your previous discussion, you talk about a transition from politics to economy. How do you see BRICS influence on international issues, its collective position on the global arena?

BEI: BRICS did not transit from politics to economy as such but put emphasis on economic projects. BRICS leaders still talk global politics while experts guide the leaders on foreign policy issues. For me, I think it is a very good approach going forward. BRICS must deliver on capital-intensive infrastructure development, and the funding from the New Development Bank (BRICS) is critical in this regard. With good policies in place, this will help the SADC region and the rest of Africa. It is great that the branch of this bank operates from Johannesburg in South Africa.

Furthermore, I must say that BRICS influence on international scale is dented by minor problems in the organization. For example, the diplomatic conflict between India and China, the fact that both Russia and China wants to be in a position of favor with the United States on diplomatic ground, this is not helping its influence globally. I think BRICS must clean its home, or clean before its door, if it wants to be the balancing power in international affairs. The other problem is the capital issue. At the moment, the BRICS do not have the muscles to outcompete the Bretton Wood Institutions, the World Bank and IMF. More investment, more capital is needed in the BRICS Bank.

In the past, there was the lack of synergy in diplomatic position as far as the BRICS is concerned. In the UN Security Council, for instance, the BRICS have to consult in order to accommodate views on issues of global importance. We know that South Africa is a member of the SADC and there is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), another SADC country, which has a plethora of problems of security and economic nature. I think that any assistance from such an organization (BRICS) would be appreciated. Quite recently, more than 200 civilians known as the Bembe people were massacred in the eastern DRC by Ngumino and Twagineho militias. These militias are of foreign origin to the DRC. This news is not broadcasted in South Africa, if the BRICS could invest more in peace-keeping mission,maybe help the current government, perhaps it could help the failing Monusco, a UN mission in the DRC. It is such engagement that can make the BRICS shine internationally. They need a collective position on global issues. This is just one example.

KKK: In relation to economy and trade, what are your arguments about collaboration among BRICS? Do you also see China and India racing for global dominance, and Russia steadily raising its business profile on the global stage?

BEI: With regard to this question, this is what I have to say. In fact, trade protectionism is only good temporarily and it works only in the short run. It is not sustainable as a policy in the long term. We know in the 17th century it was promoted in European countries but there was a time when the Laissez-faire ideology took precedence on economic isolationism. We also know that a couple of BRICS countries have a communist background (Russia and China). What I can say is that China opened up its economy to trade, and for more than 30 years, it manage to build a robust economy (now considered the 2nd largest after the United States) with potential prospects of outperforming the United States. I think we can learn from the Chinese economic success.

The COVID-19 situation may help change the forecasts but free trade has proven over the years to be highly supportive to the economy of nations. This does not mean one needs “to throw away the baby with the water” when it comes to the gain obtained during the socialist approach to economic development. The BRICS countries should find a way of striking a balance between the two economic systems. But frankly speaking, an open economy leaning more towards free trade is what I would recommend for an emerging economy. Now even countries where the economy is freer like South Africa and India, we see that the major hindrance is corruption and bad governance in certain instances. If the BRICS can address these obstacles or hurdles, they will have a better chance of winning. In China, human rights abuses shouldn’t be covered up.  Doing-Business with countries where dictatorship and abuses are evident should it be alright.

In addition, there will be areas where BRICS will compete, and this is healthy to any economy, but there must be more focus on what BRICS can do together to address abject poverty, growing unemployment and human rights abuses. China and India need to talk more to address their differences. The future of BRICS depends, to some considerable extent, on their good relations. The race for dominance if military is dangerous. I think they need to talk as friends and partners. The rest of the BRICS should mediate in this regard.

Many experts still question the role of BRICS members in Africa. It is important here to recall that Russia was involved in helping African countries during their struggle for independence and that was the Cold War. It lost its influence after the split of the USSR. Currently Russia’s foreign policy largely seeks to regain what it lost to the United States and China and other foreign players in Africa. But for our Russian partners, Africa needs sustainable development, and not military weapons and equipment. Africa is looking for foreign players to invest in infrastructure and play large part economically.

KKK: In your post-doctoral research on BRICS, and in your article to The Conversation, you mentioned what South Africa can offer or shared with other members. Is it possible to restate explicitly the kind of “beneficiation” here?

BEI: I would make known, first, that as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cape Town, my academic investigation deals with the impact of and the challenges towards mineral beneficiation policy interventions in the SADC region. This has some importance for foreign players looking opportunities to invest in mineral resources in the SADC.

Having said the above, I am more than prepared to embark on a project that will help BRICS to understand the effects of Brics partnership on mineral beneficiation in South Africa and within the Southern African Development Community. In this connection, I think South Africa has a lot to offer to the BRICS. There must also be a consensus with other African countries. Understandably, South Africa can be an investment gateway to Africa. As the presiding head of the African Union, South Africa represents the interests of the AU in BRICS.

On beneficiation, South Africa has a tremendous experience on nuclear power that, if used for energy, could help the beneficiation industry in the country. One needs to be cautious of deviations in that regard, not that I am suggesting South Africa would deviate, but care needs to be observed by all member countries on that issue. As a pacifist, I would advise that African countries look at alternative, renewable energy sources. A gradual approach to beneficiation and a dialogue between trade partners will take the BRICS partnership to another level as far as South Africa is concerned in the BRICS.

KKK: How do you assess the current coronavirus spread and its impact, especially among BRICS, (Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa) and allegedly (yet to be proved) virus originated from China (BRICS member)?

BEI: The BRICS are hit by the COVID-19 crisis just like any other country. As we know, the COVID-19 started in Wuhan, China, and then spread in no time to all the continents. It is however important to note that China closed its borders and cooperated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to alert other countries. On the other hand, in Africa, we saw China helping the African Union (AU) with PPEs and other test equipment. This should be appreciated.

Whether the alert came late or not, I do not have any means to determine that. Why would China want to do that? Instead of pointing fingers to others, I think it is time the world learns from the threat we face together as humans and find a common ground to halt (stop) the spread of COVID-19. It should be an opportunity to re-engineer our health facilities and capabilities for a better tomorrow for all. Personally, I would call for cooperation between BRICS and non-BRICS countries (the United States and Europe for example to get involved). Failing to do that will be a recipe for more complications.

KKK: What do you think of BRICS collaborating on COVID-19 vaccine? Do you see “cooperation or competition” among its members (China, India and Russia) racing for global market with the vaccine?

BEI: Interestingly, I see both cooperation and competition.But I think we need more cooperation and sharing of the information. The BRICS must remember what they owe the world. Cooperation should be on all aspects of life. We hear stories of people of color being ill-treated in China for example. I think the authorities should investigate that and take appropriate actions to care for others with dignity.

In South Africa as well, the refugee community was almost neglected in the management of the COVID-19. I am glad the government decided to do something about it. BRICS scientists, as well, need collaboration to come up successfully with a solution or vaccine. Efforts by other scientists need to be taken into account. And as regards Africa, an African solution to Africa’s problem approach should not be neglected or relegated to the backyard. BRICS are partners, they can help each other but they should not replace own efforts towards security and safety. Vaccine or solutions to the pandemic should not be profit-orientated. In Africa, we believe in Ubuntu. I think our BRICS leaders will not do such a mistake. I am highly optimistic on that.

KKK: Generally, what would you consider as the key challenges amid the coronavirus pandemic that has shattered the economy, and how do you see the future of BRICS?

BEI: The pandemic has, indeed taken a heavy toll on the global economy. As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), Brazil, India, Russia, China, and of course, South Africa have high infections after the United States. The key challenges during the COVID-19 era are: Unpreparedness of the BRICS countries. It came as a surprise and BRICS were caught pants down in most instances. We should view the COVID-19 as an opportunity for better planning, re-engineering of our health facilities and capabilities for prevention.

Lack of financial resources. The poor countries in a dire situation. Most countries had no financial muscles to acquire respirators and PPEs. Russia and China managed to build specialized hospitals within a short time to contain the situation. This is an area where the BRICS Development Bank could make the stark difference if steered in the right direction.

Insufficient coordination. As for the case of South Africa, it is good that the government took the scientific approach in managing the situation. Coordination with public-private partnership could enhance the ability of the state apparatus to serve everybody regardless of their origin. There is still time to ensure that poor including refugees and asylum seekers are humanly served. We cannot be selective in enforcing human rights. Medical assistance, in time of coronavirus, be regarded as basic human right for all. A better coordination will therefore help not only South Africa, but all the countries.

Last but not the least, a holistic approach to fighting the pandemic should be promoted. A human being is not just a body, but it is also a spirit. While scientists and decision makers propose solutions, it must be done in conjunction with means that uplift the spirit as well. Faith based organizations should equally have a role to play to help the government and to provide interventions of psychological and spiritual nature. A healthy body in a healthy spirit is what we need. Otherwise, any solution will be half-baked and unsustainable. All the stakeholders must work together. This is not only for South Africa or for the BRICS, but it is also for the entire world. There are a lot of negative news on TV and Radio channels about the corona. It is time the media grasps the opportunity to serve humanity by focusing on giving hope rather than destroying hope. A balance needs to be set in this regard as well. Media have to exhibit a more constructive role for a better world.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a passionate contributor to Global Research.

Twitter cites fears QAnon activity will lead to “offline harm” while further empowering corporate media whose “offline harm” includes selling wars that have destroyed entire nations abroad and bled the American people dry at home. 

***
News outlets like CNN reported on Twitter’s move to purge the QAnon movement from its platform.

Articles like, “Twitter cracks down on QAnon accounts,” would claim Twitter fears QAnon’s rhetoric online could eventually lead to “offline harm.”

There is no doubt that QAnon has been behind absurd conspiracy theories and verified lies circulating online – suspiciously absurd. Banning it from Twitter because of alleged fears its activity will lead to “offline harm” is even more absurd.

Source: Land Destroyer Report

Despite making absurd claims that demonstrably never materialize or providing evidence that is later revealed to be clearly fabricated, nothing QAnon has done differs from what the corporate media does on a daily basis. In many ways they are one in the same – dividing and distracting the public while US special interests advance their agenda unnoticed and unopposed.

QAnon allegedly made false claims that Hillary Clinton’s arrest was imminent – she was never arrested. Conversely, the corporate media regularly claims that various world leaders in nations targeted by Western regime change have “fled,” are “dead,” or otherwise “ousted from power” – with lies spread by the Western media over the alleged “fates” of still incumbent leaders like Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un coming to immediate mind.

The Western corporate media also helps sell various wars of aggression.

This includes the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, US interventions in Libya and Syria from 2011 onward and US-backed regime change in Ukraine in 2013-2014.

Collectively these conflicts have killed over a million people and driven millions more from their homes. This “offline harm” – the direct result of lies told by the Western corporate media – has not only gone completely unaddressed by Twitter – it is enabled by Twitter.

Twitter – along with other US tech giants like Facebook and Google – aided the US government in sowing chaos across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011, precipitating wars that are still raging today, claiming lives, and effecting “offline harm” impacting millions of people.

The banning of the more absurd QAnon movement will pave the way for other purges – eventually eliminating any alternative to the corporate media and its demonstrably dangerous and dishonest narratives. QAnon’s absurdity will make it easy for Twitter to justify its ban, but the momentum toward greater censorship across Western social media will eventually impact accounts and movements previously difficult to justify banning.

US-based “social media” platforms – Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. – are no longer truly social media. They are clearly transforming into centralized programed media where corporate monopolies create content that is consumed, removing the public, independent organizations, and competitors’ role in creating content, contributing to discussions, offering alternative views, and interacting with one another.

It is important that this fact be fully recognized and exposed as well as the creation of alternative platforms – especially overseas where US-based “social media” has been fully weaponized and used to undermine sociopolitical and economic stability.

*

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 Land Destroyer Report.

“Whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene.” (US Navy Geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred Thayus Mahan (1840-1914))

Among Washington’s strategic objectives is the militarization of major seaways, extending from the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, The Gulf of Bengal, the Malacca-Singapore strait to the South China Sea and the East China Sea. (see map below).

This seaway route is central to the conduct of maritime commodity trade between East Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Western Europe. The US led-wars in both Yemen (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden) and Somalia (Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean) are in this regard strategic. 

 

The US also exerts its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean from its Diego Garcia military base.

The unspoken objective of these militarized sea routes is to undermine China’s maritime silk road under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The US-India Alliance against China

A dangerous game is currently unfolding in the Indian Ocean. Joint US-India naval operations are envisaged in the Adaman Sea. The Times of India has confirmed the planning of US-India War Games in proximity of the Nicobar Archipelago.

These war games take place at a time of political confrontation, with persistent threats by president Trump directed against China:

A US carrier strike group led by aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (right) is set to conduct an exercise with Indian warships near the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago.

…  The USS Nimitz carrier strike group and another one led by USS Ronald Reagan have just completed an operational deployment and “freedom of navigation” mission in the South China Sea. This is seen as a major show of support for US allies and partners….

Several Indian warships are taking part in the exercise led by Eastern Naval Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Sanjay Vatsayan. They comprise warships, aircraft destroyers, frigates and submarines as well as maritime patrol aircraft from both the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) and the Eastern Naval Command (ENC) headquartered at Visakhapatnam. (S Venkat Narayan: The Island)

India under Prime Minister Modi has been sucked into the US imperial agenda. Moreover, Japan and India have also carried out a naval exercise near the Malacca Strait in late June late, in liaison with Washington.

Australia is also involved in US sponsored war games directed against China:

“India is understood to be planning to invite Australia to take part in the Malabar exercise. If the move translates into reality, a military construct will firmly be added to the so-called “Quad” countries—India, Japan, the USA and Australia…

These war games consist in militarizing strategic waterways and maritime trade routes. They are intent upon undermining China-India relations under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

(They are also intent  on undermining bilateral relations including trade between China and Japan, as well as Australia).

War games are an integral part of a “package” of threats and sanctions directed against Beijing including trade restrictions and the blacklisting of Chinese businessmen by the Trump administration.

For more than 20 years, the US has ensured the militarization of both the East and South China seas, extending from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait. What US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo‘s wants is for Beijing to accept a “Monroe style Doctrine” of US naval hegemony in the South China Sea intimating so to speak  that ‘China should withdraw from  the South China Sea’

“…we made our policy on the South China Sea crystal clear.  It’s not China’s maritime empire.” (Pompeo press conference)

*

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

In an article in Foreign Affairs in March titled, “Why America Must Lead Again,” Joe Biden claimed that “the world doesn’t organize itself,” and promised to “put the U.S. back at the head of the table” among the nations of the world. But the premise that the world can only organize itself under the direction of the United States and Biden’s ambition to restore the U.S. to such a dominant position at this moment in history are out of touch with global reality. 

This view is already being challenged by governments and social movements around the world, and Americans should also challenge it if we mean to avoid endless war and a debilitating new arms race. As if to underline precisely these dangers, the “Back at the head of the table” sub-heading in Biden’s Foreign Affairs article appeared just above a huge photo of U.S. troops firing heavy artillery into a town in Afghanistan at the height of Obama’s escalation of that war in June 2011 (above). 

The American police state is currently making its boldest test run to date in Portland, Oregon, escalating violence and lawlessness against the peaceful population of an American city. The people of Portland have responded with increased resistance, but support from officials elected to defend the Constitution is scarce and weak.

Oregon’s two senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, are both Democrats with reputations for being on the better side of important issues. But until July 20, their best response to federal secret police operating without restraint in Portland had been to wring their hands and call for a federal investigation of the uninvited federal forces that have ratcheted up street violence and terrorized the city.

On July 20, the two senators made their biggest move yet, an amendment to pending legislation. Supported by 18 other senators and several members of the House, their press release “announced that they are introducing the Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act, which would block the Trump administration from deploying federal forces as a shadowy paramilitary against Americans.” This sounds a whole lot better than it looks, since it’s only an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, unlikely to pass the Republican majority or, in the extreme, a presidential veto. It’s what you might call Potemkin legislation. The establishment of a police state is happening now, after decades of preparation, and this is a “solution” that will never matter.

What’s the matter with these people? The deployment of secret police, unidentified and unidentifiable, defying local control, should be recognized as a Rubicon crossing that cannot be allowed without kissing constitutional government one last goodbye. Why are these senators and their staffs not out in the streets with their constituents? What don’t they get that’s not worth even a single evening of their taxpayer-funded jobs?

Senator Merkley seems to understand on some level the significance of this crisis, having issued a statement on July 17 (more pushback!) that refers to two federal, executive-branch agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ):

DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic. First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans. We demand not only that these acts end, but also that they remove their forces immediately from our state. Given the egregious nature of the violations against Oregonians, we are demanding full investigations by the inspectors general of these departments.

Oregon has five congressional representatives, two of whom – Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici, both Democrats – joined their senators in calling for an investigation. The other three – Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, Republican Greg Walden – had even less objection to secret police patrolling Portland. There were no reports of them or their staffs taking a stand with their constituents in the streets.

Representative DeFazio issued a press release fretting about “reports” but failing to acknowledge the actual violence perpetrated by unidentifiable federal officers on peaceful protesters. The best DeFazio did was promise no action while vaguely expressing something like mild distress:

“I am deeply disturbed by the reports coming out of Portland about the escalating use of force against citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights….”

In June, Rep. Schrader joined his senators and reps Blumenauer and Bonamici in a press release complaining about a possible surveillance aircraft flown by a federal agency over earlier protests following the police murder of George Floyd. The lawmakers wrote a letter to the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) asking for answers about a USMS-linked aircraft that spent three hours circling Portland protests on June 13. As for police-state tactics in Portland, Rep. Schrader seems so far to be AWOL. Also missing in action is Republican Rep. Walden, who is not running for re-election. Silent on federal secret police, Walden on July 21 called for a “safe, effective, accessible COVID-19 vaccine.”

Oregon’s Democratic governor Kate Brown has been consistently, insistently objecting to the federal secret police presence since it first started escalating police violence on July 11, when a USMS officer shot an immobile, peaceful protestor in the head with a “less than lethal” round that shattered the man’s skull. No one in state or local government requested any federal help. Those officials are unanimous in wanting the feds to leave.

Governor Brown has requested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately withdraw its unwelcome officers from Portland, but with no effect. DHS officials have not responded to the Oregon governor’s office. In effect, the federal policing in Portland is an experiment in martial law with no justifying declaration of martial law. Acting DHS head Ken Cucinelli told NPR: “This is a posture we intend to continue, not just in Portland but in any of the facilities that we’re responsible for around the country.” The secret police presence in Portland does not limit itself legitimately to protecting federal facilities but operates freely outside its legal jurisdiction with no restraint by any other authority. This lawlessness appears to be a form of anarchy.

In the midst of her apparent impotence, Gov. Brown used strong language in a July 20 tweet:

“This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. We cannot have secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles. I can’t believe I have to say that to the President of the United States.”

On July 17, Oregon attorney general Ellen Rosenblum announced that the state was about to file a lawsuit in federal court:

… against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Marshals Service, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Protection Service and their agents alleging they have engaged in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregonians by seizing and detaining them without probable cause (see AG Rosenblum vs John Does 1-10 Complaint).

In addition to its lawsuit, Oregon planned to seek an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) against the federal government’s police state activities. If granted by the court, the TRO “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.”

One of the incidents prompting the state lawsuit – when peaceful, standing-still protestor Donovan LaBella, 26, had his skull fractured by a projectile fired by an unidentified secret police officer – is also the subject of a criminal investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice, joined by the Multnomah County District Attorney.

Another lawsuit filed July 21, charges the US with violating the tenth amendment of the Constitution, that reserves to the states all rights not specifically granted in the Constitution to the federal government, such as local law enforcement. The multiple plaintiffs in this case include two state representatives, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Portland, Oregon during George Floyd protests, 2020 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

With the possible exception of the TRO, which would likely be appealed, none of the state’s measures promises any immediate relief.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, 57, is a timber fortune heir who once climbed Mt. Everest. In the current crisis, Wheeler seems hardly able to climb out of bed. By a quirk of local government, Wheeler was also able to assign himself the role of Portland’s police commissioner, which is both legal and a conflict of interest. Portland Police Bureau has a long, dismal history of bias and violence that Wheeler has been loath to address. In 2018, half of all Portland Police arrests were homeless people.

During the protests after the George Floyd murder, Mayor Wheeler imposed a curfew on Portland, despite objections that it would encourage police abuse. He lifted the curfew two  days later, after nights of excessive police use of tear gas and other chemical weapons.

Wheeler issued a statement saying he shared people’s concerns about police using chemical weapons during a pandemic that causes serious lung problems. But Wheeler refused to ban police use of chemical weapons. His statement went on to enshrine his inaction in language amazingly lacking in any sense of leadership:

Today, I directed Portland Police Chief Jami Resch that gas should not be used unless there is a serious and immediate threat to life safety, and there is no other viable alternative for dispersal. I strongly believe that gas should not be used to disperse crowds of nonviolent protestors or for general crowd management purposes. It should only be used in response to violence that threatens life safety. My priority and focus are to protect the lives of demonstrators, our first responders, and the people in custody at the Justice Center.

That statement was issued June 6, and police use of chemical weapons in Portland has continued, unhindered by the mayor who is also police commissioner. Before issuing the May curfew in Portland, Mayor Wheeler asked the governor to mobilize the National Guard to patrol Portland. At a June 1 press conference, Gov. Brown said: “Mayor Wheeler asked me over the weekend to mobilize the National Guard and put them in direct confrontation with protesters. This was not the first time the mayor has asked to mobilize the National Guard and not the first time I have declined.”

Mayor Wheeler has said publicly th at he would like the federal secret police to leave Portland, but he has not made a big issue of it. In spite of his expressed concern for peaceful protestors, he has not chosen to join them on the streets any more than the rest of Oregon’s reluctant leadership class.

Real leadership in Portland is coming from the streets and has been growing in response to the violent tactics of the federal police state.

Doing what no one in Oregon government attempted to do, a “Wall of Moms,” mothers and grandmothers, has emerged to stand as a human shield between the federal aggressors and the protestors. The feds tear-gassed them anyway.

At least one woman (possibly two or more) confronted the federal phalanx of heavily armed and body armored men with nothing but her own naked body. The feds shot pepper balls at her.

In one of the most vivid videos coming out of Portland, Christopher David, 53, a career Navy vet, approaches a line of secret police in camo to ask them a question or two. David hadn’t paid much attention to the first seven weeks of protest on Portland, but unidentified militia kidnapping bystanders in unmarked vehicles got his attention. The Naval Academy graduate told USA today:

What they were doing was unconstitutional. Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing. They really don’t feel in their heart the weight of those words.

David is a large man, a head taller than most of the secret police that  he approached, but his approach was slow, calm, deliberate, non-threatening. One of the feds hit him in the chest with a baton, knocking him off balance, backwards a step. He recovered, presumably still intent on asking the officers about their oath to the Constitution. Then one of the feds clubbed him three times (breaking his hand) and another reached out to pepper spray him in the face. He tried to slap the pepper spray away as he backed up, then turned away from the feds who had just given him the short course in police state violence.

Acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf is a former lobbyist who has been with DHS since March 2017. His early work centered on the Trump administration’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents, but he told Congress it was not his job to say whether the policy was right or wrong. Recently, Wolf has been vociferous in his defense of US police state practices in Portland. In a statement which is technically true, but does not actually deny the underlying accusation of savagery, Wolf said: “These police officers are not storm troopers, they are not Gestapo. That description is offensive.”

Yes, that description IS offensive. It’s intended to be offensive. And it’s also accurate in characterizing the behavior of American secret police. Is it better or worse to know that Wolf sent them into the field even though he knew they had not been trained in riot control or mass demonstration management?

Even other DHS employees are worried, according to Buzzfeed, which reports that “DHS employees are worried the Portland Protest Response is destroying their agency’s reputation.” Wait, what reputation is that? DHS, you’ll recall, is a mega-agency with no coherent mission, created in bi-partisan fashion in the panic after 9/11 (Ron Wyden voted for it in a 90-9 Senate vote). It was never a good idea. Right-wing authoritarians had written the legislation long before 9/11, then used the crisis as an occasion to take a massive step forward along America’s evolution toward a police state. Where we are now should be no surprise to anyone, any more than the mostly supine response so far to the initial deployment of our Homeland Security police and the presidential promise to take it nationwide.

*

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.

William Boardman has been writing for Reader Supported News since 2012. A collection of his essays, EXCEPTIONAL: American Exceptionalism Takes Its Toll, was published in September 2019 and is available from Yorkland Publishing of Toronto. He is a former Vermont assistant judge.

The repressive U.S. state’s chickens have come home to roost with President Donald Trump announcing federal troops will be deployed to several U.S. cities. This comes after federal agents reportedly disappeared protesters last week off the streets of Portland, Oregon.

When we launched the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), we had stated the ruling class would eventually rely on violence and repression, as well as assault traditional liberal rights, to maintain control as the United States continued its dive into an economic and political morass.

What we also have related in our years of work is the tactics being deployed in Portland are not new. They have been perfected by U.S. forces and repressive states trained for decades by U.S. police, military and intelligence agencies. Now, because the ruling elite increasingly see liberal democracy and the rule of law as an impediment to their minority rule, the repressive practices normally reserved for the natives of the global South and for Black and Brown communities in the metropole are being used against insurgent white dissidents in Portland—and soon coming to a community near you.

That is why we say blowback is the inevitable consequence when social forces in the United States are silent or have the luxury of not being aware of the criminality of the U.S. state abroad.

No compromise with evil and no retreat from the enemies of collective humanity are the watchwords and slogan of BAP’s campaign work. We had recently stated that we expect many more Portlands. But we also expect fierce opposition from the people, as we have already seen with thousands of people beating back federal agents into a Portland courthouse. That is why we are organizing and building alternative power.

*

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

Featured image is from AP Photo/Alex Brandon

A contested gubernatorial election in 2018 involving Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp and former Georgia State House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams highlighted problems related to voter suppression based upon the national oppression of the African American people.

Hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised in this historic poll which could have placed the first African American woman as governor of a state.

The Abrams campaign went for weeks without conceding defeat to Kemp. Nonetheless, even after the conscience of the people of the United States had been heightened, the governorship of Kemp was allowed to move forward.

In 2020, amid the worst public health crisis in the U.S. for more than a century, Kemp has filed suit against Atlanta’s African American Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms saying that she does not have the authority to require the wearing of masks in the city. This pandemic has spawned the precipitous decline in the economy domestically and internationally while the federal government in Washington has failed to provide adequate assistance to millions of workers.

Kemp has been a loyal follower of the Trump administration which in deference to its constituency has played to the instincts of the COVID-19 denialists and anti-scientific elements in order to shore up a base of conservative and neo-fascist voters. Now that Trump has been photographed donning a mask, perhaps these officials who follow his line on science and public health will recognize that these positions are endangering their own political status in an election year.

Although Trump is trailing Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden by double digits, the former Vice President under President Barack Obama, and a senator from Delaware, the corporate media polls in 2016 were proven horribly incorrect when the Republican candidate won the election through securing far more electoral votes. The popular vote in southern states such as Georgia could be important in determining the outcome of the November elections.

Nonetheless, in many southern states the Democratic candidates for president have not won a majority in decades. This reality serves as a consistent impediment to the exercise of Black political power within the framework of a racist capitalist system.

Atlanta has been the scene of mass demonstrations and civil unrest stemming from the police execution of George Floyd on May 25. Several police officers have been disciplined and charged in the severe beatings of civilians and the shooting death of 27-year-old African American motorist Rayshard Brooks.

Atlanta erupts after Rayshard Brooks police execution

Earlier on July 6, Kemp announced the deployment of National Guard troops to Atlanta purportedly in response to the rise in violence within the city. The escalation in interpersonal conflict in Atlanta and other municipalities in the U.S., along with the continuing demonstrations against police brutality and other forms of racist violence against African Americans, are being melded together as a rationale for outside interference by the state and federal governments in patrolling the cities.

The Trump administration in June evoked the slavery-era Insurrection Act of 1807 mandating the dispatching of federal troops to suppress the legitimate demonstrations and rebellions in response to the law-enforcement executions of African Americans. The president is following up on this pledge by not only encouraging like-minded state governments to send in military forces notwithstanding the stationing of agents directly responsible to the White House, Justice Department and the Pentagon.

A Historical Legacy of Racist Violence and Political Suppression

Georgia was a slave state which seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America (CSA) and actively participated in the Civil War during 1861-1865. After the defeat of the Confederacy, Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown surrendered and was paroled by the federal government. (See this)

Later however, Brown attempted to convene the state General Assembly composed of Confederate representatives and was placed under detention in Washington, D.C.  Brown left behind a state plundered by the War where a half million whites felt threatened with losing control over more than 400,000 emancipated Africans.

There was a period of Presidential Reconstruction where the new General Assembly ratified the 13^th Amendment which legally freed enslaved Africans by December 1865. Nonetheless, recently emancipated Africans fled the plantations and migrated to the cities and towns seeking an independent existence.

It was in the state of Georgia at Savannah that Union Military General William T. Sherman issued his Special Field Order No. 15 which called for the breaking up of the plantations and the granting to emancipated slaves some 40 acres and a mule. This proposal provided an avenue for those freed Africans to develop a self-reliant future beyond the collapse of the antebellum economy.

The then President Andrew Johnson, a Southerner from Tennessee who opposed secession, did not believe in holding the planters accountable for their rebellion against the federal government. This attitude on the part of Johnson was reflected in what eventually transpired in Georgia and other former Confederate states.

According to one account of this period in Georgia:

“Under that order (No. 15), federal authorities confiscated ‘abandoned lands’ along the coast and distributed them to freed slaves. This distribution proved temporary, however, as most of the land was soon restored to its original owners. Nonetheless, some Black families were able to buy or lease land from the government.” (See this)

African Americans were active in state politics during Reconstruction and leaders such as African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Bishop Henry McNeal Turner fought to ensure the right to the franchise and land ownership. Turner was elected to the State Assembly and served for many years.

Nevertheless, resistance from the racist landowners and politicians led to the expulsion of African Americans from the State Assembly in 1868 along with the Camilla Massacre, where dozens of Blacks were gunned down while traveling from Albany to this southern town to participate in a Republican Party state convention. At least 12 people were killed in an effort to terrorize African Americans and force them from political activity. Later that year, the federal government re-imposed military rule, denying the state’s congressmen from taking their seats in Washington, D.C. After the demise of Radical Reconstruction, African Americans by the end of the 19^thcentury were largely excluded from state and national politics.

It would take another century for African Americans to win the right to the franchise and some semblance of equality. During the 1950s and 1960s, Atlanta became a center for the Civil Rights Movement where both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), co-founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), were headquartered. In addition, Atlanta became an important source for African American education after the Civil War and Reconstruction as home to several leading Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Implications for the Outcome of the 2020 Presidential Elections

This legacy of voter suppression, a key component in the nationally oppressive apparatus of the capitalist state in the U.S., portends much for the upcoming elections in November 2020 where Trump is seeking a second term of office. The same Georgia governor responsible for the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters in 2018 when he served as Secretary of State, is now presiding over the polls which will determine whether his political ally in the White House remains in that position.

African Americans registering to vote during Reconstruction in Georgia

The Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden has said next to nothing on the important questions of voter suppression and racist state violence against the African American people. Biden’s main talking point: that he is not Donald Trump and therefore will “heal the nation” may not be enough to motivate the African American voters who are concerned with the rising rates of COVID-19 infections in their communities along with the mounting unemployment rates and its consequent evictions, foreclosures and homelessness.

Even with an enthusiastic electorate embodying a disdain for the policies of the Trump administration, if the right to vote is not guaranteed by local, state and federal governments the potential for a continuation of the current administration is quite possible. What is needed is the independent mobilization and organization of the people, the potential of which has been illustrated in the mass demonstrations and rebellions in recent months.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp; all images in this article are from the author

USA needs help. Let’s face it: our democratic institutions aren’t working well; our president is behaving like a depraved, spiteful monarch; our police, with almost 19,000 independent units nationwide, are unmanageable; our unprecedented social and economic divides are growing; the health of our citizens is declining; new digital platforms are sources of unprecedented hate and threats; our media is so polarized, we don’t know whom to believe. (Then there’s Covid-19.)

HEEEELP!

Across the globe, wherever a nation is in crisis—by hurricane or earthquake, mounting disease or plunging poverty, military attack or teetering government— whether requested or not, others are alerted and assistance from abroad mobilized. The U.S. (as projected by American media) is in the forefront of concern for others (except those on its sanctions list— e.g. North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Yemen). Genuine humanitarian aid is dispatched from NGOs and private, religious and government agencies. Assistance flows in cash, in materials and advisors, observers and medical experts (along with military intelligence and troops where it’s determined to be advantageous to American policy).

Today America itself is a nation under internal threat and in dire need. Along with signs that the U.S.healthcare system and its leaders cannot control the Covid-19 disease, more examples of police brutality are exposed. Underpinning and exacerbating both ailments is political instability (although few would identify it as such).

If Americans will not admit that they’re engulfed by this unprecedented crisis, outside observers note it with growing alarm. Countries close their borders to Americans while the pandemic spirals out of control. Across the world, people are questioning the very idea of American democracy. Longtime U.S. allies are flummoxed by its unpredictable foreign policy. Even before these multiple crises emerged, commentators pondered our teetering democracy.

We’ve had flawed, embarrassing state primary elections in Georgia and Wisconsin; we had the Democratic National Committee interrupt the presidential primaries to install its preferred candidate Joe Biden. Public doubts are increasing about how November’s election can be legitimately conducted. Every week presents us with more fears about this democracy. Management of the pandemic is undermined when the CDC, one of America’s most highly regarded health agencies, is bypassed by a White House order to divert medical data to a branch of Homeland Security. Most recently we have unidentified paramilitaries circumventing state and local authorities to confront protesters, first in D.C. now in Portland, with threats of similar directives to other cities.

This slide towards greater political instability looks unstoppable.

Another country experiencing a similar crisis will surely be the object of outside assistance, or interference. There’ll be offers of economic assistance, dispatch of intelligence advisors; international peacekeepers might be sent; a U.N. Security Council resolution would be proposed.

But who will help America? Who could? In 2007 Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez donated heating oil to American families struggling through the winter months. Cuba’s offer to help early in the Covid-19 crisis was spurned, (while from its side Washington blocked Chinese assistance to Cuba, interfered with a shipment to France, and essentially commandeered a Chinese Covid-19 supplies meant for Canada).

I can think of just three states—Israel, Australia and the U.K.– who might offer assistance. Israel is a dependable training site for American police, and a highly valued intelligence service for the U.S. Australiamaintains an opaque but firm military alliance with America, readily falling in with the Pentagon’s needs. On intelligence sharing, the U.K is a solid partner. Although one wonders how much economic assistance England could offer, preoccupied with its own pandemic. Plans for new U.S-U.K. trade agreements to thwart the European Union are delayed. As for guidance from England on democracy, its parliamentary system differs markedly from U.S. federalism and few British understand America’s election processes. The White House occupant might reach out to Russia; but that would raise other problems, even among Republicans.

What about India? Historically beset by discord between two major ethnic groups, multi-cultural India might be a model. But the rise of Hindu nationalism under Modi has been fiercely uncompromising. Advice from India is out.

Maybe South Africa would step up to guide us. The U.S. backed the anti-apartheid struggle there, and South Africa’s victory established an exemplary racial reconciliation system.

Scanning the rest of Africa, the Middle East, and South America, we find few candidates who might help us.

But wait! We have billionaires, lots of them—609 out of 2,208 globally.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his peer Apple’s Tim Cook responded to Governor Cuomo’s call for help during New York’s Covid-19 crisis, and George Soros promises more support for Black Americans’ struggle for justice. Some very wealthy Americans offer to pay more taxes.

The alternative to all these solutions is: people in the streets.

*

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.

Featured image is a file photo

If you watch old footage of WW2 US Army commanders, like Marshall, Eisenhower and even George Patton, they wore regular dress uniforms when not in the midst of combat. Camouflage was worn only in areas of combat, never back at the base or domestically. So, what happened that camouflage has become the ‘In‘ garment for this empire’s military? Do you remember when we illegally (and immorally) attacked and then occupied Iraq? This writer remembers, quite vividly, when they held press conferences at one of the command headquarters after the slaughter.

There stood one of our generals at the podium answering reporters’ questions… in camouflage! Probably the safest place in all of occupied Iraq, and this clown is head to toe in camouflage! Then, a few years down the ‘rabbit hole road of illegal occupation’ one recalls the time that the new president, Obama, called for Col. McChrystal to see him ASAP. Obama was aboard the presidential jet parked in an airfield in Denver when McChrystal arrived… in camouflage! Imagine if during WW2 FDR requested to see a general ASAP. No way in hell the general would be in camouflage. No way!

So, we know that the use of camouflage (I refuse to use the current common moniker of ‘Camo’) is strictly for a show of power. Seeing an armed US federal agent in camouflage patrolling the streets must cause some consternation. Yes? Factor that in with those Ninja helmets and the Swat Team boots, and you have all the makings of a POLICE STATE! After 9/11 they pulled that same crap with our military guarding the airports… in camouflage. The message, and not very subliminally, was that we were ‘At war’. With whom we were at war they never mentioned other than ‘Terrorism’. I guess that made our nation, when we occupied the Middle East, as having our own ‘Terrorists’ there in force. That is  exactly how the civilians in those countries saw (and still see) us. This sickness has got to stop folks, and soon!

To watch those Ninja agents in Portland this past weekend swinging their batons and spraying the pepper, with their killer guns by their side, paints a terrible portrait of Amerika. Where is the outrage by most of this nation? Too many of us remain apathetic, and let’s be totally candid here, because it’s just those ‘Crazy Niggas and Nigga lovin whitebreads’ who are being beaten and abducted into those black as coal vehicles. Pretty soon we may see our president and his top administration minions wearing the camouflage. Why not? As the helicopter gunner, mowing down innocent Vietnamese civilians in the film ‘Full Metal Jacket’ put it so succinctly: ”Isn’t war great!!?”

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is file photo

The “Russia report” is an action plan for the intelligence agencies to hand MI5 direct control over the mechanisms of British democracy, and give the government legal power to control social media.

Nobody in the mainstream will tell you this. The media are going to tell you it’s a “shocking condemnation Britain’s vulnerability to hostile state actors” or something similar, the Remainers will tell you it’s cast iron evidence the Brexit vote was rigged, and Luke Harding will tell you it means “they” are all around us and you should buy a copy of his book.

The truth is it’s just the latest of the Deep State’s plays to secure as much power as possible as quickly as possible. If anything, it already feels old-fashioned, being authored in a pre-Covid world, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be put to use in service of the world’s “new normal”.

In terms of actual content, there’s nothing new here. It’s just a collection of familiar proven lies and unproven accusations in the service of four primary agendas:

1. Invalidating the result of the Brexit referendum
2. Boosting funding/resources for the UK’s “Cyber Offensive capabilities”
3. Ceding more powers to MI5 to oversee and “protect” our democratic processes
4. Creating a “protocol” that empowers the government/intelligence agencies to force social media companies to censor and/or ban certain material, opinions, websites or users

You can plow through the whole thing here if you really feel the need.

For those outside the UK, who may not be aware of this story, sometime last year it was “leaked” that the UK parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee had prepared a report on “Russian interference” in UK politics. In a brilliant piece of PR manoeuvring, Boris Johnson refused to make the report public.

This decision manipulated those who consider themselves “the left” in British politics to clamour for the release of the “Russia Report”, believing there would be something in it that Boris didn’t want us to see. This was an act of pure naivety by Corbynista influencers, and deliberate public manipulation by the “leftist” media.

Yesterday Boris Johnson’s government finally “caved” to this pressure, and released a “confidential report” which tells us nothing we haven’t been told a million times before. This apparently secret testimony has been blasted across headlines in every broadsheet and tabloid for years.

Russia is accused of poisoning the Skripals, leaking the DNC emails, using “bots and trolls” to influence public opinion…and so and so on.

The witnesses called are all either actual spies (Christopher Steele), or “journalists” heavily involved with the Integrity Initiative (Edward Lucas). No evidence is supplied, save the tired old links to “academic studies” conducted by bought-and-paid-for NATO shills like Ben Nimmo and Bellingcat (whose direct funding from the likes of the Atlantic Council and National Endowment for Democracy represents a massive conflict of interest that is never once mentioned in the report).

In that way, the report is massively dated. Its lies, worn smooth through repetition, are dry and stale.

But that’s not the point of this report. That’s the first part of the Hegelian Dialectic. The “problem”, long since mythologised, created by force of repetition without ever being evidenced. This report is far more concerned with generating a “reaction”, and the procuring consent for a pre-planned “solution” (the report doesn’t shy away from this obvious structure – using the terms “threat” and “reaction” instead).

In short, buried in the 55 pages of waffle, repetition and bureaucratic double-talk, are key suggestions to take a more warlike stance against Russia and parlay this into a simultaneous crackdown on dissent at home, all while securing shiny new powers for MI5.

Firstly, the UK plans to strike a new attitude on “attribution” of alleged cyber attacks, claiming, apparently with a straight face:

The UK has historically been reticent in attributing cyber attacks – as recently as 2010, this Committee was asked to redact mention of Russia as a perpetrator of cyber attacks, on diplomatic grounds.

But the UK’s “reticence” to blame Russia for cyber attacks is over, they now intend to “name and shame” foreign actors who carry out cyber attacks:

there has to now be a cost attached to such activity. When attacks can be traced back – and we accept that this is in itself resource-intensive – the Government must always consider ‘naming and shaming’.

[NOTE: This section on “attribution” would an absolutely ideal time to mention that other state player – namely the US military – have the technology to carry out cyber attacks and make it appear to have come from somewhere else. We know they know, because of the Wikileaks Vault 7 leaks, but they don’t mention it.]

Oh, and they’re going “leverage” their diplomatic relations to force those countries who would rather not start a new cold war based on the testimony of lunatics, fraudsters and underwear salesmen, to publicly blame Russia for…pretty much everything:

it is apparent that not everyone is keen to adopt this new approach and to ‘call out’ Russia on malicious cyber activity. The Government must now leverage its diplomatic relationships to develop a common international approach when it comes to the attribution of malicious cyber activity by Russia and others.

This is dishonest, and potentially dangerous, but this kind of geo-political positioning is very much the long game. It’s the short term stuff, the local stuff, we should really worry about.

Like handing over powers to “monitor” and “protect” the democratic processes of the country to MI5 [our emphasis]:

Overall, the issue of defending the UK’s democratic processes and discourse has appeared to be something of a ‘hot potato’, with no one organisation recognising itself as having an overall lead. Whilst we understand the nervousness around any suggestion that the intelligence and security Agencies might be involved in democratic processes […] that cannot apply when it comes to the protection of those processes […]Protecting our democratic discourse and processes from hostile foreign interference is a central responsibility of Government, and should be a ministerial priority. In our opinion, the operational role must sit primarily with MI5

They recommend this, based on MI5’s pre-existing “relationship built with social media companies”. They don’t mention, at this stage, how social media companies have “built a relationship” with MI5, or what role they might serve in “protecting democracy”, but it’s not hard to guess.

Social Media is an important theme in the report, actually, being mentioned fifteen times in 47 pages.

Firstly, we’re told that social media companies must bear the brunt of the blame for “hostile state activity” being at all effective:

we note that – as with so many other issues currently – it is the social media companies which hold the key and yet are failing to play their part

Before they add the government must seek a “protocol” by which social media companies remove any material the UK government deems “hostile state use” of their platform:

The Government must now seek to establish a protocol with the social media companies to ensure that they take covert hostile state use of their platforms seriously, and have clear timescales within which they commit to removing such material

Any companies who refuse to do this will be “named and shamed”.

You might think “well, this protocol could easily be used against people with no state affiliation whatsoever”, and you’d be right. It could. The government admits as much, but doesn’t seem to have a problem with it:

Such a protocol could, usefully, be expanded to encompass the other areas in which action is required from the social media companies, since this issue is not unique to Hostile State Activity

This would be a good time to note that the Atlantic Council employees this report cites have, in the past, labelled people “bots” who are definitely, provably not bots. This includes noted independent journalists and a world-renowned concert pianist.

The proposed “protocol” opens up an avenue for the state to silence dissident individuals by similarly “mistaking” them for state-backed agents.

Another thing the report is keen on is boosting the UK’s “Offensive Cyber” capabilities:

this is an era of hybrid warfare and an Offensive Cyber capability is now essential. The Government announced its intention to develop an Offensive Cyber capability in September 2013, and in 2014 the National Offensive Cyber Programme (NOCP) […]The UK continues to develop its Offensive Cyber capability.

What their offensive cyber capabilities ARE, and how they use them, is never described. Are they used solely against other states, or against domestic politic parties, organizations and individuals too? They don’t say.

Is cyberwarfare even legal under international law? Well, no. In fact, the way the report dances around the idea that cyberwarfare is actually potentially illegal under international law is a thing of beauty:

While the UN has agreed that international law, and in particular the UN Charter, applies in cyberspace, there is still a need for a greater global understanding of how this should work in practice […] Achieving a consensus on this common approach will be a challenging process, but as a leading proponent of the Rules Based International Order it is essential that the UK helps to promote and shape Rules of Engagement, working with our allies.

The fact that people out there can even begin to cite this report in earnest when it describes the UK as a “key defender of a Rules Based International Order” just boggles my mind.

The real scary stuff comes later though, in the “legislation” section.

The UK is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world, and the report happily mentions that last February, the UK police/intelligence agencies got [our emphasis]:

new powers to stop, question, search or detain any person entering the UK gained Royal Assent in February 2019; it is not necessary for there to be suspicion of engagement in hostile activity in order to use these powers.

Following on from this, the report recommends a new Espionage Act and a Foreign Agent Registration Act, to “crackdown” on espionage.

Hearings resulting from these acts could be “closed material proceedings” to protect national security.

For those who don’t know, in UK law a “closed material proceeding” is a hearing where a prosecutor presents some evidence directly to a judge which is kept secret from both the public and the defense counsel.

Until this new legislation is passed, the report warns, “the Intelligence Community’s hands are tied.”

To sum up, the long-awaited Russia report is – surprise surprise – not a trove of secrets and corruption which could bring down the Johnson government. It was never going to be that, despite what all the fake-left “journalists” were saying, and what all the Labour supporters who should know better were tweeting.

It was actually sickening to watch so many people, especially in Corbyn’s camp, cry-out for this report and not realise they were getting played. It’s the oldest trick in the book. Cheap reverse psychology that doesn’t work on children past the age of about five, but apparently does work on the majority of the members of the Labour party.

Thanks to their gullibility, no one is questioning the honesty, providence or intentions of a report which finds, in short:

• MI5 should have more control over our democratic systems.
• We should spend more money on developing cyber attack ability.
• We should investigate and maybe overturn the Brexit vote.
• We should pass authoritarian new legislation
• Social Media companies should take down whatever the government says they should take down.

People who are supposed to guard against tyranny and hold power to account have abandoned their posts to take part in anti-Russia hysteria which endangers what remains of our civil liberties.

As a result, we’re getting headlines like this:

GUARDIAN: Report dans number 10 and spy agencies over Russia #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/iCpPx7RgrL

— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) July 21, 2020

And this:

MAIL: Now tame the Russian bear #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/AiIEXOvI0D

— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) July 21, 2020

And this:

THE TIMES: MI5 to get more powers #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/SwGzDiT0id

— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) July 21, 2020

It’s the same old lies, on the same old topics, told by the same old people, for the same old reasons. The only difference is, this time, they managed to trick some of the gullible “woke” left into begging for 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.

We have made some progress in our campaign to meet our running costs and put an end to our monthly deficit, but we still need your help. As grateful as we are to those who have given so far, the total number of donations and membership subscriptions we have received over the past year still only amounts to a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of people who read our website on a daily basis. If you can make a contribution to help secure the future of GlobalResearch.ca, please click below.

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

*     *     *

Trump Administration’s Pressure Prompted Tehran and Damascus to Cultivate Ties with China

By Michael Jansen, July 23, 2020

Negotiations on the China-Iran partnership involving economic, political and security cooperation were launched when Chinese President Xi Jinping made a visit to Tehran where he met Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A road map has now, reportedly, been approved by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and talks will continue to finalise the deal.  While the agreement’s provisions have not been revealed,  China is expected to invest in transport, where it already has been involved in major projects, as well as healthcare, energy, tourism and communications. Last year, China, Iran and Russia conducted naval drills in the Indian Ocean with the aim of training for dealing with ship fires and pirates. Their political aim was to signal that the world’s oceans are not a US lake.

Florida Keys Delays Vote on Release of 750 Million Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes after Public Outcry

By Center for Food Safety, July 23, 2020

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) yesterday delayed its vote on the proposed release of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes due to concerns over COVID-19. The decision to delay the vote follows public outcry and scientific dispute over the risks posed to public health and the environment by this experimental release. The approval would have permitted the British company Oxitec to release 750 million GE mosquitoes over a two-year period in Monroe County, Florida, starting as soon as this summer.

Is the United States a Failing State? A Failed State?

By Richard Falk, July 23, 2020

To ask whether the United States, the world’s dominant military power, is ‘a failing state’ should cause worldwide anxiety. Such a state, analogous to a wounded animal, is a global menace of unprecedented proportions in the nuclear age. Its political leadership is exhibiting a reckless tendency of combining incompetence with extremism. It is also crucial to ascertain at what point a failing state should be written off as ‘a failed state’ for which there is no longer a clear path to redemption. The November elections in the United States will send a strong signal as to whether the United States is failing or has failed.

War and the Environment: The Disturbing and Under-researched Legacy of Depleted Uranium Weapons

By Elena Bruess and Joe Snell, July 23, 2020

The United States first deployed depleted uranium in 1991 during the Gulf War, and it proved so effective that it was used again a few years later in the Bosnian War. With the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the toxic metal returned in force to the Middle East.

While the US Defense Department vowed to cease use of the toxic metal in conflicts beginning in 2015, thousands of rounds of depleted uranium ammunition were fired in Syrian airstrikes later that same year, according to the Pentagon.

ACLU Sues to Stop US State-Sponsored Violence, Chicago to be Occupied by Federal Agents

By Stephen Lendman, July 23, 2020

On Wednesday, the ACLU and volunteer medics sued the Trump regime’s DHS, the US Marshals Service, and Portland, OR police, saying: “In well-documented incidents, police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and flash-bangs.”

A plaintiff in the suit Savannah Guest called what’s gone on “terrifying…federal agents show(ing) no humanity or concern.”

Israel’s Jewish National Fund Is Uprooting Palestinians – Not Planting Trees

By Jonathan Cook, July 22, 2020

Germany – The COVID-19 Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Conference, 03rd July 2020

“We will not be delayed any longer. We citizens have the power. We are doing it”, with these words Heiko Schöning announced the Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigation Committee (ACU) on 31st May 2020 in Stuttgart in front of 5000 demonstrators.

On 3rd July 2020, the ACU started with an information conference in several languages. All citizens, national and international, can make suggestions for experts and witnesses (kontakt@ärzte-für-aufklärung.de). The speakers of the ACU (Heiko Schöning, Bodo Schiffmann, Martin Haditsch) invite the experts and witnesses to the public hearing of evidence.

Watch the video below. (English subtitles)

Professor Anthony Hall: Canada

We need somehow to widen this noble German initiative mounted by conscientious health care practitioners into some sort of international inquiry to look into the crimes that have taken place in terms of international community.

This international inquiry must reserve some of its energy for an investigation of the pathogen laboratories where research in public health and bioweapons inappropriately intersect. Clearly Bill Gates has performed a major role in the ongoing crime spree involving the generation of the panic pandemic.

To investigate the question of “who benefits,” a good place to start is the interests around Gates including the World Economic Forum and the UN’s World Health Organization. The contracting out of agencies like WHO to the patronage of the billionaires club has proven to be a bad bad move.

*

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: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Graphic. (U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez)

The idea of development itself, its definition, and even the method we use for defining it, would be a good place to begin toward discovering its potential in our lives. We cannot rely on any single, or even ten, definitions. We need to look at the full range of literature that arose following the end of World War II, decolonization, and reconstruction from when international development spawned in our era. How has development been defined across the decades?

One of the ways this information can be organized is by looking at the explanations–some concise, some longer–of what development is, and taking those few sentences and putting them into a file, building a database of development descriptions. This process gave me several hundreds of pages from several thousands of books or authors that can help one come to an understanding of what is development.

The next step is to break down the definitions into their components. You have a box for development as it relates to economics. Another relates to social aspects. Still another is about the political side of the issue, and another is about geography. Other components will include change, growth, and process. When you have built a database of information and broken the concept down into its elements, you are then in the position of defining the term based on the range of its basic elements.

You can extend this method to other aspects of your life and work, where I hope you find the most passion. Defining the terms will be essential to creating a foundation for your research, investigation, analysis, understanding, teaching, and training. In my own investigation, absorbing all possible literature on the development field that emerged from the 1950s up until 2011, at which time most of my energies transitioned from academic study to development practice in Morocco, I can share what I gathered. One result of dedicated study can be the formulation of new definitions, created by drawing from all of the “baskets” of broken down and organized parts, and then reassembled into working definitions.

What we find with all of these words–development, empowerment, sustainability, participation–is that there are great differences and lack of consensus in their meaning, with entirely different emphases, depending on the context. There are also some other words–like progress, change, movement, mobilization, action, unpredictable, and multi-dimensional that reappear when we discuss development. Lack of predictability does not mean uncontrollable or unmanageable, but rather requiring flexibility or the ability to adapt with ever-changing circumstances.

A model of the Alternative-Participatory Development social system (Yossef Ben-Meir, 2009)

What do we mean when we say “multi-dimensional”? What are these dimensions? Economic, environmental, cultural, social, political, technological, financial, historical, and physical-ecological–these have all been identified as elements of development, recognizing that they touch every aspect of community life or the totality of human life. Development experiences also identify a spiritual aspect, connecting to the universal, recognizing that the impact of development is also internal and perceptional. These dimensions surround our community lives and are within the fabric of our relating to one another.

From the early decades to today, “modernization” has been the underlying perspective for approaching development. All societies experience or need to experience this espoused linear progression from point A to point B as part of their development process. The agricultural economy needs to be productive to the point where it can feed a growing urban population, so that people in the cities can manufacture and have industry. If we are in Morocco or anywhere else, modernization’s progression–at least according to its own view–is necessary for development.

When we talk about development that doesn’t support this model–it’s not A, B, C, D, E for everyone. What works for you might not work for us and might actually hurt us, take away our autonomy, and won’t let us build our economy based on our choices and capacity and agricultural opportunity. Not taking into consideration our geographical and environmental situations, our history, our culture, our traditions, strict modernization is often a source of our poverty. Development which tries to readdress this rigidity is labeled “alternative”, controversial, or even politically contradictory.

Our definition of development must include growth and expansion and meeting human needs. There are, however, profound differences among different societies on how those things are achieved and what the nature, quality, and characteristics of the growth look like. This is why a single definition is so difficult to land on. It dooms us to not be fully adequate in our definition. Forms of development can be conflictual. We can’t have full industrialization in developing countries based on products that are in demand in developed countries and expect the same outcomes on all sides of the exchanges. The modernization model may create a cost borne by developing/less-industrial countries because they will only grow as a reflection of demand in the developed ones.

From the birth of development, there has always been an alternative approach, rejecting external control that mainstream prescriptions bring and instead emphasizing internally strengthening (and diversifying) people-driven change. Today, it is the norm to advance people’s participation–in Morocco, it is the law–but that point of view did not used to be mandated and was distrusted by those in the mainstream who believed it was putting collectives of people in positions to make decisions they were not equipped to make. The outcome and what public participation would mobilize was feared and distrusted.

Who is to benefit from development and enhanced quality of life through mobilization, action, change, and a multi-dimensional process improving upon all aspects of human life? The goal is all or the majority of people, but particularly the people who experience poverty and marginalization. We will always have to make choices because budgets are never endless. However, when making choices, we focus on people who are disenfranchised, disadvantaged, and remote–the individual and the collective. Not just in Morocco, but around the world, most poverty is concentrated in rural areas, and within these places, typically the highest rate impoverishment is in mountainous and dry regions.

So, what definition of development have we come to after reviewing literature, breaking down into parts, and reconfiguring these elements into something workable? It is a process that considers in its planning, economic, political, institutional, cultural, environmental and technological factors to achieve its goal of generating benefits in these areas directed at all or the majority of people, especially those who experience poverty.

If we go through this process together, across our localities, we will be in a superb position to manage public health in a pandemic. We will be in a position to encourage calm dialogue in the face of terrible unrest and unfairness. We will understand how we may effectively govern and campaign to govern, to devise infrastructure investments for maximum community-level return and widely shared management and benefits, to guide our trade relationships emphasizing self-reliance, regional bloc markets, and global engagement, and to address the root causes of people’s dissatisfying work and interconnectivity with each other. To best face the time we’re in, there is no greater immediate and long-term urgency than the process of development requiring inclusion.

*

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. Yossef Ben-Meir is a sociologist and President of the High Atlas Foundation, a U.S.-Moroccan non-for-profit organization dedicated to sustainable development in Morocco.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran and Syria involving economic sanctions has prompted Tehran and Damascus to cultivate ties with US-sanctioned and alienated China.

Tehran and Beijing have accelerated talks on a 25-year partnership begun in 2016, following the signing of the 2015 deal providing for a 90 per cent reduction of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for international sanctions relief.

Negotiations on the China-Iran partnership involving economic, political and security cooperation were launched when Chinese President Xi Jinping made a visit to Tehran where he met Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A road map has now, reportedly, been approved by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and talks will continue to finalise the deal.  While the agreement’s provisions have not been revealed,  China is expected to invest in transport, where it already has been involved in major projects, as well as healthcare, energy, tourism and communications. Last year, China, Iran and Russia conducted naval drills in the Indian Ocean with the aim of training for dealing with ship fires and pirates. Their political aim was to signal that the world’s oceans are not a US lake.

The partnership negotiations began in the halcyon days when Iran appeared to be emerging from the US-driven sanctions regime.  At that time competing European and Asian businessmen flocked to Tehran to explore investment opportunities, particularly in the energy sector. Following the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the reimposition and tightening of sanctions on Tehran, the Iran-China partnership became an act of resistance and defiance.

By stepping up negotiations Iran and China made it clear that they see their partnership as a means to exert pressure on Europe, in particular, to break with the Trump administration’s policies of punishing both Tehran and Beijing for refusing to capitulate to Washington. Iran counts on both China and Russia to block the Trump administration’s attempt to force the Security Council to impose a fresh round of UN sanctions on Iran once the ban on Iranian purchases and sales of weaponry expires in October. The US has, so far, received no backing for its effort which is seen as illegitimate because the US pulled out of the nuclear deal which provides for the “snap back” of sanctions if Iran is referred  to the Council for breaching the deal.

Iran expert Shireen T. Hunter argues in an article on the Middle East Eye website that if and when finalised and implemented, the deal would render Iran dependent on China in a number of fields as well as provide China with a presence in the Gulf, altering the balance of power in the region.

She writes,

“A major reason for Iran’s shift towards China and other Asian countries, known locally as the ‘pivot to the East’, has been the failure of Iran’s repeated efforts, beginning with the administration of Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani [1989-97], to expand economic relations with the West as a prelude to better political ties.”

The most propitious time for reconciliation and the reintegration of Iran into the world community came during the liberalising and reformist presidency of Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005), who launched a campaign for “Dialogue Among Civilisations” and persuaded the UN to adopt 2001 as the year of dialogue.

Still smarting over the overthrow of its ally Shah Reza Pahlavi and the holding by radical Iranian students of Tehran’s US embassy personnel for 444 days, Washington rejected this opportunity, leaving Iran largely ostracised and isolated until the nuclear deal was implemented in January 2016. While there was an almost instant flowering of relations between world capitals and Tehran at that time, this came to an end with Trump’s rejection of the nuclear deal. This also put an end to European overtures to Iran.

Rebuffed and shamed by the US and its European acolytes, Iran is clearly determined to opt for the chief eastern alternative which, over the past decade, has emerged as a major political as well as economic power.

This is true also of Tehran’s ally, Damascus which, like Iran, suffers from a hardening sanctions regime which not only punishes Syria but also neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon. In the latter the economy has been in free fall for the past year.

Beijing put on a large display at last August’s Damascus International Fair and made it clear that China seeks Syria as a partner in the Belt and Road project designed to revive the ancient “Silk Road” trade routes.

China has pledged to participate in Syria’s post-war reconstruction and would like to boost cooperation in the political, economic and social spheres. China is regarded as the only country which, at present, has the freedom and financial means to help rebuild Syria’s war damaged infrastructure. Russia, which along with Iran, has backed the Syrian government in its battle with Western-backed “rebels” and takfiris — does not have the funds to invest heavily in Syria’s reconstruction. Russia is also politically constrained by its close political and economic ties with Turkey which remains committed to the overthrow of the Syrian government and is occupying northern Syrian territory.

Therefore, while Russia has done the heavy lifting in the war, China could do the heavy lifting in reconstruction. Both have major interests in preserving the presidency of Bashar Assad, whom they see as a stabilising force in a region torn by rivalries, rifts and rebellions. China and Russia understand they have to prevent northwestern Syria from becoming a base for Al Qaeda via Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham and ensure that the entire country does not collapse into fighting fiefdoms of takfiri warlords who have recruited into their ranks both radical Chinese Uighurs and militant Caucasian Russians.

*

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 InfoBrics

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) yesterday delayed its vote on the proposed release of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes due to concerns over COVID-19. The decision to delay the vote follows public outcry and scientific dispute over the risks posed to public health and the environment by this experimental release. The approval would have permitted the British company Oxitec to release 750 million GE mosquitoes over a two-year period in Monroe County, Florida, starting as soon as this summer.

The delay is an important step for communities in the Keys and environmental groups who have been fighting against release of GE mosquitoes for a decade. The FKMCD vote would have been the last approval officially required, and at least temporarily blocks what would have been the first GE mosquito release ever in the United States. The board members recognized that releasing the mosquitoes in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic was compounding concerns about public health risks that community members expressed in their opposition to the release.

“The Monroe County Mosquito Control Board is to be commended for carefully listening to the voices of residents, independent scientists, and environmentalists from around the world,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety. “The board held public hearings when neither the EPA nor State of Florida did.”

“We are pleased today that the FKMCD has listened to the voice of our community. We encourage the FKMCD to reject this proposal and focus on effective community engagement programs that remove the need for both harsh chemicals and exotic, expensive methods to address mosquito threats to our public health,” said Barry Wray, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition.

At the time of the meeting, neither the FKMCD or Oxitec had publicly announced where or when the releases would have occurred. Documents submitted by Oxitec did not include details about an environmental impact statement (EIS).

At Tuesday’s meeting, community members and national organizations critiqued Oxitec’s application for failing to address important environmental risks and potential negative health impacts associated with the release of GE mosquitoes. Community members asked the FKMCD to reject the field trial application, pointing out a lack of data confirming that Oxitec’s mosquitoes will be safe and effective, the likelihood that biting females will be released, thus putting humans and animals at risk, and the lack of free and prior informed consent of people living in the area.

“The Mosquito Control Board would be better served by answering each and every question presented by the public with independent data before moving forward with this unproven experiment in the Florida Keys,” said Ed Russo, President of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition. “Relying on today’s EPA to justify this dangerous and risky experiment and make our families and friends nothing more than ‘lab rats’ for a private company is irresponsible and unprofessional.”

Scientists have raised major concerns that GE mosquitoes could create hybrid wild mosquitoes which could worsen the spread of mosquito-borne diseases and which may be more resistant to insecticides than the original wild mosquitoes.

“We commend the board for delaying this vote,” said Dana Perls, Food and Technology Program Manager with Friends of the Earth-U.S. “We urge the board to reject this proposed release altogether. This risky experiment could threaten the health and environment of a state already at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. We need to support sustainable, proven, community-driven solutions to mosquito-borne diseases that won’t harm people or the planet.”

As highlighted by a public panel of experts speaking on the topic, GE mosquitoes could pose significant threats to sensitive ecosystems in the Florida Keys. A recent field study in Brazil by researchers from the Powell lab at Yale University confirmed that the mosquito’s engineered genes had spread into wild populations of mosquitoes. Recently a group of scholars from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign questioned proceeding with this experiment on scientific and ethical concerns.

*

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 iStock

To ask whether the United States, the world’s dominant military power, is ‘a failing state’ should cause worldwide anxiety. Such a state, analogous to a wounded animal, is a global menace of unprecedented proportions in the nuclear age. Its political leadership is exhibiting a reckless tendency of combining incompetence with extremism. It is also crucial to ascertain at what point a failing state should be written off as ‘a failed state’ for which there is no longer a clear path to redemption. The November elections in the United States will send a strong signal as to whether the United States is failing or has failed.

Even raising these issues suggests how far the United States has fallen during the Trump years, despite already being in sharp decline internationally ever since the Vietnam War, and continuing, despite a few redemptive moves (now renounced), during the Obama presidency. The responses of the Trump presidency to the two great crises of 2020 were helpful in solidifying the image of the world’s #1 state as truly failing, and not just sour grapes taking the form of an expression of partisan frustration with an appalling leadership. It was appalling because it was affirming the most regressive features of the American past while unconvincingly claiming credit for the stock market rise and low unemployment. The COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter campaign against systemic racism gave Trump the opportunity to exhibit his lethally systemic incompetence as a crisis manager producing thousands of deaths among his own countrymen. He also seized the occasion to show the world his seemingly genuine racist solidarity with the Confederate spirit of the American South that tried to split the country and preserve its barbaric slave economy and supportive culture in the American Civil War 150 years ago, and has been a sore loser ever since.

With these clarifying developments, it no longer captures the full reality of this downward trend to be with content by calling attention to America’s ‘imperial decline.’ In the present setting, it seems more relevant to insist on describing America as ‘a failing state,’ and try to understand what that means for the country and the world. To make the contention more precise, it is instructive to realize that the United States is not only a failing state, but the first instance ever of a failing global state, which takes due account of its multi-dimensional hegemonic status as concretized by the planetary projection of its military might to air, land, and sea, to space and cyber space, as well as by its influence on the operation of the world economy and the character of popular culture whether expressed by music or cuisine.

There are several measures of a failing state that cast light on the American reality:

• functional failures: inability to respond adequately to challenges threatening the security of the society and its population against threats posed by internal and external hostile political actors, as well as by ecological instabilities, by widespread extreme poverty and hunger, and by a deficient health and disaster response system;
• normative failures: refusal to abide by systemic rules internationally as embedded in international law and the UN Charter, claiming impunity and acting on the basis of double standards to carry out its geopolitical encroachments on the wellbeing of others and its disregard of ecological dangers; patterns of normative failures include endorsements of policies and practices giving rise to genocide and ecocide, constituting the most basic violations of international criminal law and the sovereign rights of foreign countries; the wrongs are too numerous to delimit, including severe and systemic denials of human rights in domestic governance; economic and social structures that inevitably generate acute socio-economic inequalities on the basis of class, race, and gender.

Some additional considerations accentuate the failing state reality of the U.S. due to the extensive extraterritorial dimensions that accompany the process of becoming ‘a failing global state.’ This new type of transnational political creature should be categorized as the first historical example of a ‘geopolitical superpower.’ Such a political actor is neither separate from nor entirely subject to the state-centric system of world order that evolved from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and became universalized in the decades following World War II. Although lacking a true antecedent, the role of European ‘great powers’ or ‘colonial empires’ give clues as to the evaluation of the U.S. as a global state or geopolitical superpower;

• effectiveness: the loss of effectiveness by a failing state is disclosed by its inability to maintain and exert control over challenges to its supremacy. Such an assessment if vindicated by failed military operations (regime-changing interventions) and the inability to learn from and overcome past mistakes, disclosures of vulnerability to homeland security (9/11 attacks) and overly costly and destructive responses (9/12 launching of ‘war on terror’; declining respect and trust by secondary political actors, including close allies, in the context of global policy forming arenas, including the United Nations; as a further reflection of this failing dynamic of lost control is the pattern of withdrawal from arenas that can no longer be controlled (Human Rights Council, WHO) and the rejection of agreements that appear beneficial to the world as a whole (Paris Climate Change Agreement and Iran Nuclear Program Agreement-JCPOA;
• legitimacy: the legitimacy of a global state, which by its nature potentially compromises the political sovereignty and independence of all other states, reflects above all else, on its usefulness as a source of problem-solving authority, especially in war/peace and global economic recession settings; the degree of legitimacy also depends on perceptions by political elites and public opinion that the assertions of global leadership are in general beneficial for the system as a whole, and as particularly helpful to states that are vulnerable due to acute security and development challenges; in this regard, the U.S. enjoyed a high degree of legitimacy after the end of World War II, as a source of security, and even guidance, for many governments in most regions of the world throughout the Cold War, and was also appreciated as the architect of a rule-governed liberal economic order operating with the framework of the Bretton Woods institutions charged with avoiding recurrences of the Great Depression that undermined stability and economic wellbeing during the 1930s, developments that then contributed to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of a systemic war costing upwards of 50 million lives. The American leadership role was also prominent in achieving global public order in such settings as the management of the oceans, avoiding conflict in Antarctica and Outer Space, establishing international human rights standards, and promoting liberal internationalism as a way to enhance global cooperative approaches to shared problems.

As suggested, the United States as a failing state has been graphically revealed as such by its response to the COVID-19 pandemic: refusal to heed early warnings; unacceptable shortages of equipment for health personnel and insufficient hospital capacity; premature economic openings of restaurants, bars, stores; contradictory standards of guidance from health experts and from political leaders, including falsehoods and fake news embraced by the American president in the midst of the health emergency. Beyond this, Trump adopted an inappropriate nationalist and commodifying approach to the search for a vaccine capable of conferring immunity from the disease, while at the same time immobilizing the UN, and especially the WHO, as an indispensable venue for dealing with epidemics of global scope, including its role in dispensing vital assistance to the most disadvantaged countries. These failings have shockingly resulted in the United States recording more infected persons than any country in the world, as well as having the highest incidence of fatalities attributable to the disease.

In contrast, has been the responses of several far less developed and affluent countries that effectively contained the disease without incurring much loss of life or severe economic damage by way of lost jobs and diminished economic performance. Judged from the perspective of health such societies are success stories, and instructively, their ideological identity spans the political spectrum, including state socialist Vietnam to market-driven countries such as Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such results parallel the finding of Deepak Nayyar who reports in his breakthrough book, The Asian Resurgence (2019), that the remarkable growth experience of the 14 Asian societies that he empirically assesses, supports the conclusion that ideological orientation is not an economistic indicator of success or failure. Such findings are relevant in refuting the triumphalist claims of the West that the Soviet collapse demonstrated the superiority of capitalism as compared to socialism. The crucial factor when it comes to economistic success is the skilled management of state/society relations whether in relation to investment of savings in prioritizing development projects or seeking to impose a lockdown to curtail the spread of a deadly infectious disease.

Yet, there is a normative side of response patterns as suggested above. China treats the desperate search for a workable vaccine as a sharable public good, while the United States under Trump maintains its standard transactional approach despite issues of affordability for many countries in the South, as well as the poor in the North. From a 21^stcentury perspective, the ethos of being all in this together is the only foundation for grappling with the increasingly challenging dilemmas of world order. It is a sign of a failing state, whatever its capabilities and status, to use its leverage to gain national and geopolitical advantages. Along this line, as well, is the normative disgrace of refusing to suspend unilateral sanctions imposed on countries such as Iran and Venezuala, already stressed, for at least the duration of the pandemic in response to widespread humanitarian appeals from civil society actors and international institutions.

A final observation as to whether the U.S. vector points toward a failed or redemptive future. If Trump loses the election and gives up the White House to his opponent the prospects for reversing the failing trend improve, while if Trump is reelected in November or succeeds in cancelling the electoral outcome then the U.S, will have moved closer to being a failed state as the citizenry would have endorsed failure or the constitutional order shown to be enfeebled, insufficiently resilient to reject failure. Even if Trump is replaced and Trumpism subsides, the momentum behind predatory capitalism and global militarism will be difficult to curtail without a revolutionary push that rejects the bipartisan consensus on such matters and challenges the sufficiency of procedural democracy centered upon the role of political parties and elections. Only a progressive movement from below will shatter that consensus, ending laments about the U.S. being in transition from failing to failed. Whether the BLM leadership of a movement alternative is robust and comprehensive enough to end American freefall will become clearer in coming months.

*

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

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He initiated this blog partly in celebration of his 80th birthday.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

While on a research trip to the Iraqi city of Basra in 1996, environmental engineer Souad Al-Azzawi encountered a mother taking care of three young children, all of them sick and unable to move on their own. With no idea why her children were ill, the mother hoped Al-Azzawi had come to help her family. Unfortunately, there was little Al-Azzawi—or anyone else—could do.

As the director of the doctoral program in environmental engineering at the University of Baghdad, Al-Azzawi had been researching radioactive contamination in Basra for years. She would go on to publish studies showing that cases of leukemia in children in Basra increased by 60 percent between 1990 and 1997, and that the number of children born with severe birth defects increased by a factor of three.

Al-Azzawi’s research points to depleted uranium as the culprit. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment of natural uranium, a process used to create fuel rods for nuclear power plants. Due to its incredible density, the United States and United Kingdom have used depleted uranium for tank armor and ammunition during military combat since the early 1990s, during the First Gulf War. While not as radioactive as natural uranium, the metal nevertheless poses a threat.

Basra is located in the very southern tip of Iraq, wedged between Iran, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf. It is the northern terminus of Highway 80, which runs due south all the way to Kuwait City. Iraqi forces used the road to stage the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Months later, as those same troops retreated, they were pinned by 10 hours of US aerial bombardment that left a trail of hundreds of smashed cars, tanks, and other vehicles and equipment strewn along the road.

“The kids were playing on the tanks [leftover from the Gulf War], and they were collecting the bullets,” Al-Azzawi said. “For some of the people, those bullets stayed in their houses for years. It was a disaster.”

Al-Azzawi first learned about the effects of depleted uranium in the early 1990s from environmental activists. Since then, she has devoted her life to researching its impacts, producing more than 50 research papers on chemicals used in the region and conducting three exploration programs to collect data from across areas in Iraq exposed to weapons of war.

That data, Al-Azzawi said, is still not enough. There has been a lack of research and education in post-conflict communities in Iraq and Syria, she said, and cleanup efforts by both UN member states and affected communities have failed.

An ammunition specialist carries a 105 millimeter armor-piercing round to be used in an M-1 Abrams main battle tank during Operation Desert Shield in 1991. The object on the nose of the round is a sabot, a cover that protects and stabilizes the round’s needle-like depleted uranium penetrator, then falls away as the projectile leaves the gun barrel. (Photo courtesy of the US Defense Department)

Depleted uranium in war

The United States first deployed depleted uranium in 1991 during the Gulf War, and it proved so effective that it was used again a few years later in the Bosnian War. With the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the toxic metal returned in force to the Middle East.

While the US Defense Department vowed to cease use of the toxic metal in conflicts beginning in 2015, thousands of rounds of depleted uranium ammunition were fired in Syrian airstrikes later that same year, according to the Pentagon.

“It comes down to military utility,” said Doug Weir, research and policy director at the Conflict and Environment Observatory. “Militaries believe they have to use this weapon because it’s the best possible weapon for defeating enemy armor, and any other considerations are secondary today to the military imperative to use it.”

Othman Al Ani, program manager at Middle Eastern Immigrant and Refugee Alliance, a Chicago-based organization helping refugees from the Middle East, agreed: “War tactics are developed without any consideration for the environment.”

According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the total amount of depleted uranium fired during the 1991 Gulf War was 300 metric tons, roughly 50 metric tons of ammunition from tanks and 250 metric tons from aircraft. The United States is responsible for the bulk of it; the United Kingdom accounted for less than 100 rounds.

The United States authorities have not released any detailed information about where depleted uranium was used during the Gulf War, according to the UNEP report. In 2003, a team of experts recruited by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigated nearly a dozen sites in Kuwait and reported that depleted uranium ammunition fragments could still be found at several locations. But there has been no comprehensive investigation of potential sites in Iraq.

The United States has been similarly opaque about where and how much depleted uranium was used during the 2003 Iraq invasion. But according to the UNEP, figures from various speculative studies estimate that the US-led coalition dispersed anywhere from 170 to 1,700 metric tons of the toxic metal. For its part, the United Kingdom Defense Ministry has released some information about where depleted uranium was fired and has suggested that its own forces accounted for less than 2 metric tons.

According to Weir, Iraq’s contamination from depleted uranium was 50 times greater than that in the Balkans.

Two Iraqi T-54/55 tanks lie abandoned near Kuwait City on February 26, 1991. (Photo courtesy of PHC HOLMES, US Navy)

Donald Trump’s attacks on Venezuela, Syria and Iran are criminal, but Joe Biden vows to be even worse.

The corporate media in this country can endlessly repeat lies about Russia paying Taliban bounties, but ignore important information that is public and easily provable. A recent example is President Donald Trump’s announcement of some sort of an attack against Venezuela.

While visiting the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Florida, Trump gave an interview to Noticias Telemundo  and said the following, “Something will happen with Venezuela. That’s all I can tell you. Something will be happening with Venezuela.”

The United States chose a puppet president to replace the elected president Nicolas Maduro, increased sanctions, attempted to send mercenaries to destabilize the country, and charged Maduro and his wife with drug trafficking. The U.S. puppet state known as the United Kingdom ruled that it will keep more than $1 billion worth of Venezuelan gold instead of turning it over to its rightful owners. The heist against Venezuela totals $24 billion in stolen and frozen assets. The wall that Trump said Mexico would pay for was actually paid for with ill gotten gains from Venezuela.

Venezuela has been under constant attack from the United States and its allies for years with the Trump administration making the most blatant regime change efforts. But the media who ordinarily pillory Trump are either silent or support these attacks. Trump’s remarks should have made headlines. The president of the United States once again declared some sort of hostilities against Venezuela but his words garnered hardly any attention.

Trump has placed the United States on the precipice of war in a variety of ways. He has withdrawn the U.S. from nuclear treaties with Russia that were ratified decades ago. His war of words against China is not merely rhetorical. Uttering slurs about the “Wuhan virus” and always adding the word communist along with the word China are not just stunts. Inciting violence in Hong Kong was part of a larger scheme to weaken an economic and political rival.

The U.S. is waging war by other means all over the world. The war against Syria is lost. There will be no regime change there by military means, so Trump resorts to stealing oil, burning wheat crops and increasing sanctions that restrict access to food and medicine. Israel, the U.S. partner in crime, bombs Iranian defense facilities in hopes that they can finally see their war fantasy come to reality.

But none of these incidents receive sufficient coverage. If they are commented upon at all, the news relies on the ubiquitous anonymous intelligence source, or others who will parrot the official line. One must know where to look to find decent analysis.

The new devastation wrought upon Syria is either unreported or celebrated  by the corporate media. There has been no critique of the policy, no one pointing out that a war crime is being committed in the name of the American people. In fact, the Washington Postapplauded the fact that the aptly named Caesar Act has “helped crash the Syrian currency.” They could have added that it helped increase suffering too.

Shrieking about Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Bountygate or any other gate that will be cooked up is smoke and mirrors for the masses and propaganda for the duopoly. There is no congressional opposition to Trump’s acts of aggression which are literally killing people around the world.

“War crimes are being committed in the name of the American people.”

Sadly, neither these policies nor the corporate media response will be different if Joe Biden  becomes president. Biden’s Venezuela policy is the same as Trump’s. His attacks have in fact been further to the right. When Trump expressed a willingness to talk to Maduro, he backtracked after Biden condemned any effort to talk. “Trump talks tough on Venezuela, but admires thugs and dictators like Nicolas Maduro,” was Biden’s twitter rejoinder.

The end result of these machinations is that Russia and China are closer than ever, as both countries seek protection from U.S. imperialism. They try to keep the U.S. and its puppet state allies from interfering in their countries or destroying Syria or Iran or Venezuela and thereby making themselves impotent. Iran and China recently reached an agreement which will build Iran’s infrastructure and supply China with discounted oil for the next 25 years. While the media here keep Americans ignorant with ridiculous stories about Russian bounties, the targeted nations work together for their own benefit.

Only people with the interest and wherewithal to seek out independent media know how their country threatens the world. After all, Trump issued a public threat against Venezuela and it hardly registered as a blip on a screen. When the U.S. goes too far and the world faces a hot war, ignorant Americans will not know what hit them. They may babble about the latest fake scandal or cry out “They hate us for our freedoms,” but the rest of the world won’t care and ignorance will be no defense.

*

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.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from BAR

The nation I grew up in no longer exists, replaced by endless state-sponsored war on humanity at home and abroad — along with the transformation of America to resemble tinpot dictatorships.

Full-blown tyranny may be one more major state-sponsored homeland false flag incidents away that could come any time in a nation where the rule of law long ago died.

On Wednesday, the ACLU and volunteer medics sued the Trump regime’s DHS, the US Marshals Service, and Portland, OR police, saying:

“In well-documented incidents, police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and flash-bangs.”

A plaintiff in the suit Savannah Guest called what’s gone on “terrifying…federal agents show(ing) no humanity or concern.”

According to the ACLU, its “lawsuit argues that the law enforcement attacks on medics violates the First and Fourth Amendments.”

“The ACLU of Oregon will also seek a court order, prohibiting law enforcement from targeting and attacking medics again.”

A statement by ACLU interim director in Oregon Jann Carson said the following:

“Volunteer medics should be celebrated, not attacked or arrested.”

“Our clients are volunteering day and night to provide aid to the injured and to create a safer environment for protesters and bystanders.”

“These attacks are unconscionable as well as unconstitutional. This lawlessness must end.”

A weeks earlier ACLU lawsuit against the Trump regime and Portland police won a court order that prohibits attacks by federal and local law enforcement authorities on journalists and legal observers.

They continue in breach of the Constitution and court order.

Perkins Coie attorney representing the ACLU Rian Peck said the following:

“The Trump (regime) and Portland Police Bureau…violated the constitutional rights of our clients to protest and lend medical services, supplies, and treatment to protesters,” adding:

“Our clients have been tear gassed, pepper sprayed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets, even while administering care to injured protesters.”

“This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the Trump (regime) and Portland police will be held accountable for their violent, lawless, and unconstitutional actions.”

“When protest medics are rendering aid to protest attendees and innocent bystanders, they are exercising their right to free speech.”

“At the core of their message: Police violence and brutality will not deter protesters from using their voice to demand change in policing practices.”

“For as long as the protests continue, our clients intend to continue exercising their right to deliver that message.”

The new ACLU lawsuit seeks a court-ordered halt to violence by federal and local authorities, along with damages for injuries sustained by plaintiffs.

Federal, state, and local authorities are legally mandated to protect Americans from violence committed against them, along with arresting and detaining responsible parties.

Attacking peaceful protesters, journalists, volunteer medics, legal observers, and bystanders breaking no laws/threatening no one, that’s what state-terrorism is all about.

That’s what has been going on in Portland, federal and local authorities crossing the line from legally permitted law enforcement to state-sponsored violence.

Is much of the same coming to my home city of Chicago? Will I be living under hostile occupation when they arrive?

Will I be endangered on streets near my residence?

According to the Chicago Sun Times, around 200 (paramilitary) federal agents are coming to the city as part of the Trump regime’s so-called Operation Legend.

Will they be heavily armed, masked, and attired in unrecognizable uniforms, cruising city neighborhoods in unmarked vans?

Will they operate as extrajudicially in Chicago as in Portland?

Will they transform my neighborhood into a battleground?

According to US attorney, former federal prosecutor John Lausch, federal agents will work with Chicago police and city hall.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot is uneasy about their involvement, saying she’ll pursue all legal options if federal shock troops are responsible for unacceptable actions, adding:

Trump “has been on a campaign now for some time against (Dem) mayors across the country.”

He’s “trying to divert attention from his failed leadership on COVID-19.”

Asked about Lightfoot’s remarks, Trump invented his own reality, saying “cities…that are in trouble are all run by (Dems).”

“You have radical-left (Dems) running cities like Chicago and so many others (sic)” — claiming he can solve their “problem(s) (sic).”

Lausch said newly deployed federal agents in Chicago will work with “current FBI, ATF, DEA and Homeland Security teams that are already working in Chicago with the Chicago Police Department and the other local and state law enforcement.”

He also claimed their involvement in the city won’t resemble what’s going on in Portland, adding:

“This is not patrol. This is not against civil unrest.”

“This is working with the Chicago Police Department to do what we can to reduce the staggering violent crime we’re facing right now…(focusing on) gangs, guns and drugs.”

They’ll be dressed in “tactical gear,” Lausch claimed isn’t camouflage. They may work undercover.

According to acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf, (i)n Chicago, the mission is to protect the public from violent crime on the streets.”

It remains to be seen what happens after elements Mayor Lightfoot objected to having in the city show up.

The longer they stay, their numbers perhaps increasing, the greater the chance of things getting out of hand — including ordinary people threatening no one being harmed by the long arm of state-sponsored brutality.

The late Gore Vidal once mocked GW Bush for calling himself “a wartime president,” responsible for high crimes of war and against humanity at home and abroad throughout most of his time in office.

Trump calls himself a “law and order” president. The ACLU accused him of “terrorizing our communities and endangering lives.”

The organization’s Illinois executive director Colleen Connell vowed to “hold the Trump (regime) accountable…for unconstitutional actions” by federal agents in Chicago, adding:

These elements in the city “will not be a constructive force…”

They’re likely to “terrorize” neighborhoods “and create chaos.”

“This is not law and order. This is an assault on…people…and the specific protections of protest and press in the First Amendment.”

I’m personally uneasy about federal shock troops in my city, maybe in my neighborhood, likely to do more harm than good.

I’ll exhale when they’re gone.

*

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.

Another day, more shoes dropped, escalating US war on China by other means, a scenario fraught with danger by pushing things toward a point of no return that risks belligerent confrontation.

Time and again, US charges against Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, North Korea and other countries were baseless — no credible evidence supporting them.

In less than a 24-hour period, the Trump regime took two hostile actions against China.

Its Justice Department accused Beijing of cyber-espionage, along Trump regime authorities ordering closure of its Houston consulate within 72 hours. More on the latter action below.

On Tuesday, Trump’s Justice Department issued the following statement:

Operating secretly and unconstitutionally, it failed to explain, “(a) federal grand jury in Spokane, Washington returned an indictment earlier this month charging two hackers, both nationals and residents of…China with hacking into the computer systems of hundreds of victim companies, governments, non-governmental organizations, and individual dissidents, clergy, and democratic and human rights activists in the United States and abroad, including Hong Kong and China,” adding:

“The defendants in some instances acted for their own personal financial gain, and in others for the benefit of the MSS (Ministry of State Security) or other Chinese government agencies.”

“The hackers stole terabytes of data which comprised a sophisticated and prolific threat to US networks.”

An 11-count indictment (alleging conspiracy, identity theft, and fraud) accused two Chinese nationals of “targeting companies in countries with high technology industries, including the United States, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.”

The indictment claims they targeted intellectual property, including research on COVID-19 vaccines, defense, communications, and other technology related data.

Assistant AG for national security John Demers sounded like Chinaphobe Pompeo, claiming:

“China has now taken its place, alongside Russia, Iran and North Korea in (a) club of nations that provide a safe haven for cyber criminals in exchange for those criminals being ‘on call’ to work for the benefit of the state, here to feed the Chinese Communist party’s insatiable hunger for American and other non-Chinese companies’ hard-earned intellectual property, including COVID-19 research (sic).”

The US grand jury system is unconstitutional. It violates the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Americans can be prosecuted for claimed association with “undesirable group(s).”

They’re subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures by unchecked surveillance powers of the state, their privacy compromised.

Due process, habeas rights, and equal justice under law no longer protect them. All of the above are hallmarks of police state rule.

A former New York Court of Appeals chief judge once slammed the US grand jury system, saying its manipulative practices can “indict a ham sandwich.”

Instead of protecting the public from oppressive government, grand juries circumvent judicial fairness, prosecutors able to manipulate the process to get indictments they seek, innocence considered no legitimate defense.

Individuals questioned are denied their 6th Amendment right to be represented by counsel and their 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

No judge is present to assure proceedings are fair and legitimate in compliance with US constitutional and statute laws.

Prosecutors alone decide what “evidence” to present to grand jurors, challenges to its legitimacy not permitted.

These individuals are closely allied to federal, state, and/or local authorities. The system is unconstitutionally rigged to indict if that’s the prosecutorial intention.

Hours after the Trump regime indictment, China’s UK envoy Liu Xiaoming tweeted the following:

“Such accusations constitute disrespect for Chinese scientists & their achievements.”

“They could also undermine international cooperation on R&D.”

“The world must strongly oppose and reject such groundless claims.”

In response to US accusations, China’s US Embassy referred to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying’s mid-July response to dubious Beijing hacking charges by Trump regime AG William Barr, saying the following:

“Some US politicians seem to be alleging that China is waging cyberattacks to steal US research on Covid-19 vaccines,” adding:

“It’s just absurd. We are already leading the world in vaccine R&D with top researchers. We don’t need to secure an edge by theft.”

“As we speak, Chinese research teams are moving ahead with multiple vaccine tasks through five technical routes.”

She also pointed out that Trump’s 2018 “secret authorization” OK’d the CIA to run “very aggressive” cyberwar with no oversight — what the US intelligence community routinely does anyway worldwide, targeting allies and adversaries alike.

Hours after the above indictments were announced, Bloomberg News reported that the Trump regime ordered closure of China’s Houston consulate in 72 hours.

Its Foreign Ministry responded, calling the order an “unprecedented escalation,” adding:

“China strongly condemns such an outrageous and unjustified move which will sabotage China-US relations.”

“We urge the US to immediately withdraw its erroneous decision. Otherwise Beijing will “react with firm countermeasures.”

According to Bloomberg, the embassy “accused the US of harassing diplomatic staff and intimidating Chinese students, confiscating personal electrical devices and detaining them without cause,” adding:

“Chinese diplomatic missions and personnel also recently received bomb and death threats.”

Citing unnamed US sources, the Houston Chronicle reported that China’s consulate will be closed Friday at 4:00 PM, anyone still in the facility evicted.

Hostile US actions against China continue without letup.

Last weekend, Trump regime war secretary Mark Esper accused China and Russia of being the “top (US) strategic competitors,” adding:

Beijing is a bigger problem, falsely claiming its ruling authorities want international order rules rewritten.

According to China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies, the US has 375,000 military personnel and 60% of its warships in the Indo/Pacific region, adding:

The Pentagon’s regional presence is unrelated to “defend(ing) the (US) Constitution, nor anything to do with “safeguard(ing)” peace, stability, and sovereign rights of regional nations.

The US is pressuring East Asian nations to support its aim to contain, isolate, and weaken China — a hostile policy risking direct confrontation if things are pushed too far.

*

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: Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in a file image. Image: Youtube

On Monday, debate began in Washington on extending aid to unemployed workers and other Americans in need at a time of economic crisis conditions.

Trump wants an unacceptable payroll tax cut, opposed by Dems and many Republicans — for political reasons ahead of November elections.

Employed Americans and their companies pay FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) and MEDFICA payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare — core US social programs that are essential for millions of eligible recipients.

Combined, these taxes amount to 7.65% of pay up to a maximum of $137,700.

Employers and workers pay an equal amount for a combined rate of 15.3%.

According to the Tax Foundation (TF), these taxes “make up 23.05 percent of combined federal, state, and local government revenue – the second largest source of government revenue in the United States.”

Time and again, things aren’t as they seem, TF adding:

“(R)ather than workers and employers each paying 7.65 percent in payroll taxes, employers send their portion of the tax to the government and then decrease workers’ wages by almost” the same amount.

“(A)lmost the entire burden of the payroll tax is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages.”

What politicians don’t mention and establishment media don’t explain is that Social Security and Medicare are insurance plans — funded by worker/employer payroll tax deductions.

When individuals buy health, auto, life, homeowners, and other insurance from private companies, plans pay according to provisions of purchased policies.

That’s how Social Security and Medicare should work.

Pay premiums and receive benefits when eligible as originally promised when both programs became the law of the land — in 1935 and 1965 respectively.

Social Security provides retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits — what’s essential for most recipients who’d be greatly harmed without it.

Despite fear-mongering claims otherwise, the program is not in danger of going bankrupt.

When properly administered, it’s sound and secure, needing only modest adjustments at times to assure it.

Medicare is the nation’s largest health insurance program,” covering about 68 million Americans.

It’s for individuals aged-65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with end-stage renal disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

So-called “entitlement reform” pushed by the US ruling class wants neoliberal harshness replacing social justice entirely that includes weakening Social Security and Medicare as prelude to eliminating both essential programs.

Also on the chopping block for eroding and elimination are food and housing assistance, collective bargaining, Medicaid, education and childcare assistance, along with other aid to the needy — wanting the US transformed into a dystopian ruler-serf society more repressive than already, militarized for control.

Both right wings of the one-party state want privileged interests controlling the national wealth, used for greater self-enrichment, militarism and endless wars, nonbelievers confined to gulag imprisonment or otherwise eliminated.

According to Politico, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hasn’t said publicly or privately if he’ll include a payroll tax cut in the GOP-controlled Senate bill to help the unemployed and other Americans in need.

At this stage Dems and Republicans are far from agreement on further aid — Dems calling a payroll tax cut a nonstarter.

The amount of unemployment benefits is another major sticking point. Dems want continuation of current benefits. Republicans want a much lower figure — from one-third to two-thirds of the current $600 a week.

At a time of likely protracted economic crisis conditions, especially harming small businesses and ordinary Americans, employers are cutting hours and pay for millions of workers.

According to an analysis for the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute, based on data from payroll processor ADP, US workers are twice as likely to get pay cuts now than during the 2008-09 financial crisis.

Millions are also working shorter hours. During hard times like now when workers need as much income as possible for essentials to life, the BF Institute found that their pay is being cut from 5 to 50%, a median cut of 10%, along with shorter hours worked.

According to payroll processor Gusto, wages and hours are being cut in nearly all sectors of the US economy.

When households have less disposable income, they spend less. About 70% of the US economy depends on consumer spending.

Less of it means making dire conditions worse. Workers fearful of being laid off are saving more and spending less.

My own observation of retail traffic along Chicago’s upscale Magnificent Mile during business hours when walking along the avenue for daily exercise is that way below normal numbers of people are out shopping compared to what I saw before current economic crisis conditions began.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Republicans prioritize “legal protections for businesses and money to reopen schools but no new funding for states and cities sought by Dem(s).”

It’s unclear what’ll be agreed on before end of July when current federal benefits expire.

Most likely it’ll be much less than what unemployed Americans need for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and other essentials to life.

For them, things are likely to worsen ahead and remain this way.

Under one-party rule with two rights wings, lost wages and benefits are unlikely to be regained any time soon, not even when economic conditions improve — which may not be for years.

*

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.

Britain is an appendage of US imperial policy, complicit in its high crimes of war and against humanity — the supreme crime against peace.

Both countries are also united in waging war by other means against sovereign independent countries free from Western control — including a war of words, mass deception to manipulate the public mind.

Russia, China, and other sovereign independent countries are on US target list for regime change, Britain going along, supporting what breaches the UN Charter and other international law.

Claims by the US intelligence community, Congress, and press agent media about Russia US election meddling are Big Lies that won’t die.

Complicit with the US, Britain introduced a new front in their joint Russophobic campaign of mass deception — featuring false claims of Kremlin interference in its electoral process.

Its Intelligence and Security Committee fake news report perhaps was prepared on orders from Trump regime Russophobes.

Both countries presented no evidence backing their accusations because none exists, both complicit in the thinly veiled hoax establishment media support — making them complicit in the defamatory Big Lie campaign.

When accusations aren’t supported by credible evidence, they’re baseless.

Virtually everything Russia was accused of post-9/11 was false.

Yet diabolical US-led propaganda war on the country rages, Britain part of the mass deception campaign.

Shortly before the Boris Johnson regime released its fake news report on alleged Russian UK election interference, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the following:

“Russia has never interfered in other states’ election campaigns, and it does not tolerate interference in its own domestic affairs,” adding:

“Russia has never interfered in election processes in any country of the world, be it the United States, the UK or other states.”

“We do not do it ourselves, and we do not tolerate it when other countries try to meddle in our political affairs.”

“So even if this report contains some ephemeral accusations, I can assure you now that even if such accusations are there, they will be baseless.”

“This will be another set of groundless accusations.”

The fake news report containing no corroborating evidence called Russian cyber capabilities a “matter of grave concern (sic),” adding:

It poses an “immediate and urgent threat” to national security (sic).”

“The written evidence (sic) provided to us (by British intelligence and so-called independent experts) appeared to suggest that (the Johnson regime) had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes or any activity that has had a material impact on an election, for example influencing results.”

“There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 (sic).”

Notorious Russophobic international con man/fraudster/tax evader Bill Browder and fake news dodgy dossier alleging Russian US 2016 election meddling preparer, former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, were two of the so-called independent experts, along with other dubious figures lacking credibility.

According to the Johnson regime’s dodgy report, “Russia considers the UK one of its top Western intelligence targets (sic).”

“(W)hile we may not experience the level and type of threat that countries on Russia’s borders suffer (sic), witnesses (sic) have suggested that we would sit just behind the US and NATO in any priority list (sic).”

“This is likely to be related to the UK’s close relationship with the US, and the fact that the UK is seen as central to the Western anti-Russian lobby.”

The report includes numerous accusations and allegations sans corroborating evidence because there is none, just Russophobic rubbish without substance.

Moscow seeks cooperative relations with the world community of nations — neither at war with or threatening other countries.

Its geopolitical agenda is polar opposite how the US, UK, other NATO members, Israel, and their imperial partners operate — waging endless wars on humanity.

Claims in Britain’s dodgy report like the following defy reality, saying:

“The security threat posed by Russia (sic) is difficult for the West to manage as, in our view and that of many others, it appears fundamentally nihilistic (sic).”

“Russia seems to see foreign policy as a zero-sum game (sic).

“(A)ny actions it can take which damage the West are fundamentally good for Russia (sic).”

“It is also seemingly fed by paranoia, believing that Western institutions such as NATO and the EU have a far more aggressive posture towards it than they do in reality (sic).”

“Russia’s promotion of disinformation and its attempts at broader political influence overseas have been widely reported (sic).

“Examples include use of state-owned traditional media (sic).”

“(O)pen source studies have shown serious distortions in the coverage provided by Russian state-owned international broadcasters such as RT and Sputnik (sic).”

There’s lots more Russophobic rubbish in Britain’s 55-page dodgy report — its pages devoid of evidence backing claims, rendering them baseless on a par with US fake news of Russian election meddling that never occurred in the country or anywhere else.

The UK report reads like a Grade B Hollywood film script — panned by critics for resembling unrealistic fiction, not reality.

It’s all about Britain’s complicity with US war on Russia by other means.

There’s no end of it no matter which right wing of the US one-party state runs things — Britain operating the same way.

Both nations are fantasy democracies, not the real thing, pretending otherwise — fooling no one paying attention.

*

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 Strategic Culture Foundation

The much-anticipated 1986: The Act film by Andrew Wakefield has finally been released, revealing the truth about the infamous 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and its detrimental impact on the lives of innocent children.

Now available for online streaming as of July 8, the film is described as a “forensic examination” of the NCVIA, which for nearly 35 years has unjustly shielded the vaccine industry from all liability associated with vaccine-induced injuries and deaths.

Released by 7th Chakra Films, 1986: The Act dredges up the dirty history of how Big Pharma manipulated its way into becoming a protected industry – the only one of its kind – that is never held accountable for the health damage caused by its products.

Many people are unaware that it even exists, for one. It also remains uncommon knowledge that the NCVIA’s implementation is the reason why the government-recommended childhood vaccination schedule has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels.

“Many are unaware that the number of inoculations required prior to 1986 were less than a third of present day recommendations, or that this increase is correlated with a drastic surge in autism,” reports Real Immunity.

Be sure to watch the official trailer for 1986: The Act below:

With the NCVIA still in place, is America truly a safe place to have babies?

In addition to covering the impact of the NCVIA, Wakefield’s film takes a closer look at the series of events that led up to its passage. It also reveals how the vaccine industry manipulated the intent of this legislation to make vaccines a protected class of consumer product.

No other good or service available for purchase is shielded from liability in the same way that vaccines are, and this has created a scenario in which vaccine companies continue to churn out increasingly more dangerous and deadly vaccines without consequence.

All the while, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have both played their part in keeping Big Pharma happy and protected and all times, children’s health be damned.

“The agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from dangerous drugs have all become sock puppets for the industries that they are supposed to be regulating,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) warns in the film.

The way the film is put together depicts a couple doing extensive research about vaccines prior to giving birth to their baby. What they discover is a plethora of disturbing information that the government and mainstream media have concealed from the public.

“Included are many historical news reports that allow the viewer to connect the dots themselves,” Real Immunity explains. “We watch as the couple uncovers these secrets kept from public view in order to maintain faith in inoculations.”

Some of these secrets include the man-made polio epidemic caused by 200,000 “faulty” polio vaccines that caused paralysis and death. Another is the infamous “swine flu” pandemic, the vaccine for which resulted in many people developing narcolepsy.

Other vaccine-related topics, many of which we have also covered, include the high risks associated with the MMR vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella, which was found to negatively impact young black boys at a disproportionately higher rate than other children.

“Is this even a safe place to have babies anymore?” the couple in the film is seen asking after weighing the pros and cons of vaccination and assessing the penalties involved with not vaccinating, which in some states include unvaccinated children not being allowed to attend school.

*

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 Natural News

It was four years in the making, but the time has come for Andy Wakefield to announce the release of his next film, “1986: The Act“, streaming online July 8, 2020.

Man and microbe, from Polio to COVID19… a never more relevant forensic examination of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and its consequences. What happens when an ancient wisdom – a mother’s intuition – is pitted against powerful interests in a race against time? More information. Watch the trailer:

*

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

Peter Beinart, an influential liberal commentator on Israel and Zionism, poked a very large stick into a hornets’ nest this month by admitting he had finally abandoned his long-cherished commitment to a two-state solution. 

Variously described as the “pope of liberal Zionism” and a “bellwether for the American Jewish community”, Beinart broke ranks in two essays. Writing in the New York Times and in Jewish Currents magazine, he embraced the idea of equality for all – Israelis and Palestinians.

Beinart concluded:

“The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades – a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews – has failed… It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish-Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish-Palestinian equality.”

Similarly, the NYT article was headlined: “I no longer believe in a Jewish state.” Beinart’s main point – that a commitment to Israel is now entirely incompatible with a commitment to equality for the region’s inhabitants – is a potential hammer blow to the delusions of liberal Jews in the United States.

Long  journey

His declaration is the apparent culmination of a long intellectual and emotional journey Beinart has conducted in the public eye. It’s a journey many American liberal Jews have taken with him.

Once the darling of the war-mongering liberal establishment in Washington, he supported the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003. Three years later, he wrote a largely unrepentant book titled The Good Fight: Why Liberals – and Only Liberals – Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.

There is no heavyweight publication in the US that has not hosted his thoughts. Foreign Policy magazine ranked him in the top 100 global thinkers in 2012.

But his infatuation with Israel and Zionism has been souring for years. A decade ago, he published a seminal essay on how young American Jews were increasingly alienated from their main leadership organisations, which he criticised for worshipping at the altar of Israel even as Israeli governments lurched ever further rightwards. His argument later formed the basis of a book, The Crisis of Zionism.

The tensions he articulated finally exploded into physical confrontation in 2018, when he was detained at Israel’s main airport and nearly denied entry based on his political views.

Beinart has not only written caustically about the occupation – a fairly comfortable deflection for most liberal Zionists – but has also increasingly turned his attention to Israel’s behaviour towards its large Palestinian minority, one in five of the population.

Recognition of the structural racism towards these 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a group whose identity is usually glossed over as “Israeli Arabs”, was a clear sign that he had begun poking into the dark recesses of Zionism, areas from which most of his colleagues shied away.

Disappointment and distrust

Beinart’s two essays have been greeted with hesitancy by some of those who might be considered natural allies.

Understandably, some Palestinians find reason to distrust Beinart’s continuing description of himself as a Zionist, even if now a cultural rather than political one. They also resent a continuing western colonial mentality that very belatedly takes an interest in equality for Palestinians only because a prominent liberal Jew adopts the cause.

Beinart’s language is problematic for many Palestinians too. Not least, he frames the issue as between Palestinians and Jews, implying that Jews everywhere still have a colonial claim on the historic lands of Palestine, rather than those who live there today as Israelis.

Similarly, among many anti-Zionists, there is disappointment that Beinart did not go further and explicitly prescribe a single democratic state of the kind currently being advanced in the region by small but growing numbers of Israelis and Palestinians.

Tested to breaking point

But the importance of Beinart’s intervention lies elsewhere. The American is not the first prominent Jewish figure to publicly turn his back on the idea of a Jewish state. Notably, the late historian Tony Judt did the same – to much uproar – in a 2003 essay published by the New York Review of Books. He called Israel an “anachronism”.

But Judt had been chiefly associated with his contributions to understanding European history, not Zionism or Israel. And his essay arrived at a very different historical moment, when Israelis and Jews overseas were growing more entrenched in their Zionism. The Oslo Accords had fizzled into irrelevance at the height of a Palestinian uprising.

Beinart’s articles have landed at a problematic time for his main audience. The most fundamental tenet of liberal Zionism – that a Jewish state is necessary, verging on sacred – is already being tested to the breaking point.

The trigger for the articles is the very tangible threat from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, backed by the Trump White House, to annex swaths of the West Bank.

Meagre alibi lost

The significance of Netanyahu’s position on annexation, as Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard has noted, depends not simply on whether annexation is realised on the ground, now or later. The declaration itself crosses a Rubicon.

Netanyahu and the right-wing faction who now control Israel unchallenged have made it explicit that they do not consider the occupation to be a temporary arrangement that will eventually be resolved in peace talks.

Image on the right is from Shutterstock

The intent to annex, whether or not the US allows such a move, now taints everything Israel does in the occupied territories. It proves beyond any doubt – even to liberal Jews who have been living in deep denial – that Israel’s goal is to permanently seize the occupied territories.

That, in turn, means that Israel has only two possible approaches to the Palestinian populations living in those territories as long as it denies them equality: It can either carry out ethnic cleansing operations to expel them, or rule over them in a formal, explicit arrangement of apartheid. That may not constitute much of a tangible difference on the ground, but it marks a legal sea change.

Occupation, however ugly, is not in breach of international law, though actions related to it, such as settlement-building, may be. This allowed many liberal Jews, such as Beinart, a small comfort blanket that they have clung to tightly for decades.

When challenged about Israel’s behaviour, they could always claim that the occupation would one day end, that peace talks were around the corner, that partition was possible if only Palestinians were willing to compromise a little more.

But with his annexation plan, Netanyhu ripped that comfort blanket out of their clutches and tore it to shreds. Ethnic cleansing and apartheid are both crimes against humanity. No ifs, no buts. As Sfard points out:

“Once Israel began officially striving for annexation – that is, for perpetuating its rule by force – it lost this meagre alibi.”

Apartheid state

Sfard makes a further important legal observation in a report written for the human rights group Yesh Din. If Israel chooses to institute an apartheid regime in parts of the occupied West Bank – either formally or through creeping legal annexation, as it is doing now – that regime does not end at the West Bank’s borders. It would mean that “the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime. That Israel is an Apartheid state.”

Of course, one would have to be blind not to have understood that this was where political Zionism was always heading – even more so after the 1967 war, when Israel’s actions disclosed that it had no intention of returning the Palestinian territories it had seized.

But the liberal Zionist condition was precisely one of willful blindness. It shut its eyes tight and saw no evil, even as Israel debased Palestinian life there for more than half a century. Looking back, Beinart recognises his own self-inflicted credulousness. “In practice, Israel annexed the West Bank long ago,” he writes in the New York Times.

In his two articles, Beinart denies liberal Jews the one path still available to them to rationalise Palestinian oppression. He argues that those determined to support a Jewish state, whatever it does, are projecting their own unresolved, post-Holocaust fears onto Palestinians.

In the Zionist imagination, according to Beinart, Palestinians have been reinvented as heirs to the Nazis. As a result, most Jews have been manipulated into framing Israel’s settler-colonialism in zero-sum terms – as a life-or-death battle. In that way, they have been able to excuse Israel’s perpetual abuse of Palestinians.

Or as Beinart puts it:

“Through a historical sleight of hand that turns Palestinians into Nazis, fear of annihilation has come to define what it means to be an authentic Jew.” He adds that “Jewish trauma”, not Palestinian behaviour, has ended in “the depiction of Palestinians as compulsive Jew-haters”.

Forced into a choice

Annexation has forced Beinart to confront that trauma and move beyond it. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of Israel’s supporters have been reluctant to follow suit or discard their comforting illusions. Some are throwing tantrums, others sulking in the corner.

The Zionist right and mainstream have described Beinart as a traitor, a self-hating Jew, and a collaborator with Palestinian terrorism. David Weinberg of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security called Beinart “a shill for Israel’s enemies” who “secretes poison”.

Dan Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, described Beinart’s advocacy of equality as a “disaster in the making”, while Dani Dayan, Israel’s consul general in New York, accused Beinart of wanting Israel to “drop dead”.

The liberal Zionist establishment has been no less discomfited. Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East envoy, warned that Beinart’s prescription was “an illusion tethered to a fantasy wrapped in an impossibility”.

And Beinart’s friend, Jeremy Ben Ami, head of the two-state lobby group J Street, snatched back the ragged remains of the comfort blanket, arguing that peace talks would be revived eventually. In a standard Zionist deflection, Ben Ami added that Israel was no different from the US in being “far from perfect”.

But to understand how quickly liberal Zionist reasoning may crumble, it is worth focusing on a critique of Beinart’s articles by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz’s in-house liberal Zionist, Anshel Pfeffer.

Collapse of support

Pfeffer makes two highly unconvincing arguments to evade Beinart’s logic. Firstly, he claims that a one-state solution – of any variety – is impossible because there is no support for it among Palestinians and Israelis. It is, he argues, a conceit Beinart has absorbed from Jews and Palestinians in the US.

Let’s overlook Pfeffer’s obvious mistake in ignoring the fact that a single state already exists – a Greater Israel in which Palestinians have been living for decades under a highly belligerent system of apartheid, laced with creeping ethnic cleansing. Still, his claims about where Israeli and Palestinian public opinion currently lies are entirely misleading, as is his assumption about how Beinart’s attack on liberal Zionism may impact regional possibilities.

The views of Palestinians in the occupied territories (Pfeffer, of course, ignores the views of refugees) have been undergoing radical and rapid change. Support for the two-state solution has collapsed. This is far from surprising, given the current political context.

Among Palestinians, there are signs of exasperation and a mirroring of Israeli Jewish intransigence. In one recent poll, a majority of Palestinian respondents demanded a return of all of historic Palestine. What can be inferred from this result is probably not much more than the human tendency to put on a brave show when faced with a highly acquisitive bully.

In fact, increasingly Palestinians understand that, if they want to end the occupation and apartheid, they will need to overthrow their compromised leaders in the Palestinian Authority (PA), effectively Israel’s local security contractor. It is an uprising against the PA, not polls, that will seal the fate of the two-state solution. What may inspire Palestinians to take on the risk of a major confrontation with their leaders?

A part will be played, however small, by Palestinians’ understanding of how a shift from a struggle for statehood to a struggle for equal rights in one state will be received abroad. Liberal Jewish opinion in the US will be critical in changing such perceptions – and Beinart has just placed himself at the heart of that debate.

Journey to ‘self-immolation’

Meanwhile, a majority of Israeli Jews support either Greater Israel or an “end-of-the-rainbow” two-state solution, one in which Palestinians are denied any meaningful sovereignty. They do so for good reason, because either option perpetuates the status quo of a single state in which they prosper at a heavy cost to Palestinians. The bogus two-state solution privileges them, just as bantustans once did white South Africans.

The view of Israeli Jews will change, just as white South Africans’ did, when they suffer a harsher international environment and the resulting cost-benefit calculus has to be adjusted.

In that sense, the issue isn’t what Israeli Jews think now, when they are endlessly indulged, but what Israel’s sponsors – chiefly the US – eventually demand. That is why Beinart’s influence on the thinking of liberal American Jews cannot be discounted. Long term, what they insist on may prove critically important.

That was why Beinart’s harshest critics, in attacking his two essays, also warned of the current direction of travel.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of the Jewish News Syndicate, argued that Beinart’s views were “indicative of the crisis of faith within much of American Jewry”. Weinberg described the two essays as “frightening” because they charted liberal Jews’ “intellectual journey towards anti-Zionism and self-immolation”.

Both understand that, if liberal Jews abandon Zionism, one leg of the Israeli stool will be gone.

Mocked as utopianism

The other problem Pfeffer inadvertently highlights with liberal Zionism is contained in his mocking dismissal of Beinart’s claim that the justification for a “Jewish home” needs to be rooted in morality.

Pfeffer laughs this off as utopianism, arguing instead that Israel’s existence has always depended on what he vaguely terms “pragmatism”. What he means, once the euphemism is stripped out, is that Israel has always pursued a policy of “might is right”.

But Pfeffer’s suggestion that Israel does not also need to shape a moral narrative about its actions – even if that narrative bears no relation to reality – is patently implausible.

Israel has not relied solely on its own might. It has needed the patronage of western states to help it diplomatically, financially and militarily. And their enthusiastic support has depended on domestic perceptions of Israel as a moral agent.

Israel understands this only too well. It has presented itself as a “light unto the nations”, a state that “redeemed” a barren land, and one that has the “most moral army in the world”. Those are all moral claims on western support.

Beinart has demonstrated that the moral discourse for Israel is a lost cause. And for that reason, Israel’s chief allies now are states led by covert, and sometimes overt, antisemites and proud authoritarians.

Beinart is doubtless ahead of most liberal Jews in the US in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish indeed to imagine that there are not many others already contemplating following in his footsteps.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net. 

Featured image: Peter Beinart (Source: Mondoweiss)

Back in 2018, the Toronto Academic Health Science Network had a mandatory masking policy in place for nurses and health care workers, according to the Ontario Nursing Association. Staff were required “to wear an unfitted surgical mask for the entirety of their shift if they choose not to receive the influenza vaccine.”

An article on the Ontario Nursing Association (ONA) states:

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted by both [sides], Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision, found that [the mask or vaccinate] policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ and ‘is the exact opposite of being reasonable.’ In reaching this conclusion, Arbitrator Kaplan rejected the hospital’s evidence.”

The arbitration report points out that there was an “admitted absence of direct evidence that mask wearing [healthcare workers] protected patients from influenza…”  Thus one might ask: If a mask cannot even protect patients from influenza how is it of any use against a “super bad transmittable contagious awful virus” like COVID-19?

It went on to say that the arguments and evidence made for mask wearing “are insufficient, inadequate, and completely unpersuasive…. Evidence that masking as a source [of] control results in any material reduction in transmission was scant, anecdotal, and, in the overall, lacking.”

Even more telling is that the arbitration reported that forced masking is “a coercive practice designed to drive up vaccination rates” among staff. And, it seems, today, among citizens.

If you’re not for being violated with an improperly tested, rushed-to-market, money-making COVID-19 vaccine then please resist the mask wearing coercion with all your might.

*

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

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Daily Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novella, COVID-27: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca

When the Partition of Ireland was first proposed in 1914 James Connolly said that such a scheme would mean “a carnival of reaction both North and South”. In the summer of 1920, as the British government unleashed the Black and Tans, and as it pushed forward legislation to partition the country, the carnival of reaction was seen in its full horror in the Six North-Eastern Counties that were to form the new state of ‘Northern Ireland’.

This reaction was both sectarian and political. Catholics were targeted because they were Catholics as Unionist political leaders and Protestant fundamentalists identified the Church of Rome as the threat to their way of life. Catholics were predominantly nationalist or republican and so they were seen as a political threat to the Union with Britain.  In the Home Rule crisis of 1912-1914 Catholics had been widely targeted for sectarian attacks.

Sinn Féin had received a huge electoral mandate across Ireland in the 1918 General Election and in local elections in February and June 1920. Nationalists and republicans won control of Derry City Council and the County Councils of Fermanagh and Tyrone. The elections were held for the first time under the system of proportional representation, the results exposing the fact that even the Six Counties of ‘Northern Ireland’ were far from the ‘Loyal Ulster’ of Unionist propaganda. (They would see to this later when the new Unionist government abolished PR). The political nature of the reaction was also underlined by the fact that Protestant trade unionists and socialists were targeted as well as Catholics.

In Derry in June there were gun attacks on nationalists by the loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force, as well as serious rioting, with 20 people killed. The storm intensified with the return to Ireland of Unionist leader Edward Carson. He had led opposition to Home Rule and was the key link between the Unionists in Ireland and the British Tory Party. He was a member of the British government during the First World War and was hailed by Unionists as a returning hero when he addressed the main Orange Order demonstration in Belfast on 12 July 1920. He poured petrol on the flames of fear about the rise of Sinn Féin. He said that if the British government did not protect them from “the machinations” of Sinn Féin then “we tell you we will take the matter into our own hands” and he threatened a revival of the UVF. Carson and fellow Unionist leader James Craig also whipped up fear of ‘Bolchevists’ as they warned Unionists of socialists and Sinn Féiners collaborating and seeking to recruit loyalist workers. In 1919 a strike in the shipyards had seen Protestant and Catholic workers united and no doubt this was in the minds of the Unionist leaders.

For the Catholic minority in Belfast the situation was now extremely dangerous. Unionist leaders were determined to consolidate their domination in order to firmly establish the ‘Northern Ireland’ state provided for in the forthcoming Government of Ireland Act. That domination rested on sectarian and political discrimination which ensured preferential treatment for Protestant workers, linked to their loyalty to the British connection. There was a cohort of Protestant unemployed workers who had been in the British Army during the war and could not find employment when they returned to Belfast. The same applied to many Catholics and there were both Protestant and Catholic ex-servicemen employed in the industries of Belfast. But the Ulster Unionist Labour Association played the sectarian card and demanded that preference be given to “loyal ex-service men and Protestant Unionists”.

In June RIC Divisional Commissioner for Munster Gerald Smyth had urged RIC men in Listowel, County Kerry to shoot suspects on sight and not to worry about the consequences. On 17 July Smyth was traced to the Cork County Club in Cork City by the IRA and shot dead. He was from Banbridge, County Down and his killing was used as an excuse by loyalists in that town to attack Catholic shops and homes and drive them out of workplaces. This was but a foretaste of what was to come in Belfast.

On 21 July posters summoned ‘Unionist and Protestant’ workers to a mass meeting in Belfast. The notices came from the Belfast Protestant Association and some 5,000 people assembled outside Workman Clark’s yard. The expulsion of ‘non-loyal’ workers from the shipyards and engineering works was demanded. Enflamed by loyalist rhetoric the crowd became an angry mob armed with revolvers, clubs and sledgehammers which they used to force their way into Harland and Wolff shipyard. They sought out Catholic workers and drove them from the yard; a small number of socialists and Protestant trade unionists were also expelled. Some workers had to jump into the River Lagan to escape. They were pelted with ‘Belfast confetti’ consisting of rivets and sharp metal shards. Workers were severely beaten and many were hospitalised.

In the following days the pogrom spread to other workplaces such as the Sirocco Works, Mackie’s Foundry and several linen mills. Expulsions continued for weeks and no exception was made for Catholics who had served in the British Army, some of them decorated for their services. Protestant workers not seen as sufficiently loyal were labelled ‘rotten Prods’, including sons of a Protestant yard worker forced from their work because their widowed father married a Catholic, as told to the TUC conference by Belfast socialist John Hanna.

It has been estimated that 10,000 workers were expelled from their jobs, including several hundred women textile workers. But more was to come and the second element of the pogrom was the driving of Catholics from their homes. It began in East Belfast where many Catholic-owned public houses and ‘spirit groceries’ (grocery shops with alcohol licenses) were attacked and looted and the families who lived over them forced out. One estimate said that over 70 such premises were looted and destroyed. The Catholic St. Matthew’s Chapel and nearby convent in Short Strand were attacked and burned. Catholic families were expelled from their homes in Bombay Street between the Falls and Shankill Road, the first of many such expulsions. The British Army was deployed on the streets and several people were shot dead as the disturbances intensified.

On 1 September the Daily Mail commented:

“Now that 20 people have been killed and 400 Catholic families turned out of their homes, and £1 million worth of damage done, Belfast is beginning to come to its senses. Belfast is in its present plight and is faced with future trouble simply and solely because there has been an organised attempt to deprive Catholic men of their work, and to drive Catholic families from their homes.”

The IRA could do little to defend communities given the very vulnerable position of Catholics as a surrounded minority in the tightly packed streets of the city. In Dublin in August the Dáil Cabinet decided to start a boycott of Belfast goods as an act of solidarity and to try to pressure the Unionist leadership to stop the pogroms. Some republicans such as Constance Markievicz TD did not agree with the tactic, arguing that it would be counter-productive.

July 1920 was only the beginning of the pogrom. Attacks on Catholics and expulsions from jobs and homes continued through 1921 and into 1922. Nearly 500 people were killed in Belfast between July 1920 and July 1922. As the ‘Northern Ireland’ state came into being the Ulster Volunteer Force was revived and re-armed as a force of special constables – the B-Specials – of the new Royal Ulster Constabulary. Sectarian discrimination was to continue for decades.

In 1922 a book entitled ‘Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom 1920-1922’ by G.B. Kenna (real name Fr. John Hassan) was published in Dublin. It detailed the full extent of the pogrom. Only a handful of the books were printed before, incredibly, in August 1922, the book was suppressed by the Free State Provisional Government in case it would assist the anti-Treaty IRA. It is poignant to note the dedication of the book:

“To the many Ulster Protestants who have always lived in peace and friendliness with their Catholic neighbours, this little book dealing with the acts of their misguided co-religionists is affectionately dedicated.”

*

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.

Sources

‘Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom 1920-1922’ by G.B. Kenna. Available online https://archive.org/details/factsfiguresofbe00kenn

‘The Start of the Belfast Pogrom, July 12^th 1920’ in The Treason Felony Blog.

‘Belfast’s Unholy War’ by Alan F. Parkinson, Four Courts Press 2004.

All images in this article are from An Phoblacht

Andrzej Duda‘s victory in the recent Polish presidential election will likely affect affairs in Lithuania, especially as Duda has a strong relationship with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda. Nausėda is not only a strong ally of Duda, but he has ensured that Lithuania has become a strategic partner of Poland, so much so that he allows Duda to represent Lithuania in international forums and meetings. The most obvious example was last month’s meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Duda, where Nausėda allowed the Polish President to represent Lithuania’s interests at the White House. Nausėda himself rushed to Warsaw to personally congratulate Duda on his re-election victory and to commemorate the 610th anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald where a Polish-Lithuanian coalition decisively defeated the Teutonic Knights.

Trump especially likes that Lithuania has fulfilled a 2% GDP spending on the military which is in accordance to NATO’s financial criterion. Trump’s liking was made known to Nausėda through Duda when the letter met with the American president last month. Vilnius, in response to praise from Trump, promised to increase military spending to 2.5% of the GDP by 2030, which certainly would have pleased the American president even further.

The rapprochement between Vilnius and Warsaw is probably the only success Nausėda has had in foreign policy in the first year of his rule. During that time, Lithuania has repeatedly and loudly supported all initiatives by Duda. Any support is important for Duda as he faces clashes with Brussels and Berlin for his ultra-conservative ideology and policies. Duda and Nausėda are also frustrating the European Union as major bloc countries like France and Germany are working towards normalization of relations with Moscow, while Poland and the Baltic States maintain an aggressive anti-Russia policy.

In the first year of his reign, Nausėda tried to show loyalty and devotion to the conservatives and liberals in his country who helped him become president. But if he cannot maintain their support, he could lose influence in the upcoming autumn parliamentary elections. This could sever the Polish-Lithuanian friendship. Many conservatives in Lithuania are hostile to Poland as they recognize the threat that Polish nationalists are to the sovereignty of their country. This is because Polish nationalists claim that large swathes of Lithuania, including the capital city of Vilnius, belong to Poland.

Lithuania’s Homeland Union Party leader Gabrielius Landsbergis confirmed his own suspicions towards the Polish minority in Lithuania, believing they could be serving the interests of Warsaw or act as a fifth phalanx. Keeping in mind the nationalist sentiments of the Polish president, it can be assumed that Landsbergis’s statement was not forgotten in Warsaw. Poland also did not forget that it was the Lithuanian Conservatives who humiliated former Polish President Lech Kaczyński before his tragic death in Russia on April 10, 2010. The ruling Conservative-Liberal coalition prevented the adoption of laws on the preservation of the Polish minority’s national identity during Kaczyński’s visit to Lithuania.

If the Conservatives dominate the Lithuanian Parliament later this year, many questions will arise about the further warming of Lithuanian-Polish relations. Thus, after possibly winning the elections, the Conservatives will endanger the personal friendship between Nausėda and Duda. However, if the Conservatives adopt an aggressive approach towards Poland, Warsaw can put a stop to strategic and critical projects for Lithuania’s integration into the European energy and transportation markets. And even if the projects for the synchronization of electricity networks, the construction of gas pipelines and the construction of the Rail Baltica railway are successfully implemented, the Poles can simply put pressure on Vilnius by imposing exorbitant energy prices and transit taxes. All transport flows connecting the Baltic States with Europe pass through Poland.

Although the Nausėda and Duda friendship is undoubtedly deep, united mostly in their anti-Russian rhetoric, there is every possibility that relations between Vilnius and Warsaw can become tense following the upcoming Lithuanian parliamentary elections. It must be questioned though whether Washington will allow a potential breakdown of Polish-Lithuanian relations as both countries have been closely coordinating their efforts to oppose Russia at every opportunity.

Trump has already given his enthusiastic approval of Lithuania meeting NATO financial demands, and Duda last month was the first foreign leader to visit Trump since the coronavirus pandemic began. The Lithuanian elections could come down to the wire just as the recent Polish elections did. This very well could determine how Lithuanian-Polish relations transpire in the future, and there is little doubt that both Duda and Trump will be hoping that Nausėda’s allies are elected.

*

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

Late on July 20, the Israeli Air Force carried out a new wave of airstrikes on the southern countryside of the Syrian capital of Damascus. According to Syria’s state-run news agency SANA, Israeli warplanes launched missiles from the airspace over the Golan Heights at 21.48 local time. It claimed that a large portion of the missiles were shot down by the Syrian Air Defense Forces, but several hit their targets. At least 7 Syrian personnel were reportedly injured in the attack.

A day earlier, on July 19, Israeli warplanes and reconnaissance drones conducted extensive flights in Lebanese airspace, near the Syrian border. Apparently, these flights were conducted in the framework of the preparations for the July 20 attack.

In early July, the Iranian leadership publicly declared that it is going to contribute efforts to increase the Syrian air defense capabilities. Many observers, including Israeli ones, saw this statement as a signal of the possible supply of Iranian air defense systems to Syria. While the possibility of such supplies still remains in question, this was enough to provoke a further Israeli military action in Syria.

Syrian sources speculate that Israel also increased its sabotage activity in southern Syria. In the previous years of the conflict, the Israeli leadership already demonstrated that it’s ready to support any terrorist group that opposes Damascus. This approach extended to the situation when the Israeli military was turning a blind eye to the presence of ISIS terrorists in close proximity to Israeli positions on the Golan Heights.

At the same time, Israel reacted adversely to the Syrian anti-terrorism efforts in the provinces of Daraa and Quneitra. In the last few months, a series of assassinations and attacks targeted Syrian government forces in this area. Pro-government sources claim that these attacks became possible thanks to Israeli support to the remaining anti-government groups in the reigon.

Early on July 21, Idlib militants shelled positions of the Syrian Army near the village of Dadikh. Pro-militant sources claimed that the attack was a response to regular ceasefire violations by the Assad regime. Regular joint Russian-Turkish patrols along the M4 highway in southern Idlib seem to be not enough to stabilize the area. Furthermore, these patrols become targets of various attacks and provocations on a regular basis.

If the situation remains same in the future, a new open military confrontation in this part of Syria will become inevitable. At the same time, a political solution to the tensions is not possible as along as the region is in fact controlled by al-Qaeda-linked factions, first of all Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

In eastern Syria, the US-baked Syrian Democratic Forces continue their anti-ISIS raids in various desert villages. Pro-Kurdish sources claim that these raids allowed to decrease notably the ISIS activity on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Nonetheless, the terrorist group still has a wide network of cells in this part of Syria. Thus, the resumption of ISIS attacks is just a matter of time.

*

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

“I don’t need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors, to do our job. We’re going to do that, whether they like us there or not.”—Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf’s defense of the Trump Administration’s deployment of militarized federal police to address civil unrest in the states

This is a wake-up call.

What is unfolding before our very eyes—with police agencies defying local governments in order to tap into the power of federal militarized troops in order to put down domestic unrest—could very quickly snowball into an act of aggression against the states, a coup by armed, militarized agents of the federal government.

At a minimum, this is an attack on the Tenth Amendment, which affirms the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry, and the right of the states to stand as a bulwark against overreach and power grabs by the federal government.

If you’re still deluding yourself into believing that this thinly-veiled exercise in martial law is anything other than an attempt to bulldoze what remains of the Constitution and reinforce the iron-fisted rule of the police state, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is no longer about partisan politics or civil unrest or even authoritarian impulses.

This is a turning point.

Unless we take back the reins—and soon—looking back on this time years from now, historians may well point to the events of 2020 as the death blow to America’s short-lived experiment in self-government.

The government’s recent actions in Portland, Oregon—when unidentified federal agents (believed to be border police, ICE and DHS agents), wearing military fatigues with patches that just say “Police” and sporting all kinds of weapons, descended uninvited on the city in unmarked vehicles, snatching protesters off the streets and detaining them without formally arresting them or offering any explanation of why they’re being held—is just a foretaste of what’s to come.

One of those detainees was a 53-year-old disabled Navy veteran who was in downtown Portland during the protests but not a participant. Concerned about the tactics being used by government agents who had taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, Christopher David tried to speak the “secret” police. Almost immediately, he was assaulted by federal agents, beaten with batons and pepper sprayed

Another peaceful protester was reportedly shot in the head with an impact weapon by this federal goon squad.

The Trump Administration has already announced its plans to deploy these border patrol agents to other cities across the country (Chicago is supposedly next) in an apparent bid to put down civil unrest. Yet the overriding concerns by state and local government officials to Trump’s plans suggest that weaponizing the DHS as an occupying army will only provoke more violence and unrest.

We’ve been set up.

Under the guise of protecting federal properties against civil unrest, the Trump Administration has formed a task force of secret agents who look, dress and act like military stormtroopers on a raid and have been empowered to roam cities in unmarked vehicles, snatching citizens off the streets, whether or not they’ve been engaged in illegal activities.

As the Guardian reports, “The incidents being described sound eerily reminiscent of the CIA’s post-9/11 rendition program under George W Bush, where intelligence agents would roll up in unmarked vans in foreign countries, blindfold terrorism suspects (many of whom turned to be innocent) and kidnap them without explanation. Only instead of occurring on the streets of Italy or the Middle East, it’s happening in downtown Portland.”

The so-called racial justice activists who have made looting, violence, vandalism and intimidation tactics the hallmarks of their protests have played right into the government’s hands

They have delivered all of us into the police state’s hands.

There’s a reason Trump has tapped the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for this dirty business: these agencies are notorious for their lawlessness, routinely sidestepping the Constitution and trampling on the rights of anyone who gets in their way, including legal citizens.

Indeed, it was only a matter of time before these roving bands of border patrol agents began flexing their muscles far beyond the nation’s borders and exercising their right to disregard the Constitution at every turn.

Except these border patrol cops aren’t just disregarding the Constitution.

They’re trampling all over the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from carrying out egregious warrantless searches and seizures without probable cause.

As part of the government’s so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs and trafficking, its border patrol cops have been expanding their reach, roaming further afield and subjecting greater numbers of Americans to warrantless searches, ID checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property far beyond the boundaries of the borderlands.

That so-called border, once a thin borderline, has become an ever-thickening band spreading deeper and deeper inside the country.

Now, with this latest salvo by the Trump administration in its so-called crackdown on rioting and civil unrest, America itself is about to become a Constitution-free zone where freedom is off-limits and government agents have all the power and “we the people” have none.

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with its more than 60,000 employees, supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military, is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, a national police force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude and corruption such a role implies.

As journalist Todd Miller explains:

In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can institute roving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national security, immigration enforcement and drug interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within twenty-five miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a person’s private property without a warrant.

Just about every nefarious deed, tactic or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police state mindset, and the billions of dollars it distributes to local police agencies in the form of grants to transform them into extensions of the military.

As Miller points out, the government has turned the nation’s expanding border regions into “a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance.”

In much the same way that police across the country have been schooled in the art of sidestepping the Constitution, border cops have also been drilled in the art of “anything goes” in the name of national security.

In fact, according to FOIA documents shared with The Intercept, border cops even have a checklist of “possible behaviors” that warrant overriding the Constitution and subjecting individuals—including American citizens—to stops, searches, seizures, interrogations and even arrests.

For instance, if you’re driving a vehicle that to a border cop looks unusual in some way, you can be stopped. If your passengers look dirty or unusual, you can be stopped. If you or your passengers avoid looking at a cop, you can be stopped. If you or your passengers look too long at a cop, you can be stopped.

If you’re anywhere near a border (near being within 100 miles of a border, or in a city, or on a bus, or at an airport), you can be stopped and asked to prove you’re legally allowed to be in the country. If you’re traveling on a public road that smugglers and other criminals may have traveled, you can be stopped.

If you’re not driving in the same direction as other cars, you can be stopped. If you appear to be avoiding a police checkpoint, you can be stopped. If your car appears to be weighed down, you can be stopped. If your vehicle is from out of town, wherever that might be, you can be stopped. If you’re driving a make of car that criminal-types have also driven, you can be stopped.

If your car appears to have been altered or modified, you can be stopped. If the cargo area in your vehicle is covered, you can be stopped.

If you’re driving during a time of day or night that border cops find suspicious, you can be stopped. If you’re driving when border cops are changing shifts, you can be stopped. If you’re driving in a motorcade or with another vehicle, you can be stopped. If your car appears dusty, you can be stopped.

If people with you are trying to avoid being seen, or exhibiting “unusual” behavior, you can be stopped. If you slow down after seeing a cop, you can be stopped.

In Portland, which is 400 miles from the border, protesters didn’t even have to be near federal buildings to be targeted. Some claimed to be targeted for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

This was never about illegal aliens and border crossings at all. It’s been a test to see how far “we the people” will allow the government to push the limits of the Constitution.

We’ve been failing this particular test for a long time now.

It was 1798 when Americans, their fears stoked by rumblings of a Quasi-War with France, failed to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized anti-government speech, empowered the government to deport “dangerous” non-citizens and made it harder for immigrants to vote.

During the Civil War, Americans went along when Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus(the right to a speedy trial) and authorized government officials to spy on Americans’ mail.

During World War I, Americans took it in stride when  President Woodrow Wilson and Congress adopted the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to interfere with the war effort and criminalized any speech critical of war.

By World War II, Americans were marching in lockstep with the government’s expanding war powers to imprison Japanese-American citizens in detainment camps, censor mail, and lay the groundwork for the future surveillance state.

Fast-forward to the Cold War’s Red Scares, the McCarthy era’s hearings on un-American activities, and the government’s surveillance of Civil Rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr.—all done in the name of national security.

By the time 9/11 rolled around, all George W. Bush had to do was claim the country was being invaded by terrorists, and the government was given greater powers to spy, search, detain and arrest American citizens in order to keep America safe.

The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired police powers made possible by the nefarious USA Patriot Act.

Barack Obama continued Bush’s trend of undermining the Constitution, going so far as to give the military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial, all in the name of keeping America safe.

Despite the fact that the breadth of the military’s power to detain American citizens violates not only U.S. law and the Constitution but also international laws, the government has refused to relinquish its detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Then Donald Trump took office, claiming the country was being invaded by dangerous immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe was to build an expensive border wall, expand the reach of border patrol, and empower the military to “assist” with border control.

That so-called immigration crisis has now morphed into multiple crises (domestic extremism, the COVID-19 pandemic, race wars, civil unrest, etc.) that the government is eager to use in order to expand its powers.

Yet as we’ve learned the hard way, once the government acquires—and uses—additional powers (to spy on its citizens, to carry out surveillance, to transform its police forces into extensions of the police, to seize taxpayer funds, to wage endless wars, to censor and silence dissidents, to identify potential troublemakers, to detain citizens without due process), it does not voluntarily relinquish them

This is the slippery slope on which we’ve been traveling for far too long.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder explains, “This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether it’s Franco’s Spain or whether it’s the Russian Empire. The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.”

Sure, it’s the Trump Administration calling the shots right now, but it’s government agents armed with totalitarian powers and beholden to the bureaucratic Deep State who are carrying out these orders in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and all it represents.

Whether it’s Trump or Biden or someone else altogether, this year or a dozen years from now, the damage has been done: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have allowed the president to acquire dictatorial powers that can be unleashed at any moment.

There’s a reason the Trump Administration is consulting with John Yoo, the Bush-era attorney notorious for justifying waterboarding torture tactics against detainees. They’re not looking to understand how to follow the law and abide by the Constitution. Rather, they’re desperately seeking ways to thwart the Constitution.

As Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe recognizes, “The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable.

This is how it begins.

This is how it always begins.

Don’t be fooled into thinking any of this will change when the next election rolls around.

*

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].

Featured image is from OneWorld

As the distraction of BLM/Antifa riots and the coronavirus have consumed much attention and energy, the social engineering agenda of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset has taken a giant step forward in establishing the mandatory face mask as a symbol of submission to their dehumanizing agenda.  Beyond Orwellian, the face mask is being used as a guise to re shape our perception of reality in acceptance of a scientific dictatorship as an integral part of a looming totalitarian globalist agenda.

As Democratic Governors have played a leading role in advancing the myth that face masks will save lives, Colorado Gov Jared Polis announced his decision on July 16^th to mandate face masks to be worn in all public places in Colorado; thus codifying a medical tyranny world view.

In a July 12^th Facebook page, Polis stated that “The emerging scientific data is clear” that wearing a mask protects others and reduces the risk of contracting Coronavirus.  Polis then referred to those resistant to a face mask as a “selfish bastard.”

During Polis’s four page Executive Order issued on July 19^th, there is not one mention of the ‘emerging science’ as support for his decision to mandate face masks; nor does Polis discuss how health effects will improve with masking except as “mitigating effects of the pandemic.” In announcing the mandate, Polis declared that “Wearing a mask is not a political statement. I don’t know how, in anybody’s mind, this became a game of political football.”

If the Governor is truly at a loss as to how masking or other lockdown requirements became a political football, he has not been paying attention.  Consider the following: on March 20^th, California became the first state in the country to order a Lockdown which was quickly followed by other States with Democratic Governors. To date, a majority of those Governors (21 out of 24) have all approved the mandatory wearing of face masks, albeit without applying any science.  It is the arbitrary ‘shutdown’ of business as well as onerous personal requirements (such as social distancing) with a State adopting  oppressive dictatorial behavior as if they have the right to make personal decisions about any one life.

Only four states with Republican Governors, some of which may be considered RINOs, have also adopted similar Executive Orders (Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland).

*

If CV is merely a variation of an infectious virus, sunshine and warm weather should have already limited its impact; reducing its spread and exposure.  Instead, as Red States attempt to re open  (ie Texas and Florida), sudden intense  CV ‘hot spots’ flare which forces the State to delay and increase its shut down requirements.  Given an advanced radio frequency weapon ability, those ‘hot spots’ may have been generated by 5G at the millimeter level on the electro magnetic Spectrum.

If, in fact, science is not the prime reason for mandatory face masks; that is, if face masks do not provide safety from contagion, then why mandate face masks at all?  What other purpose does a face mask have but to protect the wearer or to inhibit spreading  the virus?  Without evidence that masks have positively reduced exposures and thereby fatalities, then the true purpose of the mandate becomes a more nefarious political and partisan gesture of psychological manipulation and control.

New England Journal of Medicine

On April 1^st the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published its Universal Masking Report including the following highlights:

• “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”
• “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.”
• “The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable.“
• “What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea.”
• “It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask“

No Scientific Support for Mask Wearing

Renowned nutritionist Dr. Joseph Mercola has recently reversed his earlier support of face masks and interviewed Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD who examined the issue on behalf of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.  Rancourt conducted extensive research with an emphasis on masks and did a thorough review of science literature concentrating on whether any evidence exists that masks can reduce infection risk of viral respiratory disease.  As a result of examining many controlled trials with verified outcomes,  he found no statistical advantage to wearing a mask or not wearing a mask and that masks do no inhibit viral spread.

Rancourt asserted that “there is no evidence that masks are of any utility for preventing infection by either stopping the aerosol particles from coming out, or from going in. You’re not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you’re not helping yourself avoid the disease by wearing a mask. In addition, Rancourt explained that “Infectious viral respiratory diseases primarily spread via very fine aerosol particles that are in suspension in the air.  Any mask that allows you to breathe therefore allows for transmission of aerosolized viruses.”

In conclusion, Rancourt stated

“we’re in a state right now where the society is very gradually evolving towards totalitarianism.  As soon as you agree with an irrational order, an irrational command that is not science-based, then you are doing nothing to bring back society towards the free and democratic society that we should have.”

While the ACLU remains absent, OCLA (Ontario Civil Liberties Association) recommends Civil Disobedience against Mandatory Mask Laws.  If you are not comfortable with civil disobedience  and  your local food markets all require a face mask, don’t deny yourself the healthy food you and your family need – but DO find ways to  register your dissent against being forced to wear a face mask. Write a Letter to the Editor and contact all of your elected political leaders.  Be sure they understand  your objections that you will not comply with their unconstitutional and immoral behavior.

*

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 served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

Featured image: A woman wearing a face mask is seen in the subway in Milan, Italy, March 2, 2020. (Photo by Daniele Mascolo/Xinhua)

One of Washington’s reoccuring dreams is creating a “pan-Asian alliance” to encircle and contain China’s economic and political rise. Unable to do this through regime change, economic incentives, military alliances, or even coercion and terrorism, it has drawn deeper and deeper from its “soft power” toolkit.

The US is also increasingly lumping its various regional assets together to fight in its growing rift with China.

On July 15, Luis Fernando Camacho, leader of the violent coup against Bolivian president Evo Morales and current candidate for the Bolivian presidency, issued a desperate appeal to the Organization of American States.

.

.

.

Bolivia's coup leader, Fernando Camacho, has asked the OAS to intervene to stop democratic elections taking place on September 6th.

Camacho says that "we mustn't allow the elections to become an act of resurrection" for the MAS. pic.twitter.com/wYa9FvV4ST

— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) July 15, 2020

According to a poll done by Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica, which was released on July 7, Camacho is polling at nine per cent. Meanwhile MAS (Movement for Socialism) candidate Luis Arce, Bolivia’s finance minister from 2006 until the coup, is polling at 42 per cent. To surpass Arce’s lead in the polls, Carlos Mesa, the unelected coup president Jeanine Anez, and Camacho would have to consolidate their votes, while two would need to drop out of the race.

MAS candidate Luis Arce is poised for a first-round win in Bolivia's presidential election, polling 15+ points ahead of the nearest rival.

New poll by @CELAGeopolitica: pic.twitter.com/p682ifqtVD

— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) July 7, 2020

In the appeal, Camacho, who has direct connections to the paramilitary group Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, argued that “we [Bolivia] must not allow the elections to become an act of resurrection” for MAS. This is an open call for the OAS to launch a second coup if Arce wins the presidential election, and violate the sovereignty of Bolivia yet again.

In response to this news, Evo Morales spoke out on Twitter:

Asking the OAS to rule on the suspension of the elections in Bolivia is a new blow against democracy, it is a form of intervention against the sovereignty of the State and the dignity of the people; and furthermore it is being asked by those responsible for the tragic events of 2019

Pedir que la @OEA_oficial se pronuncie para que se suspendan las elecciones en #Bolivia es un nuevo golpe contra la democracia, es una forma de intervención contra la soberanía del Estado y la dignidad del pueblo; y lo piden los responsables de los trágicos sucesos de 2019. pic.twitter.com/LDYts3EAHQ

— Evo Morales Ayma (@evoespueblo) July 15, 2020

The Bolivian people are not giving up on democracy without a fight. Today, the main Bolivian workers federation, Central Obrera Boliviana (COB) demanded “adhesion to the September 6th election date as adopted by the TSE [Election authority].”

The Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), Bolivia's main workers federation, demands adhesion to the September 6th election date as adopted by the TSE. The regime is pursuing criminal charges against the COB's leadership for the nationwide protests held on Tuesday. pic.twitter.com/BT8FhFUqKK

— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) July 16, 2020

How Canada, the US, and OAS allied to overthrow Morales

On Nov. 29, 2017,  the Morales government won a legal challenge to modify the Bolivian constitution, which would have allowed Morales to run for a fourth term as the Bolivian president.

Two years later, on Oct. 25, 2019, the winner of Bolivia’s presidential election was announced. Evo Morales won 47 per cent of the vote, while the main US-backed candidate, Carlos Mesa, won 36 per cent of the vote. Morales narrowly cleared the 10-point margin of victory required to avoid a second-round runoff election, and it seemed as if Morales was set to serve his fourth term in office.

However, the OAS would have a key role in ensuring this did not happen. The OAS, described as the “U.S Ministry of the Colonies” by former Cuban president Fidel Castro, is supposed to “represent the 35 countries in the Western Hemisphere in defence of peace, equality and national sovereignty.” However, the organization has a long history of openly backing the United States’ imperialist agenda.

In particular, during the US-led 2019 coup attempt against Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro, false claims of election fraud were utilised to try to push the “US puppet” Juan Guaido into power. The (leader), Luis Almagro praised the protests repeatedly, and allowed Canada to set up the Lima Group, an alliance of countries wishing to overthrow the Venezuelan government, without any punishment.

The OAS electoral mission to Bolivia soon claimed that they had found evidence of election fraud in Morales’ victory. Based on the claims of the electoral mission, Canada called for a run-off election to occur. On Oct. 31, the OAS began an audit of the Bolivian election.

The Canadian and United States government ignored a Nov. 8 report from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, a US-based think tank, who did a statistical analysis of Bolivia’s publicly available voting data which found no evidence of irregularities or fraud.

Meanwhile, Canada refused to condemn the vicious attacks committed by opposition forces against Morales supporters and leftist politicians, led by Luis Camacho.

On Nov. 10, the Bolivian election audit report was released by the OAS, in which they claimed that:

“In the four factors reviewed (technology, chain of custody, integrity of the tally sheets, and statistical projections), irregularities were detected, ranging from very serious to indicative of something wrong.”

The audit team “[could not] validate the results of this election and therefore recommends another electoral process.” They argued that “Any future process should be overseen by new electoral authorities to ensure the conduct of credible elections.”

On the very day, Canada, declared its support for the electoral audit, stating that “It is clear that the will of the Bolivian people and the democratic process were not respected.” A day later, Morales resigned the presidency after pressure was mounted by military chief, Gen. Williams Kaliman, calling for him to immediately quit and permit the “restoration of peace and stability.”

In a press release, Morales said:

I decided to resign from my position so that Carlos Mesa and Luis Camacho stop abusing and harming thousands of brothers … I have the obligation to seek peace and it hurts a lot that we face Bolivians, for this reason, so I will send my letter of resignation to the Plurinational Assembly of Bolivia.

Under severe pressure, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, the president of the Senate, Adriana Salvatierra of the MAS party, and the president of the Chamber of Deputies all resigned. As a result, the line of succession to the Bolivian presidency was broken.

On Nov. 12, a Bolivian senator, Jeanine Áñez, declared herself the interim president of Bolivia in Congress, vowing to promptly hold new elections. Aljazeera reported that “this was done despite a lack of a quorum to appoint her in a legislative session that was boycotted by legislators from former President Evo Morales‘ left-wing party.”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo applauded the interim president in a statement on Nov. 13, saying that the U.S. looks forward to working with the OAS to stage “free and fair elections” by the end of 2019.

Two days later, Canada announced its support for Áñez, and laughably called for a “democratic elections as soon as possible”.

Bolivia in shambles without Morales, as elections are delayed until September 2020

In January 2020, a now-deleted racist tweet from “interim president” Áñez was caught, in which she reportedly wrote: “I want a Bolivia free of satanic indigenous rituals. The city is not for the indigenous. They should go to the mountains or plains.” Áñez also called Morales a “poor Indian” in another tweet.

Canadian mining companies have swiftly exploited the coup government’s pro-business stance to resume lithium mining projects, after Morales nationalized South American Silver Corp. lithium mining operation in 2012.

A first-of-its kind deal was struck that month between Bolivia’s state mining company Comibol and Vancouver-based explorer New Pacific Metals, which allowed the company to begin mining for lithium and showed that “Bolivia is open to foreign investment,” according to NPM’s President, Gordon Neal.

Nadia Cruz, Bolivia’s ombudsman, said that charges of “sedition” and “terrorism” are being brought for simply disagreeing with or questioning the Áñez administration.

Michael Shifter, the president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue said,

“There is unwillingness on the level of the Trump administration to hold Áñez to account, so she has a lot of room to do what she wants, including what seems to be the carrying out of vendettas.”

Journalists have been arrested and intimidated, while Indigenous activists have been severely repressed.

The promise of quick elections proved to be a lie, two months after the coup, that the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which was filled with Anez allies, and purged of former officials, determined the presidential election would occur on May 3. However, the Bolivian electoral court used the COVID-19 pandemic as cover to delay the elections until September 6. Now that Luis Camacho is urging the OAS to interfere in Bolivia’s elections yet again, the stage may be set for a second coup against a Movement for Socialism party’s presidential candidate within the last year.

Even the narrative of flawed elections has fallen apart, as the New York Times and others have reported that the there was no election fraud, in the 2019 election that delivered Morales his fourth term as Bolivia’s president.

Just as in the US-backed coup against Evo Morales and the 2004 US-led coup against Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Canada is almost certain to play a key role in the destruction of Bolivian democracy, staying true to its imperialist foreign policy.

*

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.

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news site founded in 2019. He has written about Canadian imperialism, federal politics, and left-wing resistance to colonialism across the world. He is a second-year Bachelor of Journalism student at Ryerson University, who was the Head of Communications and Community Engagement for Etobicoke North NDP Candidate Naiima Farah in the 2019 Federal Election.

We bring to the attention of our readers, this timely and incisive article by Radhika Tikku, Ph.D candidate at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.

millions of people Worldwide are suffering from depression as a result of the global crisis which is affecting humanity.

The pandemic is based on fear. it’s a big lie.

People are being manipulated. They have accepted the consensus imposed upon them: economic collapse, social engineering, poverty, despair and depression.

The impact of this crisis on mental health is beyond description. The Anti-dote is “Reconnection”: Solidarity and Mass Social Action against this diabolical project.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 21, 2020

***

Depression is a global problem that’s on the rise.

In Lost Connections, Johann Hari offers practical solutions for how to tackle it. Unfortunately, he misses the crucial point that personal sacrifice is the only way we can discover what makes us content.

Hari explores the sources behind depression and anxiety.

Knowing depression, Hari considers two main explanations for why depression occurs. Each blames the individual. One is that depression is the result of overactive imagination, or weakness of the will. The other is that depression is caused by brain malfunction. The brain’s chemistry is “off” and needs to regain equilibrium.

Hari scrutinizes both explanations. For the first, the sheer numbers suggest depression is not the effect of false consciousness, or that depressives lack fortitude. The second is not supported by science. So, Hari offers an alternative explanation.

Depression requires us to revise the way we live in the world. In fact, we should ask: What does it mean to be human?

Depression “is a normal response to abnormal life experiences”. [1] It’s like grief. Grief is human suffering that stems from loss. Grief is relational. We grieve the death of a loved one because we stand in a bi-directional relationship with them.

Death is not an abnormal life experience; however, modern culture has made it so.

We intellectually know that death occurs, but we do not live as if we ourselves will die.

We live out of joint with the world, as if we’re invincible. Thus, Hari’s alternative explanation is that depression is a social problem. Depression is the illness we contract when disconnected from sources of meaning. The disconnection is disorienting because we lose a part of ourselves. The antidote: Reconnection.

Hari offers sources from which we might draw meaning. All involve the individual changing life in substantive ways and becoming part of a community, closer to the soil. Our ancestors understood this fact better than we today.

Hari is skirting around the problem of the ego. It has practical, political consequences. Hari looks at ways to overcome depression, but he could have gone further: We have to change our relationship with ourselves. We need to talk about identity and how it negatively impacts us.

For instance, we’re not the “author” of our own stories. That slogan is false, because it doesn’t account for the way the world actually is. It cloisters us from the very freedom and choice we so desperately desire. Identity functions like a map; it aids in the navigation of familiar and uncharted territory.

But there’s no use clinging to a moth-eaten map, where a portion of the legend and other key elements are missing. Ancient scholars understood that a person’s identity can be self-imprisoning, which is why they advocated for the renunciation of the self. Thinking yourself the hero of your life—just like thinking yourself the victim of all that’s happened to you—can obscure real knowledge about yourself.

Hari doesn’t go that far. He should have touched on renunciation of the self and how to go about it.

Renunciation of self has three dimensions. First, it requires a relentless on-going engagement between self and the world. This includes ideas. Maps are always subject to revision or wholesale rejection given new conventions or interests.

For example, Hari’s case of the reconstitution of Kotti, the tenement housing in Berlin, leaves this out. When people create a neighbourhood to force recognition of prohibitive rental increases, Kotti’s struggle was not over when the German government made concessions. But living in community, if it is really about connection, is constant negotiation toward rejuvenation of the group and ideas presupposed in one’s identity as a group. Otherwise, old ideas remain in place, obstructing real constructive change.

There has to be a constant forsaking if the objective is really to discover what it means to be human because we live in a dehumanizing world, the full nature of which is not always evident.

It’s a risky prospect.

Second, renunciation involves personal sacrifice. You have to actually give something of value up to discover new ways of living and being in the world. Sacrifice is not valued, culturally. The global pandemic forces us to do without that which we believed to be essential. New social conditions compel us to decide what is essential and give up the rest.

Third, this matters to truth. Just because map-makers reconfigure maps in light of new conventions and interests doesn’t mean anything goes. Maps are accurate or they are not; they either aid in the wayfinding experience, or they don’t. Similarly, personal sacrifice can lead us to living life more truthfully, thriving instead of merely existing.

Hari’s conclusion about a return to community and to nature to heal ourselves, to become self-possessed in ways that were previously impossible, shouldn’t be surprising but it is. It has consequences that challenge other beliefs, some cherished.

There’s more to be said though because we have to confront ourselves to get past ourselves. The ancients understood this point on a much deeper level than us.

*

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

Radhika Tikku is a PhD candidate at Queen’s University, Canada and is currently living in Hong Kong. Her areas of interest are social epistemology and moral philosophy.

Note

[1] Hari, Johann. 2018. Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression—and the Unexpected Solutions. New York: Bloomsbury USA. 112.

Early on July 20, positions of the Syrian Army came under shelling by militants in the villages of Furu, Bahsa and Beit Hassno in the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone. In response, government forces struck positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sam near Kansafra and surrounding areas.

Local tensions increased just a few days after a key infrastructure object of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib became the target of a drone attack. On July 18, three suicide drones hit facilities of the Watad Petroleum Company in the town of Saramada. This company is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and has a monopoly on the fuel market in Greater Idlib. It is deeply involved in oil trafficking with nearby Turkish-occupied areas in northern Aleppo and responsible for the illegal import of fuel from Turkey. A notable part of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s revenue is generated by Watad.

The HTS news agency Iba’a confirmed that the drones struck the headquarters of the company as well as its fuel market. However, the agency claimed that the strikes didn’t result in any human or material losses.

A photo of one of the drones made before the attack shows an X-shaped wing design similar to that of the Hero family of loitering munitions produced by Israel’s UVision. Syrian sources speculate that this drone may be a Russian, Syrian or Iranian reverse-engineered copy of the Israeli munition. At the same time, it is likely that the strike was conducted by Turkey itself, which is silently working to undermine the dominance of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the region.

Earlier in July, Idlib militants attacked a joint Turkish-Russian patrol on the M4 highway with a detonated car driven by a suicide bomber. It is hard to believe that such an attack could be possible without the coordination with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham that controls the frontline in that area. So, Ankara may opt to employ some additional measures to demonstrate its dissatisfaction with such actions of its al-Qaeda partners, that Turkish state media like to call ‘moderate rebels’.

On July 19, an improvised explosive device (IED) exploded in the Turkish-occupied town of Afrin in northern Aleppo. The IED targeted a vehicle of the Sham Corps militant group wounding at least 3 of its members, including a field commander. On the same day, a car bomb attack in the town of Sajjo reportedly killed 5 people and injured dozens of others. Turkish sources often blamed Kurdish rebels for these attacks. However, ISIS cells are also quite active in the Turkish-controlled part of Syria.

On July 16, a quadcopter armed with an explosive charge targeted a group of Russian and Syrian service members in the vicinity of the town of al-Darbasiyah in northeastern Syria. Three service members of the Russian Military Police and three Syrian personnel were injured. According to reports, the attack took place during a meeting at a local coordination post, which was initiated due to the increase of ceasefire violations by Turkish-led forces on the contact line in northeastern Syria.

Even if this attack was not initiated by Turkish forces themselves, but was a local initiative of Turkish proxies, such incidents do not contribute to the stability in Syria’s northeast. The regular ceasefire violations and attacks create an explosive situation on the frontline, which runs the risk of turning into an open military confrontation between the Syrian Army and Turkish forces. The areas with a strong Turkish military presence and the US-controlled zone of al-Tanf remain the main sources of tensions and instability in 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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

The foundations of the great Near East were established in the Pact of Quincey (1945) following the doctrine of the Franco-British Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 that favored the regional division of power in areas of influence and sustained on the tripod US-Egypt- Saudi Arabia. This doctrine consisted in the endemic survival in Egypt of pro-western autocratic military governments, which ensured the survival of the State of Israel (1948) and provided the US Navy with privileged access to the Suez Canal, a crucial shortcut for access direct to the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Afghanistan, remaining as a firm bastion of US geopolitical interests in the area, especially after the fall of the Shah of Persia in 1980.

The other pillar of the agreement consisted of the privileged access of the United States to Saudi Arabian oil in exchange for preserving its autocratic regime and favoring the spread of Wahhabism (doctrine founded by Mohamed Abdel Wahab in the mid-eighteenth century with the aim of becoming a vision attractive to Islam and exportable to the rest of the Arab countries), with which the Saudi theocracy became a regional power that provided the US with the key to energy dominance while serving as a retaining wall for socialist and pan-Arab currents. Finally, after the Six Day War (1967), the geostrategic puzzle of the Middle East and the Near East was completed with the establishment of autocratic and pro-Western regimes in the countries surrounding Israel (Libya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran), leaving the Palestinians confined in the ghettos of the West Bank and Gaza.

Iraq and the Biden Plan

The Biden-Gelb Plan, approved by the US Senate in 2007 and rejected by Condolezza Rice, Secretary of State with George W. Bush, provided for the establishment in Iraq of a federal system in order to prevent the collapse in the country after the withdrawal of US troops and proposed separating Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni entities, under a federal government in Baghdad charged with the care of the borders and the administration of oil revenues.

Thus, we will attend the appearance of Free Kurdistan presided over by Masoud Barzani with capital in Kirkust and that would include annexed areas taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the Iraqi Army such as Sinkar or Rabia in the province of Ninive, Kirkuk and Diyala as well as all the cities of Syrian Kurdish ethnicity (except Hasaka and Qamishli) occupied by the Kurdish insurgency of the BDP.

The new Kurdistan will have the blessings of the United States and will have financial autonomy by owning 20% of the farms of all Iraqi crude oil with the “sine qua non condition” to supply Turkey, Israel and Eastern Europe with Kurdish oil through the Kirkust pipeline that empties into the Turkish port of Ceyhan. On the other hand, the Sunistan with capital in Mosul and that would cover the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Mosul, Tal Afar and Baquba (Sunni triangle), with strong connections with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and that would later lead to a radical pan-Islamist movement that it will use the oil weapon to strangle the western economies in the horizon of the next five-year period.

Finally, as the third leg of the tripod, we would have Iraqi Chi with capital in Baghdad that will counterbalance Saudi Wahhabism and that will gravitate in the orbit of influence of Iran, which will make Iran a great regional power in clear conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iran, guardian of the Gulf and energy power

Iran acquired a regional power dimension thanks to the erratic policy of the United States in Iraq, (fruit of the political administration myopia obsessed with the Axis of Evil) by eliminating its ideological rivals, the Sunni Taliban radicals and Saddam Hussein with the subsequent power vacuum in the area. He also proposed a global negotiation with the contact group to deal with all the aspects that have confronted Western countries for thirty years, both the suffocating embargo that has plagued the Islamic Republic and the Iranian assets blocked in the United States, the role Iran regional cooperation and security cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Mahmoud Ajmadinejad stretched the rope to the limit in the security that the United States would not attack and would limit any individual action by Israel (a discarded project of bombarding the Natanz plant with commercial jets), as a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which it passes A third of the world’s energy traffic could exacerbate the global economic recession and profoundly weaken the entire international political system. Thus, in an interview with Brzezinski conducted by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast (September 18, 2009), he stated that “an American-Iranian collision would have disastrous effects for the United States and China, while Russia would emerge as the great winner, as the foreseeable closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where oil transportation destined for Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), Europe and the United States passes, would raise the price of black gold to stratospheric levels and would have severe repercussions on the economy global, becoming the totally crude EU dependent on Russia.

According to experts, Iran would possess the world’s third largest proven reserves of oil and gas, but it would not have enough technology to extract the gas from the deepest fields and would require an urgent multimillion-dollar investment to avoid irreversible deterioration of its facilities, which in practice it translates into a huge pie for Russian, Chinese and Western multinationals and an increase in the supply of Iranian crude oil to 1.5 million barrels / day within a year, with the consequent drop in prices. of the Brent and Texas reference crudes.

Furthermore, the revitalization of the 2010 energy cooperation agreement between Iraq, Iran and Syria for the construction of the South Pars-Homms gas pipeline that would connect the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean Sea would relativize the strategic importance of the Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline Project (TAP) , (a substitute for the failed Nabucco gas pipeline designed by the US to transport Azerbaijani gas to Europe through Turkey), as well as the relevant role of the United Arab Emirates as suppliers of crude oil to the West, which would explain the eagerness of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for torpedoing him.

America’s “Project of the New Middle East”

Are Iraq and Iran the bait for the US to involve Russia and China in a new war?

Former President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a speech to the Iranian-American National Council (NIAC) stated that “I believe that the US has the right to decide its own national security policy and not follow like a stupid mule what the Israelis do. ” In addition, Brzezinski, would be faced with the neocon republican and Jewish lobbies of the USA and with his habitual biting he would have discredited the geostrategic myopia of both pressure groups when affirming that “they are so obsessed with Israel, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Iran that they have lost from the global picture: the true power in the world is Russia and China, the only countries with a true capacity to resist the United States and England and on which they would have to focus their attention ”.

We would thus be at a crucial moment to define the mediate future of the Middle East and Middle East (PROME East), since after the arrival of Donald Trump from the White House the pressure of the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) would be increasing to proceed the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods, a moment that will be used by the United States, Great Britain and Israel to proceed to redesign the cartography of the unrelated puzzle formed by these countries and thus achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the plan orchestrated 60 years ago. jointly by the governments of Great Britain, the United States and Israel and which would have the backing of the main western allies. Thus, after the approval by the Congress and the US Senate of a declaration prepared by the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and the Democrat Robert Menéndez, who clearly states that “if Israel is forced to defend itself and take action (against Iran), the US will be at your side to support it militarily and diplomatically”, with the Trump Administration we will assist the increase in pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) to proceed with the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods.

In a first phase of said plan, the US Senate unanimously renewed the Sanctions Against Iran Act (ISA) until 2026 and after the launch of a new ballistic missile by Iran, Trump expanded the sanctions against several Iranian companies related to ballistic missiles without violating the Nuclear Agreement signed between the G + 5 and Iran in 2015, known as the Comprehensive Joint Action Plan (JCPOA) and which would only be fireworks to distract attention from the Machiavellian Plan outlined by the Anglo-Jewish Alliance in 1960 that would include the Balkanization of Iran and whose turning point would be the recent assassination of the charismatic General Qasem Soleimani.

This war could lead to a new local episode that would be involve a return to a “recurrent endemism” of the US-Russia Cold War involving both superpowers having as necessary collaborations the major regional powers namely Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

This Cold War scenario would cover the geographic space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Libya, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia and having Iraq as its epicenter (recalling the Vietnam War with Lindon B. Johnson (1963-1.969).

Thus, Syria, Iraq and Iran would be the bait to attract both Russia and China and after triggering a concatenation of local conflicts (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon), this potentially could evolve towards a major regional conflict that could mark the future of the area in the coming years.

*

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 Silent Crow News

Ambassador Uche Ajulu-Okeke is a veteran Diplomat and Development Studies Expert with thirty-year achievements in the Nigerian Foreign Service. She is widely known for her performance orientation, positive mentorship and team spirit. In recognition of her high-level competences, the Anambra State Government appointed Ambassador Ajulu-Okeke to serve in various capacities. She also served in the All Progressive Grand Party (APGA), a Southeastern-based political party, before relocating to the United States.

In the present-day Federal Republic of Nigeria, several years after its independence, the leaders have not succeeded in rebuilding its state institutions enough to reflect all-inclusive ethnic diversity, let alone in adopting Western-style democracy that takes cognizance of different public opinions on development issues in the country. The struggle for and misuse of power have brought the country into a stalemate, disrupting any efforts to overcome the deepening economic and social crisis, she explained in her in-depth discussions.

In this interview, Ambassador Uche Ajulu-Okeke further spoke about many other significant and outstanding issues that are creating tensions in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and why the Biafra has to work unreservedly towards self-determination and independence. Here are the interview excerpts:

How is the situation, in your interpretation, in the Eastern regions that constitute Biafra today in Nigeria?

The situation in the region is dire depicting a derelict lack of infrastructure widespread unemployment, insecurity and youth hopelessness. As a result of decades of state endorsed systemic exclusion since the end of the Civil War, economic emasculation of the East by Nigeria in giving all Easterners £20 irrespective of previous bank holdings at the end of the war, State sponsored nepotic ostracism which eschewed merit and human enterprise from mainstream governance, Easterners found themselves at the brink of socio-economic exterminations and had to pull themselves up by sheer perseverance and dint of effort resulting in disenchantment with Nigeria and a massive migration to new diasporas.

In the region, what economic spheres are available for foreign investors? Currently what foreign players are showing interest in the region?

There are no foreign investors of repute in the region. However, a plethora of virile local entrepreneurs abound which provide fertile ground for viable foreign investment. The indigenous entrepreneurial spirit and the dexterous will to survive the odds has been of immense value in containing widespread poverty. To this end, a number of indigenous entrepreneurs such as Innoson Motors, Coscharis Forms, Lynden Forms, ABC Transport, Air Peace, AA Oil et cetera, have become successful industrialists from sheer dint of self-effort.

The economic spheres open to foreign investors will usher in unprecedented growth is in the area of human capital especially in the digital space. Human economy and venture capital leveraging on the age-old entrepreneurial apprenticeship tradition is the way to go for any foreign investor.  No foreign investors are currently showing interest in the region due to heavy occupationist police and military presence in the region that does not permit the thriving nature of free enterprise to grow as people live and operate in a climate of persecution and fear.

What investment incentives and kinds of business support are available for foreign investors in Biafra?

The Republic of Biafra will emplace a sustainable merit-based investment regime and a justiciable investment clime based on the rule of law. With the emplacement of security and the rule of law, merit and equity in governance models and institutions and a sense of patriotism and belonging in the Citizenry, the restored Republic will lay enviable firm sustainable foundations for investor confidence and economic growth based on tried and tested models and international best practice. The model of business support incentives readily available to the People are the traditional entrepreneurial self-help. Highfaluting government postulations on business exist on paper but are beyond the reach and access of the common man, especially the unschooled rural dweller or urban slum dweller with no access to political or nepotic privilege.

Since 1970, after the civil war, has Igbo women’s status changed in the Eastern Nigeria? Generally, what are the popular perceptions about Igbo women, as against Yoruba, in Federal Republic of Nigeria?

Nothing has changed for the Igbo Woman since after the Civil War. With the increasing socio-political incarceration endured by her male brethren, Igbo women lost their self-esteem. Popular perception of the Igbo Woman are no different from the plight of their male brethren. The renowned resilient strength and baseline support for which Igbo women are known for has been corroded by willful denial of opportunity by the Nigerian State. Many have been forced into unwholesome practices for basic sustenance and are now part of the human and brain-drain which has engulfed the East.

Do the social and cultural changes influencing the activities of women in Biafra State. Can you please discuss the main spheres where Igbo women are currently?

Currently Igbo Women agonize over the seemingly disparate dissipative efforts of their Male brethren in their quest for the restoration of Biafra. Within the sphere of Christianity however Igbo women have excelled and found avenues for self-worth and social expression as religious activities and platforms have created viable avenues to restore the self-esteem of the Igbo Woman. Also, Igbo Woman in the diaspora has again and again proved beyond all reasonable doubt her achievement orientation and resilience in all walks of life. Names like Chimamanda Adichie and Ngozi Okonjo-lweala are household names.

What are the challenges, in your view, that remain especially for Igbo women and the youth in the region of Biafra?

Several challenges exist, the first of which is coercive alien hostile occupation of our homeland which have severally subjected Igbo Women to rape, ravaging their homes and farmlands, decapitating their husbands and children and sources of traditional rural livelihoods. Widespread poverty, unemployment and unemployable skill sets, remain a major challenge. State endorsed occupation of large portions of rural and village communal lands by alien hostile Jihadists have hampered the ability of women to provide for their families as supportive income earners.

Many women and young graduates from schools and cannot find jobs as there are no factories to absorb them and Government, the major employer, has become an overburdened inept nepotism and corrupt. With the prevailing socio-economic climate and the steadily dwindling economic fortunes and hostile stance of the Government towards entrepreneurial endeavor of Easterners, the future is bleak for women and youth. The only glimpse of hope in the horizon is a fallback to the age-old traditional practice of nurtured apprenticeship has been the bulwark of survival and sustenance in the face of the current existential threat facing Easterners.

Could it have been better if the region were independent of the federal system of governance?

An independent Biafra will, of course, usher in a regime of laws. A merit-based system of law and order. Independent Biafra will emplace a just and fair system where merit is accorded due cognition and reward and criminality and kleptomania is eschewed. In five years of independence indigenous enterprise of the East will reach unparalleled heights with world class infrastructure and a first-tier digital economy. This will be achieved through the effort and resilience of the indigenous Peoples of Biafra. In the face of years of criminal neglect by Nigeria and our strong footing in the Diaspora, Biafra’s emancipation and development will be the Eighth Wonder of the World.

In your objective assessment, what can you say are the current achievements or gains in the economic sphere for the Biafra under Federal President Buhari?

Absolutely nothing. The current entrapment of Biafra within the British Nigeria contraption prevents the actualization of its investment and development potential in all ramifications. This is why we Easterners want to delink from this entrapped arrangement called Nigeria.

What are some of the weaknesses and strengths of Nigeria’s stranglehold on Biafra?

Nepotism at all levels and institutions of Government. Morbid corruption. Endemic kleptocracy. Ethnic cleansing and persecution of Christians and ethnic capture of the military and security apparatus of the State. Our current entrapment in Nigeria has been of no gain to the East and a lingering Albatross.

What do you suggest could be possible exit ways out from all these? Most probably, you would advocate for political independence, to become a separate republic?

Some members of the international community and the Comity of Nations were not part of and did not participate in the 1885 Berlin Conference which saw the scramble for and partition of Africa and heralded blatant conquest colonialism. Greedy European nations lumped indigenous nationalities together with little regard for their distinct indigenes and cultures identities. European colonialism therefore created unstable amalgamations of hitherto strange and alien groupings into artificial contemporary nation states of today.

In many African nations such as Nigeria, these indigenous nationalities have had a hostile acrimonious fractious relationship that has impeded development and led to unstable anarchy. The result is that there is massive corruption and widespread kleptocracy with indigenous ethnicities in power making strenuous effort to capture State resources to the exclusion of other groups. This scenario found in many African countries today have led to several Civil Wars and quests for self-determination notable of which is the Nigeria-Biafra War and the enduring quest for self-determination of the indigenous Peoples of Biafra and recently of the entrapped nationalities of the Western and Middle Belt Regions.

The international community has long recognized that the structure of many African states remains unsustainable due to the artificial nature of their creation. They also recognize that many of these indigenous nationalities such as the Igbo have enduring ancient democratic state and governance systems that were subsumed by colonial conquest and use capable of having separate countries as seen with the Republic of Biafra.

The way forward in restoring these ancient nationalities and bringing sustainable peace and development to the beleaguered peoples of Biafra is through the conduct of plebiscites that will afford the indigenous nationalities the inalienable right to choose how they are governed.

In Nigeria, the juxtaposition of ancient nationalities with incompatible values presently held together by a coercive military decree in a centrist top down military format federations, fundamental regional autonomies should be returned to the constituent indigenous groupings through the conduct of plebiscites. There should also be the renunciation of the military Decree 1999 Constitution which has been held the constituent indigenes hostage since 1999. A return to the truly democratic 1963 Constitution and holding of self-determination autonomy plebiscites for all indigenous nationalities will usher in sustainable development and peace.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

While the situation in Libya continues to escalate and the parties are preparing for a decisive battle for Sirte, Turkey, which actively supports forces of the Government of National Accord (GNA), is negotiating with its strategic partners. On July 10, National Defense Minister Hulusi Akar went on an official visit to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. During the visit, Akar checked the work of the diplomatic mission, had dinner with representatives of national minorities, namely Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks, with Ukrainian businessmen and the head of the Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Taking into account the high tension of the situation in Libya, the defense minister’s dinner in Kiev was of great importance for the Turkish side.

According to Ukrainian Minister of Defense Andrei Taran, during the talks with Akar, they discussed ways to deepen cooperation in the defense sphere.

“The cooperation of defense companies of Ukraine and Turkey is of particular [importance]. The reached agreements will strengthen the defense potential of Ukraine. The potential and maneuverability of the Ukrainian army will significantly increase, what will contribute to the protection of peace in the region,” Taran said.

It cannot be excluded that one of the goals of the visit was to demonstrate to Kiev that Turkey favors provocative actions against Russia. Instability in the East of Ukraine or new provocations in Crimea are in Turkey’s interest at the moment. They allow to weak Russia’s position in the negotiation process on Libya at the very moment when GNA fores, supported by Turkey, are actively preparing for military action on the territory of their country.

In recent days, Kiev has become noticeably more active and has been pursuing a policy of discrediting Russia in all possible directions.

In the East of Ukraine the most recent incident happened on July 14 when 2 Ukrainian fighters died and another one received injures in a failed attempt to enter the territory controlled by self-defense forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic near the village of Zaitsevo. The sabotage and reconnaissance unit tried to attack positions of DPR forces but blew up on landmines in the area.

The Ukrainian side announced that one of the dead soldiers was a military medic, Mikola Ilin, who turned out to be a citizen of Estonia. His death was captured on video.

Foreign Minister of Ukraine, Dmitry Kuleba, called the murder of a medic an act of barbarism.

“I want to make it very clear that from a legal point of view, this murder has signs of a war crime, and from a moral point of view, it is nothing else but an act of barbarism,” Kuleba said.

He stressed that the diplomats will try to make the incident public.

“I will personally raise this issue. The response will be as tough as possible. We will attract all our partners. This situation will be made public,” the foreign minister said.

The death of Ilin led to the desired result, which was required by the Ukrainian authorities. The case was widely publicized. The accusations were immediately joined by the US Embassy, which previously rarely commented on the deaths of Ukrainian soldiers in the Donbass.

The European Union called the murder of a military medic a violation of the Minsk agreements, the agreements of the Normandy summit and international law.

Member of European Parliament, Michael Galer, blamed the Kremlin for the incident in eastern Ukraine on Twitter.

Besides the growing tension in the East of the country, Ukraine is increasingly speculating about Russia’s supposed intentions to conduct offensive operations in the South, which could be a response to the blocking of water supply to Crimea from Ukraine through the North Crimean channel. Water in Crimea is really critically scarce, but to solve this problem, Russia is completing the construction of a water pipeline, and is not preparing to seize the southern territories of Ukraine.

Despite the improbability of rumors about upcoming Russian attacks, on July 13, the head of the Kherson region (southern Ukraine), Yuri Gusev, appealed to the National Security Council to increase the number of military personnel in the region. Gusev also assured that Ukrainian military exercises will be held in autumn together with the Estonian military. However, the exact date of the exercise is unknown and depends on the conduct of large-scale military exercises of the Russian Armed Forces – “Caucasus – 2020”.

It is obvious that at the moment there are no signals that Russia is preparing for an offensive operation on the territory of Ukraine. Russia is currently experiencing quite acute domestic political problems, which the Putin administration is coping with worse. These include mass demonstrations in the city of Khabarovsk in the Far East and the introduction of constitutional amendments. Russian military forces are already involved in Syria, Moscow is actively participating in the negotiation process on the conflict in Libya, and the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is escalating near its borders. For a number of internal and foreign policy reasons, Russia is currently unable to deploy a major military force in new theater of operations. Thus, there is no real threat to Ukraine, but there are more and more rumors and information noise created in order to discredit Russia.

The tactical Turkish support pushes Kiev to continue its provocations against Russia. In the current situation, Erdogan has a number of levers to promote its own interests through Kiev.

Turkey and Ukraine are far from being equal partners. This fact is confirmed by the indicators of bilateral trade. Ukraine is much more interested in the Turkish market than vice versa. Ukraine is on the 27th place in the ranking of import countries to Turkey, while Turkey is one of the main importers of Ukraine.

Since 2012, Ukraine and Turkey have been negotiating the free trade zone agreement, but the document has not yet been signed. Economists note that the parties cannot agree on the terms of access for both industrial goods and agricultural products to each other’s markets.

Vladimir Volya, an expert at the Ukrainian Institute of policy analysis and management, claimed that it was difficult for Ukraine to defend its interests in negotiations with Turkey, because “Turkey is the 17th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest in Europe”.

While the economic dimension is certainly important in Turkish-Ukrainian relations, the main tone of interaction between the two countries is set by the political dimension.

As part of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Kiev has special hopes for Ankara’s support. First of all, on the issue of Crimean peninsula. Turkey does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia, to a large extent it is connected with the Crimean Tatar population, which is presented by Kiev as allegedly oppressed by Russia. The policy of protectionism gave Turkey a broad influence on the peninsula until 2014. Before Crimea became part of Russia, the Turkish-backed Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people had notable political power in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Also, thanks to Turkey, various extremist religious organizations, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami, felt blessed on the peninsula. Today Mejlis is banned in Russia and has been replaced by other representative organizations, and the cells of the terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami are consistently eliminated on the territory of Crimea. However, various sources indicate that there is still an extensive network of agents of the Turkish special services among the Crimean Tatars. Ankar still cherishes hopes

The important sphere is cooperation in the defense sphere. Recently, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), Colonel-General Ruslan Khomchak, announced that the Ukrainian Armed Forces troops deployed in Eastern Ukraine will be equipped with Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 UAVs. State-controlled Ukrainian company UkrSpetsExport and private Turkish UAV specialist Baykar Makina signed a $69 million strategic cooperation agreement. Baykar Makina company is the most prominent of new Turkish drone makers penetrating the domestic and foreign markets.

“Turkish-Ukrainian defense cooperation will potentially go beyond drone systems,” the Ankara-based expert forecast. “Promising businesses could be armored vehicle modifications and, most notably, the Altay.”

While only a few European countries have agreed to supply weapons to Ukraine, Kiev is increasingly dependent on US and Turkish military assistance.

The Ukrainian State Company Ukrspetsexport in December 2019 exported to the Turkish company K.B.A.T. Ithalat Ihracat Mumessillik Ve Danismanlik Ticaret Ltd. the first batch of military goods under a contract for the supply of two S-125M1 Neva-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems totaling $30 million. They were  subsequently delivered to the Government of National Accord in Libya.

Apparently, in the conflict in Libya, Ukraine supports Turkey not only by supplying anti-aircraft missile systems. Shortly after Akar’s visit to Kiev, two ships left the Ukrainian ports of Nikolaev and Berdyansk in the direction of Libya. Perhaps Erdogan became more cautious after the French Ministry of Armed Forces accused the Turkish Navy of harassing an arm embargo on Libya.

Ukraine, in turn, is important for Turkey as a tool of maintaining influence in the Black Sea region and for balancing its own interests in relations with Russia. While relations between Turkey and its NATO partners have being deteriorating, and it cannot count on the military support of European countries in the Libyan conflict, Erdogan can rely on Ukraine, which has also been “betrayed” by NATO countries, because despite the protracted negotiation process and long-term promises, NATO is in no hurry to accept Ukraine into its structures.

Ukraine is not the only country of the former Soviet Union where Turkey is pursuing an active policy in order to promote its interests and weaken its ‘strategic partner’, Russia. Recently there has been an escalation of the conflict on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. The moment of escalation is chosen perfectly. The current political leadership of Armenia has done everything possible to turn the Kremlin against itself. Yerevan has provided its territory and created a favorable political regime for the deployment of Western non-state companies whose goal is the destruction of Russia as a state. These organizations are backed by Western Democrats or the Brussels bureaucracy. As a partner of Russia, Armenia did not recognize the annexation of Crimea. And the President of Armenia, Pashinyan and his entourage have consistently given signals of following a Pro-Western policy. Today, the only state that can ensure the existence of Armenia as a state is Russia, but Pashinyan is doing everything possible to break their ties.

Turkey pursues a policy of incitement among partner countries. It is seen is not only by groundless provocations in Ukraine, but also in the unleashed conflict on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. While Russia does not hurrying to openly support any of the sides, Erdogan accused Armenia of starting the conflict and expressed support for Azerbaijan.

*

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

One of the world’s forgotten conflicts is now making headlines again.

In the last week, the military conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has reignited, with the two nations having already been engaged in a military confrontation for decades. Nagorno Karabach, an Armenian enclave inside of Azerbaijan, is one of the main underlying factors for the conflict, but the growing rivalry between Russia and Turkey is also playing a part. More than 16 soldiers have been killed in the most recent round of fighting. Both sides are accusing each other of aggression and military action. The use of full scale armed forces and drones have been involved, killing several soldiers on both sides and reportedly an Azerbaijani general. The current outbreak of fighting has been the deadliest since the “April War” of 2016. While most clashes normally occur in and around the Armenian controlled Nagorno-Karabakh region, the current clashes are on the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The international community is urging both sides to end the clashes.

The United States, European Union, and the OSCE Minsk Group are trying to defuse the situation. While it remains unclear what reignited the conflict, it seems that Armenia played a role in increasing tensions. Armenia recently constructed a new military outpost, which could have given Armenian armed forces a tactical advantage and tempted Azerbaijan to strike. At the same time, Azerbaijan is being buoyed by strong support from Ankara and may have wanted to test Russia’s support for Armenia. Remarkably, Armenia has called upon the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), of which Armenia is a member, to intervene. The CSTO’s response, from Yerevan’s point of view, however, is lacking. As of July 14, the CSTO has only called for a normalization of the situation on the border, not implying that it would provide military support for Armenia. The lack of vocal support from Moscow for Armenia is improving Azerbaijan’s position in the conflict.  There is, however, a risk that the conflict will escalate to involve both Russia and Turkey.

While the military conflict may be drawing the majority of media attention, there is also an energy aspect to this conflict.

The military conflict gets full attention but another issue is a major threat to energy markets. The Caucasus is a major oil and gas transfer chokepoint, on which involves Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Central Asian countries.  Energy market observers should be concerned about the proximity of the current military clashes to the Baku-Turkey oil and gas pipeline systems.

Threats to these important oil and gas pipelines, which not only connect the Central Asian producers to the global markets but also stabilize the region due to growth potential and revenues, are already significant. Gazprom Armenia, a subsidiary of Russia’s energy giant Gazprom, stated on July 14 that gas pipelines had been damaged near the border of Azerbaijan. Increased military action on both sides will only increase the danger to existing regional oil and gas infrastructure. Turkey will be hit hard if this conflict does escalate as it is largely dependent on oil and gas from the region.

Regional analysts are already assessing the possibility that the current flare up may have been instigated by Russia. The Tovuz region where the fighting is taking place is particularly close to Azerbaijan’s crucial South Caucasia pipeline (SCP). The SCP channels natural gas to Turkey’s TANAP pipeline and is a key component of Ankara’s efforts to decrease its dependence on Russian energy. For years, Turkey has been trying to diversify its energy imports, but Ankara is still heavily dependent on Moscow.

Russian gas is twice as expensive for Turkey than it is for most European customers, which is why Ankara is so desperate to move away from Russia gas. By getting Azerbaijani gas via TANAP, Turkey has been able to significantly reduce its costs. The Azeri-Turkish partnership could deepen further as a new opportunity arises in 2021, when a major gas deal between Turkey and Russia is up for renewal.  Those discussions stalled in April when the two counties failed to reach an agreement. All of this combined means that Russia could be looking at losing market share in a very important growth market.

The main pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, that supplies gas to Turkey from Azerbaijan, passes through the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan. This area borders the Armenian Tavush, where the clashes took place. Due to its geopolitically strategic location, a possible Turkish military intervention, especially considering its operations in Syria and Libya, is not unthinkable. Blowing up the current infrastructure in Azerbaijan would almost certainly ensure Turkish military involvement. “Turkey will never hesitate to stand against any attack on the rights and lands of Azerbaijan,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday. Erdogan suggested a wider conspiracy lay behind the latest fighting. Turkish pro-government media have been quick to accuse Moscow of encouraging Armenia to attack Azerbaijan, albeit without substantiating evidence. Some analysts believe Turkey’s actions in Libya and Syria are related to this new conflict. Ankara could be forcing a new front, and the hand of Moscow, to get some bargaining power in North Africa.

Whatever the cause of this latest conflict, the situation is on a knife’s edge. Azerbaijan, via its defense ministry, has warned Armenia that it could launch missile attacks on its Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant. These threats could be easily be countered by Armenian actions on Azerbaijan’s weak point, its oil and gas transit pipelines. The fallout would be felt not only in European markets, but globally as well.

*

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. Cyril Widdershoven is a long-time observer of the global energy market. Presently, he holds several advisory positions with international think tanks in the Middle East and energy sectors in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to president Trump has played a central role in blocking HCQ.  

On May 22, an “authoritative” peer reviewed “evaluation” of HCQ was published in The Lancet. The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 671 hospitals Worldwide.  That database had been fabricated. The Lancet study was “Retracted”. The objective of that fake study, quoted by the media (as well as by Dr. Anthony Fauci) was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

And now, as documented by Fox News, US medical doctors are being threatened by the State Medical Licensing Boards not to prescribe HCQ, an effective treatment for COVID.

“75,000 to 100,000 lives would be saved” if the ban on HCQ is lifted said Yale Professor of Epidemiology Dr. Harvey Risch  (Interview below)

There is a media blackout on HCQ. “So much corruption in the medical field when it comes to bureaucrats” says Laura Ingraham.

And guess who was involved in blocking the use of HCQ. Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to president Trump.

VIDEO

Dr. Fauci had earlier stated categorically that the use of HCQ had not been studied in relation to the coronavirus. “No proven drug”: “Not Enough Known”.  . That’s a “False Statement”.

What Fauci failed to mention is that Chloroquine had been tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections.  Chloroquine was used in 2002 and tested against SARS-1 coronavirus in a study under the auspices of the CDC published in 2005 in the peer reviewed Virology Journal. The main conclusion of the article was that:  Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC.

The ban on HCQ was intended to promote a $1.6 Billion HHS Contract with Big Pharma’s Gilead Sciences Inc. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. based on the  “preliminary” findings NIH-NIAID study (May 22) which he coordinated: Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM). 

Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? Ask Dr. Fauci.

500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion

(For further details see

LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 13, 2020

 

Il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini (Pd) ha espresso grande soddisfazione per la votazione «coesa» del parlamento sulle missioni internazionali. Salvo qualche dissenso sul sostegno alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli, maggioranza e opposizione hanno approvato in modo compatto, con nessun voto contrario e pochi astenuti, 40 missioni militari italiane in Europa, Africa, Medio Oriente e Asia.

Sono state prorogate le principali «missioni di pace» in corso da decenni sulla scia delle guerre Usa/Nato (cui ha partecipato l’Italia) nei Balcani, in Afghanistan e in Libia, e di quella israeliana in Libano facente parte della stessa strategia. A queste ne sono state aggiunte alcune nuove: l’Operazione militare dell’Unione europea nel Mediterraneo, formalmente per  «prevenire il traffico di armi in Libia»; la Missione dell’Unione europea di «appoggio all’apparato di sicurezza in Iraq»; la Missione Nato di potenziamento del sostegno a paesi situati sul Fianco Sud dell’Alleanza.

Viene accresciuto fortemente l’impegno militare italiano nell’Africa subsahariana. Forze speciali italiane partecipano alla Task Force Takuba, schierata in Mali sotto comando francese. Essa opera anche in Niger, Ciad e Burkina Faso, nell’ambito dell’operazione Barkhane in cui sono impegnati 4.500 militari francesi, con blindati e bombardieri, ufficialmente solo contro le milizie jihadiste.

In Mali l’Italia partecipa anche alla Missione dell’Unione Europea Eutm, che fornisce addestramento militare e «consulenza» alle forze armate di questo e altri paesi limitrofi.

In Niger l’Italia ha una propria missione bilaterale di supporto alle forze armate e, allo stesso tempo, partecipa alla missione dell’Unione europea Eucap Sahel Niger, in un’area geografica che comprende anche Nigeria, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, Burkina Faso e Benin. 

Il Parlamento italiano ha inoltre approvato l’impiego di «un dispositivo aeronavale nazionale per attività di presenza, sorveglianza e sicurezza nel Golfo di Guinea». Scopo dichiarato è «tutelare in quest’area gli interessi strategici nazionali (leggi quelli dell’Eni), supportando il naviglio mercantile nazionale in transito».

Non a caso le aree africane, in cui si concentrano le «missioni di pace», sono le più ricche di materie prime strategiche – petrolio, gas naturale, uranio, coltan, oro, diamanti, manganese, fosfati e altre – sfruttate da multinazionali statunitensi ed europee.

Il loro oligopolio è però ora messo a rischio dalla crescente presenza economica cinese. Non riuscendo a contrastarla solo con mezzi economici, e vedendo allo stesso tempo diminuire la propria influenza all’interno dei paesi africani, gli Stati uniti e le potenze europee ricorrono alla vecchia ma ancora efficace strategia coloniale: garantire i propri interessi economici con mezzi militari, compreso il sostegno a élite locali che basano il loro potere sulle forze armate.

Il contrasto alle milizie jihadiste, motivazione ufficiale di operazioni come quella della Task Force Takuba, è la cortina fumogena dietro cui si nascondono i veri scopi strategici. Il Governo italiano dichiara che le missioni internazionali servono a  «garantire la pace e la sicurezza di queste zone, per la protezione e la tutela delle popolazioni». In realtà gli interventi militari espongono le popolazioni a ulteriori rischi e, rafforzando i meccanismi di sfruttamento, aggravano il loro impoverimento, con un conseguente aumento dei flussi migratori verso l’Europa.

Per mantenere migliaia di uomini e mezzi impegnati nelle missioni militari, l’Italia spende direttamente in un anno oltre un miliardo di euro, forniti (con denaro pubblico) non solo dal ministero della Difesa, ma anche da quelli dell’Interno, dell’Economia e Finanze, e dalla Presidenza del Consiglio.

Tale somma è però solo la punta dell’iceberg della crescente spesa militare (oltre 25 miliardi l’anno), dovuta all’adeguamento delle intere forze armate a tale strategia. Approvata dal Parlamento con unanime consenso bipartisan. 

Manlio Dinucci

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:

*     *     *

Trump Regime Blacklists More Chinese Firms

By Stephen Lendman, July 21, 2020

Last year, at least 148 tech-related Chinese enterprises were blacklisted from the US market — including tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliates.

Targeted Chinese firms are  involved in producing aviation related products, semiconductors, engineering, as well as other high-tech products and components.

By Rejecting Huawei, Britain Risks Being Swept up in the US’ Next Ideological Crusade

By Johanna Ross, July 21, 2020

‘Let China sleep, when she wakes, she will shake the world’ Napoleon reportedly said. But China has been far from asleep in recent years – the West has. In the last few decades the East Asian country of around 1.4 billion has become the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. It is not common knowledge, but in most fields it has already surpassed the United States. In a generation, a country which did not even feature on the economic league tables in 1980 is now leading them. By 2024 its estimated GDP will exceed the US’ by over $10 billion.

Why Did Hundreds Of CEOs Resign Just Before The World Started Going Absolutely Crazy?

By Michael Snyder, July 17, 2020

In the months prior to the most ferocious stock market crash in history and the eruption of the biggest public health crisis of our generation, we witnessed the biggest exodus of corporate CEOs that we have ever seen.  And as you will see below, corporate insiders also sold off billions of dollars worth of shares in their own companies just before the stock market imploded.  In life, timing can be everything, and sometimes people simply get lucky.  But it does seem odd that so many among the corporate elite would be so exceedingly “lucky” all at the same time.  In this article I am not claiming to know the motivations of any of these individuals, but I am pointing out certain patterns that I believe are worth investigating.

Now Comes the Davos Global Economy “Great Reset”. What Happens After the Covid-19 Pandemic?

By F. William Engdahl, July 17, 2020

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

China’s Economy and Globalization: A Look into the Future

By Peter Koenig, July 17, 2020

After the corona crisis, may the world be facing a monumental paradigm shift of power towards a more balanced civilization – more social justice and equity? The global almost total lockdown, chosen by most governments around the globe in response to mastering the Covid-19 crisis, devastated the world economy, as we know it – and hundreds of millions of lives. Was it necessary? Will there be a time when those responsible for this universal, scientifically unnecessary lockdown be held accountable?

Video: The COVID-19 Lockdown: Economic and Social Impacts

By Peter Koenig and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 16, 2020

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to trigger the entire World into a spiral of  mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

Imagine, you are living in a world that you are told is a democracy – and you may even believe it – but in fact your life and fate is in the hands of a few ultra-rich, ultra-powerful and ultra-inhuman oligarchs. They may be called Deep State, or simply the Beast, or anything else obscure or untraceable – it doesn’t matter. They are less than the 0.0001%.

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 21^st 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.

Days earlier at the Economic Club of New York, Pompeo continued his all-out war of words on China.

Ignoring endless US wars by hot and other means against nations on its target list for regime change, he accused China of “aggression…thievery” of US intellectual property, and hollowing out the US middle class (sic).

As usual, no evidence was cited because none exists.

China is considered US public enemy No. 1 because of its rising prominence on the world stage, not for any hostile threat it poses to America or any other nations.

Core Beijing policy is fostering cooperative relations with other countries, polar opposite all-out US efforts to dominate them worldwide.

Part of US war on China by other means is blacklisting their enterprises.

The US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (SIC) compiles what it calls an Entity List.

It includes “names of…foreign persons – including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, individuals, and other types of legal persons — that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport and/or transfer (in-country) of specified items.”

So-called BIS license requirements are all about blacklisting designated firms of targeted countries like China.

Last year, at least 148 tech-related Chinese enterprises were blacklisted from the US market — including tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliates.

Targeted Chinese firms are  involved in producing aviation related products, semiconductors, engineering, as well as other high-tech products and components.

Falsely claiming these enterprises act “contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States” is cover for wanting corporate America to have a leg up on Chinese competition.

Blacklisted firms are prohibited from purchasing US technology without Washington’s permission.

On Monday, the Trump regime blacklisted 11 more Chinese companies.

Accusing them of human rights abuses against Xinjiang Uygurs in China’s northwest, no corroborating evidence was cited.

The so-called US Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act (December 2019) calls for sanctioning China over alleged mistreatment of these people.

Credible evidence backing claims about China’s alleged internment of millions of Uyghurs in Xinjiang is sorely lacking.

They’re based on accusations by a so-called Washington-based, US-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders and dubious establishment media reports.

Beijing rejected claims, saying there’s no mass internment, no so-called “re-education camps.”

Yet unsubstantiated claims are in the US war budget to punish China over this alleged issue.

The measure also requires the director of national intelligence (DNI) to report regularly on the alleged threat of Chinese hegemony over the global 5G wireless infrastructure buildout, falsely claiming it threatens US national security.

On Monday, the Trump regime again accused China of persecuting Uygurs and exploiting them as forced labor.

Newly blacklisted Chinese firms include textile producers and others accused of “conducting genetic analyses…to further the repression of Uygurs and other Muslim minorities,” the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported.

With no credible evidence backing its claims, the Trump regime blacklisted dozens of Chinese firms it accused of “involve(ment) in China’s repression in Xinjiang,” said SCMP.

Citing no evidence, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross accused Beijing of “actively promot(ing) the reprehensible practice of forced labor and abusive DNA collection and analysis schemes to repress its citizens (sic).”

So far there’s been no official Chinese response.

In May, its US embassy slammed additions of Chinese enterprises to the Trump regime entity list, saying:

It “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures, violated the basic norms governing international relations, interfered in China’s internal affairs.”

By letter to Ross, blacklisted Chinese textile producer Esquel Group’s CEO John Chen said his firm “does not use forced labor, and we never will use forced labour. We absolutely and categorically oppose forced labor” — calling for his firm to be removed from the US entity list.

Hostile US action toward China, its officials, and enterprises threaten to push things beyond a point of no return — risking direct confrontation between two thermonuclear powers.

It’s an ominous possibility because of US rage to control other nations, their resources and populations by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives — forever wars by hot and other means its favored strategies.

*

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 Stansberry Churchouse

Motorcycle accidents ruled Covid deaths? In the rush to paint Florida as the epicenter of the “second wave” of the coronavirus outbreak, government officials and their allies in the mainstream media have stooped to ridiculous depths to maximize the death count. A television station this weekend looked into two highly unusual Covid deaths among victims in their 20s, and when they asked about co-morbidities they were told one victim had none, because his Covid death came in the form of a fatal motorcycle accident.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In fact the “spike” that has dominated the mainstream for the last couple of weeks is full of examples of such trickery.

Washington state last week revised its Covid death numbers downward when it was revealed that anyone who passed away for any reason whatsoever who also had coronavirus was listed as a “Covid-19 death” even if the cause of death had nothing to do with Covid-19.

In South Carolina, the state health agency admitted that the “spike” in Covid deaths was only the result of delayed reporting of suspected Covid deaths.

An analysis of reported daily Covid deaths last week compared to actual day-of-death in Houston revealed that the recent “spike” consisted largely of deaths that occurred in April through June. Why delay reporting until now?

We do know that based on this “spike” the Democrat mayor of Houston cancelled the convention of the Texas Republican Party. Mission accomplished?

Doesn’t it seem suspicious that so many states have experienced “delayed” reporting of deaths until Fauci and his gang of “experts” announced that we are in a new nightmare scenario?

Last week in Florida – which is perhaps not coincidentally the location of the Republican Party’s national convention – another scandal emerged when hundreds of Covid test centers reported 100 percent positive results. Obviously this would paint a far grimmer picture of the resurgence of the virus. Orlando Health, for example, reported a positivity rate of 98 percent – a shocking level – but a further investigation revealed a true positivity rate of only 9.4 percent. Those “anomalies” were repeated throughout the state.

“Cases” once meant individuals who displayed sufficient symptoms to be treated in medical facilities. But when the scaremongers needed a “second wave” they began reporting any positive test result as a “Covid case.” No wonder we have a “spike.”

Politics demands that politicians be seen doing “something” rather than nothing, even if that something is more harmful than doing nothing at all. That is why Washington is so addicted to sanctions.

The same has been true especially in Republican-controlled states in the US in response to the coronavirus. Faced with a virus that has killed about one-third as many people as the normal, seasonal flu virus in 2018, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has endorsed a partial shutdown of the economy resulting in millions tossed into the despair of unemployment. Then he arbitrarily shut down bars because massively increased testing showed more people have been exposed to the virus. And he mandated that people wear face masks. Neither shutting down bars (instead of restaurants or Walmarts) nor forcing people to wear masks will have any effect on the progression of the virus through society. But at least he looks like he’s doing “something.”

We are facing the greatest assault on our civil liberties in our lifetimes. The virus is real, but the government reaction is political and totalitarian. As it falls apart, will more Americans start fighting for their liberty?

*

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 End of the American Dream

A coalition including states, conservation organizations, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe today launched a new challenge against the Trump administration’s decision to open millions of acres of public lands for new coal leasing and mining. That 2017 decision ended an Obama-era leasing moratorium that had protected public lands from new coal strip mines, and the water, air, and climate pollution such mines cause.

A U.S. District Court in Great Falls, Montana, ruled in April 2019 that the administration’s decision to end the moratorium broke the law because the administration failed to evaluate the environmental harm from its decision.

However, earlier this year, the Trump administration attempted to remedy that violation by releasing a widely-criticized environmental assessment. The assessment looked at only four coal leases that the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) had already issued, and concluded the leases did not cause any significant harm to the environment. The assessment did not consider BLM’s other coal-leasing activities over the 570-million acre federal mineral estate, which contains approximately 255 billion tons of mineable coal.

The complaint  filed in the Great Falls court today challenges the administration’s findings that the federal coal-leasing program does not cause significant environmental harm, and asks the court to reinstate the moratorium on new coal leasing. Earthjustice filed the complaint on behalf of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Citizens for Clean Energy, Montana Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, and Defenders of Wildlife. The states of California, Washington, New Mexico, and New York took similar action on Monday.

“While people across the globe are literally fighting for their lives against persistent threats to their air quality, water supplies, and sustainable climate, the Trump administration is propping up a dying industry that still inflicts long-lasting harm on communities and the health of our planet,” said Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice attorney. “We’re asking the court to restore critical protections and hold this administration accountable to the science.”

Background

The Trump administration’s actions are in stark contrast with the Obama administration, which had ordered the moratorium on new coal-leasing to allow time to reform the federal program to protect the climate and American taxpayers. In just the first stage of that review, completed this January, the Interior Department found that coal mining fouls the air, pollutes streams and destroys wildlife habitat on public land. Past estimates found that than one-tenth of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the pollution driving climate change, come from federal coal.

In addition to studying these impacts, the Interior Department previously committed to evaluate options for improving returns to taxpayers before resuming leasing. Internal Interior Department and independent Government Accountability Office audits have recently concluded that the current leasing system shortchanges taxpayers while subsidizing coal mining. The Trump administration’s decision to resume federal coal leasing will lock in these subsidies — in addition to harmful environmental impacts — before they are fully studied.

In addition to climate and economic impacts, the mining and burning of coal from public lands imposes heavy air-quality and public-health costs through emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and mercury. Scientists have called on the United States to stop new coal leasing to help prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

*

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

A series of violent attacks, involving explosions and fires, has been hitting Iran. The incidents have been too frequent and intense to be random accidents. They are part of an organized effort.

Caution is always advisable in attributing responsibility for such unclaimed acts, especially for all of us outside the government channels that possibly have better information about what is going on. But circumstances point strongly, as some mainstream press reporting reflects, to either or both of two suspects: the Netanyahu government in Israel, and the Trump administration in the United States.

Both of those suspects have track records that point that same way. The most conspicuous relevant act by the Trump administration was its assassination in January, with a drone-fired missile at the Baghdad airport, of Qassem Soleimani, one of the most prominent political and military figures in Iran. The Israeli record of aggressive acts against Iran has included a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.  Those murders were part of a larger, longstanding Israeli campaign of assassinations throughout the Middle East. That campaign is in turn part of an even larger Israeli record of acts throughout the region — including, over the past couple of years, scores of aerial attacks in Syria.

Neither the Israeli government nor the Trump administration has formally declared war against Iran, but the rhetoric of each has stopped only slightly short of such a declaration. The Trump administration has made clear its intention to inflict as much pain as possible on Iran, including but not limited to economic sanctions. The Netanyahu government’s voluminous rhetoric on Iran has been every bit as hostile as what has come out of Washington, or as what has come in the opposite direction from Tehran.

Make no mistake about what is going on. This is not a set of actions “short of war,” as some would put it. It is war. We certainly should worry about escalation of the conflict into something so big that everyone would call it war. But that does not make what already has transpired anything less than acts of war.

In this regard, do not be deceived by the Iranian regime’s downplaying of the recent attacks and its restraint — so far — regarding retaliation. A date circled on Iranian policymakers’ calendars is January 20, 2021. The Iranians can read American polls, and the dominant thread at the moment in Iranian thinking about security policy is to tough it out until there is regime change in Washington. Iranian leaders don’t want to be suckered into the sort of October — or July — surprise that would generate a rally-round-the-flag effect in America and could rescue Donald Trump’s fading re-election chances, although they realize the restraint does risk making them appear weak.

No justification for the war

Although the current war has not been formally declared, it ought to be assessed by the same standards as one that has. Per international law and the United Nations Charter, war would be justified only in self-defense, as a response to, or possibly pre-emption of, an attack in the other direction.  That is not the current circumstance with Iran.  There is no sign that Iran is about to attack either Israel or the United States. Given that Iran would be hopelessly outclassed militarily against either of those foes, it would be foolish for Iranian leaders to contemplate such an attack.

Nor does self-defense come into play when considering proxies or other asymmetric means through which Iran might want to impose its will. A salient aspect of the large amount of ordnance that Israel has been flying across the border and dropping on targets in Syria — many of those targets reportedly connected to Syria’s ally Iran — is how there has been almost no ordnance crossing the border in the other direction, other than an odd air defense missile or two.

The weakness of any U.S. case based on self-defense was underscored by the confused official justifications for the killing of Soleimani. Hints dropped publicly about pre-empting a supposedly imminent Iranian attack never led to any evidence to that effect.  In the end, the U.S. administration’s rationale rested mainly on Soleimani’s past role in supporting Iraqi militia operations that incurred American casualties during fighting in Iraq. That fighting was a direct result of an offensive war — an act of aggression — that the United States launched in 2003.

Iran’s nuclear program has been a focus of attention in recent years, and one of the most publicized of the recent attacks on Iran was at the nuclear facility at Natanz. But the multilateral agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which placed severe restrictions on the Iranian program, did a far better job of keeping a possible Iranian nuclear weapon out of reach than anything the Trump administration has done since reneging on the agreement two years ago, after which Iran accelerated its nuclear activity. As Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies observes, the JCPOA did a better job in that regard than attacks such as the one on Natanz.

The attacks also do nothing to deter aggressive or otherwise undesirable Iranian actions.  Deterrence requires conditionality: pain is inflicted after bad behavior and avoided after good behavior. But the U.S. and Israeli governments seem determined to inflict pain no matter what Iran does — as underscored by the Trump administration’s reneging on the JCPOA and launching its “maximum pressure” campaign even though Iran was fully complying with its obligations under the agreement. Iran is being given an incentive only to retaliate, not to behave well.

Eventual retaliation, despite Tehran’s relative restraint so far, is one of the risks of the current undeclared war. Escalation into something bigger and more destructive is another risk. Even without such escalation, the current campaign extends indefinitely one of the fronts in America’s “forever war” in the Middle East.

Nor is any good coming out of the attacks in terms of weakening Iran or shifting a regional balance of power in America’s favor. Instead, it strengthens Iran’s reasons to find support from — and in so doing foster the influence of — the likes of Russia and China.

Israeli objectives

To the extent the Trump administration is condoning, turning a blind eye toward, or even colluding with Israeli attacks on Iran, this is bad news for U.S. interests. U.S. interests are different from those of Israel, and even more different from those of the current Netanyahu-led government.

That government has an interest in perpetuating high tension with Iran to keep Iran as a bête noire blamable for all the ills of the Middle East, to preclude any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran, to promote Israeli relations with the Gulf Arab states, and to distract attention from issues that bring international scrutiny and criticism on Israel. At the moment, Netanyahu’s incentives in this regard are stronger than ever, which may help to explain the timing of the recent wave of attacks. The distraction value of stoking the conflict with Iran has increased as Netanyahu contemplates formal annexation of parts of the West Bank and the international condemnation that will come with it.

Netanyahu also, like the Iranians, is aware of the U.S. electoral calendar and American opinion polls. He may see the next few months as an optimal and limited time for stirring the regional pot even more than Israel has in the past, while his friend Donald Trump is still in power. To the extent the stirring helps his friend’s re-election chances, so much the better from his point of view.

Netanyahu is unlikely to be worrying about escalation into a bigger war, which would serve his purposes even more dramatically. Goading Iran into retaliating in a way that would spark such a war may have been one of the objectives of the recent attacks. And it would not be Netanyahu’s job to count any ensuing American casualties.

*

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: President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence participate in an expanded bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Palestinians have accused Israel of an “abominable act of thuggery and cultural appropriation” after a 1500-year-old Christian relic was “stolen” by Israeli forces early on Monday.

Video footage posted online by the PLO Department of Public Diplomacy and Policy showed Israeli forces escorting a large flatbed truck out from the town of Tuqu, in the occupied West Bank district of Bethlehem.

The rare artefact, which dates back to the Byzantine period, was used as a water basin for baptisms and is one of three known relics of its kind.

The other two include one recently discovered at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and another belonging to a church in Beit Jibrin, an ancient Palestinian town left in ruins following Israel’s 1948 invasion.

Typical. #Israel steals our land & resources, plunders our archeological/historical sites, appropriates our cultural heritage& seeks to eradicate all evidence of our identity & continuity in our ancestral homeland–a settler-colonial attempt at erasing evidence of the indigenous. https://t.co/hGEpDx5rwe

— Hanan Ashrawi (@DrHananAshrawi) July 20, 2020

“WATCH: Israeli occupation forces stole a historical baptismal font dating back to the 6th century from the city of Bethlehem last night,” the office said, sharing a video shot by a local photojournalist.

PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi called the move “an abominable act of thuggery and cultural appropriation” and urged Unesco and its director-general Audrey Azoulay “to speak out and protect Palestinian heritage”.

“A hallmark of Israel’s system of colonial occupation and oppression has been its disdainful attempts to erase Palestinian presence, culture and heritage, including the illegal appropriation and theft of heritage sites and artifacts,” she said in a statement.

In a report, the Jerusalem Post contested the account, claiming that the baptismal font was not stolen but actually returned to its original site.

According to the Post, the relic was originally stolen 20 years ago from the Khirbet Tuqu site by “unauthorised dealers using a huge forklift”. In 2002, the relic was recovered and placed near the Tuqu mayor’s home, pending the construction of a local museum.

“I welcome the return of the baptismal font, which is a cultural and historical treasure from the Byzantine period,” said Hananya Hizmi, the head of the Israeli civil administration office known as Cogat, which oversees Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, according to the Post.

“The civil administration’s heavy investment of effort and resources in the search over recent years for this item has borne fruit. We will continue working tirelessly to preserve the sites and the archaeological relics throughout Judea and Samaria, and to prevent antiquities thieves from looting the history of the region,” Hizmi said, using the Israeli government’s term for the West Bank.

It was unclear where the Israeli office had taken the relic.

Wafa, the Palestinian Authority’s official news agency, accused Israel of “frequently” stealing ancient artefacts from its occupied territories “through unauthorised dealers and looters”.

“Israel has been using archeology as a key tool in reinforcing its bogus territorial claims to historic Palestine … and [to] give them a veneer of historical and religious legitimacy,” Wafa said.

The Palestinian Authority only controls around 18 percent of the occupied West Bank, known as “Area A”, while “Areas B and C” are under full or partial Israeli control.

Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel plans to annex 95 percent of the area known as the Jordan Valley, which makes up at least 22 percent of the occupied West Bank.

There are over 800,000 Israelis living in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

*

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: Interior of the Church of the Nativity before the latest renovations (Public Domain)

In many ways, rapper and footwear mogul Kanye West fits the mould.  That mould – the star or celebrity running for high office – had already been made by the actor-cum-amnesiac Ronald Reagan, who, with his dabbling in astrology and conveniently re-imagined reminiscences, did much to prepare the White House for what one might call the “reality show”.  The fruit from that garden has been ample and bitter. 

After announcing his improbable and almost certainly doomed campaign for the US presidency, West, after flirting with dropping out, decided to at least have a campaign rally.  Like other countries who have witnessed celebrities gather the electoral silver and make their way into office, West is playing politics emptied of politics, the patient extracted of the nerve. The anti-political politician is an oxymoron, but it is an oxymoron that has speared and skewered statecraft.  The political classes are petrified in alienation, representatives shielded behind armies of pollsters, public relations gurus and party machinery.  The voter might as well vote for a candidate on the autopilot gravy train.  The lunatic you get is the lunatic you see. 

West is his own gravy train, admittedly also stocked up with provisions from his fellow celebrity companion, Kim Kardashian.  His articulations are pricks of irritation, rarely credible and almost always reversible. He does his utmost to convince that he is some discount idiot savant, trying to sound profound even as he fumbles.  His rally at Charleston, South Carolina left something for everybody, though no one present should have been confused by the “all about me” theme. 

It all started with predictable theatre.  There was no microphone.  West donned a bulletproof vest.  (You ought to be worth shooting to be credible.)  “2020” was shaved into performer’s head.  The audience gathered could not exactly be called vast, though the rapper promised that future events would be glorious, held in “rooms where the acoustics will be incredible because I will be involved with the design.” 

The presentation was peppered by such howlers as that on the abolitionist Harriet Tubman, who “never actually freed the slaves”.  What Tubman did, reflected West, was just having “the slaves go work for other white people”.  The fogged up looking glass was brought out, with suggestions by Dani Di Placido in Forbes that this might have been some obscure reference to “wage slavery and white supremacy”.  That said, a lament follows.  Why did West have to go after a “beloved civil rights hero” given his previous Trump love phase, his own “hyper-capitalist ambitions” and the fact of becoming a billionaire which can hardly happen “through opposing wage slavery”?

Knocking off the gloss of the Tubman legacy was part of a show that moved into the realm of the teary and transcendental, with the performer promoting his inspirational link to the divine.  West the mystic spoke of God’s intervention, suggesting that fabulous sky creature divines are terribly incurious, and bored, by nature.  “I was having the rapper’s lifestyle. I was sitting up in Paris, and I had my leather pants on … and I had my laptop up and I got all of my creative ideas.  I got my shoes, I got my sound cover, I got communities, I got clothes, I got all this and the screen [went] black and white and God said, ‘if you fuck with my vision I’m going to fuck with yours’.”   

It all had to do with his child, who served as a good publicity prop for the occasion.  This good Lord of the mind blowing “fuck vision” had convinced West that he and his wife should have their baby.  “And I called my wife and she said, we’re going to have this baby.  I said we’re gonna have this child … So even if my wife were to divorce me after this speech, she brought North into the world when I didn’t want to.  She stood up and she protected that child.”  To ease any moral or ethical quandaries, West had a solution for troubled couples: give them money.  “Everybody that has a baby gets a million dollars.”

There was much talk about his entrepreneurial prowess (boosting the Adidas bank balance and share portfolio), his “132 IQ genius”, a person who “literally went to the hospital because his brain was too big for his skull”. 

There were audience interventions that rarely taxed the big-brained wonder.  A certain Summer complained about education being “whitewashed”, police brutality and the “brainwashing” offered by such technology platforms as TikTok, though West spent more time fussing over not being able to hear anything above the din and distraction: “no camera flicks, no flashes, no moving, no opening up Dorito bags.”  He also got preoccupied about the exits.  “You see where the two exits are?  Is it okay to close the doors, but keep them unlocked while we are talking?”

Campaigns for the US presidency can start as engorged, dramatic stunts, with the ego maniac festooned with ambitions that are light on policy but heavy on boastful character.  The person promoting it ends up riding a historical train he cannot get off.  Donald Trump, to some extent, did just that.  Many in the Trump camp, leaving aside such ideological blunder busts as Steve Bannon, were as disbelieving as many others that victory was in the offing that November in 2016.  Then the gag got real.  West has some way to go before coming close.

*

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]

Featured image is from OneWorld

‘Let China sleep, when she wakes, she will shake the world’ Napoleon reportedly said. But China has been far from asleep in recent years – the West has. In the last few decades the East Asian country of around 1.4 billion has become the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. It is not common knowledge, but in most fields it has already surpassed the United States. In a generation, a country which did not even feature on the economic league tables in 1980 is now leading them. By 2024 its estimated GDP will exceed the US’ by over $10 billion.

The US has been aware of this, although arguably has done little up until now to react other than President Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ in 2012. Donald Trump has taken a much more confrontational approach since he came to the presidency, embarking on an uncompromising trade war with China, in which he has openly attempted to manipulate US allies. Britain for some time resisted, signing up last year to a deal with Chinese tech giant Huawei to roll out 5G technology across the UK, against US advice. But last week, the British government performed a U-turn on its decision, declaring it would not be allowing Huawei to be involved in its 5G network after 2027. On Sunday, Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab said that there would be ‘no return’ to normal relations with China.

So what happened to the ‘golden decade’ of Sino-British relations announced by the Cameron government back in 2015? Only last year with the shadow of Brexit looming, then PM Theresa May announced $9bn of business deals with China. But the honeymoon is now over. In a world which is dominated by two economic powers, Britain has been forced to choose sides, and the coronavirus pandemic has provided the perfect opportunity to change policy. Indeed as soon as the epidemic took hold in Britain, the anti-China rhetoric was ramped up. It was as if the Chinese had to be punished somehow for Covid crisis – suddenly the nation was enemy number one and couldn’t be trusted at all. Someone just had to be made responsible for the rising death toll in Britain; it couldn’t be Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping was a much more suitable option. In terms of making the current anti-China stance more palatable for the British public, the coronavirus crisis was just what was needed. The media campaign began, as rumours of coronavirus having been leaked from a Wuhan laboratory (although unfounded) were spread.

Up until Covid-19, Britain was silent on the plight of the Uighurs, uninterested in the Hong Kong umbrella movement, and unwilling to budge on Huawei, even under considerable pressure from the US.  Even during the unrest in Hong Kong which began last year over changes to extradition laws, Britain was cautious. It had to protect its post-Brexit trading interests.  But the pressure from the US has clearly proved too much.  Donald Trump, for his part, personally takes credit for the UK rejection of Huawei. On the announcement of the UK decision, he said: ‘I talked many countries out of using it…If they want to want to do business with us, they can’t use it.’ Just like that, the leader of the ‘free world’ admits western nations are not free at all, but at the bidding of America. In fact, it was reported that the US effectively forced the UK to reject Huawei by imposing new sanctions that cut off the company from international semiconductor supplies, leaving Britain no choice but to look to other 5G providers.

Make no mistake, the UK was bullied out of the Huawei deal. The US administration has escalated tensions with China in the last few weeks, now imposing visa restrictions on Huawei employees entering the US, and removing Hong Kong’s special trade status.  US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said recently ‘if China treats Hong Kong and China as one country in a single system then so must we’. Giving a press conference last week on the subject, Pompeo was flanked by screens bearing the slogan ‘If you are doing business with Huawei, you are doing business with human rights abusers.’ (Never mind the multi-billion dollar arms contracts signed last year with Saudi Arabia, a nation famed for its lack of human rights, with a crown prince that brutally annihilates his opponents.) The US picks and chooses who it wants to fight, and when, and its motivations are primarily economic.  In addition, the US elections are looming, Trump needs an enemy, and China has fallen in the crossfire.

China for its part clearly doesn’t want conflict. It has spoken of trust having been ‘seriously damaged’ and of impending ‘consequences’ for the UK of banning Huawei, but it’s not likely it would go as far as to impose its own sanctions or blacklist US companies.  Multinationals such as Google and Apple are so heavily embedded in the Chinese technological infrastructure that restricting them would pose huge risk.  Instead, it’s more possible that China will look towards strengthening its links with allies such as Russia, and expanding its market elsewhere. ‘In the end, this is a big world, and the UK is only a small part of it’ the Chinese foreign ministry said last week. Chinese companies will no doubt be discouraged from investing in the UK however, moving forward.

The reality is Britain has been slow to catch up with a rising China, and for too long has sat on the fence in the US-China trade war.  Now it cannot afford to ignore it: in 20 years China has gone from 26th to 6th place in Britain’s largest export markets. The Covid crisis, together with increasingly aggressive US rhetoric towards the government of Xi Jinping, have now shone a light on the country, and it has become obvious that the UK is lacking a coherent China strategy. Very few people in the Foreign Office have real, hands-on experience of China and its language and culture, and this is a real handicap when dealing with any nation.  With the US outright rejecting China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, and sending a warship there recently to flex its muscles, it would take very little for this ‘cold war’ to heat up.

The UK needs to craft its future China policy very carefully, or risk being swept up in the US’ next ideological crusade.

*

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

The tension between Egypt and Ethiopia is worsening. Both countries are raising their regional rivalry and threatening the North African international security with the imminence of a new conflict. The cause of the tension is due to Ethiopia’s intentions to build a large hydroelectric dam on one of the tributaries of the River Nile, the so-called “Blue Nile”. The big problem around the issue is that several studies prove that the project would result in a series of devastating environmental effects for some nearby regions, mainly in Egypt and Sudan, where such consequences would annihilate all traditional farming systems.

Egyptian authorities are trying to prevent the project from advancing by legal and peaceful means. First, trilateral negotiations were established between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, with the aim of reaching an agreement of common interest. But the negotiations were unsuccessful and the authorities in Cairo and Addis Ababa, the main antagonists in the conflict, were unable to reach a compromise. The next step taken by the Egyptian government was to appeal to the United Nations with its demand that Ethiopia be coercively prevented from building the plant.

Despite Egypt’s efforts, the United Nations’ inertia prevented the conclusion of an international agreement on the subject. Last Tuesday, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia again met to try to resolve the issue with a common agreement. Again, the attempt failed, and countries left the meeting with even more disagreements. As a result, Ethiopia went ahead with the project and has already started filling the dam’s reservoir. When this process is finished, traditional agriculture in Egypt and Sudan will be wiped out.

In fact, the Ethiopian project has come a long way. Since 2011, the country has been trying to build a dam to resolve its electricity issue. Currently, less than 45% of the Ethiopian population has access to electricity. The project, however, would not only solve the energy issue within the country, supplying the population entirely, but it would also allow the Ethiopian State to export surplus energy to other African countries, guaranteeing profits to the public coffers. All Ethiopia’s international claims, both regionally and globally, depend fundamentally on the triumph of the hydroelectric dam project, even becoming a matter of national pride. In short, the project is a fundamental part of the consolidation of Ethiopia as a sovereign national state in the contemporary world.

However, for countries neighboring Ethiopia, the issue is quite the opposite. What would be a pride for Ethiopians would be a real humiliation for Egyptians and Sudanese. In Egypt, about 90% of the population lives on the banks of the Nile, where fertile lands feed all traditional national agriculture, in a millenary structure of organization and production. The triumph of the Ethiopian project would automatically represent the destruction of the Egyptian State, which would have to deal with a major escalation of hunger and economic losses.

There is yet another risk that the Egyptian authorities must consider: the risk of instantaneous release of the waters. If this happens, water currents could destroy more than 70% of the entire Egyptian population, resulting in a genuine genocide. According to evaluations by Egyptian experts, the project has a series of technical inadequacies, which raises concerns about this risk.

We contemplate then the current weakness of the African system for resolving regional conflicts. Ethiopia and Egypt are members of the African Union, which, being an international organization committed to African integration, should be strong enough to resolve these regional issues, creating an alternative between National States and the global system. It is necessary to avoid as much as possible submitting such strictly regional issues to the Security Council, when smaller organizations could resolve these situations because this delay can be fatal for millions of people. The lack of integration between countries and a strong regional supranational power could lead to a new war or to the end of the Egyptian state.

Now, it may be too late for a UN or African Union statement. Ethiopia is already filling the reservoir and with that the dam’s activities begin. The impact on Egypt and Sudan will be inevitable and the responses will come soon. Sudan has been more patient and flexible than Egypt in relations with Ethiopia, but Cairo’s position is different. Visibly, Egypt is currently trying to resume a posture of strong geopolitical relevance in Africa, as we can see with the country’s important role in the Libyan civil war, aiming to guarantee its regional interests and to consolidate itself as a North African regional power. Certainly, therefore, Ethiopia will have to deal with aggressive responses.

Violent reactions are already inevitable, but a war is not. More than ever, international organizations must work together with the affected states and Ethiopia to reach a common agreement. If such an agreement is not possible, a gigantic conflict will break out in the region, and may even result in foreign military interventions.

*

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

For several weeks, just as most states across the United States began to reopen, following three months of lockdown to “flatten the curve”, several states including Texas and Florida began reporting record new numbers who tested positive for the coronavirus. At least that is what the world is being told. More careful investigation suggests what is unfolding as a huge manipulation of coronavirus tests that includes collusion by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the same CDC who badly bungled initial rollout of the virus tests in March by distributing tests that were found to contain traces of the virus and other serious defects. The present scandal bears the earmarks of more than mismanagement. It looks like political collusion to influence the November election and far more.

It seems that today something is very, very rotten in the State of Texas. The same for Florida, California, Arizona and many other states who just after reopening, now have again imposed lockdown and the foolish and ineffective mask-wearing and social distancing. Yet if we look at the actual data for deaths attributed to the coronavirus, since around the middle of April, the daily deaths designated of COVID-19, whether “with” or “of”, has steadily dropped to a level some 90% below the peak.

Even the highly corrupt CDC has had to admit “Nationally, levels of influenza-like illness (ILI) are low overall…Changes in indicators that track COVID-19-like illness (CLI) and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were inconsistent during the most recent week, with some increasing but others decreasing.” Then the weekly CDC report updated 17 July, makes the following statement:

“Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 8.1% during week 27 to 6.4% during week 28, representing the twelfth week of a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC… Nationally, ILI activity remains below baseline for the thirteenth week but has increased for 5 weeks now.”

Note the language very closely. The CDC defines ILI as “Influenza-like Illness.” So are we talking about tests for presence of a specific virus, SARS COV-2, that is blamed for the Wuhan outbreak that apparently has spread globally since the beginning of 2020? Or is it “influenza-like” illnesses, a catchall which may or may not include the coronavirus? The CDC has cleverly lumped deaths whether from pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 into one neat basket of death cause they call PIC– Pneumonia, Influenza or COVID-19. All PIC deaths are now conveniently designated as COVID-19 per CDC instructions on a death certificate.

Even with this sly sleight of hand, the CDC cannot hide the fact that all PIC deaths across the USA have declined for twelve weeks now. How to keep the nation in a state of fear and lockdown longer and how to satisfy the agenda of unscrupulous Democrats who seem willing to do everything to weaken the economy to force defeat of the Republican Presidential candidate on November 3?

A ‘Cases Pandemic’?

The response has been a dramatic ramping up of the number of tests on citizens for coronavirus or more precisely for an indirect test of antibodies or other signs that may or may not indicate a person has SARS COV-2. Around the middle of June as most states were rightly opening up to more normal conditions, the CDC pushed for a massive increase in testing. Naturally a dramatic increase of those tested will give an increasing number of persons who also test positive for indications of coronavirus. Just as Trump and many state governors were sensibly advocating steps to reopen, the CDC began pushing for a dramatic increase in tests. Testing went from about 150,000 to more than 700,000 per day. Reuters reported that many of the CDC-approved tests were contaminated as well.

Now the case of Texas is exemplary of what seems to be going on. According to officials in Texas in contact with former US Congressman Ron Paul, himself a medical doctor, the Texas State Department of Health Services changed the definition of what constitutes a “Covid case” in mid-May when cases were in significant decline. The new definition states, “while previously the determination of a Covid “case” was a confirmed test result, the definition was suddenly changed to count “probable” cases as “cases.” At the same time, the threshold for determining “probable” was lowered to a ridiculous level.” Basically if you have a fever and headache, even without a corona test, you can be listed as a “probable COVID-19 patient.”

It gets worse. Based on possibly unrelated subjective criteria, up to 15 people in possible contact with that “probable” case were also listed as “probable cases.” And “probable cases” were considered cases. Presto! Texas is in panic and mandatory masks and other draconian measures imposed. Further, the Texas health officials added to the fears by reporting hospitals in the state were being flooded by corona patients. Yet when contacted, Houston hospital directors themselves, said they were nowhere near actual capacity and in fact were about the same level as they were last year. Texas has a Republican Governor and is a critical state for Trump in November.

Florida Too…

In Florida where the Republican Governor came under heavy media attack for allowing the beaches to open and other steps, as cases there were dramatically down in “The Sunshine State,” the recent spike in corona “positive” cases is equally suspicious. A local Florida TV station became alerted when they saw a breakdown of lab tests many of which showed that 100% of all tests were “positive.” The TV station contacted test labs across the state. What they found was eye-opening.

TV reporter Charles Billi noted, “We found numerous labs that are only reporting positive test results, so they show a 100-percent positivity rate. That got our attention.” They located twenty-two labs that reported 100-percent positivity rates. Two labs reported 91.18-percent positivity rates. Such results suggest something rotten somewhere. Further investigation showed that many labs did not even report negative results. But when the TV journalists contacted the various labs to question the shocking numbers, data suspiciously changed. One lab, Orlando Health, had a 98 percent positivity rate. “However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health’s positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.” Similarly, Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. “A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent.” That is a huge difference.

No surprise that COVID-19 “infections” showed an alarming rise in Florida in recent weeks. As of July 14 Florida state health officials had not replied to requests from the journalists for comment.

Citing a dramatic rise in corona positive tested persons, California Democrat governor Gavin Newsome on July 14 reversed his decision to allow reopening of schools, offices, public malls and churches, though protest marches like Antifa or BLM are permitted, it seems. That decision in a state of 40 million and the largest state economy, will deal a severe blow to any USA economic recovery before November. Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom last month ordered that ballots be mailed to all of California’s 20.6 million voters for the Nov. 3 general election.

Changed Narrative

These cases indicate the huge, stinking miasma surrounding the entire subject of risk to the American population from SARS COV-2 and a political agenda that could have ominous consequences for the democratic process in America.

The influential political forces backing the NIH guru Tony “trust science” Fauci– who has been consistently wrong in his advice, but always pushing the most draconian lockdowns and testing and vaccines–clearly are trying to continue the destructive lockdown until the November US elections. They seem willing to engage in any and every manipulation and panic promotion to do that. Now they have simply changed the narrative. Three months ago Fauci and others said the goal of the lockdowns and social distancing—something never before done in modern public health—was to “flatten the curve” of new coronavirus cases so hospitals would not be overloaded. That overload rarely happened. Now with hospitals nearly empty across the nation, the narrative has shifted to the meaningless number “new coronavirus cases,” which in fact mean new numbers tested with tests whose reliability has repeatedly been called “unsatisfactory” or worse.

Stanford University’s Dr. John Ioannidis points out that the COVID-19 fatality rate for those under the age of 45 is “almost zero,” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%. So, the fact that young and middle-aged adults are testing positive in large numbers is not a warning sign of an impending onslaught of deaths, as the risk of death in these age groups is minuscule. The COVID19 Curve has been “flattened.” Politics is steering the USA COVID-19 events, but not the politics Fauci and the Governor of California claim. This could have catastrophic social and economic consequences if it continues.

*

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 Windover Way Photography

---

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.

Located near the point where the Atlantic Ocean meets the Mediterranean Sea, close to Morocco, is the Spanish Naval Station Rota that is co-tenanted with the U.S. Navy. The issue for Washington to renew its tenancy that allows the Americans to use the Andalusian military base has arisen.

Although Rota has been a center for American culture in Iberia, the U.S. presence could be shifted to the Alcazarseguir base in nearby Morocco, according to El Español newspaper. The Alcazarseguir base is located directly on the geostrategic Gibraltar Strait. For now, the U.S. has not admitted to the plan to move to the other side of the bay and argued that it has not received any offer from Morocco. However, a shadow of doubt has been cast during negotiations with Spain.

The unprecedented opportunity to move its base from Rota to Morocco was suggested just as a debate on the U.S. presence at the naval base is soon to be held in Madrid on what is an obviously sensitive issue. The 1988 bilateral agreement must be renewed by May 2021. The current balance of power on the political map indicates that reaching an agreement on the deployment of the U.S. army will not be easy.

Spanish dictator Francisco Franco agreed for the U.S. to use the base. In return for consenting, he was given weapons for his army that was devastated during the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War and after his closest allies, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, ceased to exist after being defeated in World War II. During and after the Cold War Era, the base has been one of the most strategic for the U.S. Navy as it can effectively control a major trade route and the only other entry point into the Mediterranean with the exception of the Bosporus-Dardanelle Straits and the Suez Canal.

According to plans by the U.S. Navy, the Aegis destroyer warships will be replaced by more modern ships. In addition, by 2024, two more units will be gradually added to the contingent – a total of 6 ships. This will mean an increase in the number of U.S. troops too, especially with the arrival of a new helicopter fleet. Incidentally, the latter amendment was not included in the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Spain. This potential influx of more soldiers to Rota creates an incentive for Spain to keep the U.S. Navy in the town as it will mean more U.S. dollars flowing into local businesses.

“The more destroyers at the base, the better for the city,” said Rota Mayor Javi Ruiz Arana, a member of the so-called Socialist Party. “Rota is ready for more troops and a possible expansion [of the base], but we need time and information to make the most of this. Keep in mind that the base takes up a quarter of the commune and should benefit local residents.”

As Rota is an entry point from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean and straddles very closely to the Islamic World via North Africa, U.S. actions in the Middle East/North Africa region creates extra activity in the town. On the political spectrum, few speak out against the base, realizing that it is the main engine of the local economy and employment. This is a trap however. The comfort of hosting American military personnel has meant the economy is not diversified and is mostly targeted towards the foreign soldiers.

However, local anti-war sentiment around the base intensified after a U.S.-led bombing raid of the Shayrat air base in Syria on April 7, 2017 occurred. The bombing raid was a response to an alleged chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun in jihadist-held Idlib province that the West blamed on the Syrian government without evidence. The bombing raid had the participation of a U.S. destroyer based in Rota, prompting the anti-war rhetoric in the town to intensify.

Spanish politician Inmaculada Nieto said

“We Spaniards must learn to say ‘enough’. Coexistence with U.S. foreign policy makes us a target, and Trump’s policy backs this up. They justify their interventionism with economic and business benefits, but it is based on a misinterpretation of what the allied countries are.”

The base and the military industry that revolves around it is a lifeline for Rota and its surrounding region that is collapsing due to Spain’s high unemployment rate, caused by an economic crisis that is only exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. In March, more than 25,000 newly unemployed people returned to the region as a result of the pandemic.

This creates a dilemma as in the current economic system the base is needed for immediate employment and finances, but there is a strong anti-war sentiment in the town that has existed ever since the base opened for American use. This anti-war sentiment has only increased since the American strikes against Syria. Whether this will be enough for the U.S. to decide to pack up and leave for Morocco, or for the Spanish government to decide to stop leasing the base to the Americans remains to be seen. Pressure is on the Spanish government now to decide between the economy or playing a part in U.S. aggression across the Mediterranean.

*

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

Are things today on a path similar to what Professor of Government Graham Allison called events in 1941 that led to war between the US and Japan?

Clearly the risk of confrontation between the US and China is real by accident or design — even though policies of yesteryear’s imperial Japan and today’s China are world’s apart.

Graham pretends that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was beyond Washington’s imagination.

US intelligence broke the Japanese code, understood what was coming, tracked the Japanese fleet across the Pacific, failed to warn Pearl Harbor commander Admiral HE Kimmel, and let the attack happen to give FDR the war he wanted.

It’s highly unlikely that hawks from both wings of the US war party want belligerent confrontation with a nation like China able to hit back as hard as it’s struck by an aggressor.

At the same time, US war on China by other means rages, posing a risk of escalating to direct confrontation.

Trump is a political novice, a geopolitical know-nothing, an intellectually challenged businessman/reality TV personality, awakening one morning to discover he was president-elect.

He’s the first US president with neither government or military experience.

Profoundly ignorant about what a head of state should know, he’s surrounded by hardliners, notably manipulative ones on geopolitical issues.

He understands only what they feed him and Fox News rubbish, his favorite TV station, manipulating his mind, brainwashing him on major geopolitical issues.

He’s not a reader, favors oral communications, keeps briefing sessions short when held, and dislikes details he lacks interest in and may not properly understand on major issues related to affairs of state.

He may not know that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded jihadist groups are US creations — perhaps because this reality was never told him by his handlers.

He’s ignorant about international, constitutional, and US statute laws, likely knowing little or nothing about the legal limits of his duties and powers.

He’s a public personality performer, not a deep thinker, perhaps unaware of disastrous US foreign policy on his watch with endless preemptive wars raging in multiple theaters and risk of unthinkable war with China, Russia, and/or Iran.

Is he sleepwalking toward belligerent confrontation with one or more of these nations that could go nuclear if launched?

He likely has no understanding of the destructive power of today’s thermonukes — able to turn cities like New York to smoldering rubble.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) is running a series of articles on possible war between the US and China.

It explained that when Pompeo met with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s top diplomatic aide Yang Jiechi weeks earlier, nothing was achieved toward smoothing increasingly hostile bilateral relations — both nations remaining on a possible collision course.

Days earlier, Pompeo roared that “(t)he world (sic) will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire,” adding:

“America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources…(We) reject any push to impose ‘might makes right’ in the South China Sea (sic).”

Might makes right is what the US does worldwide, what its preemptive wars by hot and other means are all about — the rule of law never an obstacle to its pursuit of its imperial agenda.

Did Pompeo’s hostile remarks infer US military action against China in waters it claims as its own?

Does Trump understand the potential seriousness of what’s going on?

Is he so tunnel-vision focused on the November election that he’s mindless of possible belligerent confrontation with China, Russia, and/or Iran?

Is he sleepwalking toward Gomorrah with blinders, out of his element and ignorant about the risk of pushing things too far beyond the point of no return — with potentially catastrophic consequences.

SCMP stressed that “growing distrust and hostility between Beijing and Washington has not only made China-US rivalry a self-fulfilling prophecy, but also left much of the world deeply polarized” at a time of worsening coronavirus outbreaks and economic crisis conditions, adding:

“…China-US relations are unravelling at an unprecedented speed, government officials and pundits have warned.”

China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations president Yuan Peng believes Beijing should prepare for belligerent confrontation with the US.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that Sino/US relations are worse than any time since they were officially established in 1979 — because of US strategic misjudgments and McCarthy-style paranoia, he said.

The provocative presence of US warships in the South China Sea close to its territory risks potential confrontation that could explode to something much more serious.

US-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security’s Gal Luft believes with Washington in full containment mode, things passed the point of no return.

Mistrust is increasing, direct person-to-person dialogue dying, a situation fraught with dangers.

A months earlier Trump regime policy paper acknowledged the failure of Washington’s engagement with China since official relations were established — without admitting where blame lies.

In 2018, Henry Kissinger said “(f)rom a historical point of view, China and the US are almost destined for conflicts.”

Former Chinese deputy foreign minister Fu Ying explained that “(t)he greatest uncertainty for both militaries lies in the fact that both sides have yet to set up an effective crisis management mechanism and there remains ambiguity over each other’s bottom lines, rules about interactions as well as the ‘red lines.’ ”

“As a result, both sides need to constantly test each other, increasing the risks of incidents and uncontrollable outcomes.”

Possible belligerent confrontation between the US and China is the most important geopolitical issue of our time.

I’ll have more to say on this in follow-up articles.

*

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.

US Officials Speak at Iran Regime Change Conference

By Dave DeCamp, July 20, 2020

An exiled Iranian opposition group held its annual Free Iran conference online on Friday featuring speeches from an array of former US politicians and military officials. The conference was held by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition led by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), a controversial group widely considered to be a cult, and up until 2012, designated as a terrorist organization by the US government.

Electromagnetic Radiation: What Is the Real 5G Agenda and Why the Frantic Hurry to Deploy It?

By Claire Edwards and Tim Lynch, July 20, 2020

So she decided to take her radiation meter for measuring electromagnetic fields – and do some ‘readings’ in this whole area. She visited the conference areas, where they had these ‘public access’ areas that were for mobile phones – cell phone access and also for wifi access. In these conference areas they tend to have very high ceilings – and she found that the radiation was not that bad, but in the corridors where most of the staff worked – as these were very narrow corridors – with metal walls and very low ceilings above all these public access points – her meter would not even measure the exposure levels there, as it was off the scale!

Turkey Will be the Death of NATO: Its Recent Clash with Fellow Member France Off the Coast of Libya Is an Early Symptom

By Scott Ritter, July 20, 2020

The election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a follower of the ousted Erbakan, as Turkey’s prime minister in 2003 set Turkey on a collision course with NATO and the West. Erdogan is an unapologetic Islamist whose pan-Ottoman vision of Turkey’s role in the world clashes with the traditional transatlantic script followed by NATO.

Making America Feared Again: The Trump Administration Considers Resuming Nuclear Weapons Testing

By Lawrence Wittner, July 20, 2020

The U.S. government stopped its atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in 1962, shortly before signing the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.  And it halted its underground nuclear tests in 1992, signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996.  Overall, it conducted 1,030 nuclear weapons test explosions, slightly more than half the global total.

Nicaragua: No Stopping the Sandinista Revolution

By Stephen Sefton, July 20, 2020

41 years on from the revolutionary triumph of 1979, the Sandinista Front for National Liberation (FSLN) in Nicaragua looks stronger and with greater legitimacy than ever. Nicaragua embodies the same revolutionary paradox as Cuba and Venezuela. Despite all three countries being attacked via illegal unilateral coercive measures imposed by the US government, followed by its European allies, all three revolutionary governments have defended their peoples against the current pandemic with much greater success than neighboring countries.

China Inks Military Deal with Iran Under Secretive 25-Year Plan

By Simon Watkins, July 20, 2020

One of the secret elements of the deal signed last year is that China will invest US$280 billion in developing Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemicals sectors. This amount will be front-loaded into the first five-year period of the new 25-year deal, and the understanding is that further amounts will be available in each subsequent five year period, provided that both parties agree. There will be another US$120 billion of investment, which again can be front-loaded into the first five-year period, for upgrading Iran’s transport and manufacturing infrastructure, and again subject to increase in each subsequent period should both parties agree. In exchange for this, to begin with, Chinese companies will be given the first option to bid on any new – or stalled or uncompleted – oil, gas, and petrochemicals projects in Iran.

What Lies Ahead: Permanent Job Losses, Poverty in America, Financial and Political Instability

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, July 18, 2020

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.